“When Professor Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry, and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning.”
“Evolution and Taxonomy,” Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1962, p567
I have been debating the merits of evolution and obviously the argument that we know things are related, because they look alike, seems to generally be a dead end argument for evolution supporters. Here’s why: when I ask how we know this, I can’t seem to get an answer, it’s just a given, but there’s a step missing from the reasoning, quite possibly due to the fact that it is easy to counter the argument when it is inserted.
The reasoning that the above quote is questioning, comes from George Gaylord Simpson, and if the veil of clever word usage is removed, the illogical nature of the argument via similarity is revealed to be just more of the same garbage that evolutionists splurge forth in their attempts to make their lack of any solid proof seem like overwhelming evidence.
Homology is similarity as it relates to ancestry (common decent, see definition 2a at dictionary.com,) it is an evolutionary term, which apparently serves to support evolution by avoiding commonly used words to express the same idea, thus removing it from basic public understanding. So, on the surface, “homology is proof of ancestry” is true, purely because homology means similarity by ancestry. This statement thus becomes meaningless, because definition, not the real world, determines it’s truth value, it is true a priory.
Basically, it does reveal the missing premise in the “they are similar therefore they are related” argument. The argument now reads:
Creatures which are related (antecedent) are similar (consequent).
Certain creatures are similar (this affirms the consequent), therefore they are related,
If the fallacy of affirming the consequent is committed, this makes the entire argument illogical, and thus removes it as valid evidence in support of evolution. Even when one attempts to escape the clever use of words, and apparent circular reasoning, one arrives at bad logic.
Essentially all evolutionary arguments of similarity, including the genetic argument can be broken down to this structure. Thus the sacred cow of evolutionary logic, turns out to be bad logic. This does not disprove evolution, but it does prove that if it is the best evidence they have, they have little to work with, and they shouldn’t promote the fallacy that it is a fact. I’m being far more accommodating than the above source in pointing out evolution simply as unproven, the above source continued:
“When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which thorough so many years, under the influence of Darwinian Mythology, has impeded the advance of biology.” (Emphasis added)
Of course this was in 1962, and evolutionists will claim they’ve made huge advances in proving evolution since then, but really, the arguments haven’t changed much.