One major problem is that in many cases organs and structures which
appear identical (or very similar) in different animals do not develop
from the same structure or group of embryo cells.
It is not uncommon to find fundamental structures
(e.g. the alimentary canal) that form from different embryological
tissues in different animals.
For example,
in sharks the alimentary canal is formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity;
in frogs it is formed from the gut roof and floor; and
in birds and reptiles it is formed from the lower layer of the embryonic disc or blastoderm.
Even the classic example of vertebrate forelimbs
referred to by Darwin (and cited in hundreds of textbooks as proof for
evolution) has now turned out to be flawed as an example of homology.
The reason is that the forelimbs often develop from
different body segments in different species in a pattern that cannot be
explained by evolution.
The forelimbs in the newt develop from trunk segments 2 through 5;
in the lizard they develop from trunk segments 6 to 9;
in humans they develop from trunk segments 13 through 18.
Denton concluded that this evidence shows the forelimbs usually are not developmentally homologous at all.
As an example, he cited the development of the
vertebrate kidney which provides a challenge to the assumption that
homologous organs are produced from homologous embryonic tissues.
‘In fish and amphibia the kidney is derived directly
from an embryonic organ known as the mesonephros, while in reptiles and
mammals the mesonephros degenerates towards the end of embryonic life
and plays no role in the formation of the adult kidney, which is formed
instead from a discrete spherical mass of mesodermal tissue, the
metanephros, which develops quite independently from the mesonephros.’
This research supports ReMine’ biotic message theory,
the conclusion that the natural world was specifically designed to look
like it did not evolve, but was created. ReMine uses a wide variety of
examples to support his thesis which has been very favorably reviewed by
the creationist community. ReMine notes that homology has been used as
evidence against a designer for decades, but as this review shows, it
strongly supports the biotic message theory.
Evolutionary Naturalism or an Intelligent Designer?