Evidence for Evolution: Homology? | Long Story Short

One of the best arguments Darwin used for his theory was that of homology: the odd similarities between very different animals. Why would they be so similar unless they were related? He thought. And this does make sense, after all take siblings, they look pretty similar - they’re closely related. Then take cousins, or 3rd uncles, or former roommates. Less similar looking, less related. More similar looking = more related. Makes sense!
Darwin wasn’t the first to notice this, but he did harness it as a central proof in The Origin of Species. It’s to this day used a great evidence for evolution...but is really? Here’s the story.
More Reading:
iconsofevolution.com/survival...
Do All Life Forms Fall into a Nested Hierarchy? evolutionnews.org/2015/06/do_...
Responding to the NCSE: exploreevolution.com/2009/02/...
A Primer on the Tree of Life: www.discovery.org/a/10651/
Questions? [e-mail]

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Jackson Wheat made a great reply to this video, you can watch it here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r3_MfZp3asaZpdU And after that, you can check out all the things he got wrong here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aoe8eoarbrNqns0

[@shahanaakter7700]

Thanks a lot. Go on💥🔥

[@Johny_Truant]

I'm confused. Please forgive my ignorance, but are you attempting to refute evolution in these videos? (Also, a little side note: scientists just call it evolution, there's no need to call it "darwinian evolution" as that is not really a thing, unless you're a creationist. Otherwise it's just evolution.)

[@spongebob4042]

Are you young earth creationist or do you believe in some type of evolution

[@hockeycowboy10]

@@Johny_Truant Here’s the difference: yes, organisms change /adapt / evolve over time. No one disputes that aspect. But Darwinism is about common descent, that ALL life descended from a common ancestor. A Darwinist is someone who supports THAT idea.

[@georgetaniwaki]

Except that it was independently determined to be the result of common ancestry via predictions of level of homology to obscenely accurate degrees.

[@khoundoker]

Bro, I found your arguments more convincing than neo-Darwinists

[@piiumlkj6497]

You got style

[@June28July]

More style than substance, I'm afraid.

[@jhonstockings2989]

Yeah but this Jackson guy is just spitin strait facts hu?@@June28July

[@davincimemes3631]

How you are not more popular is amazing...

[@June28July]

bad science has a hard time of getting more popular.

[@farcovidiu3110]

Evolutionist troll​@@June28July

[@June28July]

@@farcovidiu3110 No, just telling you that this youtube channel offers some bad science.

[@farcovidiu3110]

​@@June28July Dear ​ @June28July , considering the basic science, what I have heard on this channel is totally accurate scientifically. You cannot give me one example of scientific error concerning basic science. Of course, the language is one that can be understood by most people, and it is ok, it is its objective. O, they do not agree with the theory of evolution ? That is no problem, this theory has many errors and inconsistencies, it is bad science itself. It is a credit to this channel that it combats this theory. God bless you.

[@KhalilKhan-kg9ox]

When are you making more videos?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Next one is coming out this Thursday on the. Discovery Institute channel. It'll be released on this channel a week or two afterward. www.discovery.org/e/whale-tale/

[@KhalilKhan-kg9ox]

@@LongStoryShortVideos will they credit you for video? Like your KZbin channel

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

@@KhalilKhan-kg9ox yep

[@csmoviles]

Thank you for making such informative videos

[@snowconeman512]

I'm taking biology in college. I laughed when the teacher showed homology as evidence for evolution. The "evidence" she showed was terrible.

[@spareaccount8337]

This video cherry picks, they literally use a dudes argument (horrible one at that) saying that cars are proof of evolution, which is a terrible argument. There are many more proofs of evolution. My friend, if evolution is untrue then provide some evidencd.

[@snowconeman512]

@@spareaccount8337 I'm not the one making a claim. All I'm saying is evolution is not true, considering the "evidence" for it.

[@OneTruePhreak]

@@spareaccount8337 evidence: a bird has never, nor will ever, shit out an elephant. No species has ever become another species. Subspecies are NOT the same thing. DNA proves nothing, outside the fact that DNA can only be sequenced in a limited number of configurations, and still result in life. This actually helps disprove Darwinian theorem, as it further amplifies the improbability of evolution. Often, creatures mutate, to better tolerate their environment. They don't become a completely new creature. By the way, you claim "many more proofs of evolution", yet provide none. They're all easily debunked, so you instead counter with a piss poor example of third grade playground antics. "I know you are but what am I?" Doesn't work here.

[@dougied3449]

@@spareaccount8337 you difnt watch did you.

[@pillowmcnormalman2753]

@@dougied3449 You didn’t pay attention in class did you?

[@amyntazoe9831]

Antibiotic resistance. Would love to hear More about that

[@pillowmcnormalman2753]

Homologous structures, and the relating subject, vestigial structures, do not point to a common designer. Whales have no reason to have a pelvis. Humans have no reason to wiggle their ears. Let’s run an experiment. My hypothesis, “If there exist homologous structures between creatures that seemed to develop these structures at different times, as such being unable to inherit them from the one or the other, then there exists a designer who is manipulating genetic material in a means separate from naturally occurring phenomena.” In order to prove this, we would need to find bats with feathers; whales with no hand bones; and humans with eyes of cuddle fish. But we don’t find any of that. The existence of Homology’s opposite, Analogy, directly disproves such a hypothesis. However, we do find that every single instance of Homology is accompanied by shared lineage; with no exception. The mention of any *human made* things in this discussion is irrelevant and means nothing to the “debate.” Edit: The video also leaves out an important part to the scientific definition of Homology: “Homologous structures are similar physical features in organisms that share a common ancestor, *but the features serve completely different functions* .” Homology as a phenomenon simply shouldn’t exist, should there be a designer. Every organism, regardless of how large or small, should be given a perfect, wonderfully unique design with no hang ups like genes that accidentally activate and give them legs like in snakes or seven copies of a broken gene that almost let the organism synthesize its own Vitamin C like in Humans AND Chimps (in the same place on both)

[@crimsonkat1717]

The most confusing part of the common designer argument to me is that it spits in the face of everything else they claim about a creator. They are making several assumptions about the creator that contradict things they claim as true. 1. The creator is supposedly is susceptible to falling into a 'pattern' in their design for some reason despite being a perfect omnipotent being. The creator is 'limited' in some way in how they create organisms, and so they're all similar. And the creator is a akin to any other HUMAN designer where they base each design on the previous one, Lions, jaguars, pumas, etc, or Horses, donkeys, zebras, etc. How is that evidence for a common designer if said designer is A: not limited in creativity the same way humans are and B: decides the logic on which the universe works and therefore completely unlimited in what they could/can do with living organisms even if they defy logic as we understand it. They could make a wingless, sphere of cobalt that soars through the air or an entire group of animals made of an element we don't know exists and yet- they made everything similar because??? Why?

[@rs72098]

"Whales have no reason to have a pelvis."

[@Groggle7141]

Your homology counter-argument isn't very good. How come homologous structures only appear in animals that are more alike in other areas? Insect legs and human legs arent homologous, why wouldn't an intelligent creator create homologous structures for them? Do arthropods, vertebrates, mollusks, and jellyfish all have different creators? And why would an intelligent creator make homologous structures for humans and whales, two animals who need their limbs for VERY different things (what does a whale need fingers for).

[@ambrosianapier7545]

Your asking theological questions

[@minaaris]

You almost fooled me with these videos, I thought you were sincerely interested in science, looks like you're just trying to argue for intelligent design

[@shaunmeyer8822]

But can you bring any logical proof to disprove them?

[@minaaris]

@@shaunmeyer8822 Could you summarise the points in these videos? Then I'll consider proving or disproving them. Mind the burden of evidence, it is always on the person making a statement.

[@dougsmith6793]

@@shaunmeyer8822 [shaun]: "But can you bring any logical proof to disprove them?" The logical proof is that, if evolution is NOT true, then there's no real basis for homology at all -- i.e., God didn't have to make organisms similar. Under evolution, the similarity of organisms is pretty much unavoidable. Homology doesn't prove evolution ... but a complete absence of homology would be very powerful, almost irrefutable, evidence against it.

[@danielhudon9456]

@@dougsmith6793You nailed it - and so succinctly- well said!

[@runelund5600]

@@danielhudon9456 What did he nailed, nothing.

[@hockeycowboy10]

Substantial arguments, thank you.

[@BreadofLifeChannel]

Great video! Thank you!

[@johncoles2415]

I'm sorry, this video demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of evolutionary biology.

[@ambrosianapier7545]

How exactly? All comments like this never actually get specific

[@johncoles2415]

His argument that biologists define homology simply because things look similar is just wrong. Homologous structures are demonstrated mathematically through phylogenetics, not through simply saying that something is homologous because it looks similar. If his argument was true, then scientists wouldn't argue for things like convergent evolution, where two features appear to be homologous, but aren't. Specific enough? ​@@ambrosianapier7545

[@stevedoetsch]

I noticed tons of comments like this in which all they have ever say is that "you understand this Evolution", but of course they never actually explain anything

[@johncoles2415]

@@stevedoetsch What would you like me to explain? I'd be happy to - ask away.

[@Harris19941]

​@@stevedoetschthis is standard behaviour of darwinists and its really so annoying they are unbearable with their behaviour never actually providing the evidence or substantiation of their claims just making empty claims and trolling arrogantly sick and tired of it as if they are the only ones who understand evolution and everyone rejecting it didnt understood it how arrogant and ignorant can one be

[@neil8173]

Hello, I believe the information within this Stanford lecture on Genetics resolves your argument about gradualism vs large changes within Evolution - kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZW1iXRnlMpmZtE

[@jhonstockings2989]

Thanks so much for this video, I learned a lot for my paper I need to write about Darwinism, also I love how in all of the response videos this Jackson guy says the most stupid things that its confusing to prove wrong when smart people should be able to so obviously see that its false.

[@ldswife5339]

Such a good video needs more views

[@nesslig2025]

*Warning: This video above contains errors.* For the details, watch "Misunderstanding Homology" on the channel "Jackson Wheat"

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks for the warning! Here's where Jackson Wheat is wrong: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aoe8eoarbrNqns0

[@Trollsagan69420]

It’s videos like these is where it’s obvious that the apologist is just trying to cherry pick data to fit a narrative. As usual the truth is inconvenient, so instead of following it they reject it and make up their own reality.

[@Anni_UwU100]

Bro great videos make more

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks! Will do!

[@zahadou]

i've watched some of your videos - it's great to be a sceptic - but I've still no idea what your 'model' is... is it a Design by God ?

[@MalcolmCooks]

yes. this channel is creationist. they make their videos in a style that copies actual educational youtube content, and promote them as advertisements under actual science videos. this video in particular is full of strawman arguments and sticks very closely to the typical creationist script when trying to "debunk" evolution.

[@elbretto6062]

​@@MalcolmCooks what are some strawman arguments in this video

[@MalcolmCooks]

@@elbretto6062 all of it

[@elbretto6062]

@@MalcolmCooks I saw some arguments in this channel that are definitely not strawman arguments

[@MalcolmCooks]

@@elbretto6062 its strawman because they are making up fake arguments to argue against. not one position argued against in these videos is actually held by scientists...

[@dougsmith6793]

Sheesh. There's nuance between evidence for evolution and things that can be expected to be observed if evolution is true. That is, homology isn't strong evidence for evolution, but the absence of homology would be pretty strong evidence against it. It's like DNA evidence at a crime scene. A suspect's DNA at a crime scene doesn't prove the suspect committed the crime. But a complete absence of his DNA may well prove that he didn't do it. Missing this kind of nuance doesn't prove that the author of this video is a creationist. But creationists routinely miss just this kind of of nuance.

[@Harris19941]

no the evolutionists use homology arrogantly and ignorantly as proof for their theory thats why creationists refute it gladly you have acknowledged yourself that its not strong evidence so you should tell your fellow evolutionists to humble themselves when making their arguments based on homology

[@dougsmith6793]

@@Harris19941 [harris]: "no the evolutionists use homology arrogantly and ignorantly as proof for their theory" Creationists calling evolutionists "arrogant" and "ignorant" is one of the greatest ironies of all time. Learning evolution from creationists is like learning computer programming from a proctologist. [harris]: "thats why creationists refute it" No, they refute it because they're desperate. They're desperate because the naturalistic explanation is just too simple and straightforward -- not to mention consistent with the evidence -- to require a God. Homology doesn't prove evolution ... but a complete absence of homology would be very powerful, almost irrefutable, evidence against evolution. [harris]: "gladly you have acknowledged yourself that its not strong evidence" The fact that the suspect was a the crime scene does not prove he committed the crime. But the fact that the suspect WAS at the crime scene is necessary for the suspect to have committed the crime. The fact that chimps and humans share so much DNA in common doesn't prove evolution. But evolution predicts just this kind of commonality. I said the evidence is "nuanced" -- which, to an educated person, is NOT an admission of weakness, only that some detailed understanding is necessary to understand why it's part of the evidentiary stack. Creationists have no appreciation for nuance precisely because they don't know enough to figure out what nuance is or isn't -- if it isn't black, it's white, or vice versa. So, good point! [harris]: "so you should tell your fellow evolutionists to humble themselves when making their arguments based on homology" Tell your fellow creationists to understand enough detail to know what "nuance" means. The success of naturalistic explanations in terms of explanatory depth, evidentiary consistency, and elegance (breadth + simplicity) is NOT a concidence, but rather God's intention. So, either God is a naturalist, or naturalism itself is the creator.

[@farmingmaster8107]

is this a prager u thing?

[@crispybacon9917]

Pretty sure he just stole someone's videos?

[@OrthoFireCrusader]

No they are the same

[@littlejohn123]

🔥🔥🔥

[@nikipedia2818]

LOL... No. It's not circular. We're they to have defined homology to include evolutionary descent and then used the definition as the arguent for evolution in and of itself, THAT would be circular. But that isn't what happened. Homology was defined independantly from evolution. The independant lines of empirical evidence verified that the phenominon WAS due to evolutionary relationships and only then was the definition amended to include the evolutionary relationship. We don't say homology is evidence for evolution BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT IS DEFINED. We say it is a is evidence for evolution for THE SAME REASON it is now defined that way. Namely empirical verification.

[@lenroystewart2904]

Epic

[@alfonstabz9741]

will in that case aliens landing on earth is true, no need to worry about origin of life aliens did it.!

[@nickpuencho]

Imma say shadow banned

[@loganbradford2343]

Don't fall into the trap of believing far out theories simply because it doesn't blow up online. Most things don't.

[@OrthoFireCrusader]

Haha the videos are beautiful and the animations super funny. I nearly don’t know anything about evolution but those are simple ways of understanding and explaining how it works (or how it doesn’t) thanks

[@wyattfields5580]

Most animals being similar to people tells me something or someone designed everything

[@shaunmeyer8822]

I know, right? It doesn't makes sense that we are decedents of rocks...

[@matteomastrodomenico1231]

​@@shaunmeyer8822 No one ever said that

[@johncoles2415]

Or that we are all related......

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

Such a massive misrepresentation of the facts. It's not simply 'odd similarities' - homology in animals tells a story of relationships and shows obvious groupings of animals (not the silly 'kinds' that creationists insist on). Homology is a PREDICTION of the theory of Evolution, not a proof of it. The fact that Evolution predicts homology and it turns out to be true is a supporting argument. Take bats - bats are mamals and they ALSO have five finger bones. No other explanation is required other than common descent with other mamals.

[@Harris19941]

what about when those predictions and expectations fail like similarities which are not directly due to common descent how do evolutionists cope with that? just adapt the theory and invent a new buss word if convergent evolution to save the theory homology simply is an assumption which can be explained equally well by common design as by common descent

[@Johny_Truant]

Wow this is extremely deceptive. All of these videos. I love how there are numerous strawman created in each. How the narrator keeps referring to "the scientists" or "science" with ominous undertones. Not to mention the constant references to "darwinian evolution" which is not really a thing. It's just evolution. darwinian evolution is a phrase that creationists and proponents of intelligent design love to use. This demonstrates their complete lack of understanding for evolution. This is feeling very much like a series of videos being put out by someone who is trying to dispute science without providing any alternatives which is probably because they're saving it for later when they slowly start to introduce god or jesus or whatever intelligent designer there holding back from introducing at this time.

[@owenduck]

Free your mind neo.

[@muhammad_ihsan_adfinda]

boo hoo, closed mind evolutionist...

[@devondonato4609]

Do you have any arguments against what this guy says other than “HE VAGUELY SOUNDS LIKE HES AGAINST SCIENTISTS AND CALLED EVOLUTION DARWINISM OMG”

[@MrOresko]

He already mentioned a creator in this video.

[@OfficialDenzy]

"Darwinian evolution" is a real thing lmao

[@wam067]

Great video.. Keep 'em coming.

[@farmingmaster8107]

who is paying for you to make these videos?

[@ThomasBomb45]

Cringe