Page 232 - Darwinism Refuted

DARWINISM REFUTED

eyes of the octopus and man by positing a common ancestor.
In response, evolutionists say that these
organs are not "homologous" (in other
words, from a common ancestor), but
that they are "analogous" (very
similar to each other, although there
is no evolutionary connection between them). For example, in
their view, the human eye and the octopus eye are analogous organs.
However, the question of which category they will put an organ into,
homologous or analogous, is answered totally in
line with the theory of evolution's
preconceptions. And this shows that
the evolutionist claim based on
resemblances is completely unscientific.
The only thing evolutionists do is to try to interpret new
discoveries in accordance with a dogmatic evolutionary
preconception.
However, the interpretation they put
forward is completely invalid. Because
organs which they have to consider
"analogous" sometimes bear such
close resemblance to one another,
despite being exceedingly complex
structures, that it is totally illogical to propose that
The wings of a this similarity was brought about as a result of
flying reptile, a
bird, and a bat. coincidental mutations. If an octopus eye emerged
These wings, completely by coincidence, as evolutionists claim,
between which no then how is it that vertebrates' eyes can emerge by
evolutionary
relationship can be the very same coincidences? The famous
established, possess evolutionist Frank Salisbury, who got dizzy from
similar structures.
thinking about this question, writes:
Even something as complex as the eye has appeared
several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods.
It's bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the
thought of producing them several times according to the modern
synthetic theory makes my head swim. 275

230