Page 173 - The Evolution Impasse 1

171

has shown that the concept of homology, cestral” or “primitive” or “advanced”
which Darwin took as proof that living compared with its relatives . . . . There is
things are descended from a common little doubt that if this molecular eviden-
ancestor, does not in fact provide any ce had been available a century ago. . .
the idea of organic evolution might never
backing for such a definition. Thus it is
have been accepted. 212
that science has revealed the unrealistic
nature of yet another Darwinist thesis.
The evolutionist claim regarding ho-
Homologous organs
mology is not only invalid at the level of
organs, but also at the molecular level. Anyone examining the different li-
(See Molecular homology thesis, the.) ving species on Earth will observe that
There are enormous molecular differen- there are certain similar organs and cha-
ces between living things that outwardly racteristics among species. This pheno-
appear very similar and closely related menon has attracted the notice of biolo-
to one another. Professor Michael Den- gists ever since the 18 th century, but the
ton comments: first to link it to the theory of evolution
was Darwin, who maintained that there
Each class at a molecular level is unique,
was an evolutionary link between living
isolated and unlinked by intermediates.
Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed things with similar (i.e. homologous) or-
to provide the elusive intermediates so gans, and that such organs were a legacy
long sought by evolutionary biology . . . from their common ancestor.
At a molecular level, no organism is “an- Accordingly, since pigeons and eag-

TWO UNRELATED MAMMALS WITH
GIANT TEETH

t
r
c
t
d
s
l
e
,
r
n

n
h
e

i
e
o
t
n

p
t
i
f

e
r
a
x
c
e
o
h

o
o
e
a
s
e
t
a
m
y
a

d

r
e
l
i

a
p
n
T The existence of extraordinarily similar species, one a placental and the other a
s
h

e
i

l
a
s
i
i
e
c
n
a
e
a
l
x
r
t
.
l

e
o
e
a
s
r
r
o
o
de
o
a
F
b

g
y
w
s
e
l

v
e

i
m

m
p
d
a
a
c
m
m
l
m
e
o
h
e
p pouched mammal, deals a severe blow to the claim of homology. For example, ,

f
u

h
o
o
c
l
,

o
e
l
m
l
x

a

h
a
t
h
l
t
e
a
g

e

r

(
h
t
l
)
e
o
e
o
v
b
n

e
r
a
f
t
f

r
y
v
e
t
t
a
f
d
n

t
h
)
a
l
y
h
a
h

e
T
c
h
o
t
d
l
m
S Smilodon (right) and Thylacosmilus (left) both have very large front teeth. The fact that t
i
a
r
t
g
i
(
n
o

c
T

h
s
.
o
i
m
l
u
s
,
n
o

a
s
f

d
m
w
r

i
n
s
o
o

n
t
e
e
s

t the skull and tooth structures of these two life forms, between which no evolutionary y
h
e
w
r
h
e
n
l

l

k
a
e
b
u
t
li
e
o

r
t

e

s
f
e
t
c
w
u
t
i
u
r
o
c
v
o
f

s
u
t
t
o
e
o
h
l
h
h
t

c

m
e
m

o
i

o
f
t
t
o
s
a
o
l
e
h
h
l
u
i
l
h
s
b
s
e
a
t
e

e
x
e
r
,
d
a

o
i
s
n
t
e
r relationship can be established, are exceedingly similar refutes the claim of homolo- -
a
l
h

n
e
b
a
p
i
c

c

y
i
s
n
i
l
g

r
ef
r
i
m
a
l
d
e
e

l
i
s
u
v
l
e
a
t
m
i
o
t
i
—
o
y
n
g gy—that similar structures represent evidence for evolution. .
v
e
t
a

h
i
t
d
f
s

s
r
o
e

c
r
e
p
r
e
e
e
t

s
r

n
r
t
u
n
e
u
r
c