Page 30 - The Evolution Impasse 1

28

cental was severed when Australia and Analogical organs are different in
its costal islands separated from the con- structure and development, but the same
tinent of Antarctica—and that there were in functions. 22 For example, the wings
no species of wolves at that time.) of birds, bats, and insects are functio-
But structurally, that the skeletons of nally the same, but there is no evolutio-
the North American wolf and the Tasma- nary connection among them.
nian wolf are almost identical. As the Therefore, evolutionists have been
above illustration shows, their skulls unable to establish any common connec-
match almost exactly. tion between these similar appendages
Such similarities, which evolutionist and have been forced to admit that they
biologists cannot accept as examples of are the products of separate develop-
homology, demonstrate that similar or- ments. For example, the wings of birds
gans do not prove the thesis of evolution and insects must have arisen through
from a common ancestor. different chance events than those thro-
ugh which bats’ wings evolved.
For those who want to establish an
Analogy evolutionary connection solely on the ba-

Evolutionists try to establish an an- sis of similarities, this is a major obstac-
cestor-descendent relationship between le. They have never been able to explain
living creatures on the basis of certain how a structure as complex as a wing co-
perceived structural similarities between uld have come into being by chance, and
them. But some creatures have organs so must explain this separately for each
that perform a similar function, but no creature. (See Homology; Homologous
evolutionary link can be established bet- organs.) Many other such situations ha-
ween them. This similarity is known as ve led evolutionists into an impasse. (See
analogy, and such organs are called ana- Analogous organ, above.)
logical.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I