Page 113 - The Errors the American National Academy of Sciences

The NAS's Errors in Portraying Common
Structures as Evidence of Evolution

In the face of this, evolutionists say that these are not "homolo-
gous" organs (i.e., descended from a common ancestor), but "analo-
gous" (very similar despite not having an evolutionary connection).
For instance, the human eye and the squid eye are analogous or-
gans in their view. However, the question of whether a given organ

will be deemed a homology or an analogy is answered totally in the
light of the theory of evolution's preconceptions. This shows that
there is nothing scientific about the evolutionist claims based on sim-
ilarity. Evolutionists interpret discoveries unreservedly according to
their dogma, and refuse to behave objectively.
Yet the interpretation they come up with is a most inconsistent
one. This is because organs they are forced to regard as "analogous"
sometimes resemble each other so closely, despite their extraordinar-

ily complex structures, that it is quite inconsistent to maintain that
this similarity came about as the result of chance mutations. If, as evo-
lutionists claim, the squid eye emerged by chance, how is it that ex-
actly the same coincidences took place in the vertebrate eye? The
well-known evolutionist Frank Salisbury, who pondered this ques-
tion long and hard, 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. 3
According to evolutionist theory, wings emerged four times, to-
tally independently of one another: in insects, flying reptiles, birds
and flying mammals (bats). This four-fold emergence of the wing,
which cannot be explained by natural selection and mutation mecha-

nisms, as well as the structural similarities between the various kinds
of wings, represents a major difficulty for evolutionists.

111