Page 840 - Atlas of Creation Volume 1

Eagles, bats and insects all have
wings. Yet just because they possess
similar organs does not prove that had an evolutionary
they evolved from any common an- relationship with each
cestor.
other, and that these organs
must have been inherited from a

common ancestor. According to
his assumption, both pigeons
and eagles had wings; therefore,
pigeons, eagles, and indeed all

other birds with wings were
supposed to have evolved
from a common ancestor.
Homology is a decep-

tive argument, advanced on the
basis of no other evidence than an apparent phys-
ical resemblance. This argument has never once
been verified by a single concrete discovery in all

the years since Darwin's day. Nowhere in the world
has anyone come up with a fossil remain of the
imaginary common ancestor of creatures with ho-
mologous structures. Furthermore, the following is-

sues make it clear that homology provides no
evidence that evolution ever occurred.
1. One finds homologous organs in creatures be-
longing to completely different phyla, among which evo-

lutionists have not been able to establish any sort of
evolutionary relationship;
2. The genetic codes of some creatures that have homologous organs are completely different from one an-
other.

3. The embryological development of homologous organs in different creatures is completely different.
Let us now examine each of these points one by one.

Similar Organs in Entirely Different Living Species

There are a number of homologous organs shared by different groups among which evolutionists cannot
establish any kind of evolutionary relationship. Wings are one example. In addition to birds, we find wings on

bats, which are mammals, and on insects and even on some dinosaurs, which are extinct reptiles. Not even evo-
lutionists posit an evolutionary relationship or kinship among those four different groups of animals.
Another striking example is the amazing resemblance and the structural similarity observed in the eyes of
different creatures. For example, the octopus and man are two extremely different species, between which no
evolutionary relationship is likely even to be proposed, yet the eyes of both are very much alike in terms of

their structure and function. Not even evolutionists try to account for the similarity of the eyes of the octopus
and man by positing a common ancestor. These and numerous other examples show that the evolutionist claim
based on resemblances is completely unscientific.

In fact, homologous organs should be a great embarrassment for evolutionists. The famous evolutionist
Frank Salisbury's confessions revealed in his statements on how extremely different creatures came to have
very similar eyes underscores the impasse of homology:
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. 157

There are many creatures which, despite their very similar physical make-up, do not permit any claims of

838 Atlas of Creation