Page 195 - The Evolution Deceit

Why Ev o lu tion ists' Claims Are Invalid 193

mammal categories, placentals and marsupials, are an example. Evolu-
tionists consider this distinction to have come about when mammals first
appeared, and that each group lived its own evolutionary history totally
independent of the other. But it is interesting that there are "pairs" in pla-
centals and marsupials which are nearly the same. The American biolo-
gists Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis make the following comment:
According to Darwinian theory, the pattern for wolves, cats, squirrels,
ground hogs, anteaters, moles, and mice each evolved twice: once in placen-
tal mammals and again, totally independently, in marsupials. This amounts
to the astonishing claim that a random, undirected process of mutation and
natural selection somehow hit upon identical features several times in
widely separated organisms. 168
Extraordinary resemblances and similar organs like these, which evo-
lutionist biologists cannot accept as examples of "homology," show that
there is no evidence for the thesis of evolution from a common ancestor.
What, in that case, could be the scientific explanation of the similar struc-
tures in living things? The answer to that question was given before Dar-
win's theory of evolution came to dominate the world of science. Scientists
like Carl Linnaeus, who first systematized living things according to their
similar structures, and Richard Owen regarded these structures as exam-
ples of “common” creation. In other words, similar organs (or, nowadays,
similar genes) are held to be so because they were created to serve a par-
ticular purpose, not because they evolved by chance from a common an-
cestor.

In terms of structure, the eyes of humans and octopuses are very much alike. How-
ever, the fact that the two species have similar organs doesn’t imply that they evolved
from a common ancestor. Not even evolutionists try to account for the similarity of
the eyes of the octopus and man by positing a common ancestor.