Page 710 - Atlas of Creation Volume 2

THE MYTH OF HOMOLOGY

nyone who studies the different living species in the world may observe that there are some similar
organs and features among these species. The first person to draw materialistic conclusions from this

A fact, which has attracted scientists' attention since the eighteenth century, was Charles Darwin.
Darwin thought that creatures with similar (homologous) organs had an evolutionary relationship with
each other, and that these organs must have been inherited from a common ancestor. According to his assump-
tion, 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 tautological argument, advanced on the basis of no other evidence than an apparent physi-
cal 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 homologous structures. Furthermore, the following issues make it clear that homol-
ogy provides no evidence that evolution ever occurred.
1. One finds homologous organs in creatures belonging to completely different phyla, among which evolu-

tionists 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.

The Invalidity of Morphological Homology

The homology thesis of the evolutionists is based on the logic of building an evolutionary link between all
living things with similar morphologies (structures), whereas there are a number of homologous organs shared
by different groups that are completely unrelated to each other. 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 evolutionists posit an evolutionary relationship or kinship among those four different groups of ani-
mals.

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

In response, evolutionists say that these organs are not "homologous" (in other words, from a common an-
cestor), but that they are "analogous" (very similar to each other, although there is no evolutionary connection

708 Atlas of Creation Vol. 2