Page 711 - Atlas of Creation Volume 2

Harun Yahya

According to the "tree of life"
proposed by evolutionists, oc-
topuses are some of the re-
motest creatures from man. But
the octopus eye has exactly the
same structure as ours. This is
an indication that similarity of
structure is no evidence for
evolution.

between them). For example, in their view, the human eye and the octopus eye are analogous organs.
However, the question of which category they will put an organ into, homologous or analogous, is answered
totally in line with the theory of evolution's preconceptions. And this shows that the evolutionist claim
based on resemblances is completely unscientific. The only thing evolutionists do is to try to interpret new
discoveries in accordance with a dogmatic evolutionary preconception.

However, the interpretation they put forward is completely invalid. Because organs which they have to
consider "analogous" sometimes bear such close resemblance to one another, despite being exceedingly
complex structures, that it is totally illogical to propose that this similarity was brought about thanks to co-
incidental mutations. If an octopus eye emerged completely by coincidence, as evolutionists claim, then how
is it that vertebrates' eyes can emerge by the very same coincidences? The famous evolutionist Frank

Salisbury, who got dizzy from thinking about this question, 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. 246

According to the theory of evolution, wings emerged independently of each other four times: in insects,
flying reptiles, birds, and flying mammals (bats). The fact that wing with very similar structures developed
four times—which cannot be explained by the mechanisms of natural selection/mutation—is yet another
headache for evolutionary biologists.
One of the most concrete examples of such an obstacle in the path of evolutionary theory can be seen in

mammals. According to the accepted view of modern biology, all mammals belong to one of three basic cat-
egories: placentals, marsupials and monotremes. Evolutionists 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 placentals and marsupials which are nearly the same.
Placental wolves, cats, squirrels, anteaters, moles and mice all have their marsupial counterparts with

closely similar morphologies. 247
In other words, according to the theory of evolution, mutations completely independent of each other
must have produced these creatures "by chance" twice! This reality is a question that will give evolutionists
problems even worse than dizzy spells.
One of the interesting similarities between placental and marsupial mammals is that between the North
American wolf and the Tasmanian wolf. The former belongs to the placental class, the latter to the marsu-

Adnan Oktar 709