Page 714 - Atlas of Creation Volume 2

whereas, in reality, these embryological periods for similar structures are quite different from each other in

every living creature. Pere Alberch, an eminent developmental biologist, noted, it is "the rule rather than the ex-
ception" that "homologous structures form from distinctly dissimilar initial states." 251
The emergence of similar structures as the result of totally dissimilar processes is frequently seen in the lat-
ter stages of the development phase. As we know, many species of animal go through a stage known as "indi-
rect development" (in other words the larva stage), on their way to adulthood. For instance, most frogs begin

life as swimming tadpoles and turn into four-legged animals at the last stage of metamorphosis. But alongside
this there are several species of frog which skip the larva stage and develop directly. But the adults of most of
these species that develop directly are practically indistinguishable from those species which pass through the
tadpole stage. The same phenomenon is to be seen in water chestnuts and some other similar species. 252
To conclude, we can say that genetic and embryological research has proven that the concept of homology
defined by Darwin as "evidence of the evolution of living things from a common ancestor" can by no means be

regarded as any evidence at all. The inconsistency of homology, which looks quite convincing on the surface, is
clearly revealed when examined more closely.

The Fall of the Homology in Tetrapod Limbs

We have already examined homology's morphological claim—in other words the invalidity of the evolu-
tionist claim based on similarities of form in living things—but it will be useful to examine one well-known ex-
ample of this subject a little more closely. This is the "fore- and hindlimbs of quadrupeds," presented as a clear

proof of homology in almost all books on evolution.
Quadrupeds, i.e., land-living vertebrates, have five digits on their fore- and hindlimbs. Although these
may not always look like fingers or toes, they are all counted as "pentadactyl" (five-digit) due to their bone
structure. The hands and feet of a frog, a lizard, a squirrel, or a monkey all have this same structure. Even the
bone structures of birds and bats conform to this basic design.
Evolutionists claim that all living things descended from a common ancestor, and they have long cited pen-

tadactyl limb as evidence of this. But they know that this claim actually possesses no scientific validity.
Even today, evolutionists accept the feature of pentadactylism in living things among which they have
been able to establish no evolutionary link. For example, in two separate scientific papers published in 1991
and 1996, evolutionary biologist M. Coates reveals that pentadactylism emerged two separate times, each in-
dependently of the other. According to Coates, the pentadactyl structure emerged independently in anthra-

cosaurs and amphibians. 253
This discovery is a sign that pentadactylism is no evidence for a "common ancestor."
Another matter which creates difficulties for the evolutionist thesis in this respect is that these creatures
have five digits on both their fore- and hindlimbs. It is not proposed in evolutionist literature that fore- and
hindlimb descended from a "common limb"; rather, it is assumed that they developed separately. For this rea-
son, it should be expected that the structure of the fore- and hindlimbs should be different, the result of differ-

ent, chance mutations. Michael Denton has this to say on the subject:

[T]he forelimbs of all terrestrial vertebrates are constructed according to the same pentadactyl design, and this is at-
tributed by evolutionary biologists as showing that all have been derived from a common ancestral source. But the
hindlimbs of all vertebrates also conform to the pentadactyl pattern and are strikingly similar to the forelimbs in
bone structure and in their detailed embryological development. Yet no evolutionist claims that the hindlimb
evolved from the forelimb, or that hindlimbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source… Invariably, as biolog-

ical knowledge has grown, common genealogy as an explanation for similarity has tended to grow ever more tenu-
ous… Like so much of the other circumstantial "evidence" for evolution, that drawn from homology is not
convincing because it entails too many anomalies, too many counter-instances, far too many phenomena which
simply do not fit easily into the orthodox picture. 254

But the real blow dealt to the evolutionist claim of the homology of pentadactylism came from molecular
biology. The assumption of "the homology of pentadactylism," which was long maintained in evolutionist pub-
lications, was overturned when it was realized that the limb structures were controlled by totally different

712 Atlas of Creation Vol. 2