According to the theory of evolution, similar structures in living things are regarded as the product of a legacy from a common ancestor (homology). Birds, bats, flying reptiles and flies, however, are separated from one another by deep physiological and morphological differences, and are far removed from one another even on the imaginary evolutionary family tree. What is more, these four classes share no common ancestor, not even an imaginary one that could be proposed by evolutionists.
How is it, therefore, that such strikingly similar structures could have emerged among these living things” descendants that even according to the claims of the theory of evolution diverged from one another tens or even hundreds of millions years ago?
There is clearly a conflict with the thesis of homology here. At this point evolutionists resort to the fairy tale of “convergent evolution,” maintaining that the wing developed independently four times in such a way as to meet these creatures” needs. Yet they offer no explanation in doing this, as if they were referring to a proven historical fact. This account, that seems so sure of itself on the surface, can frequently be encountered in the pages of professional scientific journals.
However, this should not be allowed to deceive. “Convergent evolution” is an entirely imaginary process and definitely not one that has been scientifically accounted for. Even if evolutionists appear to account for a number of similarities in nature by means of convergent evolution, what they are actually doing is to sweep a number of similarities their theory cannot explain under the carpet and thus conceal them from view. On reading the facts below regarding convergent evolution it will be seen that this is an unscientific means of keeping the theory of evolution alive.
1. Two striking examples of similarities among living things between which no evolutionary link can be constructed
According to the theory of evolution, marsupial and placental mammals are assumed to have separated from one another some 100 million years ago. How odd, therefore, that these creatures, divided by such a wide temporal gulf, should possess nearly identical structures.
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 marsupials. Evolutionary biologists believe that these two different species have completely separate evolutionary histories. (1) (It is assumed that all relations between marsupials and placentals came to an abrupt end when the Australian continent and the islands around it broke away from Antarctica, and that there were no wolf species at all at that time.) The interesting thing, however, is that the skeletal structures of the Tasmanian wolf and the North American wolf are almost identical. Their skulls in particular, as can be seen on the left, are exceedingly similar to one another.
Another striking example is the astonishing similarity and structural homogeneousness among different living things” eyes. The squid and human beings are very different living things, between which no evolutionary relationship can possibly be formulated. Yet the eyes of both are very similar in terms of structure and function. There is no candidate with a similar eye to those of human beings and the squid that evolutionists can propose as a common ancestor between them because they are so far removed from one another biologically.
2. Convergent evolution is not a scientifically explained process
Evolutionists regard the anatomical similarity between the skulls of the Tasmanian and the North American wolf; the similarity between the anatomy of the squid and the human eye; or the similar wing structure among flies, bats, flying reptiles and birds as the product of convergent evolution. Yet scientists who describe such similarities in the pages of professional scientific journals must not be deceptive in referring to convergent evolution as if it were a historical fact. This self-confident style rests on no scientific foundations and merely demonstrates the dogmatic devotion to evolution of the scientists in question.
The question of how convergent evolution, a dogma regarded as true by evolutionists, might actually have taken place is one that they cannot answer. For example, the following words by the evolutionist Frans de Waal (primatologist and author, zoologist) are quoted in an article published by the British scientific journal New Scientist titled “Mysteries of Life:”
“One big question concerns convergent evolution-the finding that life comes up with remarkably similar solutions to the same problem more than once. The camera eye is a good example. What is it that makes life navigate towards particular solutions? Is there a deeper pattern or set of principles at work, some kind of underlying “landscape” across which life is forced to move?” (2)
De Waal refers to the question of “according to which principles of the alleged convergent evolution the camera type eye might have evolved” as one of the greatest questions of science. The evolutionist Frank Salisbury writes that even thinking about the question proves a major headache:
“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.” (3)
As we have seen, evolutionists such as de Waal and Salisbury believe that the eye emerged through convergent evolution but admit that they are unable to answer the question of “how?”
Cornelius G. Hunter is one of the most powerful critics of Darwinism and a scientist who has carried out detailed research into evolutionists” claims regarding convergent evolution. Hunter has this to say about the scientific value of evolutionists” convergent evolution explanations:
There is no doubt that evolutionary theoreticians may be able to account for all these [the similarities in living things between which no evolutionary relationship can be constructed] in their own terms, but these explanations go no further than being wide-ranging generalisations about how evolution “gradually selected the most productive structure for an animal or plant within the scope of particular environmental conditions.” (4)
On short, all that evolutionists are doing in these accounts is to look at the benefits of the organs in question and then to weave yarns as to how these evolved in such a way as to prove of benefit to the animal and how this took place more times than once. No matter how confident evolutionist judgements regarding convergent evolution may appear, these are not scientific accounts at all, but consist of statements of belief by scientists who have accepted evolution as a dogma.
3. Accounting for similarities in terms of homology or of convergent evolution is the result of a preference based on preconception, and the uncertainties attendant upon that preference are “truly worrying.”
Evolutionists” homology thesis is based on the logic of constructing an evolutionary relationship between all living things with similar morphologies (structures.) The fact is, however, that similarities are also frequently observed between living things among which no possible close family relation can be constructed. The molecular biologist Michael Denton (the Senior Research Fellow in Human Molecular Genetics at the University of Otago in New Zealand), a prominent critic of neo-Darwinism, describes this situation, which is clearly at odds with homology, thus:
“Nature abounds in examples of convergence: the similarity in overall shape of whales, ichthyosaurs and fishes, the similarity in the bone structure of the flippers of a whale and an ichthyosaur, the similarity of the forelimbs of a mole and those of the insect, the molecricket; the great similarity in the design of the eye in vertebrates and cephalopods and the profound parallelism between the cochlea in birds and mammals. In all the above cases the similarities, although very striking, do not imply any close biological relationship.” (5)
In the light of this situation, evolutionists refer to such organs not as “homologous” (in other words from a common ancestor) but as “analogous” (very similar despite their having no evolutionary link). For example, in their view the human and the squid eyes are analogous organs. Yet the answer of the question of whether an organ is to be classified as homologous or analogous rests entirely on evolutionists” preconceptions. However, no definitive answer is forthcoming in the uncertainty in the continuing debates among evolutionists. In addition, this state of affairs is extremely alarming for evolutionists. Richard Dawkins, one of today”s best-known proponents of Darwinism makes the following admission:
“If taxonomists use resemblances to measure closeness of cousinship, why weren”t taxonomists fooled by the uncannily close resemblances that seem to unite these pairs of animals? Or, to twist the question round into a more worrying form, when taxonomists tell us that two animals really are closely related-say rabbits and hares- how do we know that the taxonomists haven”t been fooled by massive convergence? This question really is worrying, because the history of taxonomy is replete with cases where later taxonomists have declared their predecessors wrong for precisely this reason…Who is to say that future generations of taxonomists won”t change their minds yet again? What confidence can we vest in taxonomy, if convergent evolution is such a powerful faker of deceptive resemblances?” (6)
As we have seen, evolutionists” defence of an organ as being homologous or analogous rests on no concrete-seeming criteria that are convincing even to them.
4. Evolutionists” method of sweeping evidence against their theory under the carpet: convergent evolution.
What has been described above shows that convergent evolution lacks any scientific foundation and is an entirely illusory account. Yet it is one that evolutionists frequently resort to, despite all its scientific inadequacy. Why? Because this illusory account helps them to cover up certain facts revealed by scientific research and that they find particularly discomforting.
As Denton has made clear, exceedingly similar structures between living things that cannot possibly have any biological relationship are frequently observed in nature. Every instance of this further damages the homological thesis, which may be summarised as “similarities are evidence of a legacy from a common ancestor.” That being the case, the truly scientific approach would be to accept the erroneous nature of the homology thesis which is refuted by a great many concrete findings. However, evolutionists seek to conceal areas where the homology thesis is weak by immediately inviting convergent evolution onto the stage. They thus attach the label of convergent evolution onto findings that refute the thesis of a legacy from a common ancestor, and give the impression that these are to be accounted for in terms of evolution.
Casey Luskin of University of California San Diego is a scientist who maintains that these similarities are the product of intelligent design. After stating that evolutionist explanations in terms of convergent evolution are no different to sweeping evidence against their theory “under the carpet,” Luskin goes on to say “However, these counter-examples are not going away, and inconsistent handling of evidence tends to be unfit, in the long run, for survival in science.” (7)
5. Convergent evolution is a scenario that conflicts with reason.
Anyone with a little knowledge of biology can see when he or she considers the claim of convergent evolution that this is a scenario entirely at odds with reason. Let us briefly summarise:
Examples of similarity, such as those in the wing, skull and eye, concern the external appearances of living things, in other words their morphologies. The morphology or appearance of living things is determined by the data in their DNA. Therefore, the convergent evolution scenario assumes that these structures are the product of an evolution at the molecular level. According to this claim, the molecules that produced these must have evolved by independent paths in such a way as to produce similar structures, in other words by convergent evolution. Yet this scenario has no more significance than being an unrealistic fantasy in the face of the scientific facts. One example that clearly reveals this is the work of the evolutionist Paul Erbich.
A scientific discovery made in 1969 dealt a lethal blow to the homological claim (inheritance from a common ancestor) by revealing that haemoglobin had the same structures and functions in very different living categories. In a scientific article published in 1985, the evolutionist Paul Erbich calculated the probability of the chance evolution of the haemoglobin molecule shared by very different living categories. Erbich wrote in his article, which gave mathematical consideration to the scenario of this molecule evolving through very different routes:
“Proteins with nearly the same structure and function (homologous proteins) are found in increasing numbers in phylogenetically different, even distant, taxa (e.g., hemoglobins in vertebrates, in some invertebrates, and even in certain plants)…. The probability…of the convergent evolution of two proteins with approximately the same structure and function is too low to be plausible, even when all possible circumstances are present which seem to heighten the likelihood of such a convergence. If this is so, then the plausibility of a random evolution of two or more different but functionally related proteins seems hardly greater” (8)
This comment, based on Erbich”s mathematical investigation, concerns the probability of convergent evolution at the level of only two proteins. For instance, in the scenario of the convergent evolution of the eye shared by human beings and the squid there is an amount of protein that produces a very wide range of structural and functional variety. According to Erbich”s interpretations, the convergent evolution of the eye scenario is entirely beyond the bounds of possibility and clearly in conflict with reason.
Let us give an example to show just how much this is in conflict with reason:
Let us imagine that two large groups consisting of architects, engineers and labourers come together in very different environments, the one group quite unaware of the other, and are asked to design and build a “city.” That city must also be a fully formed one, with a train station, hospitals, parks, housing and roads.
Let us imagine that these two groups work for a long time, and that we then inspect the cities they have come up with. What are the odds that these will be identical to one another? It is out of the question, of course, and to claim that such a thing is possible is a violation of reason.
In addition, to believe in the scenario of convergent evolution is even more irrational than to believe that these two cities will be very similar to one another. That is because in the example we have given workers with knowledge and skills have worked towards a given objective. In the evolutionist scenario, however, it is assumed that mutations, based on chance with no intellect or ability to plan and look ahead, have done the work. In short, if we recall, scientific observations have revealed that mutations damage genetic information and have destructive effects on life.
Therefore, the evolutionist belief in convergent evolution is as blind as believing that existing building materials could organise themselves in the wake of consecutive earthquakes and produce two almost identical cities.
8. The true origin of analogous organs is “common design.”
For someone who is not blindly devoted to evolutionist preconceptions, the only rational answer to the question “what is the origin of organs described as analogous?” is clearly “common design.” With their complex internal organisation, organs such as the wing, skull and eye cited as examples in this paper clearly manifest a design. In addition, these organs prove, in the way that they contribute to living things” adapting their lives to the conditions around them, that they were designed in the light of a purpose, and thus of a plan.
Furthermore, each of these organs is a “complex morphological novelty.” There is no evidence in the fossil record to show that either the wing, or the skull or the eye developed in gradual stages. These emerge suddenly with their perfect structures. These organs reveal a wide dissemination in creatures that lived in the past, and the way that they appear instantaneously show that they were designed separately for each living thing, although they are still fundamentally structures that reveal a common design.
For example, even if aircraft factories working independently of one another produce very different planes with regard to all the possible design options, they will still select and use engines produced by a particular factory. The fact that these different planes, produced for cargo, military or passenger carrying purposes, use the same engine, does not mean that that engine appeared three times by chance.
In the same way that there is an evident design in the engine, there is also evident design in biological structures. Almighty God created the flawless biological structures in living things.
Indeed, the findings of modern science regarding the genetic infrastructure of the eye totally demolish Darwinism and confirm the truth of creation. Doctor of mathematics David Berlinski, an eminent critic of Darwinism, describes how this advance has torn down the theory:
“I am in agreement with Mr. Gross when he refers to `new and astonishing evidence” about the origin of the eye. Herewith the facts. Halder, Callaerts, and Gehring”s research group in Switzerland discovered that the ey gene in Drosophila is virtually identical to the genes controlling the development of the eye in mice and men. The doctrine of convergent evolution, long a Darwinian staple, may now be observed receding into the darkness. The same group”s more recent paper, “Induction of Ectopic Eyes by Targeted Expression of the Eyeless Gene in Drosophila” (Science 267, 1988) is among the most remarkable in the history of biology, demonstrating as it does that the ey gene is related closely to the equivalent eye gene in Sea squirts (Ascidians), Cephalopods, and Nemerteans. This strongly suggests (the inference is almost irresistible) that ey function is universal (universal!) among multicellular organisms, the basic design of the eye having been their common property for over a half-billion years. The ey gene clearly is a master control mechanism, one capable of giving general instructions to very different organisms. No one in possession of these facts can imagine that they support the Darwinian theory. How could the mechanism of random variation and natural selection have produced an instrument capable of anticipating the course of morphological development and controlling its expression in widely different organisms?” (9)
This state of affairs reveals that this gene which controls the development of the eye has undergone no changes for hundreds of millions of years and that the phyla in question are as old as natural history itself.
Furthermore, the oldest known animal groups emerged suddenly during the Cambrian period some 530 million years ago, and the fact that the basic design of the eye has a history of 500 million years shows that such a complex gene also emerged suddenly at a very early stage in animal history. The sudden appearance of such a complex design in different phyla at the same time and the way it remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years definitively demolish Darwinism. The only valid explanation for this is that the eye gene was created right from the outset, together with these living things.
Creation is the truth revealed by modern science, and the true origin of analogous organs is the flawless creation of Almighty God.
1 Dean Kenyon, Percival Davis, Of Pandas and People, p. 117
2 Michael Brooks, “The mysteries of life”, New Scientist, vol. 183, issue 2463, 4 September 2004, p. 24
3 Frank Salisbury, “Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 338
4 Cornelius G. Hunter, Darwin’in Tanrisi (Darwin’s God), Gelenek Publishing, Istanbul, 2003, p. 43
5 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, Burnett Books, p. 178
6 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1991, p. 269
7 Casey Luskin, Icons Still Standing: Jonathan Wells Comes Up Clean Despite Harsh Criticism, http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/cl_iconsstillstanding.htm
8 Paul Erbrich, “On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 34 (1985), pp. 53-80
9 Berlinski D., “Denying Darwin: David Berlinski and Critics,” Commentary, September 1996, pp. 28, 30