Efforts to provide proof of the theory of evolution have included the interpretation of similarities among living things as evidence of some common ancestor. On the basis of this mythical tale of the horse that evolutionists have invented, all similarities between life forms have been interpreted as evidence of an evolutionary relationship.
Of course similarities between living things are not evidence for evolution. In order to be able to make such a claim, evolutionists need to be able to explain how that evolution came about, and to provide evidence for it. It will be useful to recall here that not a single intermediate form that might represent evidence for the claim in question has ever been found, and that evolutionists are unable to account for the emergence of even a single protein.
Moreover, scientific discoveries made over the last 20 to 30 years show that resemblances between life forms constitute no evidence for the theory of evolution:
These similar structures in very different life forms, among which no evolutionary links can be established, represent a serious problem for evolutionists. Indeed, they frequently refer to the discomfort this causes them:
Frank Salisbury is Professor and Head of the Department of Plant Science at Utah State University:
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.403
William Fix, an evolutionist biologist:
The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the "pentadactyl" [five-fingered] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now, if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down.404
Dr. Christian Schwabe Schwabe is professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the Medical University of South Carolina:
Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist, I should be elated. Instead, it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies: so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message.405
403- Frank Salisbury, "Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 338.
404- William Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 189.
405- Christian Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution," Trends in Biochemical Sciences, Vol. 11, July 1986, p. 280.