Chapter 15:
Similarities & Divergence
Why similar structures are not an evidence of evolution
This chapter is based on pp. 731-749 of Other Evidence (Volume Three of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this paperback chapter are at least 18 statements in the chapter of the larger book, plus 4 more in its appendix. You will find them, plus much more, on our website: evolution-facts.org.
The study of similarities is the study of likenesses between various types of creatures. For example, both man and a number of other animals have livers, intestines, and appendixes. Therefore, according to the evolutionary theory of similarities, they all descended from a common ancestor. Evolutionists use the term homology to describe these similar structures, and consider them to be an important evidence of evolution.
If you compare a human arm with the front leg of an alligator or horse, or the flipper of a whale or a bat’s skin-covered wing,—you will find they all have a similar arrangement and number of bones.
Although similarities are considered by Darwinists to be an important evidence of evolution, in this chapter we will find that the subject really proves nothing at all.
SIMILAR STRUCTURES—(*#1/4*) The proof that Darwinists really need is evidence of species change, not similarity of structure or function. Lacking that evidence, an attempt to prove the point by appearance is shallow at best. The problem is that evolution is not occurring now, and the fossil record reveals it has not occurred in the past.
Yet there are many ways in which different kinds of plants are alike. The same holds true for animals. Since these similarities do exist, let us consider them briefly.
Physical similarities in plants, and in animals, can have two possible causes:
(1) They either indicate that those creatures that are similar are closely related or (2) they show that a single Designer with immense intelligence, power, and ability made creatures with similar designs.
Evolutionists call these similarities, "homologies." Here is how an evolutionist explains them:
"Homo means ‘the same.’ The seven bones in the human neck correspond with the same seven, much larger, neckbones in the giraffe: They are homologues. The number of cervical vertebrae is a trait [evolutionists believe are] shared by creatures descended from a common ancestor. Related species share corresponding structures, though they may be modified in various ways."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 218.
Stepping into a kitchen, you will find forks, knives, and spoons. Close examination will reveal that there are big spoons, little spoons, and even serving ladles, as well as five or six types of knives. Does this prove that the large spoons descended from the little spoons, or does it show that someone intelligent made them all? The spoons were made to hold liquids, and the knives were made to cut solids. Someone designed each of them to do a special work. They were produced by a planner and maker.
The above illustration focuses our attention on purposeful design and an intelligent designer. (1) There are similarities in the structure—the outward appearance,—because of the purpose they must fulfill. (2) The spoons did not make themselves by accident, nor are they the result of a chance arrangement of molecules. They were designed by someone intelligent. Someone intelligent made them. Even if they were made by machinery, someone very intelligent produced that machinery.
Whether it is similarities of spoons, similarities of eyes, or similarities of arms,—the answer is Creation according to a common design. That is why Datsons and Volvos are more alike than Datsons and yachts. Automobiles have many features in common because they were all designed to roll down highways, powered by engines. Sailboats are also very similar to one another because they were designed to travel by wind power over the surface of the water.
Turning our attention from man-made things to living organisms, it is equally obvious that similarity of structure follows purposeful design here also. Neither haphazard random activity nor accidents can produce useful organs. Intelligent planning is required.
DIFFERENT STRUCTURES—Not only do different animals have certain similar structures,—they have different ones also! If they did not, they would all look alike! So there are differences, as well as similarities. For example, consider dogs and cats: There are a number of similarities between the cat and dog families. But look at all the differences! There are so many of them.
As we consider those differences, the idea of a common ancestry fades out—especially when there is no evidence in the past or present that one animal and plant type ever changes into another.
The differences emphasize the factor of a common Designer, just as the similarities do. Examining these differences more closely, we find that each species, or basic type of plant or animal, has unique qualities that the others do not have. Yet even those differences were purposefully designed.
Amazingly functional structures are also to be found in non-living things. For example, consider the exact specifications found in the orbiting of nuclear particles in the various elements. View the exquisite formations that various chemicals make as they crystallize. Each chemical always crystallizes in just a certain way.
SHOWING DESCENT? —(*#1/4 Similarities, an Inadequate Theory*) Let us now return to the similarities. All kinds of diverse creatures share similarities. According to the evolutionists, the similarities prove a common ancestry; yet closer examination reveals they are not descended from one another.
Here are some examples of similarities that disprove evolution:
1 - Lysozyme. Lysozyme is the enzyme in tears that bites holes in the cell walls of bacteria so that they explode. This same enzyme is also in egg white, and protects baby chicks from infection. Neither human eyes nor baby chicks become infected easily. But does this mean that man is descended from baby chicks? Does it mean they are closely related?
One researcher, *Richard E. Dickerson, wanted to locate the exact point at which humans branched off the family tree. He decided, after comparing lysozyme and lactalbumin, that we are the direct descendants of chickens; for, in this one respect, people are more closely related to chickens than they are to any other kind of living creature.
2 - Eye of the Octopus. The octopus has an eye that is very similar to the one that humans have. In contrast the eyes of fish are totally different from the eyes of an octopus. Are we then descended from the octopus? I thought Dickerson said we were the offspring of baby chicks?
3 - Specific Gravity of Blood. When certain specific gravity tests were run on the blood of various land animals, it was found that snakes and frogs are more closely related to people than people are to apes and monkeys. So certain evolutionists would say that our grandpa, somewhere in the not too distant past, was a snake, not a monkey.
4 - Rat Disease. The plague (Pasteurella pestis) which killed millions in Europe in the Dark Ages only attacks people and Norway rats. Does this prove that we are descended from rats?
5 - Calcium/phosphorus Ratios. One scientist, trying to figure out whom we were descended from, did a test on various calcium/phosphorus ratios in bone structures. He discovered that we are directly related to turtles and elephants. But you need not be discouraged over this news: He also found that the monkey came from the goose (or vice versa), and the dog was related not to the cat but to the horse.
6 - Brain Weights. The situation looks still worse when we compare brain weights. The weight of the brain in proportion to the body is greater in the dwarf monkey (the cottontop and golden marmoset) of South America than in you and me. One scientist suggested that this made us their ancestors!
7 - Cytochrome C. Brilliant research was done in comparing people with animals on the basis of the amino acid sequence in Cytochrome C, a co-enzyme found in most organisms. It was discovered that man is more closely related to turtles than turtles are to rattlesnakes. But the researcher also decided that people are more closely related to bread mold than sunflowers are!
The scientists say that these close relationships reveal our origins. In reality, the similarities only reveal that we all have the same Originator.
CONVERGENCE—Then there is convergence. "Convergence" occurs when different creatures have similar organs. For example, the woody plants generally have a growing edge (cambium) between the inner part (xylem) of the plant and its outer part (phloem). But this similarity arises because it is the best way for that general type of plant to grow, so the Designer used this basic pattern for nearly all trees—even though most are totally unlike each other in many other ways. It is foolish to suggest that plants have the intelligence to make the decision themselves as to how they shall be structured, for they have no brains. They do it because they were designed that way.
We already mentioned the close similarity of the human eye to the eye of the octopus. How can a person have an eye that is so similar to that eight-legged creature,—and yet be entirely different in every other way?
Convergence disproves evolution, but reveals an Intelligent Designer that made us all.
"Similarities" means structures alike; "convergence" means structures different. —The evolutionists try to prove evolution from both!
CREATURES THAT REMAKE THEMSELVES—Let us consider wings and eyes as examples of similarities in very different creatures, that could not have descended from one another
Evolutionists explain that the wing was independently invented four times by animals as, over the centuries, they invented their various body parts. One day an insect decided to grow wings and fly about. That was supposed to have been the first invention of flying. As we already learned in earlier chapters, that lowly insect had to design the complete wing in one generation to make it work; and, in the process, had to retool his entire DNA code! It surely was an intelligent insect.
Millennia later, a reptile (now extinct) kept falling over cliffs and decided that wings would be the solution. Ages later, a reptile turned its scales into feathers and reshaped its arms. Later on, while other small creatures were crawling around a cave eating worms or whatever they could find, one did it up right! He got tired of the grubby life of his nocturnal brothers—so the little thing grew wings and became a bat! But, outside in the dark, he quickly found that he needed more than eyes,—so he restructured his mouth and ears and developed a radar system.
Each of the above four, according to evolution, came from a non-winged ancestor and developed their wings totally independent of any inheritance or outside help.
Did you ever study a wing? It is one of the most complicated of structures. It combines astounding folding and unfolding structures, with special aeronautical principles that provide the needed lift.
Then there is the eye. Evolutionists could not figure out how eyes evolved or how creatures with one kind of eye could possibly have descended from creatures with another kind of eye. So, to solve the problem, they just came up with a new name. They called it convergent evolution, as though that would solve the problem of how it could possibly happen! But calling an impossibility "evolution," does not change it into a possibility.
Similarities in such different creatures, that could not have descended from one another, continue to be a major problem for evolutionists.
At the same time the Darwinists had to live with the opposite problem, so they tried to solve it by classifying it as another type of "evolution!"
DIVERGENCE—Divergence occurs when there are very different—diverse—features in plants or animals which ought to be very "closely related." Evolutionists call this "divergent evolution," but it causes just as many problems for them; for it means wide differences in creatures that should be closely related. Here are a few examples of "divergence" in the eyes of very simple creatures:
Have you ever looked into the face of a fly? On each side is a compound eye; which means that each one consists of thousands of separate eyes. The result is multiple images on the retina of each eye instead of one image as we have. But there are other insects which have compound eyes structured in totally different ways! These various eyes could not possibly have evolved from one another. They are simply too complex and too perfect.
Deep in the ocean there are some little shrimp-like creatures with very complicated compound eyes. Their thousands-of-eyes-within-an-eye all come to a focus at one point, just as ours do! Well, the scientist that discovered that mystery did a little further study and came up with even more astounding facts: (1) He found that some of those deep-sea shrimp have "lens cylinders" which bend the light smoothly (because of smoothly varied refractive surfaces) to focus on that one point! (2) And then he discovered that others use a "mirror system"! This includes a double-corner bounce which is complicated in the extreme!
—A shrimp is supposed to have figured that out? With abilities such as that, NASA ought to hire some of them to help design better telemetry systems in moon rockets.
We have here the work of a Designer who used complicated mathematics to figure out the angles and, then, designed the structure, using equally complicated physics and chemistry.
How did those eyes evolve? Until they worked perfectly, they would not work at all. That is a basic fact that is worth thinking about awhile. Did the shrimp design its own eyes? Until it developed them fully and perfectly, it could not see and would be caught by all its enemies. So it is another one-generation situation again. Is a proof needed for that statement? We will cite that cardinal point of Darwin: "survival of the fittest." Blind shrimp bumping into their enemies are not fit enough to survive very long.
MIMICRY—Then there is what the scientists call mimicry. This is the scientific name for the theory that one almost-mindless creature carefully watches another awhile—and then invents structures in his own body which are similar to those which his neighbor has.
For example, the monarch butterfly is poisonous, so birds avoid it. But the viceroy looks just like it, so birds tend to leave it alone for that reason. Evolutionists say that the viceroy "copied" the markings of the monarch in order to protect itself!
Some people would like darker hair on their heads; others would like any hair on their heads! Some would like to be taller, others thinner, still others would like blue eyes instead of brown. Some would like perpetually suntanned skin while others would prefer whiter skin. But no one knows how to orchestrate the necessary genetic changes.
If you and I do not have the brains to redesign our bodies, how can we expect a butterfly to do it!
SIMILARITIES AND BLOOD PROTEIN—One researcher finally hit on an excellent way to tell which creatures were descended from which: He decided to analyze the similarities and differences in their blood protein. That was a shrewd decision; for, if one animal is descended from another, it ought to have similar blood.
Carefully investigating this, he discovered that hemoglobin (red blood cells), for instance, is found among vertebrates—and is also scattered, some here and some there, among a variety of animals without backbones!
Based on blood comparisons, no definite pattern was found that could explain which creatures were descended from—or even related to—which. Hemoglobin is in the blood of most backboned animals; but it is scattered among some worms, starfish, clams, and insects—while not in others. It was even found in some bacteria!
CIRCULAR REASONING—In earlier chapters, we discovered that it required reasoning in a circle to say that natural selection and fossil/strata evidence were causal proofs of evolution. Now we find that the argument from similarities (homology) is also circular reasoning.
"By definition, this similarity is due to an inheritance from a common ancestor."—*G.A. Ville, et al., General Zoology (1978).
"Similarity [is] due to common ancestry."—*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1978), p. 189.
"When Professor [*George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—*Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.
The Pentedactyl Limb and Arm and Hand of a Bat
THE PENTADACTYL LIMB—The most common similarity pointed to, by evolutionists, is called the "pentadactyl limb." This is the "five-boned" arm and leg found on all land vertebrates. (There are actually more bones than that; but the pattern is simplified to upper arm, two-boned lower arm, wrist "bone," and hand "bone.") Why would all vertebrate arms and legs be composed of five principal sections of bones?
Study the illustration on page 700. Seriously, now, do you see any comparison between the limbs of those creatures? The so-called "five-bone limb" is as fabricated a term as is the evolutionary links it is trying to prove.
Consider the movements of your upper and lower arm, and hand, and you will understand. It is the best design; and design does not prove mindless evolution, just the opposite! (1) There is no better way to design a simpler limb with such a wide range of movement; and (2) the same Master Craftsman made them also.
The truth is that evolutionary theory is based on the shallow scientific knowledge of the mid-19th century. About all they had back then were arms and legs to examine. Now they have a vast number of additional biological discoveries and research techniques. But the evolutionists cling to arms and legs as a primary evidence of evolution, because 20th-century science has provided no additional evidence that is any better.
Before leaving this topic, notice that the evolutionists cunningly said this similarity was about "five bones." In reality, the shapes of all the arm-and-hand bones widely differ from species to species. All that the various species have in common are these so-called "five bones." But that is another fake! In reality, the whole thing consists of one upper arm (humerus) bone, two forearm (ulna and radius) bones, eight wrist (carpal) bones, five palm (metacarpal) bones, and 14 finger and thumb bones (phalanges). That is 30 bones, not five! Why is it that the evolutionists can never step forward with a genuine scientific evidence in support of their theory? The front leg of a dog is very different from the arm of a man, or the wing bones of a bat!
THE AORTIC ARCH
THE AORTIC ARCH—Although evolutionists point to the arm and leg as evidence of ancestry, they avoid mentioning the aortic arch. This is the arrangement of blood-vessel tubing as it takes blood out of the heart. The aorta is the largest artery in the body. (Arteries carry blood away from the heart; veins return the blood to the heart.) The aorta arises out of the top of the heart, turns to the right (when you look at a diagram of it, but to the left within your body), and then curves downward—forming an "arch." At one, two, or three places in the top of this arch (according to the animal it is in), arteries lead out of it carrying blood upward. One of only five aortic arch patterns is found in all vertebrates and certain other creatures.
Why is there an arch? Another example of outstanding design! If you have ever seen a living heart in action, you know that it shakes back and forth wildly. If the aorta did not go out from it in a semicircle, the pounding action of the heart would quickly wear through the side of the aorta! Yet the descending aorta must go down past the heart. It was designed to first go out in a wide arch and then separate into two branches, one going upward and the other downward.
Just for a moment, turn to the aortic arch diagram on page 702. There you will find the five basic types of mammalian aortic arches. All the blood flowing from the heart enters the aortic arch. There are five types of aortic arches, yet there is no way that one could evolve into another—while the animals were alive. There is no way they could change their bloodstream plumbing!
Now, if evolution were true, it is clear that all animals in each of those five basic aortic arch types would have to be closely related to one another. Indeed, the evolutionists loudly proclaim that similarities require evolutionary descent.
"The only postulate the evolutionist needs is no more or less than [this] . . The degree of structural resemblance runs essentially parallel with closeness of relationship. Most biologists would say that this is not merely a postulate, but one of the best established laws of life . . If we cannot rely upon this postulate . . we can make no sure progress in any attempt to establish the validity of the principle of evolution."—*Horatio Hockett Newman, Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics (1932), p. 53.
"If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins."—*Thomas Hunt Morgan, "The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the Species," in Scientific Monthly 16(3):237 (1923).
"The most important kind of evidence is that based on a comparative study of the structure and development of various groups. The use of such evidence is based on the assumption that the more closely the body plans of two phyla [taxa] resemble each other, the closer their relationship and the more recent their common ancestor."— *Ralph Buchsbaum, Animals without Backbones (1948), p. 335.
That is simple enough: the closer the structural similarity, the closer the relationship, according to the evolutionist.
Now, on the basis of similarities, let us consider our ancestors. Here is a sampling of the five groups:
Those animals that share the FIRST type of aortic arch are these: horses, goats, donkeys, zebras, cows, sheep, pigs, and deer.
Those animals that share the SECOND type of aortic arch are these: whales, moles, shrews, porpoises, and hedgehogs.
Those animals that share the THIRD type of aortic arch are these: skunks, bears, kangaroos, rats, raccoons, dogs, opossums, squirrels, beavers, wombats, mice, porcupines, cats, and weasels.
Those animals that share the FOURTH type of aortic arch are these: dugongs, some bats, sea cows, duck-billed platypus, echidna, and human beings.
Those animals that share the FIFTH type of aortic arch are these: walruses and African elephants.
Do all these show any kind of coherent evolutionary line? No they do not. Any number of other structural, chemical, or other comparisons could be cited (several are in this chapter) which would yield totally different groupings. But the simple fact, that each grouping of similarities is always vastly different from all the other similarity groupings, falsifies the usefulness of similarities as an evidence favoring evolution.
But there is more to the story: Note that there are only five types of aortic arches. This points us to a single Planner, a highly intelligent Being who made all those various living creatures. He gave each of them the number of aortic archs they needed, but only five variant arrangements were needed.
THE GENE BARRIER—In spite of efforts to see similarities in structures of various animals, the DNA problem continues to defy the evolutionists. Even the genes themselves are very different in mankind, from those found in other animals, each of which has unique gene arrangements.
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find ‘homologous’ genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."—*Sir Gavin De Beer, Homology, an Unsolved Problem (1971).
*De Beer then asks a penetrating question:
"What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns,’ in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked that question in 1938, and it has not yet been answered."—*Op. cit., p. 16.
*De Beer is here saying that, since it is the genes that control structure, function, and appearance—how can different animal types have similar appearance when they have different genes?
This point is extremely important!
The entire matter is a great mystery which evolutionists cannot fathom. How can there be similarities among life forms with different genes—different DNA codes?
In desperation, *S.C. Harland, in Biological Reviews (11:83/1936), suggests an answer from fantasyland: When each species evolved into new species, its genes changed but its eye structures did not change! It has eyes that are different from what its genes say they should be! Harland is here theorizing that genes do not control the inheritance of characteristics!
"The older text-books on evolution make much of the idea of homology . . Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene-complex, 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."—*Randall, quoted in *William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, p. 189.
PERFECT DIVERSITY—Everything in nature is organized,—but it is organized in the midst of intertwined diversity! One chemical test will fit one sequence, and another will fit another. Everywhere in nature is to be found carefully arranged DIVERSITY! Everything is different, but perfectly so.
Homologies (similarities) are desperately needed by evolutionists, since they have little else on which to base species evolution. But homologies are just not scientific! Here is a frank admission by a well-known British scientist:
"The concept of homology is fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution, yet in truth we cannot explain it at all in terms of present-day biological theory."—*Sir A. Hardy, The Living Stream (1965), p. 211.
MORE SIMILARITIES WHICH DISPROVE EVOLUTION—Here are additional similarities which disprove evolutionary theory:
The anatomy of the EYE—Man and OCTOPUS are very similar.
The anatomy of the HEART—Man and PIG are very similar.
The pronator quadratus MUSCLE—Man and Japanese SALAMANDER are very similar.
The black PLAGUE—Man and Norway RAT are very similar.
The acetyicholine-histamine—Man and PLANTS are very similar.
The concentration of RED BLOOD CELLS—Man and FISH are very similar.
The specific gravity of BLOOD—Man and FROG are very similar.
The structure of HEMOGLOBIN—Man and ROOT NODULES are very similar.
The ABO and BLOOD FACTORS—HUMAN MOTHERS AND CHILDREN are very DISsimilar.
CALCIUM-PHOSPHORUS-CARBONATE compound—Man and TURTLE are very similar / But dog and cat are very DISsimilar.
The CYTOCHROME C in the cell (1)—Man and SUNFLOWER are very similar. / But mold and sunflower are very DISsimilar.
The CYTOCHROME C in the cell (2)—Man and BULLFROG are very similar. / But rattlesnake and frog are very DISsimilar.
MOLECULAR SIMILARITIES—Major advances have been made in molecular biology. Some of the most devastating new scientific information, which falsifies evolutionary theory, comes from this field. In the 1950s, DNA and amino acid discoveries were made. DNA sequences were compared. RNA was discovered. A host of new insights about the cell were uncovered.
Evolutionists had hoped that discoveries in molecular biology would provide homologies (similarities) that would vindicate evolutionary theory. But this hope was soon shattered.
BLOOD PROTEIN COMPARISONS—Next, let us compare blood protein sequences. Surely here is a way to trace evolutionary lineage.
According to evolutionary theory, bacteria should be closely related to yeast, silk-moth, tuna, pigeon, and horse, in that order. Comparing Cytochrome C differences, a bacterium is closest to the following species, in this sequence of closeness of relationships: horse, pigeon, tuna, silk moth, wheat, yeast. —That would mean that bacteria are more closely related to horses than they are to yeast!
The jawless fish are supposed to be very ancient and the earliest vertebrates. Evolutionary theory would dictate that they would be the closest to carp, frogs, chicken, kangaroo, and humans, in that approximate order. How does the jawless lamprey compare with those vertebrates? It is closest in hemoglobin similarities to humans, carp, kangaroo, frog, and chicken. Figure that one out.
"There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish!"—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1965), chapter entitles, "A Biochemical Echo of Typology."
It is clear that there is simply no way to say that any two species are closely related to another species. It is all just one big jumble.
SERUM COMPARISONS—You may recall how, in chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods, and chapter 12, Fossils and Strata, it was disclosed that, out of hundreds of thousands of radiodating tests on rock strata, only three were found to be in agreement with the 19th-century dating theory of rock strata which continues to dominate the fields of geology and paleontology. In regard to confirming classical stratigraphy and fossil dating, the three were retained and the hundreds of thousands of other uranium and thorium tests were thrown out. It was then stated, in textbooks, that "radiodating substantiates geological column dating."
Well, evolutionist scientists are doing the same with the new molecular discoveries as they relate to similarities. One type of test, and only one, appears to agree with evolutionary theory, so that ONE is trumpeted in the textbooks and the others are ignored. This is the serum test for antibodies.
Serological tests, made with non-human blood serum, give varying percentages of precipitation. Tests run on a wide variety of animals reveal that a few provide an ascending stepladder up to man. At the bottom is the kangaroo, 0.0 percent; at the top is man with 100 percent. That sounds great for evolution, but what does it actually prove when one stops to think about it? According to this evolutionary "proof," man descended from apes, which descended from sheep, which descended from deer, which descended from horses, which descended from kangaroos, which descended from nothing. (There is nothing below kangaroos in the line of descent, since it registers 0.0 percent).
But the findings from large numbers of other molecular tests are totally ignored. The public is not told about them.
CHROMOSOME COMPARISONS—If you wanted to really KNOW which species were the closest to each other, what method would you use? If you stop to think about it, the very best way would be to compare chromosome counts. What genetic factor could be more basic than chromosomes and its DNA?
Each species has a specific number of chromosomes in each cell in its body, so all we need do is count them. Human beings, for example, have 46 chromosomes in each body cell, while in their reproductive cells (the egg and the sperm) there are only half that number (23). In this way, when the sperm and egg unite, the full number of 46 will be made up again.
Is there any factor more basic to a species than its chromosome count? Knowledgeable scientists seriously doubt it.
Several chromosome count lists are available in scientific books. A comparison of them would provide us with the very best "similarities" analysis that we could possibly have!
Let us now consider this matter of chromosome count "similarities." J.N. Moore has done a great service for us all. He took chromosome counts for various species and then placed them into a "family tree" arrangement, such as evolutionists like to display in school textbooks (John N. Moore, "On Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny," Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1972, pp. 159-171).
"Chromosome number is probably more constant, however, than any other single morphological characteristic that is available for species identification."—*Eldon J. Gardner, Principles of Genetics (1968), p. 211.
Because the genes determine all body parts and functions, we would expect that the smaller life forms would have fewer chromosomes. There is a tendency in this direction; but, even in this, there are striking exceptions as will be seen below. (The Cosmarium, a simple algae, can have as many as 140 chromosomes and Radiolaria, a simple protozoa, has over 800; whereas human beings only have 46.)
In all the following, the duplex or double chromosome count [2n] found in most body cells is given; exceptions will be marked "n" [1n]. When several different numbers are listed, each is for a separate species.
First, we will look at the chromosome counts of several branches of the PLANT KINGDOM. What similarity do you find in any of these numbers?
At the bottom of the evolutionary plant tree are the ALGAE: Chlamydomonas, 16 / Chorda, 56 / Cladophora, 22, 24 / Closterium, (n=194) / Cosmarium, 40, 120-140 / Cystophyllum, 32-48 / Laminaria, 62 / Nitella, (n=9, 18) / Spirogyra, (n=16, 32, 50).
Just up from the algae, we come to the FUNGI: Bacillus, 1 / Clavaria, (n—8) / Escherichia, 1 / Neurospora, (n =7) / Phytophthora, 8-10 / Saccaromyces, 30, 45, 60.
Further up the plant kingdom trunk we go out onto the branch marked PTERIDOPHYTES: Adiantum, 60, 120, 116 / Diphasium, 46 / Diplazium, 82, 123 / Dryopteris, 82, 123 / Elaphoglossum, 82 / Isoetes, 33, 44 / Ophiogiossum, 960, 1100 / Polypodium, 72, 111, 148 / Po-lystichum, 82, 164 / Psilotum, 208 / Lycopodium, 46, 340, 528 / Pteris, 58, 76, 87, 115 / Selaginella, 20, 36 / Thelypteris (n = 29, 36, 62, 72).
At the top of the imaginary tree of plant evolution are the DICOTYLEDONS: Brassica, 18, 20 / Chrysanthemum, 18, 36, 56, 138, 198 / Clematis, 16 / Helianthus, 34 / Phaseolus, 22 / Primula, 16, 22, 36 / Ranunculus, 16, 32, 48 / Rumex, 20, 40, 60 / Salix, 40, 63 / Sediurn, 20, 44, 54, 68 / Petunia, 14 / Raphanus, 16, 18, 20, 38.
Now we go to the second of the two trees: It is called the ANIMAL KINGDOM. Moving upward from bottom to top, here are the chromosome counts of a few of its branches:
PROTOZOA: Euglena, 45 / Radiolaria, over 800 / Amoeba, 30-40.
NEMATHELMINTHES: Ascaria, 2, 4, 22, 48-50 / Echinorhyncus, 8.
PORIFERA: Graritia, 8, 26 / Sycandra, 16.
ARACHNIDA: Argas, 26 / Agalena, 44 / Heptatheia, 80/ Euscopius, 70-84 / Tityus, 6, 10, 20.
CRUSTACEA: Artemia, 84/ Daphnia, 8, 20 / Cambarus, 208 / Cypris, 24 / Notodromas, 16.
INSECTA: Acrida, 23 / Aphid, 5, 6, 8, 12 / Musca, 12 / Lethocerus, 8, 30 / Cimex, 29-24 / Lysandra, 380 / Bombyx, 50-71 / Cicindela, 20-24 / Calliphora, 12 / Drosophila, 8-12/ Metapodius, 22-26.
PICES: Salmo, 80-96 / Coregonus, 80 / Mollienisia, 36-48 / Lepidosiren, 360 / Nicorhynchus, 74 / Betta, 42 / Cyprinus, 99.
AMPHIBIA: Rana, 16, 24, 26, 39 / Salamandra, 24 / Cryptobranchus, 56, 62 / Bufo, 22 / Triton, 18-24.
REPTILA: Elephe, 36 / Hemidactylus, 48 / Alligator, 32 / Charnaeleon, 24 / Lacerta, 36, 38 / Emys, 50 / Anguis, 36, 44.
AVES: Rhea, 42-68 / Passer, 40-48, 54-60 / Melopstittacus, 50-60 / Gallus, 12-44 / Anas, 43-49, 80 / Columba, 50, 31-62 / Larus, 60.
MAMMALIA: Orithorhynchus, 70 / Didelphys, 17-22 / Erinaceus, 48 / Sorex, 23 / Lepus, 36-46 / Peromyscus, 48 / Microtus, 42, 46, 50 / Apodemus, 46, 48, 50 / Mus, 40, 44 / Ratus, 46, 62 / Cania, 50, 64, 73 / Felis, 35, 38 / Bos, 16, 20, 60 / Capra, 60 / Ovis, 33, 48, 54, 60 / Sus, 18, 38, 40 / Equus, 60, 66 / Rhesus, 42, 48 / Homo, 46.
Well, did you find any evidence of the evolutionary tree? There was none, absolutely none.
CHROMOSOME COUNT IN RELATION TO SIZE—It is obvious that each branch of the ancestral trees is a jumbled maze of chromosome numbers, having little mutual correspondence.
But what about size of organism, from small to large? We already referred to the fact that even here we do not find a clear-cut pattern. The smallest life form ought to have the fewest chromosomes, and the biggest ought to have the largest number of them. If that were true, it would greatly encourage the evolutionists, but consider the following list:
Copepode-crab: 6 / trillium: 10 / garden pea: 14 / Barley: 14 / maize: 20 / tomato: 24 / mink: 30 / fox: 34 / pig: 38 / alfalfa: 40 / oats: 42 / mouse: 40 / Macaca rhesus: 42 / man: 46 / deer mouse: 48 / gorilla: 48 / striped skunk: 50 / small monkey cow: 60 / donkey: 62 / Gypsy moth: 62 / dog: 78 / aulacantha (protozoa): 1600
In the above list, a crab has the smallest number of chromosomes; a protozoa, the most. Man has a mouse on both sides of him! The Gypsy moth, with 62, is obviously a more advanced creature than man.
That list may have some relation to size, but actually not very much. It provides no tangible help in ascertaining evolutionary descent.
DNA COUNT IN RELATION TO SIZE—Surely, the DNA count of various creatures will increase in relation to their size. As you know, it is the DNA within the cell that contains all the codes needed for all structures and functions within each organism. Here, at last, we ought to find evidence of evolutionary progression!
"It might reasonably be thought that the amount of DNA in the genome would increase pretty steadily as we advance up the evolutionary scale. But in fact measurements of total DNA content are quite confusing. While the mammalian cell seems to have about 800 times more DNA than a bacterium, toads (to take an example) have very much more than mammals, including man, while the organism with most DNA (of those so far studied) is the lily, which can have from 10,000 to 100,000 times as much DNA as a bacterium!"—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 174.
The following sample listing will begin with those creatures having the smallest amount of DNA, and will progressively move on up to those with the most. You will note that man is only about two thirds up the list; yet he should be at the top!
Bacterophage: 0X174: 0.000,003,6 / bacteriophage: T2: 0.000,2 / colon bacteria: 0.004,7 / yeast: 0.07 / snail: 0.67 / sea urchin: 0.90 / chicken: 1.3 / duck: 1.3 / carp: 1.6 / green turtle: 2.6 / cattle: 2.8 / man: 3.2 / toad: 3.7 / frog: 7.5 / protopterus (lungfish): 50 / amphiuma (amphibian): 84.
So that is another headache for the evolutionists. Here is what an influential evolutionist has to say about this problem.
"More complex organisms generally have more DNA per cell than do simpler ones, but this rule has conspicuous exceptions. Man is far from the top of the list, being exceeded by Amphiuma [an apode amphibian]. Protopterus [a lungfish], and even ordinary frogs and toads. Why this should be so has long been a puzzle."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics of the Evolutionary Process (1970), pp. 17-18.
PATTERSON’S CONCLUSION—*Colin Patterson is senior paleontologist at the British Museum. He is an expert in fossil species, and has spent most of his lifetime comparing them with currently living species. Throughout all those years of research, he has tried to figure out this imaginary evolutionary "family tree" of who-was-descended-from-whom.
In an address given at the American Museum of Natural History on November 5, 1981, he expressed regret that he had been asked to speak on the topic, "Creation and Evolution"; for he said he had become so puzzled over his findings that he was ready to give up evolution. He said that after 20 years of evolutionary research, he was unable to come up with even one thing that proved evolutionary theory. When he had asked other leading evolutionists for solutions, they glibly told him, "Oh, it’s just convergence; convergence is everywhere," as if that answered the evolutionary problem: Different creatures, totally unrelated to one another, which are said to be related to one another. He said the problem is then solved by calling it "merely another form of evolution," and a disproof is magically changed into a proof.
*Patterson concluded his talk by saying that evolution was an "anti-theory" that produced "anti-knowledge." He elaborated on this by saying that evolution is full of special words that explain nothing, yet give the impression that they explain everything. Something that produces "anti-knowledge" really produces ignorance. —And surely we do not want that!
EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS
Spiders go higher in the sky than any other living creature on our planet. Here is how it is done. When the baby spider is hatched, he just crawls up to a high point. It may be a grass stem or the side of a tree trunk, or a leaf on a plant. Then he upends—and off he goes! Even though only a day old, he knows exactly what to do. Instead of a tail, the spider has a spinneret.
Lifting it up in the air, he begins spinning his fine thread which catches in the wind and carries it away as the baby keeps reeling it out. Soon enough thread (about 9 feet [27 dm]) is in the air, and the baby is lifted off its feet and goes sailing! This thread is actually a liquid which immediately hardens when the air touches it. For its size, the thread is stronger than steel, and can stretch without breaking.
Where did the baby learn this? not from his mother. As soon as he becomes airborne, the little fellow climbs up on the silk line and walks on that fluttering thing as it is flying high! How he can do this and not fall off is a mystery. But he quickly becomes master of the airship. Arriving about halfway along the line, he pulls on it, tugs it here and there, and reels it underneath him. In this way, the line now becomes a rudder which he uses to steer up or down! Where did a one-day old, with a brain one-thousandth as large as a pin-head, get such excellent flying instruction?
Soon he lands on something, but generally only long enough to prepare for another flight, and off he goes again. Scientists in airplanes have found baby spiders 16,000 feet [4876 m] up in the air! That is 3 miles [4.8 km] high! Eventually the tiny creature will land. It may be several miles down the road, in a neighboring state, or on an island far out at sea. Spiders are the first creatures to inhabit new volcanic islands.
The black-rumped petrel is only 2 feet [6 dm] long. Flying low, it appears to walk on water as, with its legs down, it searches for fish. At nesting time, from wherever it is in the wide ocean, it flies to the Hawaiian islands to nest. How does it know which way to go?
CHAPTER 15 - STUDY AND REVIEW QUESTIONS
SIMILARITIES AND DIVERGENCE
GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED SCALE
1 - What do evolutionists mean by similarities?
2 - Evolutionists tell us that a bat’s wing has great similarity to a human arm. Do you think that is true? Why?
3 - The aortic arch is a dramatic evidence against evolution and in favor of Creation. Discuss this topic in a half-page report. Draw the various types of arches and label them. Why is the arch in the artery above the heart needed?
4 - Select one of the following topics and write a paragraph explaining how it points away from evolution: (1) mimicry; (2) protein similarities; (3) the pentadactyl limb.
5 - Evolutionists declare that similarities reveal descent relationships. Select 3 of the following 7 items, and explain whether or not it provides evidence for or against standard evolutionary theory: (1) lysozyme; (2) octopus eye; (3) specific gravity of blood; (4) rat disease; (5) calcium/phosphorus ratio; (6) proportional brain weights; (7) cytochrome C.
6 - Explain the difference between convergence and divergence. Write a paragraph on one of the following, what the evolutionists try to show with it, and what it actually indicates, (1) convergence or (2) divergence.
7 - Why are such 19th-century arguments for evolution, such as the "pentadactyl limb," very shallow in comparison with the genetic barrier? Explain in what way the DNA code forbids evolution from one species to another.
8 - List 8 of the 12 similarities which disprove evolution. Why do you think that such evidence shows that evolution, proceeding from bacteria on up to man, could never have occurred?
9 - Molecular research is relatively new to science. What does it reveal in relation to the similarities argument of evolutionists?
10 - Comparative chromosome and DNA counts provide powerful evidence against evolution. Write a paper reporting on part or all of this subject.