BUT EVOLUTION says that…
Similarities mean Common Ancestry
Evolutionists argue that as man is similar in many respects to animals, especially the apes, we are therefore related to them and must have a common ancestor with them. There are similarities in the bone structure of living things; the differences are in size, shape, and function. For instance, the arm of a man, the foreleg of a horse, the wing of a bat, and the flipper of a whale are similar in design though suited for differing purposes. The similarity of human/chimp DNA is often asserted as proof for evolution. However, far from supporting evolution, similarity shows a common Creator-Designer.
- God in His wisdom knew what kind of structure works best and He varied the design to accommodate different functional needs.
- If humans were entirely different to all other living things, or indeed every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We could think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Isaiah 45v5, 12, +18; Acts 4v24; 7v50; Romans 1v20). “Hath not one God created us?” Malachi 2v10.
- As already discussed, man is made in God’s image and people are distinct from animals.
- If animals and humans did not share similar biochemistry, there would have to be separate plant kingdoms for animals and humans to eat.
- Of all animals, chimps are most like humans so we would expect their DNA to be most like humans. This does not mean that they evolved from a common ancestor. There is still a vast difference between humans and chimps, and there is no way mutations could bridge that gap. Chimps are just animals. We are made in the image of God. No chimps will be reading this, or discussing it with one another!
Similarities between Embryos means Animals are related
Many people have heard that the human embryo goes through evolutionary stages during its early development in the womb. The “yolk sac” refers back to our reptilian stage; the “gill slits” refer back to our fish stage; and the “tail” refers back to our “monkey” stage. This concept was popularised in the late 1860s by the German evolutionist Ernst Haeckel who drew drawings of the human embryo at various stages. Haeckel’s drawings were fraudulent and were produced to promote public acceptance of evolution. They should no longer be used as proof of the claim that embryo similarities support evolution. Similarity in appearance is no proof of relationship.
- The “yolk sac” in a human embryo is actually the source for the first blood cells used by the body. It does not provide nutrition, as does the yolk sac in birds’ eggs, for example. The umbilical cord is connected to the mother as the source of nourishment.
- The “gill slits” do not represent true gills at all. These never have a breathing function like gills found in fish. Rather, they are pouches that develop into the thymus gland, parathyroid glands, and middle ear canals – none of which has anything to do with breathing!
- The “tail” is just the end of the spine of the human being. It becomes the “tailbone” or “posture bone,” where muscles essential for human posture are connected.
- Patterns of embryo development point to creation, not evolution. It should be expected that some similarities are present in embryos for they are all developing from fertilised eggs into fully-grown organisms with backbones, brains, lungs, etc. They have a common Creator-Designer.
- Despite any vague similarities, the embryos do differ one from another. After all, the Creator designed the creatures to reproduce “after their kind.”
Vestigial Organs show that Evolution has been at work
A “vestigial organ” is supposed to be a “useless leftover” of our evolutionary ancestors. Evolutionists often argue that such things as flightless birds’ small wings, legless lizards, and the human appendix are useless and have no function. They claim that these features are ‘leftovers of evolution’ and evidence for evolution. However:
- Many organs, assumed useless, are now known to be useful. For instance, the tonsils were once believed to be vestigial but are now known to fight infection. It is now known that the human appendix contains lymphatic tissue and helps control bacteria entering the intestines.
- It is impossible to prove that an organ is useless, for there is always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with many previously alleged vestigial organs that are now known to be useful.
- Even if an alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove ‘devolution’ not evolution. From the Bible we would expect to see deterioration of the originally perfect creation because of the corruption of the whole creation caused by the people God created rejecting their Creator i.e. they sinned (Genesis 3; Romans 8v20-22). An originally created function may have been lost as a result of this Curse placed upon all creation. Genesis 3v14 suggests that snakes may once have had legs! However, particles-to-people evolution needs to find examples of organs that are increasing in complexity.
- The wings of flightless birds, such as the ostriches and the emus, have a function. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional, allowing these birds to move their wings? Possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, include: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, sheltering of chicks, etc.
Mutations prove Evolution
Mutations – random changes in the genetic information – are supposed to generate new information so that new features such as legs, feathers, brains, eyes, and so on could evolve. However:
- Mutations are usually harmful. Some result in death. Not surprisingly, several thousand human diseases are now linked to mutations e.g. sickle-cell anaemia, cystic fibrosis.
- Mutations are going the wrong way for evolution. Evolution from protozoa-to-man requires a gain in information for new structures and new functions. Mutations are copying mistakes which lose/corrupt information. Mutations will never produce the new complex information needed for evolution to proceed, so that one kind can develop into another kind.
- Mutations are better interpreted within a Biblical framework. When God created Adam and Eve they were perfect – no mistakes (“very good” Genesis 1v31). But when sin entered the world, the perfect creation began to degenerate, suffering the Curse of death and decay (Romans 8v22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has resulted in all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things.
- These small changes are erroneously used as ‘proofs of evolution’, yet they cannot explain amoeba-to-man evolution. This is like arguing that if an unprofitable business loses only a little money each year, given enough years it will make a profit.
For further information on creation/evolution issues visit: