Place email address below
for Dr. Wysong's free "Thinking Matters" newsletter/blog
EVOLUTION RESTS MOST OF ITS CASE on the argument that if things are similar they are related. Brothers and sisters, for example, have similarities because they come from the same family tree. Applying this logic to all creatures is the basis for the evolutionary family tree. However, before similarity can assume the status of a law proving relationship, it must always apply. That's what laws are and that's what science is. But the "law of similarity" is neither law nor science—if all the facts are let in.

Some people look very much alike and yet they are not related whatsoever. Some siblings can be so dissimilar that it is impossible to tell they are from the same parents. An insect can look like a leaf but insects and leaves are not related. The beak of the platypus would relate it to the goose, its hair is like a bear's, the tail is similar to a beaver's, it has webbed feet like an otter, claws like a reptile, spurs on its hind legs like a rooster, venom like a scorpion, and lays eggs like a snake. It detects prey like an eel, and produces milk without nipples. How on earth does one figure out the phylogenetic (evolutionary) history of a concoction like that using similarities? (Not to mention that all platypus fossils look identical to the present platypus.)

Such puzzles are explained with words that evolutionists invent. Convergence "explains" why unrelated creatures can have similar features. Divergence "explains" why related creatures can have dissimilar features. In other words, no matter how the evidence contradicts the argument from similarity, evolution comes out on top.

This is another case of the failure of a proposition to be falsifiable—which means the proposition is not really saying anything that has to do with truth.

Evolutionists also attempt to verify the link between similarity and relationship by examining the genome. In 2003, the entire molecular makeup of human DNA was mapped —3.1 billion molecular letters (base pairs). These letters are arranged into gene groupings (books) that dictate individual features such as eye color. I have seen estimates ranging from 20,000 to 150,000 human genes. Only about 1.5% code for proteins (the structural and enzymatic basis for life), and the rest are RNA genes, regulatory sequences, introns, and so-called junk DNA. (It is hubris to call something we know so little about, "junk.")

There is a vast genetic field yet to be explored. But with what we do know, has there been verification of the relationships argued for in the evolutionary tree?

To read more on this topic and on many more relevant topics, please click the link below

Solving The Big Questions As If Thinking Matters
736 Pages
60 Chapters
200 Graphics
Scientifically referenced