Home \ Online Books \ Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter

Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter

Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter

Chapter 10 - Evidence Adduced for Evolution: Can Creation Explain it?

1. Do the many similarities among different species prove the theory that they are descended from a common ancestor?

Answer: Such similarities do not prove, for example, that apes, monkeys and men are descended from a common ancestor. The similarities can also be understood in terms of creation by a common Designer who used a basic plan with modifications for particular applications.1

For example, the basic plan for vertebrates is the quadrupedal (four-footed) design, because it is a practical arrangement in most instances. Consider, as an illustration, why all automobiles with few exceptions have four wheels. The reason is not that they all came from the same production line, but that four wheels is a good basic design. It can be modified to serve in a sports car (special suspension), off-road vehicle (four-wheel drive), passenger sedan (softer suspension), heavy duty truck (dual wheels), etc. The designers used modifications suited to specific purposes.

The bones of the different vertebrate animals often correspond almost bone-for-bone, though they may have different functions in the different species. This fact is combined with the assumption of evolution from a common ancestor to form the concept of "homology." At the same time homology is taken as evidence for evolution, and close similarity is interpreted as proving close evolutionary relationship. But as we said above, the creation interpretation is equally logical. Thus the forearms of the vertebrates have many forms, including the legs of salamanders, lizards, horses, apes, and men, as well as the wings of birds and bats. Each type of appendage suits its purpose admirably, as would be expected of the work of an infinitely wise Creator. Furthermore, as was shown in Chapter 7, fossil candidates for intermediate forms are scarce, and intermediate forms are generally difficult to conceive. For example, could a half-shrew-half-bat exist?

There are serious difficulties with the theory of homology.2 It has been assumed that homologous structures are controlled by homologous genes. Thus, the genes for a leg are assumed gradually to have evolved into genes for a wing. Therefore, the leg evolved into a wing. There is much evidence, however, that homologous structures are not controlled by homologous genes.3 Thus it must be assumed that in the history of evolution, salamander leg genes passed their job on to other genes which became reptile leg genes, which then passed their job on to other genes which became bird wing genes. Combine this fantastic notion with the fact that it is simply not known where the genes for the design of either the leg or the wing reside in the chromosomes, and homology loses much of its force as an evidence for evolution. Yet homology has historically been a principal evidence for evolution.

In his 1971 monograph, Homology, An Unsolved Problem, the great British embryologist Sir Gavin de Beer, posed the question for evolutionary theory which is still unanswered:

...But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible(in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, 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 this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.4

2. Is evolution proved by the fact that plants and animals can be classified into groups, i.e., kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, and species?

Answer: Modern biologists commonly hold that the system of classification is the end result of a long history of evolutionary development. They generally reject the idea of fundamental "types" or "typology" in biology. The fact is, however, that living things can be classified into a system which very much appears to be based upon types which are separate from other types. Michael Denton, in his book published in 1986, Evolution A Theory in Crisis, explains this fact most persuasively.5

The modern system of biological classification was first proposed in 1758 by Carolus Linnaeus, who believed he was classifying the types conceived and created by the Creator. The evidence for typology in nature was so overwhelming that, prior to the conquest of their thinking by Darwin's theory, the great majority of leading biologists believed that the classification system represented archtypes or original types of organisms.

After Darwin typological thinking was suppressed, but in recent decades it has reappeared. The new cladistic method of classification rejects speculation about imagined common ancestors, emphasizing only common characters in existing species, either living or fossil. And, in fact, even during the century since Darwin, when most taxonomists were thinking in terms of evolutionary ancestors, the actual system of classification did not change in the least. It has always displayed groups of species separated by sharp divisions from other such groups. Species which could be classified as intermediate between such groups simply do not exist. The smaller groups of species are nested together within larger groups which are also separate from the other larger groups. For example, apes and kangaroos are classed together as mammals, whereas frogs and salamanders are classed together as amphibians. And the mammals and amphibians are classed together as terrestrial vertebrates which are separate from fish. This is called a "hierarchical" system.

A hierarchical system of classification can be portrayed in a tree-like diagram. Such tree diagrams are commonly thought to correspond to a historical process of descent by evolution from common ancestors. However, in an evolution tree all of the existing species end up as leaves at the ends of the outer twigs of the tree. No species, either living or extinct, are intermediate so that they fit down on the branches, at the connecting nodes, or in the trunk of the tree. Nothing is necessarily ancestral to anything else. Therefore, contrary to the claim of some vocal apologists for evolution, this nested box or hierarchical system of classification really offers no proof for a succession of evolved species. It can properly be viewed as circumstantial evidence for either common ancestry or special creation.

Extinction poses another serious problem for the evolutionary interpretation of the system of classification. In order for the species living today all to fit so neatly as they do into an orderly hierarchical system of classification, it is necessary for all of the ancient evolutionary intermediate types to have died out completely. For if any of them still existed, no such orderly system of classification of separate types would be possible today. There would just be too many oddball mixed up intermediate types running around that would mess up the orderly system observed today. But why should the intermediates all have become extinct, for there must have been millions of them * if evolution really occurred? The fact is that they are found neither in the fossil record nor among the living species, just as if they never existed. The facts fit a created, not an evolved world.

Prof. Keith Thompson of Yale University wrote in 1981 concerning the impact of cladism on evolutionary thought,

...to the thesis of Darwinian evolution...has been added a new cladistic antithesis which says that the search for ancestors is a fool's errand...It is a change in approach that is not easy to accept for, in a sense, it runs counter to what we have all been taught.6

3. Are there vestigial organs in some creatures which suggest that an evolutionary change from use to disuse has occurred?

Answer: Advancing knowledge of physiology has shown that most of the supposed vestigial organs are useful and even essential. If there are any true vestigial organs, they show the loss of structure and design, not the production of something new. For the support of the theory of evolution, evidence for the production of new organs is required.

At one time one hundred and eighty vestigial organs or structures were listed for the human body. As the knowledge of physiology increased the list dwindled, uses being discovered for them, until now only a very few are offered as evidence for evolution.7 One still suggested in some biology books is the human appendix. However, it is now thought that this organ, containing much lymphoid tissue, provides protection against infection, especially in infants.

Under certain conditions loss of organs or their function may possibly occur. Examples are insects, amphibians, or fish isolated in dark caves, which have lost the power of sight, and certain insects on windy islands which have lost their wings because insects with large wings are easily blown off the islands. However, loss of a function or structure means the loss of genetic information from the gene pool. Just the reverse is required for evolution to occur.

4. Does the sequence of stages or forms of the human embryo display a history of evolution from a single cell to a worm-like creature to vertebrate fish to man?

Answer: This theory, called "embryonic recapitulation" (embryo retelling a story), is now almost entirely discarded by scientists because there are simply too many exceptions.8

Examples of exceptions include the following: in man the tongue develops before the teeth, vertebrate embryos form the heart before the rest of the circulatory system, some creatures are very similar in the adult stage but quite different in the egg or larval stages, there could be no ancestor corresponding to the formless jelly stage in the pupae of moths and butterflies, and the respiratory surface of the lung is the last to appear in the embryo, whereas it must have been present throughout the alleged history of evolution since the appearance of the land animals.

The so-called "gill slits" (actually pouches) and gill arches in the human embryo never have anything to do with respiration of the embryo, as they should if the recapitulation theory were valid. In the course of embryonic development they are incorporated into such organs as the Eustachian tube, the tympanic cavity of the middle ear, the palatine tonsils, the thymus, parathyroids, the carotid arteries, the subclavian artery, the aortic arch, and the ductus arteriosus. The theory that the gill pouches and gill arches are related to the gills of a fish ancestor is now discredited. It was based upon inaccurate and incomplete knowledge of the facts and upon inadequate understanding of the process by which the embryo develops.9

The logical understanding of the course of embryonic development is that a rational building plan is followed. The most complex structures generally start to appear first because they require more time for completion, and they must also be integrated with the other structures which develop later. Thus the facts agree quite logically with the creation viewpoint.

5. Wasn't biblical creation defeated by evolutionary science in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee?

Answer: This infamous trial has been grossly misrepresented in the mass media for a half century, with the result that very few people know the truth. For example, are you aware of the following facts?10

a. The idea of such a trial was originated in New York City by officers of the American Civil Liberties Union. The legal defense was arranged and paid for by the ACLU and by members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

b. The ACLU released to the Tennessee newspapers a call for a teacher who would break the state law against teaching evolution.

c. The basic plans for John Scopes, a football coach and a substitute science teacher, to be the defendant and for instigating the charges against him were made in an informal meeting in a Dayton ice cream parlor, without his knowledge and before he was contacted.

d. John Scopes never testified in court to having violated the anti-evolution law by actually teaching evolution. He has since on at least four occasions apparently admitted that to the best of his knowledge he never did so. In other words, the ACLU, long noted for its defense of left-wing causes, perpetrated a fraud on the court and on the public.

e. Clarence Darrow, agnostic lawyer for the defense, not only displayed ignorance concerning both the theory of evolution and the teaching of the Bible, but also knowingly offered in evidence to the court bald-faced lies about the Bible. Moreover, through the trial he leveled a merciless barrage of insult and vilification against defense counsel William Jennings Bryan, who never responded in kind. How can it be that the mass media have glorified and praised Darrow and ridiculed Bryan ever since?

f. William Jennings Bryan was actually the hero of the trial, evidencing good understanding of the theory of evolution and its implications, of the teachings of the Bible, and of the relationship of the two. Yet for fifty years the mass media have portrayed him as a bigoted ignoramus.

g. The notorious Hollywood film, "Inherit the Wind," portrayed Mr. Bryan at the end of the trial as loosing his mind, falling to the floor frothing at the mouth, and carried out on a stretcher. In actual fact, at the urgent request of news reporters, he went from Dayton to his publisher in Chattanooga where he edited the manuscript of his lengthy closing address that time did not allow him to deliver to the court. Then he spoke that weekend at two churches in the morning and evening services. That night he died peacefully in his sleep in his hotel room. He was a great Christian gentleman and statesman and an American patriot. The misrepresentation and smearing of William Jennings Bryan ever since by the press and media is an indictment of their own degenerate character.

h. There is evidence to support the contention that the ACLU leaders, in consort with assorted detractors of the biblical Christian faith, arranged the Scopes Trial with the chief objective, as reported by one historian of the event, "to educate the public on evolution," and we might add, against Christianity.

Table of Contents / Previous Page / Next Page

Sir Gavin de Beer, Embryos and Ancestors, revised (Oxford Univ. Press, 1940, 1954), pp. 6, 10.

...Until recently the theory of recapitulation still had its ardent supporters...It is characteristic of a slogan [Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny] that it tends to be accepted uncritically and to die hard. ...the prestige so long enjoyed by the theory of recapitulation had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology.

Paul Weatherwax, Plant Biology (W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1942), p. 240.

...Botanists still disagree widely on the proper grouping of many plants, but this is because they do not agree in their theories as to the origin of the differences which separate the groups.

Alfred Romer, The Vertebrate Body (W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1962), p. 358.

...This [the appendix] is frequently cited as a vestigial organ supposedly proving something or other about evolution. This is not the case; a terminal appendix is a fairly common feature in the cecum of mammals, and is present in a host of primates and a number of rodents. Its major importance would appear to be in the financial support of the surgical profession.

Sir Gavin de Beer, Homology, An Unsolved Problem, Oxford Biology Readers, J.J. Head and O.E. Lowenstein, editors (Oxford Univ. Press, 1971), p. 15.

...characters controlled by identical genes are not necessarily homologous. ...The converse is no less instructive...homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes.


1 Klotz, John W., Genes, Genesis, and Evolution (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, MO, 1970), pp. 128-131.

2 Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, Bethesda, MD, 1986), pp. 142-156.

3 de Beer, Sir Gavin, Homology, An Unsolved Problem, Oxford Biology Readers, J.J. Head and O.E. Lowenstein, editors (Oxford Univ. Press, 1971), pp. 15-16; Hardy, Sir Alister, The Living Stream (Harper & Row, Pub., New York, 1965), pp. 209-219.

4 de Beer, Sir Gavin, ibid., p. 16.

5 Denton, Michael, ref. 2, pp. 93-141; see also, Klotz, John W., ref. 1, pp. 120-128.

6 Thompson, Keith, Paleobiology, 7, 1981, p. 153.

7 Klotz, John W., ref. 1, pp. 131-136.

8 de Beer, Sir Gavin, Embryos and Ancestors, Revised Edition (Oxford Univ. Press, 1954), pp. 6, 10; Leach, James W., Functional Anatomy -- Mammalian and Comparative (McGraw-Hill Pub. Co., New York, 1961); Davidheiser, Bolton, Evolution and Christian Faith (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Nutley, N.J., 1969), pp. 240-254; Anon., Evolution -- Science Falsely So-Called, 19th Edition (International Christian Crusade, Toronto, 1974), pp. 20-25.

9 Klotz, John W., ref. 1, pp. 145-154; Ehrlich, P.R. and R.W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (McGraw-Hill Pub. Co., New York, 1963), p.66.

10 Davidheiser, Bolton, ref. 8, pp. 88-105.

Previous PageTable of ContentsNext Page