Home / Science VS Evolution / PDF /Encyclopedia  /Pathlights Home / Bookstore




"All animals have legs, therefore all animals descended from a common ancestor."—That is the evolutionary theory of similarities. Yet, as we carefully examine the evidence, we find this idea is not scientifically sound. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.

CONTENTS: Similarities

Similar and Different Structures: Not only alike but different
Convergence: Similarities are supposed to prove evolution
Divergence: Differences are supposed to prove it also
Mimicry: Brainless creatures smart enough to change their physical structure
Pentadactyl Limb: The classic "five bone" proof
Gene Barrier: But do not forget the hereditary barrier

Related Articles

SCIENTISTS SPEAK about Similarities: Scientists explain that similarities in different animals do not imply common ancestry
CHROMOSOME Comparisons: Chromosomes and DNA ought to directly tell us which species are related to which

Page numbers without book references refer to the book, SIMILARITIES, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

Evolutionists carry on an ongoing desperate search for evidences supporting evolution. But their problem is that they really cannot find any! The theory of "similarities" is one of their attempts to find evidence where there is no evidence.

Similarities is one of three strange "evidences" of evolution: The other two are vestiges, and recapitulation. The first is empty, the second is ridiculous, and the third a hoax. Let us first turn our attention to similarities.


Similar structures. Evolutionists try to find likenesses between various types of creatures. Those similarities are then used as "evidence" that one creature evolved from another or that both evolved from a common ancestor.

For example, both you and the spider have legs, therefore either you descended from the spider or from some other creature which the spider also evolved from or there is the possibility the spider descended from you.

Yes, there are similarities. But, because of the DNA code, evolution cannot happen. That code is a barrier stopping one species from changing into another. So similarities can only point to the fact that each species was made by a single Master Designer who had immense intelligence, power, and ability.

Similarities also reveal that the Designer used the best method for making many different creatures. For example, regarding those legs: It works far better for living creatures on land to walk and run rather than to crawl or roll over and over. So most land creatures have legs of one type or another.

Yet the mechanics of making legs is quite complicated; no creature could make his own, but that is where the evolutionists say they originated.

It is simplistic to suggest that legs prove evolution, when we all know that the extremely complicated DNA coding for each true species is quite different. Evolution teaches the nonsensical idea that, because a creature needed legs, therefore it grew them! Yet such a concept violates a number of solid biological facts.—pp. 11, 13.

Different structures. Animals not only have similar structures, they have different ones also. Considering these differences, the idea of common ancestry fades out. Yes, a man, a bunny rabbit, and a spider have legs,—but the legs surely are different from one another! And everything else about them is different also.—p. 13.

Similar factors which could not be related. The octopus has an eye quite similar to man's. Yet we are not even slightly related!

The bubonic plague only attacks Norway rats and humans, but that does not mean we are descended from rats.

In proportion to the body, the weight of a dwarf monkey is greater than that of a human—but that does not mean the dwarf monkey is descended from us.

Studying Cytochrome C (an amino acid sequence), it was found that turtles are more like people than like rattlesnakes. Are we then closely related to turtles? Of course not. Similarities only reveal that we all have the same Originator.

Then there is convergence and divergence. Evolutionists claim that both prove evolution—yet they are the opposite of one another!—pp. 13-14.


"Convergence," as a supposed "evidence" of evolution, is said to occur when different creatures have similar organs. For example, the eye of the human and the eye of the octopus.

But convergence actually disproves evolutionary theory, for it reveals that a Master Planner made both us and the octopus. We both are very similar in one little respect (our complex eyes), but very different every other way.—p. 14.


Then there is "divergence." Divergence is said to occur when there are very different (diverse) features—in plants or animals which ought to be "closely related." Evolutionists call this "divergent evolution," yet it obviously disproves evolution!

There are creatures which look alike in many ways, yet have certain organs which are remarkably different. For example, consider the shrimps. Some have compound eyes which are structured totally different from one another! There is a shrimp with "lens cylinders"; each of the cylinders bends the light smoothly to focus on a single point. Another shrimp has a "mirror system" within its eyes!

How did the shrimp figure that out?—pp. 14-15.

It is an intriguing fact that evolutionists will attempt to use facts on all sides of an issue to prove their theory. Convergence and divergence is an example.


Mimicry is the name given to the theory that one almost-mindless creature had been carefully watching others for a time—and then decided to change its body to look like theirs! Of course, this is utterly ridiculous, yet you have heard and read it repeatedly in scientific literature.

For example, the Monarch butterfly tastes terrible because its body cells contain poisonous milkweed juice (absorbed while it ate those leaves as a caterpillar). So the evolutionists tell us that the Viceroy butterfly got to thinking one day: "If I change my colors to closely match those of the Monarch, enemies will leave me alone also." That sounds like a fairy tale; that IS a fairy tale! Yet it is the evolutionary concept of "mimicry."

There is no doubt that intelligent planning is responsible for these fantastic copycat arrangements. Someone thought it through, but it was not the butterfly!

For example, there are insects which look exactly like leaves and moths which have all the sprinkled markings of certain tree bark. Then there are the bottom-dwelling fish which change colors to exactly match the grain and color of the sand they are resting on!

Butterflies, insects, and fish did not devise such miracles. God did it.—p. 15.


This is the similarity most frequently pointed to by evolutionists as the outstanding example of similarities. They have given to it the awesome name, "pentadactyl limb." Surely, with a name like that, it must be scientific. ("Penta" means five, and "dactyl" means finger.)

This is said to be the "five-boned" arm and leg found on all land vertebrates. (They calculate it as one bone each; in the arm, wrist, and hand, and two in the lower arm.) In reality, there are many, many bones in the wrist and hand, but we are supposed to ignore that in making this comparison.

Why would all vertebrate arms and legs have those five principle divisions? The answer is obvious: It is a design factor, enabling arms and legs to have the widest possible useful movement.

What then does this prove? It proves that a single Master Designer, God, made arms and legs. It surely does not prove that the creatures made themselves, copied one another, or that, because mice have the "five bones" in their arms and hands, we descended from them.—pp. 17, 19.


In spite of efforts to use surface similarities in features to prove that one species came from another, the truth is that the DNA code in our genes forbids the possibility that any true species could come from any other one!

Many more examples could be cited to show that apparent similarities point, not to evolution, but to a single Master Draftsman / Mechanic who made us.—p. 21.


Forward to the next topic in this series: