Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Absolute truth

Similarities (Homology) Evidence For Evolution ?

Recommended Posts

One great evidence for evolution touted by its followers, is the similar structures found in many diverse and closely related organisms. If evolution were true, and all life has evolved from a single common ancestor, we should expect to see similarities present in organisms. However, using these similarities as evidence for evolution makes the argument fallacious on two counts.
The Fallacious Argument

  • Evolutionists base the evolutionary tree of life (or, ‘phylogenies’) on the similarities found in animals. In other words, if two animals are similar, it is assumed they are closely related in the evolutionary scale. But for evolutionists to turn around and claim these same similarities ‘prove’ evolution is fallacious.
  • This line of reasoning also commits the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Here’s why. Evolutionists claim: "If evolution is true, we would expect to see similarities in organisms. We do see similarities. Therefore, evolution is true."

This conclusion may not be true — there are other explanations for similarities in organisms, such as a common designer. To escape their argument being labelled as a fallacy, evolutionists might substitute the
conclusion "therefore, evolution is true" with "therefore, evolution is probably true". But this is also fallacious. We could say: "If the moon is made of Swiss cheese, it will have large depressions. The moon has large depressions. Therefore, the moon is probably made of Swiss cheese." Adding ‘probably’ to the conclusion does not change it from being fallacious as it still commits the fallacy of Hasty generalization.

Similarities Examined
Putting all this aside, is it really true that supposedly closely related organisms have similar structures? Yes, some vertebrates do have similar forelimbs — but this could also be the result of a common designer just as much as the result of common ancestry.

"Common design": The reason for similarities
It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms, and therefore their genetic make-ups, would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.
This "common material" is the result not of evolution but of "common design," that is, of their being created upon the same plan.
It is possible to explain this matter with an example: all construction in the world is done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same holds for living beings as well.
However, the complexity of the structure of living things cannot be compared to that of bridges, of course.
Life did not originate as the result of unconscious coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the possessor of infinite knowledge and wisdom.

This in itself overrules any claim that similarities are exclusive evidence for evolution. But the data isn’t as consistent as evolutionists would have you think.
Proponents of Darwin’s theory believe that the eye evolved around 30 different times in different animals because there is no sequence to explain this similarity from a common ancestor. Shouldn't we expect the eye to have evolved once (at most, twice or three times) in a single common ancestor? Evolutionists thought so too, but they cannot create any coherent theories to explain the origin of the eye in this way.
Scientists were convinced that the Red Panda was closely related to the Giant Panda (photo above) based on many similarities such as extra thumbs, V-shaped jaw, similar teeth, and similar skulls.
We now know from DNA studies that the Red Panda (photo above) is actually more related to raccoons and not Giant Pandas or bears.
Seals and sea lions look extremely similar;
but most evolutionists believe that seals (photo above) is more related to a skunk or otter, while sea lions (below) are more related to a dog or bear.
Even though they are very hard to tell apart, seals and sea lions are not related.
Many organisms which are commonly thought to be unrelated also have similarities. Fish have fins and swim in water. But so do reptiles (Ichthyosaur) and mammals (dolphins). So according to the line of reasoning followed by evolutionists, why aren’t these animals closely related?
Birds have wings. But so do mammals (bats) and reptiles (Pterosaurs). Yet they are not closely related and are thought- by evolutionists- to have evolved from an ancestor without wings.

Birds have duck-bills. But so do reptiles (hadrosaur) and mammals (platypus). Yet they are essentially unrelated and are thought to have evolved from an ancestor without a duck-bill.
Birds have bony eye rings. But so do reptiles (Ichthyosaur) and many fish. Yet they are essentially unrelated and are thought to have evolved from an ancestor without eye rings.

The placental mole and the pouched mole look extremely similar. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between them. Yet evolutionists think that the whale and the placental mole are more closely related than the placental mole and the pouched mole.

The placental mouse and the marsupial mouse are very similar. Yet, evolutionists believe that the placental mouse and the horse are more closely related than the placental mouse and the
marsupial mouse.
Observer Bias
All these examples show the sheer folly of the similarity argument as evidence for evolution. But there is more than that — similarities are strongly subject to observer bias.
For instance, the hyrax is classified the ancestor to elephants and sea cow based on teeth; while it is also classified the ancestor of horses and rhinoceros based on the ears. Dr. Daryl Domning said concerning this:

"Some scientists have challenged the hyrax, elephant, sea cow connection on the grounds of special anatomical features, like the shape of the teeth in hyraxes, which is much like that of elephants. A particular sac-like structure inside the neck related to the Eustachian tube, which resembles what you see in horses and tapirs, is not found in sea cows or elephants or other mammals. ... In one commonly used approach, it boils down to a matter of counting characters on both sides and using what we call parsimony, the simplest explanation being that the relationship is wherever there is a greater number of characters in common."

It all boils down to what a certain scientist sees as similar. There are many instances where scientists differ on what a particular organism’s ancestors were — and these differences in opinion are almost always based on similarities.
Convergent Evolution?
It is very common for an evolutionist to answer the previously-mentioned anomalies by pointing out that similar organisms could have evolved by means of convergent evolution.
Convergent evolution basically says that two or more unrelated organisms evolved to have very similar characteristics independently. Not only does is this 'explanation' a cop-out, but it also undermines the whole principle of the similarity argument:

Firstly, it is irrational to claim that convergent evolution sufficiently explains all similarities in unrelated organisms (take the eye for instance which supposedly arose 30 different times!).

Secondly, it invalidates the similarity argument: if some similarities in unrelated organisms arose by  convergent evolution, how do we know that other similarities in related organisms didn’t arise by convergent evolution?


The dilemma is such that evolutionists should drop the similarity argument. It is based on fallacious arguments, pseudo-science, and finally, the very process used to explain unrelated similarities (convergent evolution) invalidates the whole argument! This is one ‘proof for evolution’ that should never be used.

*: Interview with Dr. Daryl Domning, Paleontologist and Professor of Anatomy, Howard University, for video series, Evolution: The Grand Experiment conducted October 8, 1998, by Carl Werner.


Edited by Absolute truth
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tetrapod Limbs
We have already examined the invalidity of the evolutionist claim of common ancestor based on similarities of form in living things-but it will be useful to examine one well-known example of this subject:
Quadrupeds, i.e., land-living vertebrates, have five digits on their fore- and hindlimbs. Although these may not always look like fingers or toes, they are all counted as "pentadactyl" (five-digit) due to their bone structure.
"Penta-" means "five," "dactyl" means "digits, toes or fingers," "tetra-" means "four," and "pods" means "feet."
The hands and feet of a frog, a lizard, a squirrel, or a monkey all have this same structure. Even the bone structures of birds and bats conform to this basic design.
Evolutionist Michael Denton has this to say on the subject:

'Another class of organs considered strictly homologous are the vertebrate forelimbs yet they generally develop from different body segments in different vertebrate species. The forelimbs develop from the trunk segments 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the newt, segments 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the lizard and from segments 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 in man. '(Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, 1985, p 146, citing: Homology: An Unsolved Problem, G. De Beer, 1971, p 8)

'But the hindlimbs of all vertebrates also conform to the pentadactyl pattern and are strikingly similar to the forelimbs in bone structure and in their detailed embryological development. Yet no evolutionist claims that the hindlimb evolved from the forelimb, or that hindlimbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source… Invariably, as biological knowledge has grown, common genealogy as an explanation for similarity has tended to grow ever more tenuousLike so much of the other circumstantial "evidence" for evolution, that drawn from homology is not convincing because it entails too many anomalies, too many counter-instances, far too many phenomena which simply do not fit easily into the orthodox picture'

Evolutionary biologist William Fix describes the collapse of the evolutionist thesis regarding pentadactylism in this way:

Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, 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.


We expect the supposed ancestors of a pentadactyl tetrapod to be pentadactyl themselves. This is not what we find in the fossil record. The earliest tetrapods were not pentadactyl but rather were "polydactylous," that is, of multi-digit structure. They had six, seven, or eight digits.

"NEW specimens of the earliest known tetrapod limbs shows them to be polydactylous. The forelimb of Acanthostega has eight digits and the hindlimb of Ichthyostega has seven. Both of these come from the Upper Devonian of East Greenland, complementing the only other known Devonian tetrapod limb, that of Tulerpeton from Russia1, which has six digits. The morphology of the specimens suggests that limbs with digits may have been adaptations to an aquatic rather than a
terrestrial environment. The pattern of digits corresponds to a recently proposed model for limb development2 in which digit number is unspecified, rather than earlier models3–10 which are rejected because they postulate a fixed number of elements in the ancestral limb
(M.I. Coates and J.A. Clack in "Polydactyly in the Earliest Known Tetrapod Limbs," in Nature, 347 (1990)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Problem of Marsupials

Major Orders of Mammals:

  • Prototheria Order Monotremata ( one opening for excretion and reproduction) (2 families of mammals that lay eggs with leathery shells and feed their newborn with mammary gland secretions. They lack nipples, but the skin over their mammary glands exude milk.
  • Eutheria (Placental mammals): Most mammal species. Mothers carry their unborn children within the uterus where they are nourished and protected until an advanced stage is reached. This is made possible by the umbilical cord and placenta which connects the fetus to the uterus wall and enables nutrients and oxygen to get to the offspring as well as provides a means of eliminating its waste. At the same time, the placenta functions as a barrier to keep the blood cells and other components of the immune systems of the mother and her fetuses separate to prevent their destruction.
  • Metatheria (marsupials, about 270 species of mammals whose young are in an immature state, most females have pouches). found mostly in Australia. The only living marsupial in America is the opossum. The Red Kangaroo is the largest marsupial alive.the developing embryo is isolated from its mother's body by the amniotic membrane. Following fertilization the embryo becomes a new organism, and the mother's auto-immune system will attack it. The amniotic membrane isolates the embryo from all biological interaction with the parent, thus protecting it from attack. However, no nutrients cross the barrier either, and therefore its growth in the uterus is limited to the quantity of nutrients contained within the egg. The short gestation period in marsupials is due to this type of yolk-type reproduction.Marsupials are best-known for and made most distinguishable by their method of nursing. All female marsupials give "premature" birth, wherein the young will stay until maturing. The nursing occurs within the mother's pouch, a structure designed by God to aid in nursing the child, by protecting the infant marsupial until it has completed it's nursing. the male uses it for carrying food and other items.marsupials.jpg

Darwinian Placental/Marsupial split:

Darwinists say that the three major lineages of class Mammalia shared a common ancestor approximately 161 to 217 mya .

The egg laying monotremes represent the earliest offshoot of the mammalian lineage & marsupial-placental mammal evolutionary divergence occured about160 million years ago.
[M. J. Phillips, T. H. Bennett, and M. S. Y. Lee, “Molecules, morphology, and ecology indicate a recent, amphibious ancestry for echidnas,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 40, pp. 17089–17094, 2009 & Z. X. Luo, C. X. Yuan, Q. J. Meng, and Q. Ji, “A Jurassic eutherian mammal and divergence of marsupials and placentals,” Nature, vol. 476, no. 7361, pp. 442–445, 2011.]

Darwinists consider this distinction to have come about early, and that each group lived its own evolutionary history totally independent of the other.

The obstacle:

A most striking factor for consideration is the existence of numerous marsupial and placental mammals that are virtually identical to one another with the exception of the distinctions in their reproductive systems.
One of the most concrete examples of such an obstacle in the path of Neo-darwinian theory is that there are "pairs" in placentals and marsupials which are nearly the same.

In other words, according to the theory of evolution, mutations completely independent of each other must have produced these creatures "by chance" twice! This reality is a question that will give Darwinists problems even worse than dizzy spells.

Extraordinary resemblances and similar organs like these, which evolutionary biologists cannot accept as examples of "homology," show that homology does not constitute any evidence for the thesis of evolution from a common ancestor.


1- Grey wolf & placental canids Vs Tasmanian wolf/thylacine:
Thylacinus cynocephalus, Greek for "dog-headed pouched one") was the largest known carnivorous marsupial of modern times. It is commonly known as the Tasmanian tiger (because of its striped back) or the Tasmanian wolf. Native to continental Australia, Tasmania and New Guinea, it is thought to have become extinct in the 20th century. It was the last extant member of its family, Thylacinidae; specimens of other members of the family have been found in the fossil record dating back to the early Miocene.


The gray wolf or grey wolf (Canis lupus) is a species of canid native to the wilderness and remote areas of North America, Eurasia, and North Africa.

Evolutionary biologists believe that these two different species have completely separate evolutionary histories. (Since the continent of Australia and the islands around it split off from Gondwanaland (the supercontinent that is supposed to be the originator of Africa, Antarctica, Australia, and South America) the link between placental and marsupial mammals is considered to have been broken, and at that time there were no wolves).

But the interesting thing is that the skeletal structure of the Tasmanian wolf is nearly identical to that of the North American wolf. Their skulls bear an extraordinary degree of resemblance to each other.

The skulls of the Thylacine (left) and the Grey Wolf, Canis lupus, are similar, although the species are only very distantly related according to neo-darwinism. Caninae that led to present-day canids (wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals, and domestic dogs)appeared only (about 10-0 Mya) while the last imaginary common ancestor was about 160 Mya !!!

2- flying squirrels & Sugar gliders

3- Placental mole & marsupial mole

4- lemur & spotted cuscus

Common spotted cuscus -a marsupial


5- bobcat & tiger cat

Tiger cat -Marsupial:

6- wombat & woodchuck



7- wolverine & Tasmanian Devil



8- thylacosmilus & smilodon


Both are extinct.
The darwinian scenario:


All this animals have an imaginary independent evolutionary history.

Ad hoc:

An ad hoc explanation is an unfalsifiable explanation provided in an effort to account for an inconsistency in a theory.

For example:
A child says that he turned his homework in to the teacher. The teacher then confronts him with the fact that the homework is not in the box. The child responds, "Somebody must have stolen it!" The child has no evidence to support the allegation that someone stole the homework -- he has simply manufactured an unfalsifiable explanation to deal with a difficulty in his story.
Ad hock

In response, evolutionists say that these organs are not "homologous" (in other words, from a common ancestor), but that they are "analogous" (very similar to each other, although there is no evolutionary connection between them). However, the question of which category they will put an organ into, homologous or analogous, is answered totally in line with the theory of evolution's preconceptions.

The explanation is ad hoc in the sense that it was invented in order to explain away a difficulty in a theory, and is not itself supported by experimental evidence.

And this shows that the Darwinist claim based on resemblances is completely unscientific. The only thing Darwinists do is to try to interpret new discoveries in accordance with a dogmatic evolutionary preconception.

Analogous structures multiply the difficulties in the common descent model. The extraordinary series of random mutations and survival pressures had to occur not only once -- but independently, in a very similar way, three separate times in the case of wings, and a dozen times in the case of marsupials. In other words, if the development of wings required 100 fortuitous events at a probably of 1/1M each, the development of convergent requires that same highly improbable series of events to reoccur independently and repeatedly.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By zainab[at]QE
      People across the globe believe that shia and sunni are the two different sects. Both of the sects have different religious beliefs, therefore it has been understood by people that they cannot come under the same umbrella ‘Islam’. Many people have this faith that due to the entirely different conduct of life, shia and sunni cannot marry with each other. However, before making such bold claims, complete research is very important to know the reality. So, before marrying with a shia man or woman, one must know that there are two types of shias:
      One of the types of shia holds disbeliefs (kufr), that the Quran has been altered, Hazrat Ali (R.A) is worthy to worship and here Shirk (to worship someone other than Allah) occurs, the angel Jibril made an error in descending the revelation on the Messenger of Allah (P.B.U.H) in place of Hazrat Ali (R.A), accusations on Hazrat Aisha (R.A) of committing adultery or denying the Companionship Hazrat Abu Bakr (R.A).
      However, the another type of shias are those who do not hold beliefs that constitute Kufr, such as believing that Hazrat Ali (R.A) was the rightful first Caliph after the demise of the Prophet Mohammad (P.B.U.H), belief in the twelve Imams, and all those beliefs which the first type of shias put faith in. 
      A true Muslim has asked by Prophet Mohammad (P.B.U.H) that before marrying, Muslim must need to check the religious beliefs, and religious practices in his/her partner. There is a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari that Messenger of Allah has said:
      "A woman is married for four reasons, her wealth, lineage, status and Deen. Choose the one who is religious." (Sahih Bukhari)
      Even then we being humans do not know that what faiths are hidden in the chest of people and what they are pretending, indeed! Allah knows the truth only. And so, we should avoid those things where we find doubts or dissatisfaction. If we go for things which are doubtful then we are tangling ourselves deliberately in the chaos.
    • By russell
      Hi All
      One thing I’ve come across on this forum a number of times is the idea that I can’t question certain ideas, that you will be offended if I do so, and we should just steer away from those topics.  Is that really how you believe rational dialog should be conducted?
      I hold none of my ideas to that standard.  If you want to run down or rationally complain about anything I say please go ahead.  Question anything I say, question my lifestyle choices, my family values and my ideas on evidence, none of it is off limits and nothing you ask will offend me.  Not so it seems with Muslims.
      I’ve suggested a couple of times here that Muhammad was, at most, just a man and people took great offence that I could even think that.  “I love him so you shouldn’t suggest such a thing” was basically one answer to me on that comment.  Another argument was that you would not even discuss anything with me if I didn’t accept up front that Muhammad was more than a man.  The idea that he was more than just a man is incompatible with atheism of course but that was ignored at the time.
      Another idea I’ve expressed here a number of times that seems to cause problems is the church of Mickey Mouse.  I use that one to try to explain what an atheist sees when they walk down the street and look at all these buildings with symbols on them, crosses, moons and stars etc.  But think about it, given my view on god (I’ve already said I’m an atheist so this is no secret) how else should I see such symbols and the people who revere and worship them if atheism is the truth?
      Now don’t get me wrong here, it’s the ideas I’m discussing, it’s the ideas I’m complaining about.  I understand that people come to these ideas for many reasons and that many of the people who hold them are intelligent rational people, that’s not at question here, but I do think we need to rationally consider the ideas themselves.  That Muhammad was just a man or that he may even be an invention are ideas which we should be able to discuss. Now this is the crucial point here if these ideas hold water you should be able to defend them and not have to pull the “you can’t question that idea” card.  Rationally that statement is an admission of the weakness of your position.  If you are incapable of defending a position maybe you should not hold it as true.
      So what do you think, should rational enquiry be open to discuss any idea or are you really unwilling to truly examine the belief system that you hold to and if so why?  Does insecurity pay a part in that reluctance?
    • By Aysha27
      Dear all,
      Hello and As-salamu-alaikum-wa-rahmatullah.

      I am afraid of an issue called “Atheism”. I think everybody is surrounded with a different religion. And every religion purifies human’s nature. Though human nature is really so mysterious! If so why some of the people say there is no god? It’s a matter of sorrow that many of them are famous to their work in the world! In my country (sorry to say it is Bangladesh) recently an American atheist blogger, named Avijit Roy who spoke out against religious extremism and intolerance has been hacked to death. So my question is- what about the punishment of an atheist and is it halal to hack him cruelly…? What is the declaration of Qur’an regarding the issue…? :cry:
    • Guest FireyWitness
      By Guest FireyWitness
      I am told by Muslims the Bible is corrupted book, I am asked "so how can you trust something in that book if you dont have reference, like we muslims have reference the Quran?"
      The Bible tells us why Jesus had to have been born of a virgin. The Quran doesn't tell why it just states He was born of a virgin. The only place and book in all history that information could be found before the Quran was written was in the NT Bible. The Bible has problems but no where near the amount Muslims think! The central message of the gospel is consistent and in tack fully.
      Now, I would have a problem with the Bible if there were a Christian version of Uthman (non prophet) who burned all our original manuscripts and recompiled them into a single book, but that never happened. So why shouldn't I continue trusting it?