Comparative Anatomy
Similarities in anatomical structures across species do not point to common ancestry but rather to a common design strategy. Just as an engineer will use effective design principles across different machines to achieve optimal functionality, God employed similar structures in various species to accomplish specific biological functions. The existence of homologous structures across diverse species indicates that similar biological challenges or environmental pressures are solved with similar design solutions, just as different vehicles might use similar components like wheels despite being built for different purposes.
Dr. Michael Denton in his book, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," writes,"The idea of homology as a result of common descent is far from proven. There are many examples where similar structures are found in species that are not closely related in evolutionary terms. The evidence is more consistent with the idea of a common design than with a common ancestry."
Shared features across species point to efficient, purposeful designs tailored to their needs, rather than to a process driven purely by unguided, random changes over time. The recurring patterns observed in comparative anatomy are better explained as evidence of a common Designer than of common descent. Dr. Paul Nelson notes,"The fact that we find similar anatomical structures in widely different organisms can be attributed to an intelligent designer using optimal design principles, rather than these similarities being the result of random mutations passed down through common descent."
Embryology
As with anatomical similarities, resemblance in embryological development across different species should be understood not as evidence of a common evolutionary ancestry but rather as evidence of a common design blueprint. Similarities in early embryonic stages, referred to as "embryonic recapitulation" by evolutionists, have historically been overstated in support of evolutionary theory and has now been widely discredited. While different species may share certain embryonic stages, these features can also be interpreted as efficient and functional design elements necessary for successful development.
Stephen Jay Gould, a proponent of evolution, acknowledges in his bookOntogeny and Phylogeny;"The theory of recapitulation, which claims that ontogeny (the development of an organism) recapitulates phylogeny (the evolutionary history of the species), has been largely discredited as a literal explanation of embryonic development. While there are echoes of evolutionary history in the developmental stages of embryos, the strict recapitulation hypothesis is overly simplistic and has been abandoned by most biologists."
The presence of similar embryological features can show that these developmental processes are effective mechanisms for constructing complex organisms, regardless of their final forms.
Regarding so-called "vestigial structures" (such as the appendix in humans, which is often claimed to have lost its original function), the assumption that a structure is a remnant of evolutionary history simply because it serves a different or unclear purpose in one species compared to another is flawed thinking. The absence of current understanding does not imply a lack of function. In fact, recent scientific discoveries have overturned the long-standing belief that the appendix is useless, revealing that it plays a significant role in the immune system and contributes to maintaining gut health. So these structures still serve subtle, less obvious purposes or simply reflect a design choice that allows for greater flexibility or adaptability within various organisms. What appears vestigial in one context may serve a different, still undiscovered, function in another. Likewise, the similar stages observed in embryology point to a purposeful design plan, rather than to shared evolutionary ancestry.
Biogeography
Evolutionists often point to Darwin's finches, a group of bird species found on the Galapagos Islands, as a "classic example of adaptive radiation and natural selection in action." Charles Darwin observed that the finches had developed different beak shapes and sizes, depending on their particular feeding habits. He saw these variations in beak morphology as arising from small, gradual changes over time, allowing the finches to adapt to different ecological scenarios.
Evolutionists argue that this diversification from a common ancestor illustrates how species can evolve in response to environmental pressures, with natural selection favouring traits that enhance survival and reproduction. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as "micro-evolution." It is important to note that micro-evolution does not demonstrate one species evolving into a completely different species. The variations in traits such as size, colour, or shape still occur within the boundaries of the same species.
As Muslims, we believe that any changes that occur to any species is part of the original design by God. In addition, it is important to remember the critical point that God remains actively involved in the maintenance of creation. We do not believe God is the "Unmoved Mover," as Aristotle believed, a prime cause that initiated the universe but is not involved in its day-to-day operations or directly concerned with human affairs. Rather, God created each species and remains intimately involved in sustaining all their needs. If He wills, He can bring about subtle adaptations to enable species to meet the demands of environmental changes, always maintaining His active role in guiding and nurturing His creation.
Genetic evidence
This argument often points to "striking genetic similarities" across the animal kingdom, particularly the claim that the human and chimpanzee genomes are "99% identical." Prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins frequently cite this high degree of genetic similarity to support arguments for common descent. Yet what is often missing from mainstream discourse is a more nuanced understanding of what this "striking genetic similarity" actually signifies.
When we first encounter arguments about genetic similarity, it's easy to be persuaded by the simplicity of a figure like "99% similarity." However, a closer examination of the scientific literature, quickly reveals that this claim is not supported by the actual evidence. Chris Moran, professor of animal genetics at the University of Sydney, explains:
"Depending upon what it is that you are comparing, you can say, 'Yes, there's a very high degree of similarity, for example, between a human and a pig protein-coding sequence.' But if you compare rapidly evolving non-coding sequences from a similar location in the genome, you may not recognise any similarity at all. This means that blanket comparisons of all DNA sequences between species are not very meaningful."
The gap between what is presented in scientific literature and what is reported to the public can be vast. Scientific findings are often reduced to simplistic soundbites for public consumption shaped by their atheistic worldview. In such cases, these oversimplifications warrant critical scrutiny, for comparing two genomes is anything but straightforward.
For instance, no study has ever compared 100% of the human and chimp genomes. Instead, researchers had focused on subsections of the genome. In some cases, including the landmark 1975 study by King and Wilson that first reported 99% similarity, the compared regions account forless than 2% of the total genome.Crucially, studies only examine proteins, which reflect the "coding portion" of the genome, while entirely missing non-coding regions, which amount to 98% of the human genome.
The "coding portion" of DNA encodes proteins, the fundamental building blocks of bodily function and less than 2% of DNA is involved in this coding process. Evolutionists claim that these non-coding regions of the genome (98% of our DNA) are simply "junk." They argue that since non-coding regions did not directly contribute to protein formation, these segments of DNA are assumed to have no biological function.
This is an acute example of intellectual arrogance - rejecting what they do not understand. Even if one were to concede that non-coding regions of the genome serve no biological function, it is still misleading to claim that human and chimp DNA are 99% identical. A more accurate rendering of their findings would be:"Human and chimp DNA is 99% similar within the 2% of the genome that was actually compared."Framed in this way, the headline loses much of its dramatic appeal and is hardly the earth-shattering revelation it is made out to be.
In fact, many of the key assumptions the major chimp-human genome research papers made in determining 99% similarity have since proved to be erroneous or misleading. The underlying logic is that we should expect a high amount of genetic overlap among organisms that have evolved from each other. However, you will be surprised to learn that there is 60% overlap of human genes with those of fruit flies, 31% is shared with yeast - can we use this as evidence of common descent?
Furthermore, when examining mice, we find that approximately 99% of their genes have human counterparts, with 80% of human genes overlapping. Cats exhibit about 90% genetic similarity to humans, while dogs share around 85%. To emphasize this point even further, humans also share roughly 60% of their genes with bananas. How should we interpret these percentages? Would any rational person assert that the 60% genetic similarity we share with bananas suggests that humans, at some point in their evolutionary history, were bananas or that different species originated from bananas? Surely, no one would make such a claim.
The reality is that the shared DNA code across species points to a common Designer. Just as different computer programs written in the same language reflect a singular source, the similarities in anatomy, behaviour, and genetic code among living beings testify to the same Designer.
Finally, a note on genetic mutations. These are random errors in an organism's DNA, the result of copying mistakes, radiation, or chemical damage. Evolutionists claim that, over time, natural selection sifts through these mistakes, keeping the rare beneficial ones and discarding the harmful, to gradually build new traits and even entire species. Yet the reality is stark: the vast majority of mutations are either useless or destructive, breaking systems rather than creating them. To insist that the slow accumulation of such random errors could assemble the astonishingly precise and interdependent systems of life, like the human eye or the immune system, is not science but wishful thinking. Far from being a creative force, mutations overwhelmingly point to decay, disorder, and death.
Taken from the book:God: There is No Doubt!
Leave a Review