They are remarkable similarities in the features of many different types of creatures. The eye is one example of a feature which is very similar and several types of creatures such as mammals, birds, and fish. Such close similarity in wildly different creatures can be called extreme similarity.
Evolutionists believe that all creatures including human beings can be plotted on a single evolutionary tree (Darwin’s iconic imaginary tree of life) and that the tree shows a progression from lower to higher life forms.
Virtually all biology books now teach that the similarities that exist in the features of different organisms provide evidence for this supposed evolutionary tree. Charles Darwin said that he considered similarity to be so important that he would believe in evolution even if there was no other evidence (no biased, blind faith in Darwin). The fact that organisms can be classified into groups, like mammals and amphibians, which have similar features, is also used as evidence for an evolutionary tree.
Despite the claims made in biology books, similarity by itself does not provide automatic evidence for evolution. The reason for this is that similarity of features is exactly what would be expected from a Designer. The fact that similarity is a natural byproduct of intelligent design is demonstrated in the design of man-made devices like land vehicles. Vehicles such as trains, cars, motorcycles and bicycles have many similarities such as wheels, lights and windows.
However, the fact that land vehicles have similar features does not mean they have evolved from each other. The similarities between land vehicles are due only to the fact that an intelligent designer deliberately uses similar solutions in different contexts.
If creatures had evolved, there should be close similarity of features only in creatures that are of a similar type. For example, there is such a large distance between the branches of a human, a frog and an insect on the proposed evolutionary tree that one would not expect to find extreme similarities and features between them if they had evolved. Therefore, evolution is limited in the extent to which it could produce similarity of features.
In contrast to the process of evolution, there is no limit to the extent to which an intelligent designer can create similarity. Indeed, there are important reasons why human designers deliberately produce extreme similarity in products. For example, products are easier to understand and look after by users when there are standard features in them. Similarity between different products is so common in engineering design that there is a whole subject area on this called standardization and modularization.
An example of extreme similarity in engineering is found in car wheels. Car manufactures deliberately designed a very similar method of wheel attachment to the car so that users can be confident about changing a wheel if the car gets a flat tire. Most car wheels have a design of attachment which involves threaded studs with nuts. The standard feature means that car users know exactly what to do if they need to change a wheel.
It would be quite wrong to conclude that the similarity in the design of the wheel attachment gave evidence that cars had evolved when the similarity is actually due to intelligent planning. In fact, the similarities and wheel attachments are so close this gives evidence of intelligent design. Extreme similarity and different contexts provide evidence of intelligent design in both man-made devices in nature.1
“It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.”Jeremiah 10:12
References and Notes
- Burgess, Stuart. Hallmarks of Design: Evidence of Purposeful Design and Beauty in Nature. Day One, 2008.