Creation vs.Evolution

By Timothy Glover

The taxonomist’s job is to group organisms by their similarities and distinguish their differences. This is a major argument for evolution. If there is similarity, the organisms come from a common ancestor. All vertebrates have a common plan but differ according to natural selection. Since gaps exist in the fossil records and paleontologists have not traced a line of descent in the fossils from one organism to another, they must rely on similarities to construct relationships. The more similarities, the greater the relationship.

Deciding which are to be classed together is difficult. For example, mammals who nurture their babies in a pouch (marsupials) and placental mammals are very similar. Taxonomists class the Tasmanian wolf with the kangaroo because of the similar reproduction. Yet, their structure, behavior, lifestyle and appearance are very similar to the North American wolf. If they were found as fossils, they would surely class them with the wolf rather than the kangaroo. There are also marsupial look-a-likes to cats, squirrels, anteaters, moles, and mice. Upon which similarity should we develop our classification scheme? Taxonomists chose to classify the marsupial wolf with the kangaroo because of one significant feature while there are more similarities with a wolf. Repeatedly, taxonomists are puzzled and more often disagree whether a structure is homologous (similarity in structure) or analogous (similarity in function). Could they not be mixed, having similarity in function and structure?

The giant panda and the red panda illustrate the problem with classification. Scientists have disagreed over whether they were members of the bear or raccoon family. In 1964, it was decided that the giant panda was a bear and the red panda was a raccoon. Until 1964, they agreed that the two are close relatives and should be classed in the same family. Their structure, organs, behavior, and chromosome count set them off from other animals. There are many classification schemes as a result of the difficulty in interpretation.

Rather than assuming that all things evolved from a common ancestor, a common design in a maker’s mind may explain the similarities. What makes all screwdrivers look similar? They all are the products of design. When people design things, they begin with a basic idea and adapt it to different ends. As much as possible, designers still use existing patterns instead of starting from scratch. The similarities may be explained if the same designer made them. If there were a vocabulary of forms much like our vocabulary of words, the designer could arrange various combinations of forms conducive to the organism’s purpose.

So, the existence of similarities does not prove for or against either evolution or creation. Again, accepting the later seems more reasonable. It would relieve the strain of evolution to classify each into a family when the similarities are too diverse, complex and contradictory.