AFTER  ITS  KIND


from  the  book  by  the  same  name


Their Strong Reasons.


THE ground having been cleared somewhat by the foregoing remarks, the reader is invited to proceed to an examination of those "proofs" and "evidences" of evolution that are said to be overwhelming when once they are frankly considered. Each proof will be presented just as fairly as possible. Errors in statements of fact or interpretation will then be pointed out, and the reader left to judge for himself as to whether the proofs offered are as impressive as many have been led to believe.



THE  "PROOF"  FROM  CLASSIFICATIONS


This proof is taken first, because it is usually so considered in books that are written to advance the theory. The evolutionist looks about the world of living organisms and observes that organisms are very simple of structure and some are very complex. It occurs to him that it is possible to arrange or classify these organisms in a fairly graded system from the most simple to the most complex,,  or,  as  the  evolutionist  would  say,  from  the "lowest" to the "highest." He therefore proceeds to make an arrangement or classification of all these living things. He begins with the simplest form, some single-celled animal like the amoeba. Next to it, or "above" it that he places a "higher" invertebrate like the star-fish. Next to or above that he places the simplest form of vertebrate, a chordate like amphioxus. Next to that a fish. Above that an amphibian. Next to that a lower mammal.  Above that one of the lower apes.  Above that, one of the higher apes, and above that man. When he is done arranging these creatures, he has a graded system from the simplest living form to the most complex. Then he turns to the creationist and says. "Here is a proof of evolution."


The reader has no doubt already seen the ridiculous absurdity of this mode of reasoning. He has also seen the subtlety of it. Absurd as this proof is, because it assumes the thing to be proved, it nevertheless has deceived thousands. We know that old shoes have never evolved. Yet by the above mode of reasoning we could prove that old shoes have evolved, merely by collecting samples of every known kind, and, starting with the smallest and simplest dolls slippers, grade them up in a series through baby's shoes, little brother's shoes, big brother's shoes, mamma's shoes, grandma's shoes, daddy's low shoe's, daddy's high shoes, ending with daddy's high-boots. Taking every kind of shoes known—wooden shoes, sandals, rubber shoes, Chinese shoes, we could grade them all so as to fit them into a tree as the evolutionists do with creatures they wish to prove have evolved, showing how the wooden shoes branched off millions of years ago 1ow down in the stem, how the patent-leather oxfords branched off higher up on the other side, and thus we could prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that no shoe was ever made as it is, but—has come into its present state by evolution. We might prove the evolution of the White House by starting with the "lowest" form of house—the grass hut of the savage— placing next in succession all the "higher" houses known, and ending finally with the White House. 


The well known biologist and evolutionist, T. H. Morgan, in his book A Critique of the Theory of Evolution, admits hat the proof from classification sin fact no real proof at all. He says that when the fallacy of the argument is pointed out to pupils of his who believe in evolution they are resentful.


As far, therefore, as the evidence from classification is concerned evolution is not established. It merely begs the question. All creatures, whether simple or complex, may have come into existence at one time, or even the most complex first.


THE "PROOF" FROM COMPARATIVE ANATOMY


This second proof is based on the facts that come to light through a study and comparison of the physical structures of unrelated species. It will be presented and considered in three parts.  (1) The proof from comparative anatomy of adult organisms. The student of anatomy studies carefully the skeleton, the muscles, the nerves of one creature., for example, the cat. Then he goes to another species, the dog for instance, and studies the bones, muscles, nerves, of this species and compares them with the same structures in the cat. From the dog the student goes to the monkey and examines very carefully the structures he finds there and compares them with the same structures in the dog. From the monkey the student proceeds to man and observes carefully the structure of the human skeleton, muscles, nerves, and compares them with what he has already found, in the monkey, the dog, and the cat. As he does so it becomes apparent to him that there is a certain similarity of structure underlying them all. The skeletons have all a general similarity in plan. The nerves are alike in design. The muscles are alike.


The student goes to the head of the horse. He finds there certain muscles, some used for twitching the skin of the forehead, some used for moving the ears. He comes back to the head of man. He finds there muscles that correspond to those in a horse. The muscles by which the horse can move his ears well correspond to those by which the man can move his ears poorly. The muscles by which the horse can vigorously twitch the skin of his forehead correspond closely to those by which man slightly moves his scalp. The design or plan of structure of the head muscles of these two unrelated creatures, horse and man, are similar.


Thus the student of comparative anatomy goes the whole round of living things, from those that live, in the air to those that live in the sea, and finds the same general plan underlying the structures of vast numbers of them.


Seeing this similarity of pattern or design in so large a number of living things, the student, if he is an evolutionist, says to the creationist, "How can you account for this similarity in so many creatures except on the basis of evolution, except on the basis that one living organism grew out of another, or that all had a common ancestor?" If the creationist is not able to see how it could be otherwise, he becomes an evolutionist, or remains a bewildered creationist.  It is the fact of a general similarity in the structures of many animals, together with the suggestion that this similarity is to be accounted for only on the basis of a common evolutionary descent, that constitutes what is said to be one of the strongest arguments for evolution.


Perhaps the reader, if he has never been over this ground, is considerably worried by this "proof." It may seem as overwhelming to him as it has to thousands of misguided young Christians in the colleges and universities where the evolutionary theory is taught. As this sort of evidence is presented in great detail by those who have studied comparative anatomy, and numerous minute likenesses of plan or pattern between creatures pointed out, it often takes greater stubbornness of faith in the Bible, and greater analyzing powers than many young Christians possess, to discern the grave error this line of reasoning contains. The reader is therefore invited to proceed until the mask is pulled off this argument and the fallacy in it revealed.


The criticism of this "proof" does not consist in denying the similarity in plan or structure that comparative anatomy reveals. The likenesses can be admitted in as great detail as the evolutionists care to have them asserted. The criticism of the argument from comparative anatomy from the creation point of view consists in admitting the similarity of structure, but in denying the interpretation put upon it. and offering instead another interpretation equally as reasonable and perfectly in harmony with the doctrine of special creation.


Similarity of plan, pattern, or design may well be a proof of creation. To impress upon himself this fact the reader is asked to call up in his mind a large number of church buildings of various sizes and shapes, none of which are exactly alike, but in all of which there is a general similarity of design. (Fig. 4.) Each may have a tower or steeple. Each may have a large front door. Earn may have similar rows of windows. Inside is the same seating


Fig. 4. Above, from left to right, are corresponding parts of four widely different species: A. wing of bat, B. forefoot of turtle, C. forefoot of frog, D. arm of man, all built with modifications on the same general plan. This similarity in structure is supposed to prove the evolution of these species from a common ancestral form. Below are four churches built with modifications on the same general plan. Since these churches did not evolve, similarity of design can not of itself be said to prove evolution. Similarities in animal structures may be looked upon  as  evidence  of  a   common  plan  in  the  mind  of  the   Creator.


arrangement. Galleries, similar, yet not identical, are found in them all. Seeing this similarity of plan in all these various churches, would any man be so foolish as to contend because of it that the churches evolved from one another or from a common ancestor? Hardly. They were all made separately. They may well have been planner and constructed by one architect at one and the same time. Similarity in design in the case of churches, does not prove their evolution. Nor does similarity of design prove evolution in the case of living organisms. The two cases are identical as far as the reasoning in the case is concerned. Similarity in itself proves evolution no more than it proves creation. To the believer in the Bible the similarity of structure in living organisms merely establishes the fact that there was one Great Architect, or Creator, who, when He was about to build many of His species, had in mind one plan or pattern, and this He used for as many creatures as possible with such modifications of the general plan as were necessary for different conditions of existence. Granting there was a special Creator such as the Bible


Fig. 5. The "proof" from comparative anatomy in its most subtile and impressive form. The visual impression from such comparisons has a hypnotic influence which leads to a false conclusion that only clear, logical thinking can dispel. What actually is shown by the illustration is that the gibbon, orang, chimpanzee, gorilla and man have somewhat of a similarity in skeletal structure, a fact which there is no reason to deny, since it proves that God created all on a common plan as much as it proves common ancestry. To the illustration could be added in the same position the skeleton of a rabbit, squirrel, sheep, horse and even bird, and the same general similarity would be noted. Until the creationist learns instantly to  see  the logical  fallacy  of all  such  evolutionary  illustrations he  will  be  in  trouble.


portrays, that Creator might have made His creatures all on a different plan. He might readily have created the dog with four legs, the horse with five, the cow with six, the elephant with ten. He might have shown His ingenuity, by making man with three legs and nineteen arms. He might have so constructed sheep that the species might have its nostrils in its back and its ears on its legs. He might have put one kind of nerves or digestive system in man and a totally different system in all of the apes. Is there any reason why He would not do so? Yes. Since all creatures were to live on the same earth under similar conditions, breathing the same kind of air, drinking the same kind of water, eating the same kind of food—it seems reasonable that a Creator would have conceived of one good and excellent plan for all creatures to be constructed upon, the crown of His creation as well as the dumb brutes over which man was to rule, and then modified this plan when modification was wise or necessary. The common plan observable in all creatures may with as good grounds point to one great, economical, and wise Creator as to any evolutionary process.


(IF  MAN  WAS  ORIGINALLY  A  GATHER/HUNTER  AND  HAD  TO  CONTEND  WITH  WILD  ANIMALS  TRACKING  HIM  DOWN  TO  EAT,  WHY  DID  NOT  EVOLUTION  PUT  MAN'S  EYES  ON  THE  SIDE  OF  HIS  HEAD,  LIKE  THE  HORSE.  THE  HORSE  CAN  SEE  ABOUT  340  DEGREES  WHEN  ITS  HEAD  IS  FACING  STRAIGHT-AHEAD.  THE  HORSE  IS  KNOWN  AS  A  PREY  ANIMAL;  OTHER  ANIMALS  ATTACK  AND  EAT  HORSES.  HORSES  THEREFORE  WERE  GIVEN  EYES  ON  THE  SIDE  OF  THEIR  HEAD,  AS  LIKE  MANY  OTHER  WILD  ANIMALS  HAVE,  FOR  MANY  HUNT  AND  EAT  EACH  OTHER.  WITH  SO  MANY  WILD [AND  DOMESTICATE]  ANIMALS  WITH  EYES  ON  THE  SIDE  OF  THEIR  HEAD,  FOR  PROTECTION,  WHY  WAS  IT  MAN,  WHO  EVENTUALLY  OUT-MASTERED  ALL  WILD  ANIMALS,  DID  NOT  EVOLVE  WITH  EYES  ON  THE  SIDE  OF  THE  HEAD,  ESPECIALLY  IF  MAN  WAS  PART  OF  THE  WILD  ANIMAL  KINGDOM  FOR  MILLIONS  OF  YEARS.  THE  HORSE  ALSO  HAS  MUCH  GREATER  EYESIGHT,  SMELL  AND  HEARING  ABILITIES  THAN  MAN,  BEING  A  PREY  ANIMAL.  WHY  DID  NOT  MAN  HAVE  OR  EVOLVE  THE  SAME  ABILITIES  IN  THESE  AREAS  AS  THE  HORSE,  SEEING  HE  WAS  PART  OF  THE  WILD  ANIMAL  KINGDOM  FOR  MILLIONS  OF  YEARS,  AS  EVOLUTION  WOULD  TEACH?  SIMPLE  ANSWER:  MAN  WAS  CREATED  BY  GOD  AS  WERE  ANIMALS  -  Keith Hunt)



COMMON ANCESTRY


Fig.    6.   One   may   take   his   choice.      Granting   the   existence   of   God,   the   top   explanation   of   the   similarity   between   "faces"   is   as   reasonable   as   the   bottom.  Fish  -  God  -  Ape  -  Man.  Anyone  can  kind  similarities  in  all  of  them.


Consideration of the argument from comparative anatomy might well be left with what has already been said. There remains, however, another angle from which the faultiness of the reasoning underlying it can be seen.


If, as is said, similarity proves that different species have had a common ancestry, then it follows that the greater the similarity between two species, the more closely they are related, and that, conversely, the more unlike two species are, the more distantly they are related. To illustrate, sheep and goats are more closely related than sheep and cats, since there is a greater similarity between sheep and goats than between sheep and cats. But sheep and cats are more closely related than sheep and ostriches, since sheep and cats are more alike than sheep and ostriches. Resemblance as a proof of evolution carries with it the implication that the degree of similarity between species shows the closeness of the relationship between them, and is used by evolutionists as a guide in tracing the supposed lines of evolutionary descent, in making evolutionary "trees." in constructing "phylogenies."

But here, in getting away from generalities and down to concrete facts, is where the evolutionary theorist meets his difficulties, for it is utterly impossible very often for him to decide what particular point of similarity in species he shall choose as the basis of their supposed relationships, and the more he studies and becomes familiar with the complexities of living things the more tangled and confused does the situation become for him. God created living things with a common pattern or design in mind, but He varied the pattern so often and so intricately—making forms so much alike in one respect and so different in others, making resemblances between species where the evolutionist would prefer non-resemblances and non-resemblances where he would prefer resemblances-—-that those who would take the organic world as God has made it and try to fit it into hypothetical trees showing evolutional lines of descent are continually at a loss what to do. Biologists are continually altering the "genera" and even the "families" to which many species belong, which in other words means that they are changing the species back and forth from one branch of the mythical tree of evolution to another. They are unable to agree among themselves on which branch vast numbers of species belong because these species are similar to species on one branch in one respect and similar to species on another branch in another respect. The great difficulty for the evolutionary tree-makers is that, on the basis of their own argument for evolution from comparative anatomy, species have, as has been said, "too many ancestors."


What we mean will now be shown by a number of definite illustrations. The case of the dolphin, porpoises and whales may first be taken. These aquatic animals are commonly thought to be fish, for in appearance and mode of life they are like fish. On the basis of the argument for evolution based on similarity it is proved, if the argument is valid, that modern fishes and modern whales, dolphins and porpoises are all close relatives, having descended from a common ancestor in very recent times. How else, the evolutionists may ask, can such a similarity as exists between whales and fish be accounted for?


But then, look at the matter from another point of view. Whales, porpoises and dolphins are mammals. Like cats, horses, apes. Fishes are cold-blooded creatures, laying eggs. Dolphins, porpoises and whales are warm-blooded animals, which develop their young within their own bodies, and suckle them on milk. Since there is this inner resemblance among whales, porpoises and dolphins and land animals, whales must have evolved not from fish, but from land animals. According to the "proof" of evolution from blood-tests, later to be considered, evolutionists say it is from "the hoofed mammals, especially the swine" that whales have descended. Manifestly, however, this and the other can not both be proved by similarity. The whale can not


Fig. 7. Too many ancestors. In shape and mode of existence whales are fishes, while in inner structure they are land mammals, like cattle and horses. If similarity of structure is a proof of evolution a contradiction is seen in whales, since they are similar in opposite directions at the same time. Similarity of structure cannot, then,  be  a  proof  of  evolution.


be descended from a land animal and also from a fish, at the same time. Similarity, then proving a contradiction, is worthless as a proof of evolutionary descent.


We pursue the matter farther. There lives in Tasmania an animal called the "Tasmanian wolf." Its scientific name is "thylacine." In outward appearance it is exactly like a dog. It runs and kills sheep in a dog-like manner. Even from close observation one would say that the thylacine belonged to the dog or wolf tribe of animals. In skeletal structure, head, teeth and so on the thylacine is so dog-like


Copyright, D. Appleton Q Co., N. Y.  and  Constable S  Co., London—Dendy—Outlines   of  Evolutionary   Biology,   part   "Convergent  Evolution."


Fig. 8. A. skull of dog. B. skull of thylacine. The skulls (and skeletons generally) of these two species are exceedingly alike. Bone for bone, tooth for tooth they are practically identical. This close similarity proves, according to evolutionary reasoning, that they are very closely related. In other respects these species are totally unlike, since one is a mammal and the other a marsupial, wherefore the evolutionists say they are very distantly related. A contradiction is thus "proved" by comparative anatomy.


that scarcely any difference can be discerned even by the trained anatomist. (Fig. 8.) Surely therefore if as evolutionists say, anatomical resemblances prove evolution, the wolf, dog, coyote, and thylacine are, on the basis of their skeletal similarity, all very closely related to one another by evolutionary descent. 


However, the thylacine is totally unlike the dog in matters other than skeleton. There is a large group of animals called the "marsupials." The group includes the kangaroo, opossums, wombats and others. This group is said by the transformists to be very "primitive" in structure and is supposed by them to have evolved directly from the reptiles. The strange feature about the marsupials is that they do not develop their young within the body of the female until they mature, as do dogs and wolves, but bring them forth, when they are exceedingly tiny and carry them about in a pouch on the stomach of the female until they are mature. The thylacine is one of the "marsupial" group. It is therefore very closely related by evolutionary descent to the kangaroos, and far, far away from the dogs. This is proved by comparative anatomy, the evolutionists say. But, we ask, how can comparative anatomy prove that the thylacine is very close to the dog and very far away from it at the same time? Something must be wrong with the argument from comparative anatomy.


Still  another  example  is  the  duck-billed  platypus  of Australia (Fig. 9). This animal has a bill like a duck and webbed feet. It makes a grass-lined nest and lays eggs which it hatches by curling up on the nest and warming the eggs against its body like a fowl. It must, therefore, have evolved on the same evolutionary stem as the birds. How else  can  this  similarity be explained?  But on the other hand, the platypus has four legs, a fur hide, a tail and claws like many mammals. When it is small it has teeth like a beaver. From these things the platypus must be judged to have evolved with the mammals  not the birds.


Again, too many ancestors.


Merely to suggest how numerous are the mixtures of similarities and dissimilarities in the created world of organisms, a few of many more illustrations of this kind may be given. There are two common butterflies in America, one called the Viceroy, and the other called the Monarch. The average person would never distinguish them. They are about of the same size and both have orange and black wings of similar pattern. On the basis of outward appearance the Viceroy and the Monarch butterflies are descended from a close common ancestor, reasoning as do evolutionists. Their inside structures, however, tell a different story. Inwardly these two species are very unlike and are therefore said by evolutionists not to have descended from a common ancestor at all. Again, there is


Fig. 9. The duck-billed platypus, a native of the streams of Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania. It has four feet, fur, tail, teeth and claws, but it also has a bill and webbed toes, it makes a nest, lays eggs and hatches them. Hence  it  must  have  evolved  both   from   beasts  and  birds-—-which   is   contradictory.


an insect called Criorhina which looks so much like the bumble-bee that bumble-bees receive it as a welcome guest in their nests. Criorhina and bumble-bees must have descended from a close common ancestor if similarity proves evolutionary descent. Inwardly however, Criorhina is related to the flies and is classified by biologists as a fly and must, therefore, have evolved from that direction. 


Again, there is an animal called the "Slow Worm" or "Blind Worm" - which is indistinguishable outwardly from a worm. Yet inwardly it has the structure of lizards. Evolutionists long called barnacles "mollusks" because of their hard shells, and had them evolving along with clams and oysters, but when it was discovered from an examination of the larvae of barnacles that they were not mollusks but crustaceans (like crabs and lobsters) they transferred the barnacles to the crustacean branch of the evolutionary tree. On the basis of outward form the sea-squirt was also, for many years, regarded as a mollusk, but it was transferred to the vertebrate stem of the evolutionary tree when it was learned that young sea-squirts are tad-poles.


''Convergence" is the name given to the process by which the evolutionists seek to account for the similarities of organisms described above. They say that species have branched away from one another, becoming different, and then   have   "converged,"   becoming   alike   again—This is what makes the whale both like and unlike the fish About ''convergence" we wil1 say nothing except this: if the proof of both evolutionary divergence and evolutionary convergence is comparative anatomy, comparative anatomy must be able to blow both hot and cold in one breath. 


(2) The proof from blood-tests. It is in connection with the proof of evolution from comparative anatomy that the much talked of "evidence from blood-tests" should be considered, since it is nothing but the proof from comparative anatomy in another guise.


As a by-product of the scientific investigations which led to the discovery of vaccination there was found about 1900 a test for human blood, a discovery of far-reaching importance in criminal investigations. It is called the "precipitin" test. A liquid called an anti-human serum is made, 15 which, when mixed in certain amounts with the human blood in solution, causes a heavy white precipitate to be formed. When this anti-human serum is mixed in the same amounts with the blood of other animals. e.g.—the frog, horse, dog, monkey, not so much precipitate formed. Thus a fairly reliable test for human blood exists. 


In 1902 an English evolutionist named Nuttall made use of this precipitin test to find what he called the "blood-relationships" of man to the lower animals. Applying the test—using anti-human serum—to many species, he found that the more nearly like man a species is, the more like man's is that species' blood—that is the greater the amount of the white precipitate does the test produce. In the case of reptiles, for instance, he got no precipitate. In the case of the birds he got only the faintest suggestion of a precipitate. In the case of marsupials (e.g., kangaroos) he got very little. In the case of the carnivora (e.g. dogs, cats) he got more. In the case of the ungulates (e.g., pigs, sheep, horses) he got still more. In the case of the monkeys he got still more. In the case of the apes he got most. Of

the last two gave the greatest amounts of precipitate. And these results, this proof that there are various degrees of similarity between human and other bloods—the least similarity in bloods being between that of men and that of  reptiles (between whom also there is the least similarity in general physical appearance) and the greatest similarity in bloods being between that of men and that of apes (between whom also there is the greatest likeness in general physical appearance)-—-is said to prove the theory of evolution.


We have stated the case in the most favorable way possible for the cause of the evolutionists. But who can not see that we have here, only in a different garb, the same false reasoning we have been considering, namely,—the erroneous argument that similarity proves evolution? Simi-


15 It is made as follows: The clear, colorless serum of human blood is injected in increasing amounts into some animal like the rabbit. After a large amount has been injected and the animal has become used to it, the animal is killed. Its colorless blood serum is then drawn off and is the anti-human serum used in the tests.


larity does not prove evolution any more than it proves creation, whether that similarity is found in structure of skeleton, muscles, nerves, blood or anything else. Similarities existing between different organisms may be said to show that there was one Great Architect who, when He made the organic world, used a common plan. In this case the common plan is seen in the structure of the blood.


If close similarity in blood structure proves the evolution of certain animals from one another, what must the evolutionists conclude from the established fact that the chemical substance called thyroidin—-the active principle—of the thyroid gland-—-has precisely the same composition in sheep as in man and as far as we know in all other animals with a thyroid? If similarity proves evolution, what does identity argue? What is argued by the fact that the milk of asses is more like that of human beings than is the milk of any other animal? What is argued by the fact that when a man is sick with "Haemophilia," a disease which causes profuse bleeding even from slight wounds, and the blood-serum of a rabbit is injected into him, very favorable and curative results follow, whereas, if the blood-serum of an ox is injected it acts as a poison and dangerous symptoms result? What is argued from the fact that Malta fever affects, so far as we know, only man and goats, while plague occurs only in man and rats? 16


Facts such as the above display a side of the matter which evolutionists do not emphasize. Nevertheless—such facts do not offer the best answer to the evolutionary argument based on blood-tests. It can and should be admitted by the creationist with perfect readiness that blood-tests such as Nuttall carried out, point to the same general sort of similarity between God's creatures as do other tests of comparative anatomy. The ape is certainty, when we consider its bones, muscles, nerves and so on, more like man than is a turtle or a fish, and we would be much surprised if Nuttall did not find that the blood of an ape and that of a man showed greater similarity also than did the blood of a fish or turtle and that of a man. The horse, when we consider the structure of its bones, muscles, nerves and so


16 See Zinsser, Infection and Resistance, pages 52-55.


on, is more like a man than is a fish or turtle, though less like a man than is an ape, and it would be odd indeed if blood-tests did not reveal that the blood of a horse is more like that of a man than are the bloods of snakes and turtles, although less like man's than is the blood of an ape. Sheep and deer are certainly more alike than are sheep and tigers, and it is not strange at all that the bloods of sheep and deer are more similar than are the bloods of sheep and tigers. Such things have been shown by blood-tests. But these things, we maintain, do not prove evolution any more than they prove that God created all these creatures on a common plan with modifications.


(3) The proof from comparative embryology.  It is in association with the proof from comparative anatomy that one phase of the so-called proof from embryology ought also to be considered.


Just as the student of comparative anatomy has made a comparison of the structure: (skeleton, muscles, nerves, of man) adult forms of life, and found them to reveal a common plan, so the student of comparative embryology has made a comparison of the modes of development of the various embryos and found there also a common plan.


Each individual organism, whether very simple or very complex, begins its existence as a single cell. That one, cell divides to form two cells.  Each of these two  cells divides to form four cells. These again divide to form eight, then sixteen, then thirtv-two and so on up until the adult form is complete. All species, from man down to the simplest invertebrates, thus begin as single cells smaller than the head of a pin and similarly increase by division and growth and redivision and growth. As the masses of tiny embryonic cells grow in size, the embryos of all species form what is called a "blastula," which, though it is not necessary to describe it, may be said to be roughly similar in all embryos. Some very simple creatures which live in ponds (e.g., volvox) practically cease development with the blastula stage and after some further modification live as adults in a form which looks like a blastula. The "blastula" stage is followed in the course of growth by a formation called the "gastrula," which is also a parallel stage in most embryonic developments.  The gastrula is the beginning of the stomach. Some form of life (e g jellyfish) cease development at the gastrula stage. Here they turn off and are developed for adult existence in water as gastrula-like animals. After the gastrula stage has been passed a faint streak appears, called the primitive streak. It marks the beginning of the spinal column. One creature, the lancelet, turns off here and becomes modified for adult life in this form. As development continues a very simply constructed heart and certain
arteries are added. 17  Here the fish turns off the common road and becomes modified into a true fish. The arteries become modified into the gills of the adult fish. As development continues a simply constructed kidney is added and the heart and arteries are made a little more complex in structure. About here the frog turns off from the common course. Thus,   step   by   step,   new   structures   are   added,  which   


17 The simple heart and the arteries   (called "aortic arches"), which in the embryonic development of the fish become modified into gills after the turn-off from the common path, are also present in a somewhat similar form in the human embryo. These fact form the basis of the statement made by evolutionists that each man is at one stage in his life a "gilled-creature." This matter will be discussed more fully in the section on embryology, but here it may be said that no structures in the human embryo are gills or ever become gills. Even in the fish embryo the arteries are not gills. They are structures which, only after much modification and further development, become gills.


roughly resemble one another in all vertebrate embryos, and the old structures are made more intricate and complicated, until finally all structures are present and developed into their most perfect and ideal form in man.


That there is this similarity in the development of creatures is undeniable. Since each species develops in its own peculiar way the similarity is often much concealed, yet it is there. This similarity in development is pointed to by the evolutionist as a "proof" of evolution, for how else he asks, can it be accounted for. The answer is simple. As the similarity between adult forms can be accounted for on the basis of a common plan in the mind of the Creator, so the similarity in the development of the adult forms can also be accounted for. Both, showing a common plan, furnish arguments for special creation.

……….


AS  WE  HAVE  SEEN  DIFFERENT  HOUSES  CAN  LOOK  SOMEWHAT  ALIKE,  AND  SOMEWHAT  DIFFERENT.  I  LIVE  IN  AN  OLDER  PART  OF  CALGARY,  USED  TO  BE  ITS  OWN  KINDA  WESTERN  LOOKING  VILLAGE  AT  ONE  TIME.  NOW  OLD  HOUSES  ARE  BEING  TORN  DOWN  AND  NEW  ONES  GOING  UP.  SOME  ARE  SPACIOUS  ON  THE  SAME  LOT,  SOME  LOTS  WITH  TWO  THIN  BUT  LONG  HOUSES,  QUITE  CLOSE  TO  EACH  OTHER.  SOME  OF  THOSE  LOOK  VERY  SIMILAR,  LONG  THIN  HOUSES,  BUT  STILL  HAVE  SOME  DIFFERENCES.  THE  INDIVIDUAL  LARGE  LOT  HOUSES….WELL  THEY  ARE  VERY  DIFFERENT  FROM  EACH  OTHER.  THEY  ALL  CONTAIN  CERTAIN  THINGS  ALIKE;  DOORS,  WINDOWS,  ROOFS,  LIVING-ROOMS,  KITCHENS,  BEDROOMS.  ALL  HAVE  SOME  FORM  OF  HEATING  FOR  CANADIAN  WINTERS;  THEY  ALL  HAVE  THE  SAME  RUNNING  WATER  SUPPLY  FROM  THE  SAME  CITY  HOOK-UP;  THEY  ALL  HAVE  THE  SAME  ELECTRICAL  SUPPLY;  THEY  ARE  ALL  HOOKED  UP  TO  THE SAME  SEWER  CONNECTIONS.  THEY  ALL  HAVE  SOME  SORT  OF  FRONT  AND  BACK  YARDS.  NOW  SOME  BUILDER  MAY  HAVE  PUT  SOLAR  PANELS  IN  THE  HOUSE  FOR  SPACE-AGE  HEATING  AND  POWER.  SOME  WILL  HAVE  DIRECT  CABEL [LIKE I DO] FOR  INTERNET  USE,  OTHERS  SOME  FORM  OF  WIFI.  SOME  HOUSES  WILL  LOOK  MORE  ALIKE  AND  HAVE  MORE  OF  THE  SAME  FEATURES;  OTHERS  WILL  LOOK  VERY  DIFFERENT  AND  HAVE  DIFFERENT  INNER  FEATURES  THAN  OTHERS [SOME  ELECTRIC  RANGE,  ANOTHER  A  GAS  RANGE];  SOME  CARPETS,  OTHERS  WOOD  OR  TILE  FLOORS.  SOME  WILL  HAVE  BUILT  IN  AIR-CONDITION,  OTHERS  WILL  NOT.  SOME  MAY  HAVE  AN  AIR-TIGHT  WOOD  STOVE  FOR  HEATING,  OTHERS  WILL  NOT. 


ALL  WILL  BE  HOUSES;  ALL  WILL  BE  OF  THE  GENERAL  CATEGORY  OF  HOUSES;  SOME  OUTSIDE  AND  INSIDE  MORE  LIKE  EACH  OTHER;  SOME  OUTSIDE  AND  INSIDE  WAY  DIFFERENT;  SOME  INSIDE  CLOSER  TO  OTHERS  ON  THE  INSIDE,  SOME  FURTHER  AWAY  IN  THE  INSIDE  THAN  OTHERS.


NO  ONE  WOULD  COME  CLOSE  TO  TEACHING  THE  HOUSES  JUST  APPEARED  KINDA  BY  ACCIDENT;  BY  JUST  THROWING  CEMENT,  WATER,  WOOD,  ELECTRIC  WIRES,  GLASS  WINDOWS,  WOODEN  DOORS,  ROOF  SHINGLES,  ALL  ONTO  A  LOT  AND  EXPECTING  THE  HOUSE  TO  BUILD  ITSELF.  NO  ONE  WOULD  EVER  THINK  THAT  A  DESIGNER  AND  BUILDER  WAS  NOT  BEHIND  THE  BUILDING  OF  THE  HOUSES.  OFTEN  ONE  COMPANY  THAT  DESIGNS  AND  BUILDS  HOUSES  MAKES  THEM  SOMETIMES  LOOKING  CLOSE  TO  OTHERS  AND  SOMETIMES  VERY  DIFFERENT  THAN  OTHERS;  BUT  ALL  FROM  THE  ONE  DESIGNER  AND  BUILDER.


THERE  CAN  BE  A  NUMBER  OF  MODEL  CARS  FROM  THE  SAME  DESIGNER  AND  MANUFACTURER,  DIFFERENT  ON  THE  OUTSIDE,  DIFFERENT  ON  THE  INSIDE;  SOME  LIKE  EACH  OTHER  ON  THE  OUTSIDE,  SOME  LIKE  EACH  OTHER  ON  THE  INSIDE;  THEN  SOME  CLOSER  TO  EACH  OTHER  ON  THE  INSIDE,  THEN  OTHERS  NOT  AS  CLOSE;  YOU  KNOW  THE  "OPTION"  PACKAGE….. YOU  CAN  ASK  FOR  THIS  ON  THE  INSIDE  OR  THAT;  HENCE  I  MAY  HAVE  THE  SAME  MODEL  BUT  WITH  LESS  OR  MORE  OF  THE  SAME  FROM  THE  FRIEND  WITH  THE  SAME  MODEL,  OR  ONE  MODEL  DOWN  OR  UP.  BUT  WE  ALL  KNOW  THE  VARIETY  OF  MODELS  FROM  THAT  COMPANY,  WAS  MADE  BY  THAT  SAME  DESIGNER  AND  MANUFACTURER.


SO  IT  IS  WITH  THE  CREATIONS  OF  GOD.  THE  SAME  DESIGNER  WITH  MORE  OR  LESS  "OPTIONS"  FOR  ALL  HE  CREATED,  SOME  CLOSE  TO  EACH  OTHER,  SOME  MUCH  FURTHER  AWAY  FROM  OTHERS,  BUT  ALL  THE  SAME  CREATOR.


Keith Hunt


TO  BE  CONTINUED