I get the concept that animals with similar features could be related via a common ancestor. It's not an entirely unreasonable conclusion. However, we also see similarities in animals that are not closely related according to evolutionary theory. There's the example of marsupial moles and placental moles. Marsupial mammals and placental mammals supposedly split tens of millions of years ago. Marsupial/placental moles are not supposed to be as closely related as humans and chimps are supposed to be yet I believe the different moles resemble each other far more than humans and chimps do. If similarity is supposed to be evidence for common descent, then why are the different moles (who are far more distantly related) more similar than humans/chimps (who are supposed to be more closely related)?
When animals that aren't closely related resemble each other, evolutionists say that it's the result of convergent evolution. They say that form-follows-function and since both moles live in similar environments, over “millions of years” of undirected mutation, they evolved similar traits. The Encyclopedia of Science put it this way, “One of the reasons that convergence happens is that some body structures and shapes are simply the best biological solutions to basic problems in physics.... Convergent animals may look alike but it is easy to show that they are entirely different creatures with very unlike ancestors – their resemblance in appearance is not due to close relationship. The structures which give the resemblance often do not develop from a common feature in an ancestor.”
That's interesting. OK, it's not really that interesting; I mean to say it's revealing. It's an example of evolutionists wanting to have it both ways. Creationists have attempted to point out to evolutionists that similarity is not necessarily evidence of common ancestry. To demonstrate this, we sometimes point to similar created things as examples. Evolutionists object saying it's not fair analogy to compare living things with created things. However, in the case of moles we see two living things that are similar and not closely related. What's their objection now?
So let me get this straight: similar features between creatures could be due to common ancestry (as in humans and chimps) or not due to common ancestry (as in marsupial/placental moles). Is that right? How convenient that, either way, evolutionists still see it as evidence for their theory! It seems to me that evolutionists already know that similarities between creatures is not de facto evidence that they are closely related in an evolutionary sense. We've been trying to tell them that for years! What I wonder is why do they keep trotting out similarities between humans and chimps like it's somehow proof of something?
What we're left with is a bifurcation: similarity is either the result of common ancestry or convergent evolution. They stubbornly leave out the third option – similarity is the result of design!