The organs of many creatures resemble those of other animals, but the evolutionists cannot claim all are derived from one common ancestor. For example, the eyes of an octopus are very much like yours, but according to the evolutionists, these similar structures are not derived from a common root (that is to say homologous). Flies and birds both have wings, but again, these cannot be described as homologous. The evolutionists cannot claim an evolutionary relationship between these animals, despite their great similarities, because in the so-called evolutionary trees drawn up on the basis of fossil records and morphology, these animals are far apart from one another. For this reason, evolutionists describe these structures not as homologous but as "analogous"-that is, similar in spite of not having a common root. However, if some similar structures can be analogous, why not all? So far, evolutionists have not provided a tenable answer to this question.

They try to get around this by producing not an answer, but an imaginary concept they call "parallel evolution." Parallel evolution is attributed to animals and organs that seem to have acquired similar characteristics over time, but which have no evolutionary relationship to one another. For example, let's take the octopus once more. In spite of being an invertebrate-and therefore, according to the evolutionists, a primitive creature-is as intelligent as a dog, a highly developed mammal. In this case, evolutionists claim that an "intelligence" factor has developed separately in each species, an imaginary phenomenon they describe as "parallel evolution." But since the octopus is a primitive creature in terms of evolution, it should be a creature of very low intelligence.

Another example is the ability to fly. Insects, birds, extinct reptiles, and even certain living mammals have wings; which is to say, flight has evolved in at least four different classifications of animals. According to evolution theory, why should all of these groups, on completely different imaginary evolutionary paths, have the same outcome? Is it possible for these completely separate groups to develop the same organic structure through an accidental evolutionary process? Why would coincidences follow the same common design in each case? This illustrates the folly of explaining away all these questions by mere coincidence: The common design in these creatures can be explained only by the existence of a common Designer, that is to say, through God's creation.