It’s proof, except when it isn’t!

An evolutionist posted this picture on FaceBook with the question, “Why do you think they are so similar?”  His point was obvious: chimp fingerprints resemble human fingerprints because chimps and humans are related.  At least that’s the point he seemed to be making - and every evolutionist who replied on the thread pretty much echoed the same thing.  Somehow, this similar trait is proof, or at least it’s evidence, that chimps have an evolutionary relationship with humans.  They share a recent, common ancestor.

I guess the similarity could be explained by being related but is it necessarily the result of being closely related?  That’s where the evolutionary explanation becomes a little fuzzy.  Creationists sometimes explain the similarity could just as easily be the product of design.  A tricycle, for example, has similarities to a bicycle but the similarity can’t be the result of evolution.  

When I bring up the “evidence for a common Designer” rebuttal, evolutionists usually cry foul.  They say created things aren’t analogous because they can’t reproduce.  Um, that’s sort of the whole point, isn’t it? I mean, because they’re created, then the similarity between 2 things cannot be the product of evolution but was intentionally made by the design.  It’s because they’re created that makes it a good analogy!  

Even when I explain the point of the analogy, evolutionists refuse to concede it.  They merely repeat the “created things don’t reproduce” argument like it’s some sort of mic drop moment.  OK then, if you don’t like my analogy of created things, how about this: why are koala fingerprints so similar to human fingerprints?  

/// Mic drop ///

You see, evolutionists claim chimp and human fingerprints are somehow evidence for a close, evolutionary relationship.  But koalas are marsupials.  Marsupials supposedly diverged from placental mammals between 157-170 million years ago.  Koalas cannot be closely related to humans in the evolutionary sense.  They certainly are not as closely related as humans and chimps are alleged to be.  Yet koala fingerprints are virtually identical to human fingerprints.  According to one PBS article: 

As a biological anthropologist and forensic scientist, Henneberg knew this made koalas unique, the only non-primates with fingerprints. "It appears that no one has bothered to study them in detail," he told The Independent in 1996, shortly before publishing a journal article announcing the find. Henneberg’s research indicated that not even careful analysis under a microscope could help distinguish the loopy, whirling ridges on koalas' fingers from our own. The fingerprints were so similar to humans’ that he worried they could easily be mixed up by detectives. 

As is always the case, when similar features appear in different species that aren’t supposed to be closely related, evolutionists attribute the similarity to “convergent evolution.”  In the same PBS article we read:

[O]ur last common ancestor with koalas was, by some calculations, more than 100 million years ago, when marsupials split off from the rest of mammals. So how did we come to share this particular trait? The answer is what’s called “convergent evolution,” when unrelated organisms evolve identical characteristics in response to similar evolutionary pressures.  

So let me get this straight: our fingerprints are similar to chimps’  because we share a recent common ancestor but our fingerprints are similar to koalas’ by sheer coincidence.  Do I have that right?  Scientific theories are supposed to be useful in explaining things.  When observing similar structures in different animals, they could be explained by those animals having a recent, common ancestor… or not. 

A theory that could explain anything really explains nothing.  If similar features aren’t necessarily the result of having a recent common ancestor then they cannot be evidence of having a common ancestor.  Never!  Evolutionists have to resort to different explanations of how similar features evolved in different species, yet they still claim both observations support their theory.  It’s laughable.  No, seriously, it’s a total joke.