Even down to the present day, similarities are considered one of the best evidences that evolution of one species into another one has occurred. if this is one of the best "evidences" of evolution, then what is the quality and believability of the less—best?

According to "Nilsson, similarity of physical structures cannot be used as an evidence of evolutionary relationships.

"By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as prod of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship . . It is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units." —*N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (1953), p. 1143.

According to *Patterson, amino acid sequence similarities are no true indication of evolutionary relationships.

"Dr. Colin Patterson is the Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department at the British Museum (Natural History). In a talk he gave on November 5, 1981, to leading evolutionists at the American Museum d Natural History, he presented some new data on amino acid sequences in several proteins of a number of animals. The relationships of these animals, acceding to evolutionary theory, has been taught in classrooms for many decades. Dr. Patterson panted out to a stunned audience that this new data contradicts the theory of evolution. In his wards, 'The theory makes a prediction; we've tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.' Although he acknowledged that scientific falsification is never absolute, the thrust of his entire talk was that he now realized that 'evolution was a faith,' that he had 'been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way,' and 'that evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to systematics the science somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to systematics [the science of classifying different forms of life]." —*"Prominent British Scientist Challenges Evolution Theory," Audio Tape Transcription and Summary by Luther D. Sunderland, personal communication.) —Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 42

*De Beer explains that similar structures and outward appearance does not necessarily indicate similar genes or ancestry.

"Homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes.

"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed b identity of genes . . But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns.' in spite of their rat bring controlled by the same genes? i asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered." —*Gavin R. de Beer, Homology, An Unsolved Problem (1971). P. 18. (Italics his.)

Back in the old days, scientists could only compare species by what they looked like (outward appearance, or "similarities"). But now they can use molecular and genetic comparisons. The results of such studies seriously contradicts the "similarities" argument; indeed, those studies contradict all evolutionary theory.

"Techniques now exist for measuring the degree d similarity between most forms d life. These "genetic distances" are calculated by taking a specific protein and examining the sequence of its components. The fewer changes required to convert a protein of one organism into the corresponding protein of another organism, the closer their relationship. Similar comparisons can now be made between the genetic malarial of different organisms. The results d these studies seriously contradict the theory of evolution. There is not a trace d evidence on the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple sea life > fish> amphibians > reptiles> mammals. In general, each of the many categories of organisms appear to be equally isolated. One computer-based study, using cytochrome c, a protein used in energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. If evolution had actually occurred, this study should have found that, for example, the rattlesnake was most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, based on this one protein, the rattlesnake was most similar to man. Hundreds of similar contradictions have been discovered." —Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 7.