Do Similarities Show Identity?

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

Evolutionists argue that since there are similarities between the ape and man, man either descended from the ape, or from a common parent. Hence, resemblance between animals and man, and between animals and plants, form the basis for argumentation in favor of the theory . of evolution. In my presence recently, one argued that since man and the ape have a spinal column, they must have come from a common ancestor! Such an absurdity hardly needs refutation, but since there are those who believe that similarities of certain features of man and the ape show identity, a few comments would be in order along this line.

No one denies that there are similarities between man and the ape! They have much in common. After all, God did form both in the same environment. In that God said of these creatures, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind,” it is obvious that the ape came from the earth. “Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground” (Gen. 1:24; 2:7). The fact that man is a separate creation, separating him from the animal creation, does not deprive him of his animal characteristics. They have many likenesses and similarities because both are of the animal kingdom, and both are of the earth! The difference between man and the ape lies in the fact that man alone is a special creation, endowed with peculiar privileges, which in this respect separates him from animals. Instead of showing identity, similarities manifest a creative plan.

Ignore Differences

While there are indeed certain characteristics that are similar, there are major differences between the ape and man. These tend to show that they are not a common parentage. Since my friend used the spinal column in his effort to uphold evolution, let us make this observation: the ape walks with a stooping posture, while man walks in an up-right position. The ape depends upon very powerful neck muscles to carry his head in a horizontal position. Man has no such muscles in the back of his neck. To walk up-rightly, the ape is under great strain for the spinal column is not designed to carry the head in this position. Since man’s spinal column is designed to support the head, he is able to walk about with ease. The up-right position is natural with man, but such posture is unnatural with the ape (Christianity And False Evolution, by A.S. Zerbe; p. 82). There is, therefore a radical difference in the structure of the backbone of the man and that of the ape. In man, the spinal column fits into an opening in a centrally located spot in the back of the head. This balances the head on the vertebral column (Modern Science And Christian Faith, p. 175). Such conditions do not exist in the bone structure of the ape. In addition to this, it has been stated that there are over “150 major differences between the body of an ape and body of a man” (Witnesses Against Evolution, p: 17). The distinguished evolutionist, Huxley, said “every bone of a gorilla bears marks by which it might be distinguished from the corresponding bone of a man . . . no intermediate link bridges the gap” (Zerbe, op. cit.). There are similarities, but the differences are so great and marked that the chasm thus far has not been bridged.

Absurdity of the Position

If similarities between man and the ape show that at one time they ultimately were the same, then with little effort one could show the similarities between the common rat, the elephant and the horse. Were these ultimately the same? Absurd! Just because one has thick lips and curly hair, does that make him an African? If I had a Roman nose, would that make me a Roman?

“It has beets proven that of the milk of animals, human milk more nearly resembles ass’ milk. `Here the resemblance is marked not only by quantitative analysis, but by the fact that human milk, like ass’ milk, leaves no residue of nuclein or paranuclein on digestion and the casein of both produces an alkaline reaction.’ If one were inclined to treat so serious a matter ironically he could say that man is more nearly an ass than an ape” (Zerbe op. cit., underscore mine, jt). I think enough has been said along this line.


In order to live upon the earth, man naturally resembles the animal in that he must eat, breathe, etc. It is no great surprise to see therefore, common traits between man and animals. There is some connection, but this in no way supports the probability that one is a descendant of the other. A careful study of the facts points out that evolution has not a chance. It is still an unproven hypothesis!

Truth Magazine XXII: 24, p. 386
June 15, 1978