How do studies in biogeograpy and comparative anatomy contradict the idea that species have remained unchanged since the time of creation?

Answer 1

AnswerBiogeographyBiogeography is the study of the the distribution of life forms over geographical areas. It provides significant inferential evidence for evolution and, most importantly, testable predictions about evolution.

With special creation, we should find species distributed in an effectively random geographic manner, with closely related species no more likely to be located close to each other than not, but merely existing where climate and other environmental factors favoured their survival. It would make as much if not more sense for them to exist wherever an environment could support them, as opposed to being distributed according to their apparent relationship to other life forms. The fact that this is not the case contradicts the claims of creationists.

Comparative anatomy
One of the strongest forms of evidence against special creation is comparative anatomy. Organisms with similar anatomical features are assumed to be relatively closely related evolutionarily, and they are assumed to share a common ancestor. Common ancestry is a paradox if species have remained unchanged since the time of creation.

Some organisms have homologous anatomical structures that are very similar in embryological development and form, but very different in function. A good example of homologous structures is the forelimb of mammals. When examined closely, the forelimbs of humans, whales, dogs, and bats are all very similar in structure - each possesses the same number of bones, arranged in almost the same way. By comparing the anatomy of these organisms, scientists have determined that they share a common evolutionary ancestor and in an evolutionary sense, they are relatively closely related. Their dramatic differences in function is clear evidence of adaptation through continuing evolution, not of special creation.

Other organisms have analogous anatomical structures that function in very similar ways, but are morphologically and developmentally very different. For example, the wings of birds and dragonflies both serve the same function, but the anatomy of the wings are very different. Since these structures are so different, even though they have the same function, they do not indicate an evolutionary relationship nor that two species share a common ancestor.