A TOPIC EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN: COLOURS IN NATURE

A TOPIC EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN: COLOURS IN NATURE

When we look at nature, we see that every plant and every animal have their own particular colours and patterns exclusive to their kind. Furthermore, each of these colours and patterns have different meanings for living things: an invitation to mate, expression of aggression, a warning against danger and many notions like these acquire a meaning among animals from the perception of colours and patterns.

The theory of evolution, which claims that everything has come into being by random coincidence, has reached a total impasse because of the artistry, diversity of colours and harmony exhibited in nature. Charles Darwin, the founder of the theory in the form in which we have it today, also had to confess the situation he faced because of the design evident in living beings. Darwin stated that he could not understand why the colours of living creatures have particular meanings:

My difficulty is, why are caterpillars sometimes so beautifully and artistically coloured? Seeing that many are coloured to escape danger, I can hardly attribute their bright colour in other cases to mere physical conditions.1

Certainly, it is impossible for colours and order in nature to have come into being by natural selection.

Let us verify with an example that it is impossible for the colours of living beings and systems of transformation of colour to come about by natural selection. Let us take chameleons for an example. Chameleons are animals capable of adapting to the colours present in the environment and changing their colours according to the surroundings. While resting on a green leaf, they assume a green colour, while moving onto a brown branch, their skin changes to brown in a very short time. Let us think together over how this process of colour change takes place.

A living creature changes its colour as a consequence of highly complex processes taking place in its body. It is impossible for a man to change either his own colour or another living being's colour, because the human body is not equipped with the proper systems for such an operation. Nor is it possible for a human to develop such a system on his own because it is not like a piece of equipment to be developed and installed. In short, for a living creature to be able to change its colour, it is imperative for this creature to come into being with such a colour change mechanism.

Let us think about the first chameleon on the earth. What would happen if this creature did not have the ability to change colour? First, the chameleon would be easy prey since it could not hide. Besides, since it would be easily recognised, hunting would be very difficult for it. This would finally cause a chameleon devoid of any other defence mechanism to die or starve and, after a while, to become extinct. Yet, the existence of chameleons in the world today evidently proves that such an event has never taken place. So, chameleons possessed this perfect system from the first moment they appeared on earth.

Evolutionists claim that chameleons have developed this system over time. This would make some questions occur to our minds: why have chameleons chosen to develop such a complex system such as changing colour instead of an easier defence mechanism? Why has it chosen changing colour while there are so many kinds of defence mechanisms? How has such a mechanism, providing for all the chemical processes necessary for colour change, been formed in the chameleon? Is it possible for a reptile to think of such a mechanism and then develop the necessary systems in its body? More, is it possible for a reptile to encode the information necessary for colour change in the DNA present in its cells?

Do you not see that Allah sends down water from the sky and by it We bring forth fruits of varying colours?... (Qur'an, 35:27)

Unquestionably, this is impossible. The conclusion to be drawn from the answers given to such questions as above will be one and the same: it is impossible for a living creature to develop such a complex system that allows it to change its own colour.

And also the things of varying colours He has created for you in the earth. There is certainly a Sign in that for people who pay heed. (Qur'an, 16:13)

Not only systems of colour change, but also the diversities of colour and pattern in living beings deserve focus. It is impossible for the bright colours in parrots, the diverse colours in fish, the symmetry in the wings of butterflies, the fascinating patterns in flowers and the colours of other living things to have been formed on their own. Such perfect patterns, colours and figures, which serve very important purposes in the lives of living things, are concrete evidence of creation. It is obvious that there is a superior design in the formation of the colours around us.

Let us make it clear with an example: let us suppose that we are designing a product consisting of squares. Even to draw one of them, we need to make a small calculation and make sure that all four sides are linear and equal and the square has 90-degree angles at the corners. We can draw the square only after making some calculations and adjustments. As seen, even drawing a single square requires some knowledge and skill.

Let us apply the same reasoning to living creatures around us and ponder on them. There is perfect harmony, order and plan in living beings. A person who appreciates the necessity of knowledge and skill in drawing a simple square, will understand right away that origination of the order, harmony, colours and design in the universe is also a product of infinite knowledge and skill. Therefore there is no reasonable or scientific ground for claiming that a system such as the universe has come into existence by chance. Allah, the Most Powerful, has created the entire universe. Allah is the One Who fashions everything He creates most beautifully.

They said 'Glory be to You! We have no knowledge
except what You have taught us. You are the
All-Knowing, the All-Wise.'
(Surat al-Baqara: 32)


1. Francis Darwin, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. II, p. 275.

DARWINIST MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

DARWINIST MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

THE APE-MAN SIMILARITY IS A TALE!

The completion of human's gene map today does not yield the result that man and ape are relatives. One need not be deceived by evolutionists' attempts to exploit this new scientific development just as they do with all others.

As known, the recent completion of the human gene map within the scope of the Human Genome Project has been a very important scientific improvement. However, some results of this project are being distorted in some evolutionist publications. It is claimed that the genes of chimpanzees have a similarity to human genes by 98 % and this is promoted as an evidence to the claim that apes are close to humans, and therefore, to the theory of evolution. In truth, this is a "fake" evidence put forward by evolutionists who benefit from the lack of knowledge of society about this subject.

98 % Similarity Claim Is A Misleading Propaganda

First, it should be stated that the 98% similarity concept, frequently advanced by evolutionists about the DNAs of man and chimpanzee, is deceptive.

In order to claim that the genetic make-ups of man and chimpanzee bear 98 % similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped just as that of man's, the two has to be compared, and the result of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is available, because so far, only the gene of mankind has been mapped. No such research is yet done for the chimpanzee.

In reality, the 98 % similarity between the genes of man and ape, which now and then becomes an agenda item, is a propaganda oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared.

However there are about hundred thousand genes, and therefore 100 thousand proteins coded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98 % similar only because of the similarity in 40 out of 100.000 proteins.

On the other hand, the DNA comparison carried out on those 40 proteins is also controversial. This comparison was made in 1987 by two biologists named Sibley and Ahlquist and published in the periodical named Journal of Molecular Evolution.1 However another scientist named Sarich who examined the data obtained by these two scientists concluded that the reliability of the method they used is controversial and that the data has been exaggeratedly interpreted. 2 Dr. Don Batten, another biologist, also analysed the issue in 1996 and concluded that the real similarity rate is 96.2%, not 98 %.3

Human DNA Is Also Similar To That Of The Worm, Mosquito And Chicken!

Moreover, the above mentioned basic proteins are common vital molecules present in various other living beings. The structure of the same kinds of proteins present not only in chimpanzee, but also in completely different living beings, is very similar to that in the humans.

For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man.4 This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms! According to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum, in which man is included, and Nematoda phylum were different from each other even 530 million years ago.

On the other hand, in another finding which also appeared in the Turkish media, it was stated that the comparisons carried out between the genes of fruit fly belonging to the Drosophila species and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%.5 On the other hand, the analyses done on some proteins show man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of land dwelling animals were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile.6

Another example used by evolutionists on "the genetic similarity between man and ape", is the presence of 48 chromosomes in chimpanzees and gorillas versus 46 chromosomes in man. Evolutionists regard the closeness of the number of chromosomes as indication of an evolutionary relationship. However, if this logic used by evolutionists were true, then man should have an even closer relative than chimpanzee: "the potato"!. Because the number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46

These examples certify that the concept of genetic similarity does not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. This is because the genetic similarities are not in line with the alleged evolution schemes, and on the contrary, they yield completely opposite results.

Genetic Similarities Upset The "Evolution Scheme" That Is Sought To Be Constituted

He created the heavens and the earth with truth and formed you, giving you the best of forms. And He is your final destination. (Qur'an, 64:3)

Unsurprisingly, when the issue is evaluated as a whole, it is seen that the subject of "bio-chemical similarities" does not constitute an evidence for evolution, but on the contrary leaves the theory in the lurch. Dr. Christian Schwabe, a biochemistry researcher from the Medical Faculty of South Carolina University, is an evolutionist scientist who has spent years to find evidence for evolution in the molecular domain. He particularly did researches on insulin and relaxin-type proteins and tried to establish evolutionary relationships between living beings. However, he had to confess for many times that he could not find any evidence for evolution at any point in his studies. In an article published in Science magazine, he said;

"Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to palaeontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message"7

Based on the recent findings obtained in the field of molecular biology, the renowned biochemist Prof. Michael Denton made the following comments;

"Each class at molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology… At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives… There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago… the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted." 8

Similarities Are Not Evidence For Evolution But For Creation

It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic make-ups would resemble to one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.

This "common material" is not the result of an evolution but of "common design", that is, their being created upon the same plan.

It is possible to explain this subject with an example; all constructions in the world are done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same is true for living beings as well.

Life did not originate as a result of unconscious coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the owner of infinite knowledge and wisdom.

1. Journal of Molecular Evolution, v. 26 pp.99-1212.
2. Sarich et al, 1989, Cladisticts 5:3-32.
3. CEN, 19 (1); 21-22 December 1996-February 1997.
4. New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p. 27.
5. Hurriyet, 24 February 2000.
6. New Scientist v.103, 16 August 1984, p.19.
7. Christian Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in Biochemical Sciences, v. 11, July 1986.
8. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London; Burnett Books 1985, pp.290-291.

CLONING IS NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

CLONING IS NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

The fact that such a question as whether such a scientific advance as cloning "supports evolution" is asked or even comes to mind actually reveals a very important truth. This is the cheapness of the propaganda that evolutionists resort to to get people to accept their theory. Since the subject of cloning has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it cannot be a matter of concern for any professional evolutionist. However, some of those who blindly support evolution at whatever cost, and particularly certain circles within media organizations, have even tried to turn such a totally unconnected matter as cloning into propaganda for evolution.

What Does Cloning A Living Thing Mean?

The DNA of the living thing that is proposed to be copied is used in the cloning process. The DNA is extracted from any cell belonging to the organism in question, and then placed into an egg cell belonging to another organism of the same species. A shock is then given immediately afterwards, which prompts the egg cell to start dividing. The embryo is then placed into a living thing's womb, where it continues to divide. Scientists then await its development and birth.

Why Has Cloning Nothing To Do With Evolution?

The concepts of cloning and evolution are completely different. The theory of evolution is built on the claim that inanimate matter turned into living matter by chance. (There is not the slightest scientific proof that this could actually happen.) Cloning, on the other hand, is the copying of a living thing by using genetic material from that creature's cells. The new organism starts from a single cell, and a biological process is transferred to the laboratory and repeated there. In other words, there is no question of such a process happening by "chance"-the basic claim of the theory of evolution-nor of "lifeless matter coming to life."

The cloning process is no evidence for evolution whatsoever. It is, however, clear evidence of a biological law that totally undermines evolution. That is the famous principle that "Life can only come from life," put forward by the famous scientist Louis Pasteur towards the end of the nineteenth century. The fact that cloning is presented as evidence for evolution, despite that open truth, is a deception being carried out by the media.

Advances in many branches of science over the last 30 years have demonstrated that the emergence of life cannot be explained in terms of chance. Evolutionists' scientific errors and one-sided comments have been well-documented, and the theory of evolution has become indefensible within the realm of science. This fact has propelled some evolutionists to look in other areas. That is why scientific advances such as "cloning," or "test-tube babies," have been so fanatically used as evidence for evolution in the recent past.

Evolutionists have nothing more to say to society in the name of science, and so take refuge in the gaps in people's scientific knowledge and try to prolong the theory's life in that way, even though that merely brings the theory to a pitiable state. Just like all other scientific advances, cloning is a very important and revealing scientific advance that also sheds light on the fact that life was created.

Another misunderstanding that people have fallen into as regards cloning is the idea that cloning can "create human beings." However, cloning bears no such interpretation. Cloning consists of adding genetic information which already exists to a living reproduction mechanism that also already exists. No new mechanism or genetic information is created in the process. Genetic information is taken from someone who already exists and is placed inside a female womb. This enables the child that is eventually born to be the "identical twin" of the person from whom the genetic information was taken.

Many people who do not fully understand what cloning is have all kinds of fantastic ideas about it. For instance, they imagine that a cell can be taken from a 30-year-old man and another 30-year-old can be created that same day. Such an example of cloning is only to be found in science fiction, and is not and never will be possible. Cloning basically consists of bringing a person's "identical twin" to life by natural methods (in other words in a mother's womb).This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, nor with the concept of "creating man."

Creating a human being or any other living thing-in other words bringing something into existence out of nothing-is a power peculiar to God. Scientific advances confirm the same thing by showing that this creation cannot be done by man. This is expressed in a verse:

The Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an, 2: 117)

 

DIFFERENT RACES ARE NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

DIFFERENT RACES ARE NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

Some evolutionists try to put the existence of different races forward as evidence for evolution. In fact, this claim is more frequently expressed by amateur evolutionists who have a less than sufficient knowledge of the theory they defend.

The thesis proposed by those who defend this claim is based on the question, "If, as divine sources say, life began with one man and one woman, how could different races have emerged?" Another way of putting it is: "Since Adam and Eve's height, colour, and other features were those of only two people, how could races with entirely different features have emerged?"

In fact, the problem lying beneath all these questions or objections is an insufficient knowledge of the laws of genetics, or the ignoring of them. In order to understand the reason for the differences between the races in today's world, it will be necessary to have some idea of the subject of "variation," which is closely linked to this question.

Variation, a term used in genetics, refers to a genetic event that causes the individuals or groups of a certain type or species to possess different characteristics from one another. The source of this variation is the genetic information possessed by the individuals within that species. As a result of breeding between those individuals, that genetic information comes together in later generations in different combinations. There is an exchange of genetic material between the mother's and father's chromosomes. Genes thus get mixed up with one another. The result of this is a wide variety of individual features.

No matter what their height, skin colour and skull volume, all races are part of the human species.

The different physical features between human races are due to variations within the human race. All the people on Earth carry basically the same genetic information, yet some have slanted eyes, some have red hair, some have long noses, and others are short of stature, all depending on the extent of the variation potential of this genetic information.

In order to understand the variation potential, let us consider a society in which brunette, brown-eyed people predominate over blond, blue-eyed individuals. As a result of the two communities intermingling and marrying over time, new generations which are brunette but blue-eyed will be seen. In other words, the physical characteristics of both groups will come together in subsequent generations and produce new appearances. When one imagines other physical characteristics mixing in the same way, it is clear that a great variety will emerge.

The important point that must be understood here is this: There are two genes that rule every physical feature. One may dominate the other, or they may both influence matters to an equal extent. For instance, two genes determine the colour of a person's eyes. One comes from the mother, the other from the father. Whichever gene is the dominant one, the individual's eye colour will be determined by that gene. In general, dark colours dominate lighter ones. In this way, if a person possesses genes for brown and for green eyes, his eyes will be brown because the brown eye gene is dominant. However, the recessive green colour can be passed down the generations and emerge at a later time. In other words, parents with brown eyes can have a green-eyed child. That is because that colour gene is recessive in both parents.

This law applies to all other physical features and the genes which govern them. Hundreds, or even thousands, of physical features, such as the ears, nose, the shape of the mouth, height, bone structure, and organ structure, shape, and characteristics, are all controlled in the same way. Thanks to this, all the limitless information in the genetic structure can be passed on to subsequent generations without becoming outwardly visible. Adam, the first human being, and Eve, were able to pass the rich information in their genetic structure on to subsequent generations even though only a part of it was reflected in their physical appearance. Geographical isolation that had happened over human history has led to an atmosphere where different physical features came together in different groups. Over a long period of time, this led to different groups having different bone structures, skin colour, height, and skull volumes. This eventually led to the different races.

However, this long period did not change one thing, of course. No matter what their height, skin colour and skull volume, all races are part of the human species.

YET ANOTHER BLOW TO THE MYTH OF "VESTIGIAL ORGANS"

YET ANOTHER BLOW TO THE MYTH OF "VESTIGIAL ORGANS"

Darwinism considers all life on Earth as a product of chance mutations and natural selection and, as an a priori commitment, excludes intelligent design. In order to argue against design, the Darwinist mind seeks for flaws in the biological systems. From Darwin to Dawkins, over and over, this dogmatic stance has led the evolutionist to insist on the existence of imaginary flaws and "useless" vestigial organs in living systems. However, over and over, these bold claims by evolutionists turned out to be manifestations of ignorance. The allegedly vestigial organs were discovered to be performing very important functions and the whole "vestigial organ" argument turned out to be a fallacy.

The history of science documents a steady reduction in the number of the so-called vestigial organs. The allegedly non-functional organs, one by one, turned out to be organs whose functions had not yet been discovered. A list of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 structures, including the appendix and the coccyx. As science progressed, it was discovered that all of the organs in Wiedersheim's list in fact had very important functions. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a "vestigial organ," was in fact a part of the lymphatic system. A medical publication notes in 1997 that "other bodily organs and tissues-the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and small collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer's patch in the small intestine-are also part of the lymphatic system. They too help the body fight infection."1

It was also discovered that the tonsils, which were also included in Wiedersheim's list of vestigial organs, had a significant role in protecting the throat against infections, particularly until adolescence. It was found that the coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column supports the bones around the pelvis and is the convergence point of some small muscles and for this reason, it would not be possible to sit comfortably without a coccyx.

In the years that followed, it was realized that the thymus triggered the immune system in the human body by activating the T cells, that the pineal gland was in charge of the secretion of some important hormones, that the thyroid gland was effective in providing steady growth in babies and children, and that the pituitary gland controlled the correct functioning of many hormone glands. All of these were once considered to be "vestigial organs." Finally, the semi-lunar fold in the eye, which was referred to as a vestigial organ by Darwin, has been found in fact to be in charge of cleansing and lubricating the eye.

The steady reduction in the list of vestigial organs results from the fact that this is an argument from ignorance. Some wiser evolutionists also came to realize this fact. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, once wrote in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that "vestigial organs" provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution. 2

THE LEG OF THE HORSE

The latest blow to the myth of vestigial organs comes from a recent study on the leg of the horse. In an article in the 20-27 December 2001 issue of the journal Nature, titled "Biomechanics: Damper for bad vibrations," it is noted that "Some muscle fibres in the legs of horses seem to be evolutionary leftovers with no function. But in fact they may act to damp damaging vibrations generated in the leg as the horse runs." The article reads as follows:

Horses and camels have muscles in their legs with tendons more than 600 millimetres long connected to muscle fibres less than 6 millimetres long. Such short muscles can change length only by a few millimetres as the animal moves, and seem unlikely to be of much use to large mammals. The tendons function as passive springs, and it has been assumed that the short muscle fibres are redundant, the remnants of longer fibres that have lost their function over the course of evolution. But Wilson and colleagues argue… that these fibres might protect bones and tendons from potentially damaging vibrations….

Michael Behe

Their experiments show that short muscle fibers can damp the damaging vibrations following the impact of a foot on the ground. When the foot of a running animal hits the ground, the impact sets the leg vibrating; the frequency of the vibrations is relatively high-for example, 30-40 Hz in horses-so many cycles of vibration would occur while the foot was on the ground if there were no damping.

The vibrations might cause damage, because bone and tendon are susceptible to fatigue failure. Fatigue in bones and tendons is the accumulation of damage resulting from repeated application of stresses. Bone fatigue is responsible for the stress fractures suffered by both human athletes and racehorses, and tendon fatigue may explain at least some cases of tendonitis. Wilson et al. suggest that the very short muscle fibres protect both bones and tendons from fatigue damage by damping out vibrations…3

In short, a closer loot at the anatomy of the horse revealed that the structures that have been considered as nonfunctional by evolutionists have very important functions.

In other words, scientific progress demonstrated that what was considered to be evidence for evolution is in fact evidence for design. Evolutionists should take a hint from this fact, if they are willing to do so. The Nature commentator seems to be reasonable:

Wilson et al. have found an important role for a muscle that seemed to be the relic of a structure that had lost its function in the course of evolution. Their work makes us wonder whether other vestiges (such as the human appendix) are as useless as they seem.4

This is not surprising. The more we learn about nature, the more we see the evidence for creation. As Michael Behe notes, "the conclusion of design comes not from what we do not know, but from what we have learned over the past 50 years."5 And Darwinism turns out to be an argument from ignorance, or, in other words, an "atheism of the gaps."

1. The Merck Manual of Medical Information, Home edition, Merck & Co., Inc. The Merck Publishing Group, Rahway, New Jersey, 1997.
2. S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?", Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.
3. R. Mcneill Alexander, "Biomechanics: Damper For Bad Vibrations", Nature, 20-27 December 2001.
4. Ibid..
5. Behe's Seminar in Princeton, 1997.

THE ORIGIN OF MAN

THE ORIGIN OF MAN

There is no scientific evidence for the claim that man evolved. What is put forward as "proof" is nothing but one-sided comment on a few fossils.

Darwin put forward his claim that human beings and apes descended from a common ancestor in his book The Descent of Man, published in 1871. From that time until now, the followers of Darwin's path have tried to support this claim. But despite all the research that has been carried out, the claim of "human evolution" has not been backed up by any concrete scientific discovery, particularly in the fossil field.

The man in the street is for the most part unaware of this fact, and thinks that the claim of human evolution is supported by a great deal of firm evidence. The reason for this incorrect opinion is that the subject is frequently discussed in the media and presented as a proven fact. But real experts on the subject are aware that there is no scientific foundation for the claim of human evolution. David Pilbeam, a Harvard University paleoanthropologist, says:

If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on."1

And William Fix, the author of an important book on the subject of paleoanthropology, makes this comment:

As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence...2

This claim of evolution, which "lacks any evidence," starts the human family tree with a group of apes that have been claimed to constitute a distinct genus, Australopithecus. According to the claim, Australopithecus gradually began to walk upright, his brain grew, and he passed through a series of stages until he arrived at man's present state (Homo sapiens). But the fossil record does not support this scenario. Despite the claim that all kinds of intermediate forms exist, there is an impassable barrier between the fossil remains of man and those of apes. Furthermore, it has been revealed that the species which are portrayed as each other's ancestors are actually contemporary species that lived in the same period. Ernst Mayr, one of the most important proponents of the theory of evolution in the twentieth century, contends in his book One Long Argument that "particularly historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation."3

But what is the basis for the human evolution thesis put forward by evolutionists? It is the existence of plenty of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 species live on the earth. These 6,000 or so species of ape, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists.

On the other hand, there are considerable differences in the anatomic makeup of the various human races. Furthermore, the differences were even greater between prehistoric races, because as time has passed the human races have to some extent mixed with each other and become assimilated. Despite this, important differences are still seen between different population groups living in the world today, such as, for example, Scandinavians, African pygmies, Inuits, native Australians, and many others.

There is no evidence to show that the fossils called hominid by evolutionary paleontologists do not actually belong to different species of ape or to vanished races of humans. To put it another way, no example of a transitional form between mankind and apes has been found.

1. Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books Limited, Barcelona, 1982, p. 43.
2. William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1984, pp. 150-153.
3. "Could science be brought to an end by scientists' belief that they have final answers or by society's reluctance to pay the bills?" Scientific American, December 1992, p. 20.

THE MYTH OF BIRD EVOLUTION

THE MYTH OF BIRD EVOLUTION

Recently, a 140-million-year-old fossil called Shenzhouraptor sinensis was discovered in the Yixian region of China. According to the evolutionary paleontologist Ji Qiang, this fossil was a missing link between dinosaurs and birds. The fact is, however, that this fossil possesses features that clash with the evolutionists' claims about the origin of birds. Not just this fossil, but also the whole paleontological data on the subject is at odds with the evolutionary theory. "Evolution of birds", like other claims of Darwinism, is no more scientific than a fairy tale.

Shenzhouraptor sinensis, The Impossible Transitional

Alan Feduccia

Evolutionists suggest that Shenzhouraptor sinensis was a transitional form that was able to fly and possessed both bird and dinosaur characteristics. This is, however, is in contradiction with other evolutionist claims on the origin of birds.

Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird, lived 150 million years ago and is in many respects no different from flying birds living today. Shenzhouraptor sinensis, however, lived 140 million years ago, making it younger than Archaeopteryx. For that reason, it is impossible for it to be a transitional form, because birds with perfect feathers and the necessary anatomical structure for flight were living before it.

At this point, we need to make it clear that the evolutionist claims regarding Archaeopteryx, one of the principle icons of the theory of evolution for the last 100 years or so, have lost a great deal of their validity. It has been realized that this creature was a flying bird, possessing a flawless flight mechanism. Attempts to compare Archaeopteryx to a reptile have failed entirely.

As Alan Feduccia, one of the leading ornithologists of the world, has stated, "Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx have found the creature to be much more birdlike than previously imagined," and "the resemblance of Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated."1

Another problem regarding Archaeopteryx is that the theropod dinosaurs, which many evolutionists suggest were Archaeopteryx' ancestors, actually emerge after it in the fossil record, not before it. This, of course, leaves no room for any "evolutionary family tree" to account for the origin of birds.

The Discontented Evolutionists

The reason for the "dino-bird" and "feathered dinosaur" stories that frequently appear in the evolutionist press is simply an effort on their part to show that their claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs has been proven by fossil discoveries. The fact is, however, that none of these fossils has offered any scientific evidence at all for that claim.

What is more, many evolutionists do not believe it either. For instance, renowned ornithologists Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin believe that it is totally an erroneous scenario. A college textbook, Developmental Biology reads:

Not all biologists believe that birds are dinosaurs... This group of scientists emphasizes the differences between dinosaurs and birds, claiming that the differences are too great for the birds to have evolved from earlier dinosaurs. Alan Feduccia, and Larry Martin, for instance, contend that birds could not have evolved from any known group of dinosaurs. They argue against some of the most important cladistic data and support their claim from developmental biology and biomechanics.2

Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird evolution:

Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.3

Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, he states:

To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.4

The disagreement amongst evolutionists themselves stems from the fact that there is no evidence supporting an evolutionary origin for birds. They can only build up speculations, just so stories which are imposed to the public, misleadingly, as "scientific theories".

The Significant Structural Differences Between Birds And Dinosaurs

Most evolutionists hold that birds evolved from small theropod dinosaurs. However, a comparison between birds and such reptiles reveals that the two have very distinct features, making it unlikely that one evolved from the other.

IMAGINARY CREATURES The imaginary transitional forms existing in the fantasy of evolutionists ought to have missing and defective organs. For instance, a creature in between birds and and reptiles would have half wings and half avian lungs. However, no fossil of such a creature has yet been found, as it is not possible for such a "weird" creature as we see in these pictures to survive. All fossils that are discovered belong to complete and perfectly designed creatures.

There are various structural differences between birds and reptiles, one of which concerns bone structure. Due to their bulky natures, dinosaurs-the ancestors of birds according to evolutionists-had thick, solid bones. Birds, in contrast, whether living or extinct, have hollow bones that are very light, as they must be in order for flight to take place.

Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic structure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal kingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolism remains a speculation.) Birds, on the other hand, are at the opposite end of the metabolic spectrum. For instance, the body temperature of a sparrow can rise to as much as 48°C (118°F) due to its fast metabolism. On the other hand, reptiles lack the ability to regulate their body temperature. Instead, they expose their bodies to sunlight in order to warm up. Put simply, reptiles consume the least energy of all animals and birds the most.

Yet, despite all the scientific findings, the groundless scenario of "dinosaur-bird evolution" is still insistently advocated. Popular publications are particularly fond of the scenario. Meanwhile, concepts which provide no backing for the scenario are presented as evidence for "dinosaur-bird evolution."

In some popular evolutionist publications, for instance, emphasis is laid on the differences among dinosaur hip bones to support the thesis that birds are descended from dinosaurs. These differences exist between dinosaurs classified as Saurischian (reptile-like, hip-girdled dinosaurs) and Ornithischian (bird-like, hip-girdled dinosaurs). This concept of dinosaurs having hip girdles similar to those of birds is sometimes wrongly conceived as evidence for the alleged dinosaur-bird link. However, the difference in hip girdles is no evidence at all for the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is because, surprisingly for the evolutionist, Ornithischian dinosaurs do not resemble birds with respect to other anatomical features. For instance, Ankylosaurus is a dinosaur classified as Ornithischian, with short legs, a giant body, and skin covered with scales resembling armor. On the other hand, Struthiomimus, which resembles birds in some of its anatomical features (long legs, short forelegs, and thin structure), is actually a Saurischian.5

The Unique Structure Of Avian Lungs

Michael Denton

Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-bird evolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot be accounted for by evolution.

Land-dwelling creatures have lungs with a two-directional flow structure. Upon inhaling, the air travels through the passages in the lungs (bronchial tubes), ending in tiny air sacs (alveoli). The exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place here. Then, upon exhaling, this used air makes its way back and finds its way out of the lung by the same route.

In birds however, air follows just one direction through the lungs. The entry and exit orifices are completely different, and thanks to special air sacs all along the passages between them, air always flows in one direction through the avian lung. In this way, birds are able to take in air nonstop. This satisfies birds' high energy requirements. Michael Denton, an Australian biochemist and a well-known critic of Darwinism, explains the avian lung in this way:

This one-directional flow of air is maintained in breathing in and breathing out by a complex system of interconnected air sacs in the bird's body, which expand and contract in such a way as to ensure a continuous delivery of air through the parabronchi… The structure of the lung in birds, and the overall functioning of the respiratory system, are quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, in its essential details it is identical in birds.6

Bird lungs function in a way that is completely contrary to the way the lungs of land animals function. The latter inhale and exhale through the same passages. The air in bird lungs, in contrast, passes continuously through the lung in one direction. This is made possible by special air sacs throughout the lung. Thanks to this system, whose details can be seen overleaf, birds breathe nonstop. This design is peculiar to birds, which need high levels of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for this structure to have evolved from reptile lungs, because any creature with an "intermediate" form between the two types of lung would be unable to breathe.

The important thing is that the reptile lung, with its dual-direction air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its single-direction flow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediate model between them. In order for a living thing to live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its lungs with a change of design would inevitably end in death. According to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years, whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few minutes.

Reptiles (and mammals) breathe in and out from the same air vessel. In birds, while the air enters into the lung from the front, it goes out from the back.

BREATHING IN: The air which enters birds' respiratory passages goes to the lungs, and to air sacs behind them. The air which is used is transferred to air sacs at the front.

BREATHING OUT: When a bird breathes out, the fresh air in the rear air sacs goes into the lungs. With this system, the bird is able to enjoy a constant supply of fresh air to its lungs. There are many details in this lung system, which is shown in very simplified form in these diagrams. For instance, there are special valves where the sacs join the lungs, which enable the air to flow in the right direction. All of these show that there is a clear design at work here. This design not only deals a death blow to the theory of evolution, it is also clear proof of creation.

Parabronchial tubes, which enable air to circulate in the right direction in birds' lungs. Each of these tubes is just 0.5 mm. in diameter.

This distinct design is specially made for birds, which need great amounts of oxygen during flight.

It is impossible for such a structure to evolve from the reptile lung.

Michael Denton also states that it is impossible to give an evolutionary account of the avian lung:

... In the case of birds, however, the major bronchi break down into tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system so that air flows in one direction through the lungs. ... Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are co adapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner.7

In brief, the passage from a terrestrial lung to an avian lung is impossible, because an intermediate form would serve no purpose.

Another point that needs to be mentioned here is that reptiles have a diaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal air sac system instead of a diaphragm. These different structures also make any evolution between the two lung types impossible, as John Ruben from the Oregon State University, an acknowledged authority in the field of respiratory physiology, observes in the following passage:

The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage.8

Another interesting structural design of the avian lung which defies evolution is the fact that it is never empty of air, and thus never in danger of collapse. Michael Denton explains the situation:

Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of direction is, again, very difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of the organism. Moreover, the unique function and form of the avian lung necessitates a number of additional unique adaptations during avian development… because first, the avian lung is fixed rigidly to the body wall and cannot therefore expand in volume and, second, because of the small diameter of the lung capillaries and the resulting high surface tension of any liquid within them, the avian lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as happens in all other vertebrates after birth. The air capillaries are never collapsed as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species; rather, as they grow into the lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes filled with either air or fluid.9

In other words, the passages in birds' lungs are so narrow that the air sacs inside their lungs cannot fill with air and empty again, as with land-dwelling creatures. If a bird lung ever completely deflated, the bird would never be able to re-inflate it, or would at the very least have great difficulty in doing so. For this reason, the air sacs situated all over the lung enable a constant passage of air to pass through, thus protecting the lungs from deflating.

Of course this system, which is completely different from the lungs of reptiles and other vertebrates, and is based on the most complex design, cannot have come about with random mutations, stage by stage, as evolution maintains. Thus, as Denton also mentions, the avian lung is enough to answer Darwin's challenge: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."10

Bird Feathers And Reptile Scales

Another impassable gap between birds and reptiles is feathers, which are peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, a completely different structure. The hypothesis that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionist paleontologist Barbara Stahl once admitted:

How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition.11

A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the University of Connecticut, accepts this fact, although he is himself an evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales]."12 Moreover, Professor Brush examines the protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among vertebrates."13

There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, Professor Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character distinguishing birds.14 Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers.15

National Geographic's great hit, the perfect "dino-bird" Archaeoraptor soon turned out to be a hoax. All other "dino-bird" candidates remain as speculation.

Many fossils have so far been the subject of "feathered dinosaur" speculation, but detailed study has always disproved it. Alan Feduccia once wrote the following in an article called "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers":

Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama (discovered 1969 Russia) ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are.16

More recently, Feduccia, quoting Brush, has the following passage on the origin of feathers:

Even birds' most scalelike features-the leg scutes (scales), claws, and the epidermally derived beak-are formed from a single category of protein, the Ø-keratins. As Alan Brush has written regarding feather development, "The genes that direct synthesis of the avian Ø-keratins represent a significant divergence from those of their reptilian ancestor."17 (Note that the authors assume a reptilian ancestor for birds, but accept the genetic gap between these.)

All news about "dino-birds" are speculative. Many allegations turned out to false. For example, "feathered dinosaur" claim that was put forward in 1996 with a great media fanfare was also disproved soon. A reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found in China, but paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had bird feathers, unlike modern reptiles. Examinations conducted one year later, however, showed that the fossil actually had no structure similar to a bird's feather.18

Every other fossil that has been put forward as "feathered dinosaur" in the last 10 years is debatable. Detailed studies have revealed that the structures suggested to have been "feathers" are actually collagen fibers.19 The speculations in fact stems from evolutionist prejudice and wishful thinking. As Feduccia says, "Many dinosaurs have been portrayed with a coating of aerodynamic contour feathers with absolutely no documentation."20 (One of the "feathered dinosaurs" in question, namely Archaeoraptor, proved to be a fossil forgery). Feduccia sums the position up in these terms: "Finally, no feathered dinosaur has ever been found, although many dinosaur mummies with well-preserved skin are known from diverse localities."21

The Design Of The Feathers

When bird feathers are studied closely, a very delicate design emerges. There are even tinier hairs on every tiny hair, and these have special hooks, allowing them to hold onto each other. The pictures show progressively enlarged bird feathers.

Another problem for the evolutionists is the fact that there is such a complex design in bird feathers that the phenomenon can never be accounted for without referring to intelligent design. As we all know, there is a long, stiff part that runs up the center of the feather. Attached to the shaft are the vanes. The vane is made up of small thread-like strands, called barbs. These barbs, of different lengths and rigidity, are what give the flying bird its aerodynamic nature. But what is even more interesting is that each barb has thousands of even smaller strands attached to them called barbules. The barbules are connected to barbicels, with tiny microscopic hooks, called hamuli. Each strand is hooked to an opposing strand, much like the hooks of a zipper. On just one crane feather, there are up to 650 hairs on the central tube. Each one of these is covered with some 650 tinier hairs. And these tiny hairs are linked together by 350 hooks. The hooks come together like the two sides of a zipper. If the hooks come apart for any reason, it is sufficient for the bird to shake itself, or, in more serious cases, to straighten its feathers out with its beak, for the feathers to return to their previous positions.

To claim that the complex design in feathers could have come about by the evolution of reptile scales through chance mutations is quite simply a dogmatic belief with no scientific foundation. Even one of the doyens of Darwinism, Ernst Mayr, made this confession on the subject some years ago:

It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations.22

The design of feathers also compelled Darwin to ponder them. Moreover, the perfect aesthetics of the peacock's feathers had made him "sick" (his own words). In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray on April 3, 1860, he said, "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint..." And then continued: "... and now trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!"23

In short, the enormous structural differences between bird feathers and reptile scales, and the astonishingly complex-and beautiful-design of feathers, clearly demonstrate the invalidity of the claim that feathers evolved from scales through blind natural mechanisms.

Conclusion

The "dino-bird" stories that appear in the evolutionist press consist of biased analyses by evolutionist paleontologists, and sometimes even of distortions of the truth. (In fact, one of the best-known "dino-bird" discoveries, the Archaeoraptor portrayed by National Geographic as incontrovertible proof of bird evolution, turned out to be a forgery produced by combining fossils of five separate specimens). The "dino-bird" fossils in question are either those of extinct species of bird or of dinosaurs, and not one of them represents a "missing link" between birds and dinosaurs. In fact, as we have seen above, it is impossible for dinosaurs to have evolved into birds and assumed bird characteristics by means of chance mutations.

Thus the "dino-bird" hype that rages through the media consists of nothing more than a last-ditch attempt to shore up the collapsed theory of evolution. However, science and reason will always prevail over such misconceptions.

1. Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 81.
2. Scott F. Gilbert, "Did Birds Evolve from the Dinosaurs?," Developmental Biology, Sixth Edition, chapter 16.4 (http://www.devbio.com/chap16/link1604.shtml).
3. Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, February 1, 1997, p. 28.
4. Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, February 1, 1997, p. 28.
5. Duane T. Gish, Dinosaurs by Design, Master Books, AR, 1996. pp. 65-66.
6. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London, Burnett Books Limited, 1985, p. 210-211.
7. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, pp. 210-212.
8. J. A. Ruben, T. D. Jones, N. R. Geist, and W. J. Hillenius, "Lung Structure And Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds," Science, vol. 278, p. 1267.
9. Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, Free Press, New York, 1998, p. 361.
10 . Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.
11. Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350.
12. A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.132.
13. A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.131.
14. A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.133.
15. A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.131.
16. Alan Feduccia, "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers," The Beginning of Birds, Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, 1985, p. 76.
17. Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 128
18. Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur," Science, vol. 278, no. 5341, 14 November 1997, pp. 1229 - 1230
19. Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur", Science, volume 278, Number 5341 Issue of 14 Nov 1997, pp. 1229 - 1230
20. Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 130
21. Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 132
22. Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species, Dove, New York, 1964, p. 296.
23. Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume II, From Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, April 3rd, 1860

THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTES EVOLUTION

THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTES EVOLUTION

The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously-existing species turned into something else in time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

If this was the case, then numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.

For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".

If such animals had really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than the present animal species and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.1

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. It was his hope that they would be found in the future. Despite his hopefulness, he realized that the biggest stumbling-block in his theory was the missing transitional forms. Therefore in his book The Origin of Species he wrote the following in the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory":

... Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.2

The single explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.

LIVING FOSSILS

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionists have been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th century all over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations showed that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.

The theory of evolution claims that species continuously evolve into other species. But when we compare living things with their fossils, we see that they have remained unchanged for millions of years. This fact is a clear evidence that falsifies the claims of evolutionists.

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionists have been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th century all over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations showed that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, the evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.3

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.4

They have also had to deal with the futility of waiting for "missing" transitional forms to appear in the future, as explained by a professor of paleontology from Glasgow University, T. Neville George:

There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration… The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.5

Life Emerged On Earth Suddenly And In Complex Forms

An illustration of the Cambrian Period

When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.

The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.

Most of the life forms found in this stratum have complex systems like eyes, gills, circulatory system, and advanced physiological structures no different from their modern counterparts. For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of design. David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: "the trilobites used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today".6

These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.

THE EYE OF THE TRILOBITE The trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a sudden have an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology. This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. No doubt, the sudden appearance of such a wondrous design cannot be explained by evolution and it proves the actuality of creation. Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to our own day without a single change. Some insects such as bees and dragonflies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite.* This situation disproves the evolutionary thesis that living things evolved progressively from the primitive to the complex. (*) R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain : The Physiology of Seeing, Oxford University Press, 1995, p.31

Richard Monastersky, the editor of Earth Sciences, which is one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the "Cambrian Explosion" which came as a total surprise to evolutionists:

A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.7

How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that invalidates the very roots of all the arguments he has been defending:

For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.8

As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact and states: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."9

Darwin himself recognized the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."10

The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengston confesses the lack of transitional links while he describes the Cambrian Period and says "Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us".11

As may be seen, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created.

1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 179.
2. Ibid, pp. 172, 280.
3. Derek V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record", Proceedings of the British Geological Association, Vol 87, 1976, p. 133.
4. Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56.
5. T. Neville George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective", Science Progress, Vol 48, January 1960, pp. 1, 3.
6. David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, Vol 50, January 1979, p. 24.
7. Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient", Discover, April 1993, p. 40.
8. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton 1986, p. 229.
9. Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, New York: Pantheon Books, 1983, p. 197.
10 . Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302.
11. Stefan Bengston, Nature, Vol. 345, 1990, p. 765.

COULD LIFE HAVE COME FROM OUTER SPACE?

COULD LIFE HAVE COME FROM OUTER SPACE?

Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe

When Darwin put forward his theory in the middle of the nineteenth century, he never mentioned how the origin of life, in other words the first living cell, came to be. Scientists looking for the origin of life at the beginning of the twentieth century began to realise that the theory was invalid. The complex and perfect structure in life prepared the ground for many researchers to perceive the truth of creation. Mathematical calculations and scientific experiment and observation demonstrated that life could not be the "product of chance," as the theory of evolution claimed.

With the collapse of the claim that coincidence was responsible and the realisation that life was "planned," some scientists began to look for the origin of life in outer space. The best-known of the scientists who made such claims were Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. These two cobbled together a scenario in which they proposed that there was a force which "seeded" life in space. According to the scenario, these seeds were carried through the emptiness of space by gas or dust clouds, or else by an asteroid, and eventually reached the Earth, and life thus started here.

Francis Crick

Nobel Prize-winner Francis Crick, co-discoverer with James Watson of the double helix structure of DNA, is one of those who has sought the origin of life in outer space. Crick came to realise that it is quite unreasonable to expect life to have started by chance, but he has claimed instead that life on Earth was started by intelligent "extraterrestrial" powers.

The idea that life came from outer space has influenced prominent scientists. The matter is now even discussed in writings and debates on the origin of life. The idea of looking for the origin of life in outer space can be considered from two basic perspectives.

Scientific Inconsistency

The key to evaluating the "life began in outer space" thesis lies in studying the meteorites that reached the Earth and the clouds of gas and dust existing in space. No evidence has yet been found to support the claim that celestial bodies contained non-earthly creatures that eventually seeded life on Earth. No research that has been carried out so far has revealed any of the complex macromolecules that appear in life forms.

Furthermore, the substances contained in meteorites do not possess a certain kind of asymmetry found in the macromolecules that constitute life. For instance, amino acids, which make up proteins, which are themselves the basic building blocks of life, should theoretically occur as both left- and right-handed forms ("optical isomers") in roughly equal numbers. However, only left-handed amino acids are found in proteins, whereas this asymmetric distribution does not occur among the small organic molecules (the carbon-based molecules found in living things) discovered in meteorites. The latter exist in both left- and right-handed forms.1

That is by no means the end of the obstacles to the thesis that bodies and substances in outer space gave rise to life on Earth. Those who maintain such an idea need to be able to explain why such a process is not happening now, because the Earth is still being bombarded by meteorites. However, study of these meteorites has not revealed any "seeding" to confirm the thesis in any way.

Another question confronting the defenders of the thesis is this: Even if it is accepted that life was formed by a consciousness in outer space, and that it somehow reached Earth, how did the millions of species on Earth come about? That is a huge dilemma for those who suggest that life began in space.

Alongside all of these obstacles, no trace has been found in the universe of a civilisation or life form that could have started life on Earth. No astronomical observations, which have picked up enormous speed in the last 30 years, have given any indication of the presence of such a civilisation.

What Lies Behind The "Extraterrestrial" Theory?

Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth. There is certainly a Sign in that for the believers. (Qur'an, 29:44)

As we have seen, the theory that life on Earth was begun by extraterrestrials has no scientific basis to it. No discoveries have been made to confirm or support it. However, when the scientists who put forward the suggestion began to look in that direction, they did so because they perceived one important truth.

The truth in question is that a theory that seeks to explain life on Earth as being the result of chance is no longer tenable. It has been realised that the complexity revealed in the life forms on Earth can only be the product of intelligent design. In fact, the areas of expertise of the scientists who sought the origin of life in outer space give a clue as to their rejection of the logic of the theory of evolution.

Both are world-renowned scientists: Fred Hoyle is an astronomer and bio-mathematician, and Francis Crick a molecular biologist.

He who created the heavens and the earth and everything in between them in six days, and then established Himself firmly on the Throne; the All-Merciful - ask anyone who is informed about Him. (Qur'an, 25:59)

One point which needs to be considered is that those scientists who look to outer space to find the origin of life do not actually make any new interpretation of the matter. Scientists such as Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, and Crick began to consider the possibility that life came from space because they realised that life could not have come about by chance. Since it was impossible for life on Earth to have begun by chance, they had to accept the existence of a source of intelligent design in outer space.

However, the theory put forward by them on the subject of the origin of this intelligent design is contradictory and meaningless. Modern physics and astronomy have revealed that our universe originated as a result of a huge explosion some 12-15 billion years ago known as "The Big Bang." All matter in the universe came about from that explosion. For this reason, any idea that seeks the origin of life on Earth in another matterbased life form in the universe has to explain in turn how that form of life came into existence. The meaning of this is that such a suggestion does not actually solve the problem, but takes it one step further back.

As we have seen, the thesis that "life came from outer space" does not support evolution, but is a view that reveals the impossibility of evolution and accepts that there can be no other explanation for life than intelligent design. The scientists who suggested this began with a correct analysis but then went down a false road, and started the silly search for the origin of life in outer space.

It is obvious that the concept of "extraterrestrials" cannot account for the origin of life. Even if we accept for one moment the hypothesis that "extraterrestrials" actually exist, it is still clear that they could not have come into being by chance, but must themselves be the product of intelligent design. (That is because the laws of physics and chemistry are the same everywhere in the universe, and they make it impossible for life to emerge by chance.) This shows that God, Who is beyond matter and time, and possesses infinite might, wisdom, and knowledge, created the universe and everything in it.

1. Massimo Pigliucci, Rationalists of East Tennessee Book Club Discussion, October 1997.

CAN LIFE RESULT FROM COINCIDENCES AS EVOLUTION ARGUES?

CAN LIFE RESULT FROM COINCIDENCES AS EVOLUTION ARGUES?

The theory of evolution holds that life started with a cell that formed by chance under primitive earth conditions. Let us therefore examine the composition of the cell with simple comparisons in order to show how irrational it is to ascribe the existence of the cell-a structure which still maintains its mystery in many respects, even at a time when we are about to set foot in the 21^st century-to natural phenomena and coincidences.

With all its operational systems, systems of communication, transportation and management, a cell is no less complex than any city. It contains power stations producing the energy consumed by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down imported raw materials into their usable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins for the control of incoming and outgoing materials. These constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.

Far from being formed under primitive earth conditions, the cell, which in its composition and mechanisms is so complex, cannot be synthesized in even the most sophisticated laboratories of our day. Even with the use of amino acids, the building blocks of the cell, it is not possible to produce so much as a single organelle of the cell, such as mitochondria or ribosome, much less a whole cell. The first cell claimed to have been produced by evolutionary coincidence is as much a figment of the imagination and a product of fantasy as the unicorn.

Proteins Challenge Coincidence

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of amino acids arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. We can easily demonstrate, with simple probability calculations anybody can understand, that the functional structure of proteins can by no means come about by chance.

And it is not just the cell that cannot be produced: the formation, under natural conditions, of even a single protein of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up a cell is impossible.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of amino acids arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These molecules constitute the building blocks of a living cell. The simplest is composed of 50 amino acids; but there are some proteins that are composed of thousands of amino acids. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein in living cells, each of which has a particular function, causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Incapable of demonstrating the "accidental formation" of amino acids, the theory of evolution founders on the point of the formation of proteins.

If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times more impossible for approximately one million of those proteins to come together by chance in an organized fashion and make up a complete human cell.

We can easily demonstrate, with simple probability calculations anybody can understand, that the functional structure of proteins can by no means come about by chance.

There are twenty different amino acids. If we consider that an average-sized protein molecule is composed of 288 amino acids, there are 10³⁰⁰ different combinations of acids. Of all of these possible sequences, only "one" forms the desired protein molecule. The other amino-acid chains are either completely useless or else potentially harmful to living things. In other words, the probability of the coincidental formation of only one protein molecule cited above is "1 in 10³⁰⁰". The probability of this "1" occurring out of an "astronomical" number consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros is for all practical purposes zero; it is impossible. Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is rather a modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" becomes inadequate.

If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times more impossible for approximately one million of those proteins to come together by chance in an organized fashion and make up a complete human cell. Moreover, a cell is not merely a collection of proteins. In addition to proteins, cells also include nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals such as electrolytes, all of which are arranged harmoniously and with design in specific proportions, both in terms of structure and function. Each functions as a building block or component in various organelles.

The probability of an average protein molecule comprising five hundred amino acids being arranged in the correct proportion and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-handed and being combined only with peptide bonds is "1" divided by 10⁹⁵⁰. We can write this number, which is formed by putting 950 zeros after 1.

As we have seen, evolution is unable to explain the formation of even a single protein out of the millions in the cell, let alone explain the cell.

Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution) Prof. Ali Demirsoy

Prof. Ali Demirsoy, one of the foremost authorities of evolutionist thought in Turkey, in his book Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), discusses the probability of the accidental formation of Cytochrome-C, one of the essential enzymes for life:

The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realized once in the whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our definition should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate to the goals of science. We therefore have to look into the first hypothesis.1

After these lines, Demirsoy admits that this probability, which he accepted just because it was "more appropriate to the goals of science", is unrealistic:

The probability of providing the particular amino acid sequence of Cytochrome-C is as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter-taking it for granted that the monkey pushes the keys at random.2

In the heavens and the earth there are certainly signs for the believers. And in your creation and all the creatures He has scattered about there are signs for people with certainty. (Qur'an, 45:3-4) He is Allah - the Creator, the Maker, the Giver of Form. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Everything in the heavens and earth glorifies Him. He is the Almighty, the All-Wise. (Qur'an, 59:24)

The correct sequence of proper amino acids is simply not enough for the formation of one of the protein molecules present in living things. Besides this, each of the twenty different types of amino acid present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. Chemically, there are two different types of amino acids called "left-handed" and "right-handed". The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands. Amino acids of either of these two types are found in equal numbers in nature and they can bond perfectly well with one another. Yet, research uncovers an astonishing fact: all proteins present in the structure of living things are made up of left-handed amino acids. Even a single right-handed amino acid attached to the structure of a protein renders it useless.

Let us for an instant suppose that life came into existence by chance as evolutionists claim. In this case, the right and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in nature in roughly equal amounts. The question of how proteins can pick out only left-handed amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid becomes involved in the life process is something that still confounds evolutionists.

We created you so why do you not confirm the truth? Have you thought about the sperm that you ejaculate? Is it you who create it or are We the Creator? (Qur'an, 56:57-59)

In the Britannica Science Encyclopaedia, an ardent defender of evolution, the authors indicate that the amino acids of all living organisms on earth and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins have the same left-handed asymmetry. They add that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. In the same encyclopedia, they state that it is not possible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the source of life on earth.3

It is not enough for amino acids to be arranged in the correct numbers, sequences, and in the required three-dimensional structures. The formation of a protein also requires that amino acid molecules with more than one arm be linked to each other only through certain arms. Such a bond is called a "peptide bond". Amino acids can make different bonds with each other; but proteins comprise those and only those amino acids that join together by "peptide" bonds.

Research has shown that only 50 % of amino acids, combining at random, combine with a peptide bond and that the rest combine with different bonds that are not present in proteins. To function properly, each amino acid making up a protein must join with other amino acids with a peptide bond, as it has only to be chosen from among the left-handed ones. Unquestionably, there is no control mechanism to select and leave out the right-handed amino acids and personally make sure that each amino acid makes a peptide bond with the other.

Under these circumstances, the probabilities of an average protein molecule comprising five hundred amino acids arranging itself in the correct quantities and in sequence, in addition to the probabilities of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-handed and combining using only peptide bonds are as follows:

- The probability of being in the right sequence =

1/20⁵⁰⁰ =1/10⁶⁵⁰

- The probability of being left-handed =

1/2⁵⁰⁰ =1/10¹⁵⁰

- The probability of combining using a "peptide bond"

= 1/2⁴⁹⁹ =1/10¹⁵⁰

TOTAL PROBABILITY =

1/10⁹⁵⁰ that is, "1" probability in 10⁹⁵⁰

As you can see above, the probability of the formation of a protein molecule comprising five hundred amino acids is "1" divided by a number formed by placing 950 zeros after a 1, a number incomprehensible to the human mind. This is only a probability on paper. Practically, such a possibility has "0" chance of realization. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 10⁵⁰ is statistically considered to have a "0" probability of realization.

While the improbability of the formation of a protein molecule made up of five hundred amino acids reaches such an extent, we can further proceed to push the limits of the mind to higher levels of improbability. In the "haemoglobin" molecule, a vital protein, there are five hundred and seventy-four amino acids, which is a much larger number than that of the amino acids making up the protein mentioned above. Now consider this: in only one out of the billions of red blood cells in your body, there are "280,000,000" (280 million) haemoglobin molecules. The supposed age of the earth is not sufficient to afford the formation of even a single protein, let alone a red blood cell, by the method of "trial and error". The conclusion from all this is that evolution falls into a terrible abyss of improbability right at the stage of the formation of a single protein.

Looking For Answers To The Generation Of Life

Stanley Miller with his experimental apparatus.

Well aware of the terrible odds against the possibility of life forming by chance, evolutionists were unable to provide a rational explanation for their beliefs, so they set about looking for ways to demonstrate that the odds were not so unfavorable.

They designed a number of laboratory experiments to address the question of how life could generate itself from non-living matter. The best known and most respected of these experiments is the one known as the "Miller Experiment" or "Urey-Miller Experiment", which was conducted by the American researcher Stanley Miller in 1953.

With the purpose of proving that amino acids could have come into existence by accident, Miller created an atmosphere in his laboratory that he assumed would have existed on primordial earth (but which later proved to be unrealistic) and he set to work. The mixture he used for this primordial atmosphere was composed of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor.

Even if they manage to synthesize amino acids, how would evolutionists get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins like the one seen on the right? That is impossible.

Miller knew that methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen would not react with each other under natural conditions. He was aware that he had to inject energy into the mixture to start a reaction. He suggested that this energy could have come from lightning flashes in the primordial atmosphere and, relying on this supposition, he used an artificial electricity discharge in his experiments.

Miller boiled this gas mixture at 100°C for a week, and, in addition, he introduced an electric current into the chamber. At the end of the week, Miller analyzed the chemicals that had been formed in the chamber and observed that three of the twenty amino acids, which constitute the basic elements of proteins, had been synthesized.

This experiment aroused great excitement among evolutionists and they promoted it as an outstanding success. Encouraged by the thought that this experiment definitely verified their theory, evolutionists immediately produced new scenarios. Miller had supposedly proved that amino acids could form by themselves. Relying on this, they hurriedly hypothesized the following stages. According to their scenario, amino acids had later by accident united in the proper sequences to form proteins. Some of these accidentally formed proteins placed themselves in cell membrane-like structures, which "somehow" came into existence and formed a primitive cell. The cells united in time and formed living organisms. The greatest mainstay of the scenario was Miller's experiment.

However, Miller's experiment was nothing but make-believe, and has since been proven invalid in many respects.

The Invalidity Of Miller's Experiment

Nearly half a century has passed since Miller conducted his experiment. Although it has been shown to be invalid in many respects, evolutionists still advance Miller and his results as absolute proof that life could have formed spontaneously from non-living matter. When we assess Miller's experiment critically, without the bias and subjectivity of evolutionist thinking, however, it is evident that the situation is not as rosy as evolutionists would have us think. Miller set for himself the goal of proving that amino acids could form by themselves in earth's primitive conditions. Some amino acids were produced, but the conduct of the experiment conflicts with his goal in many ways, as we shall now see.

Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed, by using a mechanism called a "cold trap". Had he not done so, the conditions of the environment in which the amino acids formed would immediately have destroyed the molecules.

It is quite meaningless to suppose that some conscious mechanism of this sort was integral to earth's primordial conditions, which involved ultraviolet radiation, thunderbolts, various chemicals, and a high percentage of free oxygen. Without such a mechanism, any amino acid that did manage to form would immediately have been destroyed.

The primordial atmospheric environment that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. Nitrogen and carbon dioxide would have been constituents of the primordial atmosphere, but Miller disregarded this and used methane and ammonia instead.

Why? Why were evolutionists insistent on the point that the primitive atmosphere contained high amounts of methane (CH₄), ammonia (NH₃), and water vapor (H₂O)? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it is impossible to synthesize an amino acid. Kevin McKean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:

Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere of earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. According to them, the earth was a true homogeneous mixture of metal, rock and ice. However in the latest studies, it is understood that the earth was very hot at those times and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N₂), carbon dioxide (CO₂) and water vapor (H₂O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.4

After a long period of silence, Miller himself also confessed that the atmospheric environment he used in his experiment was not realistic.

Another important point invalidating Miller's experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when evolutionists thought that amino acids formed. This oxygen concentration would definitely have hindered the formation of amino acids. This situation completely negates Miller's experiment, in which he totally neglected oxygen. If he had used oxygen in the experiment, methane would have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia would have decomposed into nitrogen and water.

On the other hand, since no ozone layer yet existed, no organic molecule could possibly have lived on earth because it was entirely unprotected against intense ultraviolet rays.

In addition to a few amino acids essential for life, Miller's experiment also produced many organic acids with characteristics that are quite detrimental to the structures and functions of living things. If he had not isolated the amino acids and had left them in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable. Moreover, a large number of right-handed amino acids also formed. The existence of these amino acids alone refuted the theory, even within its own reasoning, because right-handed amino acids are unable to function in the composition of living organisms and render proteins useless when they are involved in their composition.

To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life forms to come into being. The medium in which they formed was an acidic mixture that destroyed and oxidized any useful molecules that might have been obtained.

Evolutionists themselves actually refute the theory of evolution, as they are often wont to do, by advancing this experiment as "proof". If the experiment proves anything, it is that amino acids can only be produced in a controlled laboratory environment where all the necessary conditions have been specifically and consciously designed. That is, the experiment shows that what brings life (even the "near-life" of amino acids) into being cannot be unconscious chance, but rather conscious will-in a word, Creation. This is why every stage of Creation is a sign proving to us the existence and might of Allah.

The Miraculous Molecule: DNA

The molecule called DNA contains the complete construction plan of the human body.

The theory of evolution has been unable to provide a coherent explanation for the existence of the molecules that are the basis of the cell. Furthermore, developments in the science of genetics and the discovery of the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) have produced brand-new problems for the theory of evolution.

In 1955, the work of two scientists on DNA, James Watson and Francis Crick, launched a new era in biology. Many scientists directed their attention to the science of genetics. Today, after years of research, scientists have, largely, mapped the structure of DNA.

Here, we need to give some very basic information on the structure and function of DNA:

The molecule called DNA, which exists in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our body, contains the complete construction plan of the human body. Information regarding all the characteristics of a person, from the physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, is recorded in DNA by means of a special coding system. The information in DNA is coded within the sequence of four special bases that make up this molecule. These bases are specified as A, T, G, and C according to the initial letters of their names. All the structural differences among people depend on the variations in the sequence of these bases. There are approximately 3.5 billion nucleotides, that is, 3.5 billion letters in a DNA molecule.

Ever since the very first human being, the trillions of examples of DNA in the billions of human cells have been appearing in the same state of perfection and complexity as present.

The DNA data pertaining to a particular organ or protein is included in special components called "genes". For instance, information about the eye exists in a series of special genes, whereas information about the heart exists in quite another series of genes. The cell produces proteins by using the information in all of these genes. Amino acids that constitute the structure of the protein are defined by the sequential arrangement of three nucleotides in the DNA.

At this point, an important detail deserves attention. An error in the sequence of nucleotides making up a gene renders the gene completely useless. When we consider that there are 200 thousand genes in the human body, it becomes more evident how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to form by accident in the right sequence. An evolutionist biologist, Frank Salisbury, comments on this impossibility by saying:

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4¹⁰⁰⁰ forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms), we can see that 4¹⁰⁰⁰ =10⁶⁰⁰. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.5

The number 4¹⁰⁰⁰ is equivalent to 10⁶⁰⁰. We obtain this number by adding 600 zeros to 1. As 10 with 11 zeros indicates a trillion, a figure with 600 zeros is indeed a number that is difficult to grasp.

Evolutionist Prof. Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following admission on this issue:

In fact, the probability of the random formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is inconceivably small. The chances against the emergence of even a particular protein chain are astronomic.6

In addition to all these improbabilities, DNA can barely be involved in a reaction because of its double-chained spiral shape. This also makes it impossible to think that it can be the basis of life.

Moreover, while DNA can replicate only with the help of some enzymes that are actually proteins, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realized only by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, either they have to exist at the same time for replication, or one of them has had to be "created" before the other. American microbiologist Jacobson comments on the subject:

Direction for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment (when life began). This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention.7

The quotation above was written two years after the disclosure of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick. Despite all the developments in science, this problem remains unsolved for evolutionists. To sum up, the need for DNA in reproduction, the necessity of the presence of some proteins for reproduction, and the requirement to produce these proteins according to the information in the DNA entirely demolish evolutionist theses.

Two German scientists, Junker and Scherer, explained that the synthesis of each of the molecules required for chemical evolution, necessitates distinct conditions, and that the probability of the compounding of these materials having theoretically very different acquirement methods is zero:

Until now, no experiment is known in which we can obtain all the molecules necessary for chemical evolution. Therefore, it is essential to produce various molecules in different places under very suitable conditions and then to carry them to another place for reaction by protecting them from harmful elements like hydrolysis and photolysis.8

In short, the theory of evolution is unable to prove any of the evolutionary stages that allegedly occur at the molecular level.

To summarize what we have said so far, neither amino acids nor their products, the proteins making up the cells of living beings, could ever be produced in any so-called "primitive atmosphere" environment. Moreover, factors such as the incredibly complex structure of proteins, their right-hand, left-hand features, and the difficulties in the formation of peptide bonds are just parts of the reason why they will never be produced in any future experiment either.

Even if we suppose for a moment that proteins somehow did form accidentally, that would still have no meaning, for proteins are nothing at all on their own: they cannot themselves reproduce. Protein synthesis is only possible with the information coded in DNA and RNA molecules. Without DNA and RNA, it is impossible for a protein to reproduce. The specific sequence of the twenty different amino acids encoded in DNA determines the structure of each protein in the body. However, as has been made abundantly clear by all those who have studied these molecules, it is impossible for DNA and RNA to form by chance.

The Fact Of Creation

With the collapse of the theory of evolution in every field, prominent names in the discipline of microbiology today admit the fact of creation and have begun to defend the view that everything is created by a conscious Creator as part of an exalted creation. This is already a fact that people cannot disregard. Scientists who can approach their work with an open mind have developed a view called "intelligent design". Michael J. Behe, one of the foremost of these scientists, states that he accepts the absolute being of the Creator and describes the impasse of those who deny this fact:

The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell-to investigate life at the molecular level-is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka" from ten thousand throats.

But, no bottles have been uncorked, no hands clapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go like that. Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the [issue] is labeled intelligent design, the other side must be labeled God.9

Today, many people are not even aware that they are in a position of accepting a body of fallacy as truth in the name of science, instead of believing in Allah. Those who do not find the sentence "Allah created you from nothing" scientific enough can believe that the first living being came into being by thunderbolts striking a "primordial soup" billions of years ago.

As we have described elsewhere in this book, the balances in nature are so delicate and so numerous that it is entirely irrational to claim that they developed "by chance". No matter how much those who cannot set themselves free from this irrationality may strive, the signs of Allah in the heavens and the earth are completely obvious and they are undeniable.

Allah is the Creator of the heavens, the earth and all that is in between. The signs of His being have encompassed the entire universe.

1. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Yayinlari 1984, p. 61.
2. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Yayinlari 1984, p. 61.
3. Fabbri Britannica Science Encyclopaedia, Vol. 2, No. 22, p. 519.
4. Kevin McKean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), No. 189, p. 7.
5. Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.
6. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 39.
7. Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life", American Scientist, January, 1955, p.121.
8. Reinhard Junker & Siegfried Scherer, "Entstehung Gesiche Der Lebewesen", Weyel, 1986, p. 89.
9. Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, New York: Free Press, 1996, pp. 232-233.