THE HISTORY CHANNEL'S DARWINIST AND ATHEIST PROPAGANDA

THE HISTORY CHANNEL'S DARWINIST AND ATHEIST PROPAGANDA

The History Channel is broadcasting a film in its Biography series, which deals with the life and views of Charles Darwin. In this film, Charles Darwin's unscientific views are defended on the basis of no evidence at all, as if they were proven fact, and there is at the same time open atheistic propaganda. The fact that a channel such as The History Channel, which claims to give viewers the historical and scientific truth, should devote space to Darwinist views, which are in no way compatible with the scientific facts, casts a shadow over its credibility.

Why are They Trying to Keep the Theory of Evolution Alive with Propaganda?

In recent weeks, a number of channels such as The History Channel, The National Geographic Channel, and The Discovery Channel have initiated an intense campaign of evolutionary propaganda. Documentaries that discuss the theory of evolution and praise Charles Darwin have been dusted off the shelves and screened, as if a common decision to that end had been taken. What is the reason for this? In our view, there is an attempt to repair the damage that scientific discoveries have done to the theory of evolution in recent years, and especially in recent months. As followers of the www.darwinism-watch.com website will know, discoveries in the fields of paleontology, molecular biology, and genetics have revealed a grave contradiction with the claims of the theory of evolution. Even evolutionists accept this. (You can find many instances of this in the archives of www.darwinism-watch.com.)

It is actually quite natural that the theory of evolution should have come to such an end. The real architect of the theory, Charles Darwin, lived in the 19th century and was unaware of most of the fields of science that exist in our time. For instance, since he was unaware of genetics, he believed that living species could be improved, in the way that stockbreeders do, and new species could be obtained. Thanks to the science of genetics, however, it emerged that stock improvement could not lead to the appearance of new species. He was similarly unaware of cell biology, and since he worked with the crude microscopes of his own time he assumed that the cell was a very simple structure, for which reason it might have emerged by chance. In our day, however, microbiologists regard the cell as a structure of incredibly flawless organization and complexity, on the order of the city of New York or a space ship, and consider it as totally impossible for the cell to have come about by chance. It was natural that Darwin, ignorant of all these branches of science and lacking technological facilities, should be influenced by certain similarities he observed between living things to form a theory, and for that theory later to collapse under the weight of scientific findings. The history of science is full of similar examples.

In his book The Origin of Species, Darwin never mentioned the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living things had very simple structures. Detailed studies of the cell that revealed its highly complicated structure were only possible after the discovery of the electron microscope.

However, there is another point here, one which is by no means normal and for which there is no parallel in history: Despite the fact that Darwin's theory has been belied by scientific discoveries, it has not been annulled like so many other theories. Rather, some scientists have tried and are still trying to defend the theory. That is the point which needs to be concentrated on. Even though science has clearly rejected the claim that living things evolved by chance, why is the theory of evolution still receiving such support?

It is no secret that the theory of evolution denies the fact that living things were created according to intelligent design as it seeks to find a so-called account for the origin of life. For that reason, the theory acts as the defender of atheism in the scientific arena. That is why those who deny intelligent creation and the existence of a Creator possessed of superior power are so fiercely devoted to the theory of evolution. Since the collapse of the theory of evolution means the collapse of their own atheist and materialist beliefs, they engage in evolutionist propaganda with all their might. Some of the major and indispensable elements of this propaganda are organizations like The History Channel, The National Geographic Channel, and The Discovery Channel in broadcasting, and publications such as Science, Nature, Scientific American, and New Scientist.

The main starting point for this propaganda was set out in the slogan "Rejecting the theory of evolution means rejecting science." That is why these channels and publications, which claim to be among the world's most eminent and trustworthy scientific bodies, are never able to bring up scientific discoveries that disprove the theory of evolution. It is as if they had been programmed, literally by a hidden hand, to defend the theory of evolution under all circumstances and never allow the mention of a single word against it.

Not Avoiding Innovations and Shocks, and Being able to Lead The Way Toward Novelties, is a Sign of Superiority

History has always placed innovations in man's way. Those who are open to these innovations, who are able to think freely without being tied down to dogmatic, conservative ideas, and who do not shrink from the criticisms and attacks of those around them, have gone down in history as the vanguard of innovation, as makers of history itself. Dogmatic, conservative types, however, have remained trapped in their own superstitions. These organizations need to see that we are at a turning point in history, and exhibit a courageous and progressive character, without worrying about loss of prestige in evolutionist circles.

The fact that we are now at a most important turning point is so obvious that it cannot be ignored. The materialist thought that has dominated all fields over the last few hundred years, from science to art, and from philosophy to literature, is falling apart. The collapse of the theory of evolution, materialism's so-called scientific basis, is just accelerating the end of the dominion of materialist thought. Today, the entire scientific world is witnessing the rapid rise of the thesis of "Intelligent Design." It is now completely clear that every living thing, and indeed every one of the trillions of cells that go to make up every living thing, possesses such a flawless, extraordinary design that this could never have come about by chance. The mind that accepts that a single letter "B" written on a piece of paper could never have come about by chance, must also accept the existence of "Intelligent Design" in living things. Accepting that fact means accepting the truths revealed by science, not rejecting them.

In any case, The History Channel and similar channels describe every day the flawless design in living things and show examples of marvelous creation. To claim that the living things which possess all these magnificent features are a miracle of evolution, in other words of blind coincidence, is both unscientific and irrational. Coincidence cannot create a miracle. In the same way that a camera, a television, or a picture cannot come about by chance, and cannot emerge of its own accord, neither can living things be the result of chance. It is evident that the theory of evolution conflicts with science and reason.

Evolutionists themselves are aware that chance is unable to account for life. The French zoologist Pierre Grassé admits:

Any living being possesses an enormous amount of "intelligence," very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this "intelligence" is called information, but it is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on a molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of every other organelle in each cell. This "intelligence" is the sine qua non of life. Where does it come from?... This is a problem that concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it.1

The reason why Grassé regards this as an unanswerable question is that he seeks the answer within the context of materialist prejudices. The truth, however, is very clear, and lies entirely outside materialist thought.

Our advice to the authorities at The History Channel is to have the courage to accept innovations and abandon their dogmas. They should put an end to showing the theory of evolution, which has cast a sort of magical spell over men's minds for the last 150 years, on our screens. That of course will represent an enormous shock, both for the channel and for evolutionists, but "shocks must not be avoided." Professor Michael Behe, an opponent of the theory of evolution and one of those who have not tried to avoid that shock, likewise advises his colleagues to do the same:

The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them.2

Mankind managed to free itself from such dogmas as the idea that the earth was flat or at the center of the universe. It is also ridding itself of the materialist and evolutionist dogma that life emerged of its own accord, without being designed. The duty of true men of science and scientific bodies is to look at life and the origin of living things in an objective manner, compatible with the nature of science, by giving up their materialist preconceptions. The History Channel and the rest must not "avoid shocks," and must not support impossible scenarios by remaining attached to the outdated nineteenth-century materialist dogma.

Dangerous Atheist Propaganda Accompanies Evolutionist Propaganda

The program about the biography of Charles Darwin broadcast on The History Channel contains frequent elements of atheist propaganda, tries to portray science and religion as total opposites, and maintains the so-called superiority of Darwinism. The program presents Darwin as an atheist scientist and seeks to give the impression that the more he became interested in science, the further he moved from religion. The expressions employed in the documentary are particularly striking as they maintain according to the theory of evolution that man is also an animal, and that there is no such thing as an immortal spirit. This idea was against Christianity because if spirit did not exist, then the motivation for a better spiritual life would be abandoned. It is said in the documentary that after his daughter Emmy's death, Charles Darwin was sure that there was no final judgment after death.

Darwinism claims that living beings have evolved as a result of coincidences and by means of a struggle for life. This evil morality advises people to be egoistical, self-seeking, cruel and oppressive. The only possible solution that can save humanity from this benighted way of thinking is the widespread acceptance of the values of religion.

Since the theory of evolution is portrayed as fact in the documentary, such baseless claims as "man is an animal, he has no spirit, spiritual matters are unimportant, and there is no such thing as final judgment, the hereafter, or life after death" are thus suggested. Claims of this kind not only represent a threat to the society in which they are propagated, but are also unacceptable in a society largely consisting of believers. The History Channel's representatives must bear this fact in mind and reconsider their broadcasting policies in the knowledge that they are addressing communities most of whose members believe in God and religion.

The menace of atheist propaganda is evident. One of the main reasons behind the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, and the reason why it was unable to survive, is that it spent many years utterly devoid of religious and spiritual values. Realizing, however, that those who sought salvation in the capitalist system would merely find themselves in another intolerable situation, Russia began to find its feet again after beginning to understand the importance of religion and spiritual matters. Atheism ruins a society's unity, harmony, peace, and social fabric. People who regard themselves as animals and believe that they cease to exist after death have a tendency to turn towards all forms of wickedness, immorality, violence, and crime. It is a simple matter for such people to be convinced to kill, torture, and harm others, because they regard those others not as beings with spirits, but as animals. Forms of immorality such as falsehood, corruption, and theft increase rapidly in irreligious societies, and it becomes impossible to prevent them until the moral and religious structure of society is reinforced. Feelings of love, compassion, affection, and devotion entirely disappear in atheist societies, to be replaced by anger, violence, selfishness, neglect, and cruelty.

These are just a few of the tragedies which atheism inflicts on a society. If we consider one by one all the tragedies that every family that will go to make up irreligious generations will experience, we can clearly see what a grave menace atheism represents. That is why those who engage in atheist propaganda are playing with fire, and why the Darwinism-watch.com website contains frequent advice for those who "engage in atheist propaganda with their eyes closed." Such people are unable to see the evidence against the theory of evolution, and are also unable to calculate the serious damage they are causing society by their defense of the theory.

Conclusion

Like those who hundreds of years ago maintained that the earth was flat, The History Channel and the other bodies in question are also making totally irrational claims, and they must stop doing this under a false scientific mask. It is they who will emerge the winners if they sincerely defend the truths that science now reveals.

1 -Pierre Grassé, The Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p. 168.
2- Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, New York, The Free Press, 1996, pp. 252-253.

EVOLUTIONST PROPAGANDA ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL

EVOLUTIONST PROPAGANDA ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL

Towards the end of January, The History Channel television company embarked on evolutionist propaganda consisting of four programs. Interestingly enough, this propaganda was not limited to The History Channel, since other channels such as National Geographic and The Discovery Channel stepped up their own evolutionist propaganda at exactly that same time.

Behind these broadcasts, initiated from three different directions, lie developments that have recently taken place in the scientific world and which prove the invalidity of the theory of evolution. These pro-evolution channels intend their propaganda campaign to cover up the damage these discoveries have done to the theory.

The series which The History Channel has begun to broadcast comes under the title Ape Man. However, since The History Channel first broadcast these programs there have been new developments that have further undermined the scenario of human evolution. The History Channel has deliberately ignored these developments and has not hesitated to broadcast the old stories that are no longer of any value at all in the face of new findings. We present below the developments in question for The History Channel's attention and call on it not to broadcast material that flies in the face of the scientific facts for the sake of Darwinist propaganda.

The Collapse of the Human Evolution Scenario; April 2002- January 2003

Fossils from Georgia Deal a Mortal Blow to the Human Evolution Scenario

July 4 - Skull fossils unearthed during an archaeological excavation in Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia in 1999 caused a widespread reaction in the scientific world. The age and features of these fossilized bones were of a kind to challenge the evolutionist chronologies. Based on these fossils, a number of eminent paleontologists stressed the invalidity of certain classical evolutionary scenarios at the Seckenberg Conference in Germany.1 The latest skull fossils found at Dmanisi deepen still further the damage done to evolutionary scenarios by the first discoveries. The fossils caused great excitement in the media, and were reported by MSNBC under the headline "Fossil Discovery Upsets Theory on Human Origins."2 Paleontologists seeking the imaginary "missing link" were no longer able to defend their old claims in the face of the picture now emerging with the increasing number of fossils that failed to fit in with the evolutionist chronology. No concrete proof to show that there had been evolution from ape to man had been found anywhere in the fossil record.

The Fossil That Made Them Confess: Sahelanthropus tchadensis

July 7 - The fairy story of evolution that has been recounted for the last 150 years was dealt another blow by a fossil skull found in Chad and named as Sahelanthropus. Daniel Lieberman, an anthropologist from Harvard University, described the seven-million-year-old fossil as the discovery of the century and said, "This [discovery] will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb."3 The fossil definitively overturned the evolutionist myth of a gradation beginning with apes and ending in modern man. It was understood that the idea of the "ape-man" acquiring a gradually more modern appearance, as maintained in newspapers and magazines, was untrue. Moreover, it was also realized that the so-called missing link (between man and ape), widely used as a propaganda tool and which evolutionists claimed would inevitably be discovered one day, was actually missing because it did not exist. The paleontologist Henry Gee, the editor of the famous journal Nature which announced the fossil discovery to the world, described it as "the most important discovery in the search for human origins in living memory" and wrote the following in an article in the Guardian newspaper:

Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a "missing link" is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable. 4

Forced Speculation in Time Magazine

On the cover of Time magazine's July, 23, 2001, issue was a painting of an ape-man called Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba. The painting was based on some fragmentary bones recently found in Ethiopia. Time assured its readers that the creature walked upright, giving as evidence for this nothing but a single toe bone which was actually found some sixteen kilometers (ten miles) from the other bones. However, Time's claim that this creature was a human ancestor was discredited by later studies on the toe bone.

August 27 - Detailed analyses by Joseph Mastropaolo, a world-famous scientist and member of the American Physiological Society, invalidated Time's evolutionist propaganda. Time magazine had announced to the world that the fossils of the species Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba discovered by the University of California at Berkeley anthropologist Yohannes Haile-Selassie in Ethiopia represented the "missing link." In its cover story dated July 23, 2001, and entitled "Meet your newfound ancestor, a chimplike forest creature," Time discussed the fossil in question in terms of a bipedal evolutionary ancestor. Evolutionists who studied the fossil had claimed the creature was 5.5-5.8 million years old and capable of bipedal walking. However, the bone they based all these claims on was just a single toe. Some 95% of the skeleton was missing, yet evolutionists still made the totally unrealistic claim that this toe supposedly showed that this creature was capable of walking on two legs, which showed in turn that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. The evolutionist magazine Time felt no need to question whether its claims rested on any scientific foundation, and portrayed to the world these evolutionary tales, embellished with pictures of ape-men, as scientific fact.

Mastropaolo, regarded as one of the most respected authorities in the world of paleontology, wanted to be sure of the facts by examining the toe himself. He compared the Kaddaba toe bone to those of man, chimpanzees, and baboons. Comparing the anatomic criteria from a mathematical perspective, Mastropaolo arrived at very different results. The toe did not resemble those of chimpanzees or baboons at all. The resemblance between it and the human toe was also insufficient.

Mastropaolo's findings were unveiled at the San Diego Conference held by the American Physiological Society on August 27, 2002. It was made clear in the concluding part of the paper that the idea of an evolutionary ancestor walking upright was a work of pure imagination:

Accordingly, the objective ancestry analyses for fossil bones assert that the conclusions of Haile-Selassie and Robinson were farfetched speculations.5

"Chimps on Two Legs Run Through Darwin's Theory"

A news report in the Scottish newspaper The Scotsman revealed that scientists studying chimpanzees in Uganda have discovered groups of chimpanzees walking around on two legs. This discovery destroyed the false evolutionist claims holding that man evolved from quadrupedal apes and that an evolutionary progression took place from primitive to more developed species.

September 13 - The report of a discovery in the well-known Scottish newspaper, The Scotsman, tore down another of the classical myths of evolution. We have all seen the ape-man diagrams in evolutionist newspapers and magazines, which begin with an ape walking on four legs and then take on increasingly human characteristics, finally arriving at modern man. According to the theory this progression is based on, human beings evolved from so-called apes that walked on four legs. However, one group of chimpanzees discovered by Liverpool University anthropologist Dr. Robin Crompton belied that tale. The researcher encountered chimpanzees in Uganda's Bwindi jungle area that were able to walk on two legs. The Scotsman covered the story under the headline "Chimps On Two Legs Run Through Darwin's Theory." Dr. Crompton commented, "This is contrary to the accepted idea that we evolved from chimpanzees which were knuckle-walking - or walking around on all fours."6

The Genetic Difference Between Man and Chimpanzee Trebled

September 23 - There was one story that evolutionists created with false information and one-sided interpretations that was used to make the headlines for decades: The idea that man and chimpanzees were related, based on genetic analyses. One piece of research revealed that the genetic difference between man and chimpanzees was three times greater than had been believed.7 The way this piece of research widened that difference showed the invalidity of the evolutionists' claims about genetic relationships.

Conclusion

As we have seen, there have been a large number of scientific developments in a period of just six months that have clearly demonstrated the invalidity of the theory of evolution with regard to the origin of man. The History Channel must no longer hesitate to confront the scientific facts it has sought to conceal. Instead of blindly engaging in Darwinist propaganda, it must explain, clearly and in full as a history channel, how the scientific discoveries of the last 150 years have actually demolished Darwinism.

1 - Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi," The American Scientist, November-December 2000, p.491
2- MSNBC.com: "Fossil Discovery Upsets Theories on Human Origins," 4 July 2002.
3- D. L. Parsell, "Skull Fossil FromChad Forces Rethinking of Human Origins," National Geographic News, July 10, 2002.
4- Henry Gee, "Face of Yesterday," The Guardian, 11 July 2002
5- Eurekalert.com: "Oldest Human Ancestor is (Again) Called into Question," August 27, 2002
6- Richard Sadler, "Chimps on Two Legs Run Through Darwin's Theory," The Scotsman, September 13, 2002
7- Newscientist.com: "Human-chimp DNA difference trebled," September 23, 2002, http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992833

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL'S SPIDER DILEMMA

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL'S SPIDER DILEMMA

The Discovery Channel recently broadcast a documentary called Discovery Journal: The Spider. The documentary gives examples of the hunting techniques employed by various species of spider and stresses what a superior substance spider thread is. It describes how spider thread is much stronger than steel, and mentions the technological and industrial fields in which this material could be used once it has been artificially replicated. The channel produced a most entertaining programme with its close-ups of spiders and their webs. Yet, when it came to the origin of spiders, The Discovery Channel made a comment that at once cast a shadow over its scientific credentials, saying, "It is by no means easy to imitate this material, which is the product of 380 million years of evolution."

Spider fossil in amber

The evidence put forward on the channel for this claim consisted solely of statements by a scientist who discovered 380-million-year-old fossilized spinneret (the organ at the rear of the spider from which it produces its thread). This scientist claimed that he had found the distant ancestors of spiders, and said that when he dissolved 380-million-year-old rocks and examined them under the microscope he had identified the spinneret inside them. Yet, there was absolutely no proof that these spinnerets belonged to "spiders' distant ancestors," and not a real spider. The spinnerets display absolutely no intermediate form characteristics, and no difference has been found between them and those of modern spiders.

The Discovery Channel's portrayal of this fossil as spiders' distant ancestor is nothing more than a deception. That is because the scientific world has known for some 20 years that there is no difference between 380-million-year-old spiders and present-day ones. At its annual conference in 1983, the American Association for the Advancement of Science put forward important fossil discoveries regarding these creatures. The interesting thing about these 380-million-year-old fossils of spiders, ticks, and centipedes is that they are no different from their modern counterparts. One of the scientists who examined the fossils remarked that "they looked like they might have died yesterday."1 It is stated on the Australian Museum website that 380-million-year-old examples of the spider Attercopus fimbriungus possessed silk-producing organs even then.2 These fossils reflect the origin of spiders in the most realistic manner and invalidate The Discovery Channel's claims: Spiders emerged not by evolution, but suddenly and perfectly formed, and have undergone no change in the millions of years that have followed.

On the other hand, it also shows that the evolutionist interpretations of spider silk and the complex features of their webs are utterly forced. For instance, spider thread is so light that one kilogram of it could stretch around the earth three times. Despite being so light, spider thread is five times stronger than steel of the same weight. Thanks to its elasticity, it can stretch up to four times its own length. All of this is made possible by the special structure and arrangement of the atoms which make up spider thread. Moreover, although spider silk is solid in web form, it is a liquid in the spider's body. As soon it makes contact with the air, it solidifies as the result of a rapid reaction. Yet, spider thread, which is "the envy of chemists and materials scientists everywhere," as one American newspaper put it, can also revert to its original form.3 By eating its own web, the spider can turn it back into liquid form for re-use later.

Alongside this web-production, web-weaving is also a complex behavior. Although the spider's brain is no larger than a grain of salt, an architectural plan can be seen in the web it spins. The spider drops its thread down from where it sits and waits for the wind to carry it somewhere it can stick to. It then sticks the other end of the thread to another suitable point. After having drawn a few diagonal struts in this way, it starts to fill in the gaps between them with circular links. Anything coming into contact with the web is swiftly immobilised. Yet, the spider itself is unaffected by the adhesive nature of its web.

In other words, for the spider to have come about by evolution, both the web with its exceedingly complex biochemical structure, and the complex behavior allowing the spider to make use of the web, would have to have come about by means of chance mutations. It is clear that this is impossible. Moreover, there is absolutely no experimental, observational, or fossil evidence to support this evolutionist claim.

On the contrary, the evidence deals a mortal blow to evolution: the fact that 380-million-year-old spider fossils are no different from modern spiders, and the complex structure of the web, pose insuperable difficulties for evolutionists. Given these difficulties, The Discovery Channel declines to touch on the subject of how an organ that produces a substance with such superior properties, which scientists are trying to imitate, could have evolved by chance mutations. It therefore resorts to familiar old stories. The channel starts off with the shape of the nest, which spiders erected between plants on the ground and which contained a downward-pointing funnel: "These nests in the shape of funnels turned into a silken layer as the spiders climbed up on the trees. The gradually developing layer turned sideways, took shape and the circular web formed."

The Discovery Channel may imagine that with this story it has overcome the problem of the origin of spiders. If so, it is mistaken, because the web it places at the beginning of its story must have been made of spider thread with a flawless structure. Since it offers no proof that webs close to the ground are ancient in evolutionary terms, whereas those high up are more recent, it places spider webs in an imaginary chronological framework.

Conclusion

The Discovery Channel's ideas regarding the origin of spiders are nothing more than an expression of its terrible quandary on the subject. The true origin of the spider and its web, which place the channel in such difficulties, is creation. It is God, the Lord of the Worlds, the Lord of Infinite Knowledge and Might, Who creates the spider and its web-producing system, and Who inspires it to spin its webs. No matter how hard they may try, evolutionists can no longer conceal this evident truth.

1 - San Diego Union, New York Times Press Service, 29 May 1983; W. A. Shear, Science, vol. 224, 1984, p. 494
2- Australian Museum Online, 2002 http://www.amonline.net.au/spiders/diversity/what/origins.htm.
3- Stephen Reucroft and John Swain, "Spider silk mystery solved," Boston Globe, 10/22/2002.

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL'S SPIDER DILEMMA

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL'S SPIDER DILEMMA

The Discovery Channel recently broadcast a documentary called Discovery Journal: The Spider. The documentary gives examples of the hunting techniques employed by various species of spider and stresses what a superior substance spider thread is. It describes how spider thread is much stronger than steel, and mentions the technological and industrial fields in which this material could be used once it has been artificially replicated. The channel produced a most entertaining programme with its close-ups of spiders and their webs. Yet, when it came to the origin of spiders, The Discovery Channel made a comment that at once cast a shadow over its scientific credentials, saying, "It is by no means easy to imitate this material, which is the product of 380 million years of evolution."

Spider fossil in amber

The evidence put forward on the channel for this claim consisted solely of statements by a scientist who discovered 380-million-year-old fossilized spinneret (the organ at the rear of the spider from which it produces its thread). This scientist claimed that he had found the distant ancestors of spiders, and said that when he dissolved 380-million-year-old rocks and examined them under the microscope he had identified the spinneret inside them. Yet, there was absolutely no proof that these spinnerets belonged to "spiders' distant ancestors," and not a real spider. The spinnerets display absolutely no intermediate form characteristics, and no difference has been found between them and those of modern spiders.

The Discovery Channel's portrayal of this fossil as spiders' distant ancestor is nothing more than a deception. That is because the scientific world has known for some 20 years that there is no difference between 380-million-year-old spiders and present-day ones. At its annual conference in 1983, the American Association for the Advancement of Science put forward important fossil discoveries regarding these creatures. The interesting thing about these 380-million-year-old fossils of spiders, ticks, and centipedes is that they are no different from their modern counterparts. One of the scientists who examined the fossils remarked that "they looked like they might have died yesterday."1 It is stated on the Australian Museum website that 380-million-year-old examples of the spider Attercopus fimbriungus possessed silk-producing organs even then.2 These fossils reflect the origin of spiders in the most realistic manner and invalidate The Discovery Channel's claims: Spiders emerged not by evolution, but suddenly and perfectly formed, and have undergone no change in the millions of years that have followed.

On the other hand, it also shows that the evolutionist interpretations of spider silk and the complex features of their webs are utterly forced. For instance, spider thread is so light that one kilogram of it could stretch around the earth three times. Despite being so light, spider thread is five times stronger than steel of the same weight. Thanks to its elasticity, it can stretch up to four times its own length. All of this is made possible by the special structure and arrangement of the atoms which make up spider thread. Moreover, although spider silk is solid in web form, it is a liquid in the spider's body. As soon it makes contact with the air, it solidifies as the result of a rapid reaction. Yet, spider thread, which is "the envy of chemists and materials scientists everywhere," as one American newspaper put it, can also revert to its original form.3 By eating its own web, the spider can turn it back into liquid form for re-use later.

Alongside this web-production, web-weaving is also a complex behavior. Although the spider's brain is no larger than a grain of salt, an architectural plan can be seen in the web it spins. The spider drops its thread down from where it sits and waits for the wind to carry it somewhere it can stick to. It then sticks the other end of the thread to another suitable point. After having drawn a few diagonal struts in this way, it starts to fill in the gaps between them with circular links. Anything coming into contact with the web is swiftly immobilised. Yet, the spider itself is unaffected by the adhesive nature of its web.

In other words, for the spider to have come about by evolution, both the web with its exceedingly complex biochemical structure, and the complex behavior allowing the spider to make use of the web, would have to have come about by means of chance mutations. It is clear that this is impossible. Moreover, there is absolutely no experimental, observational, or fossil evidence to support this evolutionist claim.

On the contrary, the evidence deals a mortal blow to evolution: the fact that 380-million-year-old spider fossils are no different from modern spiders, and the complex structure of the web, pose insuperable difficulties for evolutionists. Given these difficulties, The Discovery Channel declines to touch on the subject of how an organ that produces a substance with such superior properties, which scientists are trying to imitate, could have evolved by chance mutations. It therefore resorts to familiar old stories. The channel starts off with the shape of the nest, which spiders erected between plants on the ground and which contained a downward-pointing funnel: "These nests in the shape of funnels turned into a silken layer as the spiders climbed up on the trees. The gradually developing layer turned sideways, took shape and the circular web formed."

The Discovery Channel may imagine that with this story it has overcome the problem of the origin of spiders. If so, it is mistaken, because the web it places at the beginning of its story must have been made of spider thread with a flawless structure. Since it offers no proof that webs close to the ground are ancient in evolutionary terms, whereas those high up are more recent, it places spider webs in an imaginary chronological framework.

Conclusion

The Discovery Channel's ideas regarding the origin of spiders are nothing more than an expression of its terrible quandary on the subject. The true origin of the spider and its web, which place the channel in such difficulties, is creation. It is God, the Lord of the Worlds, the Lord of Infinite Knowledge and Might, Who creates the spider and its web-producing system, and Who inspires it to spin its webs. No matter how hard they may try, evolutionists can no longer conceal this evident truth.

1 - San Diego Union, New York Times Press Service, 29 May 1983; W. A. Shear, Science, vol. 224, 1984, p. 494
2- Australian Museum Online, 2002 http://www.amonline.net.au/spiders/diversity/what/origins.htm.
3- Stephen Reucroft and John Swain, "Spider silk mystery solved," Boston Globe, 10/22/2002.

ERRORS CONCERNING HUMAN INTELLIGENCE FROM THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL

ERRORS CONCERNING HUMAN INTELLIGENCE FROM THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL

The documentary, Evolution: The Mind's Big Bang, broadcast on The Discovery Channel, set out a number of Darwinist claims on the subject of human intelligence and culture. Considerable space was devoted to the views of such unrepentant Darwinist scientists as Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins. This paper examines these Darwinist views and sets out the distortions behind them.

Mankind's Social Identity Did Not Emerge By Means of Evolution

At the beginning of the documentary there is talk of discoveries of ornaments and necklaces going back some 50,000 years. It is then suggested that there was a so-called evolutionary explosion in cultural terms at that time, and various adornments are put forward as evidence of this. These belong to the ancient human race called Cro Magnon. It is stated on The Discovery Channel that these adornments are guessed to have belonged to a pregnant Cro Magnon woman and to have been used to send a message to other people. After explaining that such behavior is an indication of social identity, it is then suggested that these people established social relationships that did not exist in nature.

The claims regarding these ornaments are not consistent, since such adornments are not "indispensable" indications of social identity. The social identity put forward by means of these ornaments could have been expressed by even earlier people in terms of other objects, or even in other ways making not use of objects at all (by gestures, for instance). So, there is no foundation to the idea that one can simply look at an ornament and infer that previously non-existent social identities had been established at the time of that adornment.

Neanderthal Man is a True Human Being

WHICH ONE IS THE REAL NEANDERTHAL? Some drawings show Neanderthal man as a family father; others present him as a savage animal or a transitional form between ape and man. However, in truth, Neanderthals were human beings. Their only difference from modern man is that their skeletons are more robust and their cranial capacity slightly bigger. Although fossil discoveries show that Neanderthals had no "primitive" features as compared to us and were a human race, the evolutionist prejudices regarding them continue unabated. Neanderthal man is still sometimes described as an "ape-man" in some publications. This is an indication of the extent to which Darwinism rests on prejudice and propaganda, not on scientific discoveries.

A number of anatomical and cultural features of Neanderthal man are distorted on The Discovery Channel. This distortion can even be seen in the interpretation of the very word Neanderthal. Neanderthal man is spoken of in the documentary as "primitive Stone-Age man." Yet the fact is that Neanderthal means nothing of the sort. The name of this human race comes from the Neander valley near the German city of Dusseldorf (The first discoveries of this man were made by miners working in a cave in the valley in 1856.)

In the documentary, Neanderthal man is described as having a strong body, with a sloping, narrow forehead, following which there is speculation about his artistic levels. We are told that he left behind him no cave drawings in the habitat he lived in, and it is suggested that he thus left "no clues as to his symbolic life." The programme then says that modern man, on the other hand, attaches great importance to art and takes great care over it.

What emerges from this anatomical and artistic comparison of modern and Neanderthal man is not an evolutionary superiority. The fact that Neanderthals had powerful bodies or narrow foreheads is insufficient to demonstrate that they were a primitive species. For instance, we do not conclude that the large inhabitants of Northern Europe are cruder and more primitive than the smaller Chinese or pygmies. That is because bone and skeletal structure is not a criterion for judging behavior and intelligence.

On the other hand, if anatomical features are to be regarded as such criteria, then according to evolutionist logic, Neanderthals must be regarded as more intelligent than modern man, since evolutionists base human intelligence upon brain size. The brain volume of Neanderthal man is some 13% greater than that of his modern counterpart.

Neanderthal flute

The fact that no Neanderthal drawings have come down to the present day is also no indication of primitiveness. There are modern societies which take little interest in art or painting. Looking at their lack of representational art, all one can say about the Neanderthals is that they were "backward in art." Portraying them as a primitive intermediate species solely because they did not make pictures is nothing more than prejudice.

The fact that they did not make pictures is insufficient to show that they had little interest in art. A flute unearthed from a Neanderthal cave in Slovenia demonstrates that these people did have a musical culture. This flute is the oldest known musical instrument. Made from bear bone, it is able to produce notes thanks to four holes specially made in it. There is no doubt that it is only possible to make a flute and produce tunes by means of abstract conception. There is no reason not to assume that these people who interpreted music and produced tunes also entertained themselves by dancing.

Moreover, it has also been demonstrated that the Neanderthals nursed their sick and injured, and buried their dead with flowers. This indicates that they were social beings, possessed of the concepts of love and affection. To maintain that Neanderthals were primitive and on a lower evolutionary level than modern man is nothing than The Discovery Channel's own prejudice.

The Dilemma of Materialism Concealed by Steven Pinker

The Discovery Channel also reported errors regarding the origin of human behavior committed by Steven Pinker, a psychologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as though they were true. Pinker makes the following claims:

The actual organization of behavior goes on [at] the level of the individual nerve cells and their connections, and we have a hundred billion nerve cells, probably a hundred trillion connections. It's just mind-boggling to think of all the different ways in which they're arranged in a baby's head. And a lot of our evolution consisted not just in getting more of this stuff, but in wiring it in precise ways to support intelligence.1

As Pinker makes clear, the human brain is a most complex structure. It is even described as "the most complex thing in the universe" in scientific magazines. Furthermore, the design and processing capacity in the human brain is even used as a model by computer engineers. Dr. Kerry Bernstein, a senior technologist from the well-known company IBM, states in an interview-report called "Brain Teaches Computers a Lesson" published on MSNBC.com, that he holds regular annual conferences attended by neurologists at the IBM headquarters to inform his engineers about the design of the human brain. Bernstein says that the operations of the brain cannot be exactly copied. It operates at roughly 12 kilohertz-the equivalent of 12,000 cycles per second-and burns a fraction of the power computers do, Bernstein says. That makes it exponentially more efficient than the fastest computer, he says. "The reason is because of something that we can't do in electronics." Bernstein says. "It's this notion of massive parallelism." Meaning one bit of data can spread to 100,000 other neurons, he said.2

As well as this superior design, the brain also functions most productively. Martin S. Banks, a professor of optometry and psychology at the University of California Berkeley, says, "The brain is efficient in that it doesn't waste energy maintaining information that it will not likely need in real life."3

As we have seen, there is a phenomenal design in the arrangement and functioning of the brain. Pinker and other Darwinists, however, suggest that this order within the brain came about by chance mutations. They claim that atoms bereft of all capacity for thought established the magnificent design in the human brain solely as the result of a long "evolutionary process" based on nothing more than chance. This claim has no scientific foundation and is a violation of reason. Genetic research has shown that there is no question of mutations' adding any information to the genes, and that if they do have any effect, they are always damaging to the organism. Not one artificial mutation carried out in laboratories has ever brought any benefit to a single living thing. Embryos subjected to mutation have been seen to be born dead or crippled. It is clear that mutation could never bring about the "order" within the brain. Such a thing is as impossible as turning an electronic calculator into the most complex computer in the world by smashing it with a hammer.

Although neuron activity related to behavior has been detected in the brain, no explanation has yet been offered which might reduce consciousness, the source of all behavior, to the brain.

The claim that behavior is to do with nerve cells and the connections between them is also a dogma. Neuron activity concerning behavior has been detected in the brain, yet no explanation has been offered which might reduce consciousness, the source of all behavior, to the brain.

Behavior consists of the choices of action taken by man to adapt to his environment or to adapt that environment to himself. The possibility of such behavior is dependent upon his having knowledge, in other words consciousness, of his environment. Consciousness, however, is one of the major dilemmas facing materialism, since it has never proven possible to reduce consciousness to matter: no clues have ever been found as to where consciousness resides in the brain and how it emerges. The question of how consciousness comes about in man, a collection of cells, is still a mystery to materialists. Brain scan studies in the experimental field and theories put forward in the theoretical field have all failed to account for consciousness. Colin McGinn, author of the book The Problem of Consciousness, admits this failure in these words:

We have been trying for a long time to solve the mind-body problem. It has stubbornly resisted our best efforts. The mystery persists. I think the time has come to admit candidly that we cannot solve the mystery.4

All this reveals that behavior is not limited to the brain cells. Steven Pinker is actually perfectly well aware of the quandary that consciousness represents for materialism. In basing behavior on the connections between brain cells, he is attempting to cover up this dilemma facing materialism, rather than offering a consistent explanation.

Behavior Aimed at Defending Social Position Is No Proof of Evolution

Taking certain aspects of chimpanzee behavior as a model, The Discovery Channel attempts to establish a relationship between them and man. The documentary explains how when a chimpanzee seeks to influence another chimpanzee whose friendship it hopes to win, it attacks another animal when it begins to annoy the community, thus sending the message that "my friend's enemy is my enemy." However, this example is a comparison based on sheer prejudice; what we have in common with chimpanzees is that we understand the meaning of communications and that this can threaten our social position.

The fact that man and chimpanzees display such common behavior cannot be put forward as proof of any evolutionary relationship between them. Such shows of strength can also be seen among other animals. Elephants, for example, do not allow other elephants to enter regions belonging to their herd. Moreover, the elephant that wins the struggle for leadership of the herd is approved as the new leader by the other members of the community. In other words, just like chimpanzees, many other living things are capable of sending messages to other members of the group in order to defend their own social positions. Yet, the fact that elephants, like man, attach importance to their social position does not of course mean that there is any evolutionary relationship between the two.

The Discovery Channel also engages in Darwinist propaganda by suggesting, in the narration accompanying images of a group of chimpanzees, that human beings split away from chimpanzees some 6 million years ago and evolved as a separate primate branch. The truth is, however, that just like other different species in nature, man and chimpanzees are totally different creatures. The claim that they separated from one another 6 million years ago through an evolutionary process has no scientific basis, and is merely a Darwinist assumption. The scientific evidence has revealed that the significance of the fossils put forward as evidence for these scenarios has been distorted. These fossils are not so-called intermediate species, but either the remains of extinct human races or else species of ape. (For the collapse of the scenario of human evolution, see Harun Yahya, The Evolution Deceit, Taha Publishers, London, 2003.)

The Discovery Channel's Darwinist Preconceptions About Language

God brought you out of your mothers wombs knowing nothing at all, and gave you hearing, sight and hearts so that perhaps you would show thanks. (Qur'an, 16:78)

The documentary also contains speculation about the origin of language that are based entirely on fantasy and prejudice. The social benefits conferred on man by language are described as the benefits conferred on individuals in the so-called process of evolution. The claim is then made that the socially most powerful might have been selected during the alleged evolutionary process.

The Discovery Channel is unable to offer any scientific proof for this claim, and deals with it in a fairy-tale manner. It takes man's ability to speak, and artificially pastes it onto natural selection, the classical idea at the heart of the theory of evolution. Needless to say, one-sidedly portraying a series of imaginary claims lacking in any scientific foundation as though they were scientific fact is not a scientific approach.

Language, which allows man to think and establish communication with others in a most perfect manner, is a miraculous ability unique to man. All human beings possess language-learning ability from the moment of their birth. A baby anywhere in the world can learn any language spoken anywhere in the world.

Structurally, language rests on complex grammatical and syntactical rules. An utterance consisting of two or three words might appear to be something really rather simple. However, in order for a person to produce it, a great many very complicated processes must be carried out within a very short space of time. Abstract concepts regarding the issue in question are brought to mind, appropriate words are chosen, and then the words are arranged in the right order. All of this must happen for the original thought to be communicated to someone else.

Frank Guenther of Boston University says, "Speech is easily the most complicated motor act humans carry out."5 Guenther states that during speech the brain controls more than 100 muscles in the face, throat, chest, and abdomen, and emphasizes that all of this happens spontaneously without our needing to think about it. Guenther describes how a five-syllable word, including eleven discrete phonemes, takes most people less than a second to say. Furthermore, we do not have to worry about which muscles to tighten or loosen as we speak. Speech is literally a miracle.

Seeking to offer a Darwinist explanation of the origin of language, The Discovery Channel also deals with gossip in terms of natural selection. After stating that gossip comprises two-thirds of human conversation, the channel says that gossip is actually capital, and that the first person to learn how to do it acquired information that could be negotiated with others, for which reason gossip is an evolutionary benefit.

This claim about gossip is actually nothing more than fantasy, of course. Moreover, it is not even consistent, because gossip is not capital. If it were, then those who gossip most would today be the most respected individuals in society.

Richard Dawkins' Distortions

Human beings have intelligence, awareness, and will;are able to form abstract thoughts and produce works of art such as the architectural masterpieces seen in this picture. It is impossible to account for abstract thought by adopting a materialist approach and saying that it has come to be through an evolutionary process based on uncontrolled chance happenings such as mutations.

The Discovery Channel also devotes space to the claims of Richard Dawkins, an unrepentant Darwinist, atheist, and Oxford University zoologist. Dawkins considers all forms of cultural behavior (ideas, gestures, etc.) under the heading of "meme." Dawkins describes memes as ideas passed on by one human being imitating another, and suggests that in the same way that the genes copy DNA and pass it on from person to person, the memes that constitute the mind and shape behavior are similarly copied and handed on from one person to another. The idea is that, just as the so-called competition between genes shaped biological evolution, so too the competition between memes shaped the brain and culture. Dawkins later suggests that memes-i.e., mimicry or assimilation-are the propulsive force behind human evolution.

The ideas Dawkins describes with the concept of memes can of course change and develop. For instance, ideas can be discussed and other ideas added as a result. Cultural progress can thus take place. In addition to this, human behavior and the behavior of other human beings may be imitated. There is nothing wrong with Dawkins' account up to this point. The error lies in suggesting that this is evidence for so-called human evolution. Mimicry is concerned with abstract thought. Man is the only being possessed of reason and capable of transmitting, copying, and developing ideas. No relationship based on mimicry can possibly be established between man-who creates works of art, develops scientific theories, and designs and debates political regimes-and animals, bereft of all capacity for abstract thought. Instead of considering and defining a property that is unique to man, Dawkins should first of all explain how abstract thought might have emerged during the so-called transition from animal to man. What evolutionists are unable to explain is this: How is it that an animal that is unable to think or speak and unable to establish detailed connections between itself and its surroundings, could possibly turn into a human being able to speak and think and possessed of reason and high intelligence? By what evolutionary mechanism could this mental gulf have been bridged?

Naturally, neither Dawkins nor other evolutionists have a consistent reply to these questions. That is because it is impossible to account for abstract thought by adopting a materialist approach, as Colin McGinn has admitted.

Dawkins has no evidence at all of how so-called evolution might have bridged this gulf, and his claim is a totally imaginary one.

"If cultural heritage replicates itself, like DNA molecules, then a new theory of Darwinism might emerge."

No further comment is made after The Discovery Channel puts this suggestion forward. Yet, an explanation of what a cultural accumulation is and how human culture might emerge from the replication of such an accumulation needs to be made. For that reason, these superficial statements have no meaning at all on the scientific level.

Finally, the claim that there is competition between genes and that this competition shaped biological evolution is invalidated by the effect of chance mutation. Like all evolutionists, Dawkins has adopted the dogmatic idea that the vast amount of information concealed in DNA emerged by chance. Genetic research has demonstrated that it is impossible for chance mutations to add information to species' DNA and thus turn them into other species. You can read about the scientific evidence for how mutations-the genetic stronghold of evolution-actually put the theory into a quandary in www.darwinismrefuted.com based on the works of Harun Yahya.

Conclusion: The Origin of Human Reason is Creation, not an Evolutionary Big Bang

Human beings are very superior to other living things. The civilization established by man reveals an extraordinary accumulation of knowledge. Philosophy, medicine, universities, science, technology, politics, art … the origin of all of these stems from consciousness. Consciousness, language, and speech are concepts that cannot be explained in terms of materialism. Man has no physical or psychological relationship to chimpanzees. It is not possible to talk of the mind's big bang through evolution, which is itself unable to account for reason in the first place. The great error of Darwinism is clear. Mutations which came about by chance cannot have caused a "big bang" in human brain and led to "the world's most complex" design, the human mind.

The truth, which evolutionists refuse to accept, is evident: it is impossible to account for human reason and consciousness in terms of materialism. The atoms in the brain cannot feel, know, or speak. There is no doubt that the source of the human brain is not atoms, but the inspiration of our Lord.

1 - Steven Pinker, Evolution of the Mind, WGBH Educational Foundation http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/2/text_pop/l_072_03.html
2- Ruthland Herald, "IBM engineer looks to brain for new technology," April 12, 2003, http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/ Article/49517.
3- "Brain's method of merging input depends on which senses supply it" http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-11/uop-bmo111902.php.
4- Colin McGinn, "Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?" Mind, 98 (1989), p. 349
5- "Repeat After Me," Discover, November 2002

THE DINO-BIRD FANTASY ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL

THE DINO-BIRD FANTASY ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL

A documentary about dinosaurs was broadcast on The Discovery Channel in January 2003. Most of the film was devoted to the way dinosaurs lived. Various dinosaur fossils were presented, and speculations advanced regarding their feeding habits and whether they were carnivorous. In the light of major fossil discoveries, particularly on the continents of Asia and America, the program tried to establish the migratory routes that these giant creatures might have followed.

The last 10 minutes of the film consisted of an introduction to the matter of "feathered dinosaurs," so frequently alluded to in evolutionist propaganda. It was maintained that feathers had been found on one fossil, called Caudipteryx, and that this fossil represented an intermediate form in the so-called evolution of birds.

The claims made on The Discovery Channel about the fossils are unfounded. The dino-bird theory, based on two fossils, flies in the face of the scientific facts. A wider consideration of the scientific findings that totally undermine the dino-bird theory can be found at our website www.darwinismrefuted.com.

The first of the two fossils given in the film is Sinosauropteryx. When this fossil was first found, in 1996, it was claimed that it had structures similar to feathers. However, later detailed analysis in 1997 revealed that these structures had nothing at all to do with feathers. The evolutionists therefore abandoned their claims that the creature had been feathered.

The second species alleged in the documentary to have been feathered is Caudipteryx. Evolutionists are unanimous that Caudipteryx lacked the power of flight. The creature had short arms and long legs, and possessed an anatomy far better suited to running. The main feature to invalidate the thesis that Caudipteryx might have been the ancestor to the birds is its age. Caudipteryx, which Phil Currie attempts to portray as a transitional species, is some 120 million years old. Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird, is 30 million years older than that. The 150-million-year old bird Archaeopteryx is solid evidence that Caudipteryx was not an intermediate species. Archaeopteryx lived long before Caudipteryx and was able to fly perfectly, just like modern birds.

The dino-bird theory actually constitutes a rather superficial propaganda tool, which is why even some evolutionist scientists reject it. In an article in New Scientist, the famous ornithologist Alan Feduccia sets out the anatomical differences between birds and dinosaurs and states that from the paleontological point of view the theory is a disgrace:

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 [a bipedal, meat-eating dinosaur] origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20^th century.1

Another ornithologist, Larry Martin, makes this comment in the same article:

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.2

Birds are the origin of birds. It is out of the question for dinosaurs or any other land animal to have come by the power of flight as a result of gradual mutations. That is because birds' bodies are specially designed to fly. When one examines the bird wing, feather, lung, and other structures, one encounters particular features peculiar to flight that are not found on any land creatures. The most important feature of this design is its irreducible nature. The wing, lung, and feather need to be present in perfect form in order for flight to be possible. One Turkish evolutionist, Engin Konur, says:

The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be elucidated.3

Conclusion

In the light of scientific findings, the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs, as broadcast by The Discovery Channel, is invalid. Evolutionist sources such as The Discovery Channel shut their ears to the scientific facts and continue to portray this piece of fantastic fiction as if it were a scientific theory. We call on The Discovery Channel to abandon this deception, described by the famous ornithologist Larry Martin as "embarrassing," and to look upon birds and dinosaurs as separate species. 

1 - Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February 1997,p. 28
2- Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February 1997, p. 28.
3- Engin Korur, "Secret of Eyes and Wings," Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), October 1984, No. 203, p. 25 .

THE "MITOCHONDRIAL EVE" DECEPTION ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL

THE "MITOCHONDRIAL EVE" DECEPTION ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL

The Discovery Channel recently broadcast a documentary called The Real Eve, in which imaginary scenarios were put forward regarding the spread of modern man, who allegedly emerged by means of evolution in Africa, to the rest of the world.

However, scientific discoveries show that the evolution of man is nothing but a fantasy, and that the claims made on The Discovery Channel are unfounded. This article reveals the scientific errors made by the channel.

The program begins with the claim that all human races in existence today are descended from one single woman who lived in Africa some 130,000 years ago, and that this woman was the first representative of Homo sapiens, who allegedly emerged through a process of evolution. Since these claims concerning this woman are based on analyses of mitochondrial DNA, this mythical female is known as "mitochondrial Eve."

It is suggested that these human beings, with their large brains, left the continent, maybe to find new resources, and began spreading to the rest of the world some 80,000 years ago. The likely migration routes of one small group of humans, shown wearing primitive clothing, and the incidents that may have taken place during their journey, are depicted. Such issues as climate changes, the relationship between Neanderthals and modern man, and a number of fossil discoveries are also discussed. The Darwinist message is that every person alive today is the product of evolution, and that the traces of this so-called evolution are to be found in our genes.

Paleontological methods based on the fossil record and biological methods based on mtDNA and Y-chromosome analyses yield extremely contradictory results about the dates of the human origins scenario. This is natural, because, neither on the anatomic level, nor on the molecular level, is any organism the "ancestor" of another.

Yet the genetic facts said to confirm these claims are not actually objective scientific discoveries at all, but rather facts interpreted in the light of evolutionist prejudices. In other words, such interpretations of genes have no realistic basis.

The clearest example of this is the concept of "mitochondrial DNA" (mtDNA), used as the springboard for the evolutionist claims in the program. Mitochondrial DNA analyses always take pride of place in the claims put forward on the program. The allegations that Homo sapiens emerged some 130,000 years ago in Africa and that the first Americans came to the continent 20,000 years ago, as well as the speculation regarding the migration routes taken by human beings as they spread out of Africa, are all based on mtDNA.

The fact is, however, that age analyses based on mitochondrial DNA have recently been scientifically disproved!

Until very recently, it was believed that mtDNA was passed on only by the mother, for which reason a woman's mtDNA could be followed down the generations. Evolutionary biologists frequently resorted to mtDNA analyses and used mtDNA to put forward speculation about the origin of life. Yet due to their attachment to evolution as a dogma they interpreted mtDNA in a one-sided manner, and imposed the precondition that the differences between the various examples of mtDNA they examined had to have come about by mutation.

However, a fact that emerged only last year has fundamentally undermined the credibility of these analyses. An article entitled "Mitochondria can be inherited from both parents" in the well-known magazine New Scientist described how 90% of the mitochondria in one Danish patient had been passed down from the individual's father. It thus emerged that all the mtDNA research employed to support imaginary evolutionary scenarios was actually meaningless. New Scientist confessed this fact in these words:

Evolutionists cannot reach an agreement even on the most basic topics regarding their theory such as when and where the first human beings emerged and how they spread around the world. The "out of Africa" theory (above left) holds that the first human beings emerged in Africa and then emigrated to all around the world. In contrast, some researchers such as Milford Wolpoff maintain that human beings evolved not only in Africa but simultaneously in Africa, Europe, and Asia (below left). These contradictory theses show one thing:that man never underwent an evolutionary process.

Evolutionary biologists often date the divergence of species by the differences in genetic sequences in mitochondrial DNA. Even if paternal DNA is inherited very rarely, it could invalidate many of their findings.1

For this reason, the "mitochondrial Eve" thesis put forward on The Discovery Channel has been totally invalidated by the above finding. Evolutionist sources such as The Discovery Channel interpret the genetic differences among the peoples of the world in the light of their own prejudices to reinforce their own theories. That is what invalidates the evolutionist claims based on genetic analyses.

Another research technique pointed to by evolutionists as supporting their "out of Africa" theories is Y-chromosome analysis, based on the study of the Y-chromosome, which can only be passed on by the father. Yet when Y-chromosome and mtDNA analyses are compared, the inconsistency of the evolutionist claims becomes even more obvious. Furthermore, a great many paleontologists fiercely oppose chronologies based on genetic analysis. The paleontological evidence is completely at odds with mtDNA and Y-chromosome analyses.

The researcher Spencer Wells, who studied the differences between the various human races using Y-chromosome analysis, suggests that all human beings are descended from a common ancestor living in Africa some 60,000 years ago. Paleontologist s basing their figures on the fossil record claim this happened some 40,000 years earlier. There is obviously an enormous difference between the dates proposed by genetic analysis and the fossil record. Alison Brooks, a paleontologist at George Washington University, says, "The dates don't compare well to the order or the geography of the migration patterns revealed by the fossil record."2 The difference between Y-chromosome and mtDNA analyses is even greater. Research based on the latter puts this departure back by 90,000 years, to 150,000 years ago.

It can be seen that evolutionists cannot even agree among themselves about the "out of Africa" theories discussed on The Discovery Channel. In fact, many evolutionist anthropologists and paleontologists completely oppose the "out of Africa" theory. One group of scientists led by such researchers as Alan Thorne and Milford Wolpoff defend the multi-region theory and put forward discoveries showing that the "mitochondrial Eve" thesis is a work of fantasy. The 68,000-year-old Mungo Man discovered in Australia by Alan Thorne has dealt a serious blow to the "out of Africa" theories, and of course to the "mitochondrial Eve" thesis.3

The reason why there are so many mutually conflicting theses is that the suggested process of evolutionary change is totally imaginary and unreal. Since there was no evolutionary process in the past, everyone comes up with his own individual scenario.

Mutation and the Molecular Clock Deception

The program on The Discovery Channel carries various pieces of speculation about when the first Americans might have reached the continent. This migration was first thought to have taken place 15,000 years ago. The program describes how following mtDNA analyses, the date was put back by another 5,000 years, to 20,000 years ago. One researcher whose views were reported says that a mutational difference had been identified between those people who crossed the Bering Strait to America and those who remained in Asia. He then goes on to comment on the "molecular clock," something that is frequently cited by evolutionist researchers, using the expression "if we assume that a mutation takes place once every 20,000 years …" Yet this interpretation is nothing but an evolutionist castle in the air, based on no scientific foundation: The concept of the molecular clock used in the identification of genetic mutations is a completely hollow concept, the result of prejudiced views.

It will now be useful to consider this concept, so frequently resorted to in the evolutionists' distortions of the genetic facts, in more depth.

The so-called molecular clock hypothesis assumes that the amino acids in the proteins of living things, or the nucleotides in their genes, change at a particular rate. The claim put forward on The Discovery Channel that human beings undergo a mutation once every 20,000 years is based on that hypothesis. Evolutionists examine the mitochondria of chimpanzees and human beings, who are assumed to have descended from a common ancestor, and identify different nucleotides within the analogous regions of the DNA. Assuming man and chimpanzees to have split apart some 6 million years ago, they divide that 6 million by the number of their different nucleotides, thus coming up with a kind of timetable of imaginary mutations.

Naturally, these claims are based on nothing more than evolutionist prejudice, and have no meaning whatsoever in the face of the scientific facts. (For further details, see Darwinism Refuted:How the Theory of Evolution Breaks Down in the Light of Modern Science by Harun Yahya, Goodword Books, 2003)

The "winding up" of this molecular clock rests entirely on evolutionist prejudice. In fact, the "clock" in question is not synchronized for that very reason: It was claimed in one article in the well-known journal Science that according to one new molecular clock "mitochondrial Eve" must have lived no more than 6,000 years ago.4

All this shows that the "mitochondrial Eve" thesis expressed on The Discovery Channel is actually quite meaningless. The essence of the theory is that evolutionists dazzled by the illusion of Darwinism naturally look at genes under the influence of that illusion, and see exactly what they want to see.

The Neanderthal Deception

In that section dealing with the "out of Africa" scenarios, we are told how modern human beings encountered Neanderthals when they reached Europe, and brief information regarding the Neanderthals is supplied. Despite the Neanderthals' being accepted as a human race, Neanderthal Man is still portrayed as a primitive species. The recreations portrayed by The Discovery Channel show Neanderthal Man as a human who screamed instead of using proper speech, a wild thing who howled like a wolf.

The fact is, however, that discoveries regarding Neanderthal anatomy and culture show that there was nothing primitive about Neanderthal Man at all, and prove that they were a human race who lived, thought and spoke, and enjoyed a culture and civilization just like modern man.

The evolutionist distortion in this regard goes back to the 19th century, to the discovery of the first Neanderthal fossil in 1856. The distortions in the skeletal reconstruction made by the French anatomist Marcelline Boule led to Neanderthal Man's being regarded as a brutish ape-man, who walked in a crouch and possessed no culture. In fact, the word "Neanderthal" even entered the English language as a synonym for "crude, ignorant." However, new findings regarding the Neanderthals have shown that this was utterly mistaken, and the idea that they were ape-men has now finally been abandoned.

The Discovery Channel is still serving as a tool for Darwinist propaganda in this area. Its attempt to portray Neanderthal Man as a product of evolution by describing him as "10 times closer to man than the chimpanzee" is a totally meaningless and fictitious comparison.

Conclusion

The "mitochondrial Eve" documentary shown on The Discovery Channel constitutes an enormous deception. The analyses used as evidence have no validity and do nothing more than reflect evolutionist prejudices. The Darwinist propaganda put forward by The Discovery Channel, totally ignoring the scientific facts, has utterly collapsed. Neither Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) nor Neanderthal Man is an evolved species. Both are human, whom God created, with such superior abilities as the power of speech and thought.

 
 

TALES OF TRANSFORMATION FROM NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TELEVISION

TALES OF TRANSFORMATION FROM NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TELEVISION

National Geographic TV recently broadcast a documentary called Evolution -The Great Transformations. It mainly concentrated on the origin of whales, and devoted considerable space to evolutionist claims regarding their transition from the sea to the land, together with comments concerning at which stages such transitions might have come about. National Geographic TV's favored solution to the question of the origin of whales was an interesting one: It was proposed that dogs surviving by eating corpses on the sea shore decided to live in the sea in order to find a better supply of food. Over time their front legs turned into fins and they lost their back legs altogether, thus giving rise to whales. In these imaginary scenarios dreamed up by National Geographic TV accompanied by computer reconstructions, living things with completely different physical structures easily turned into other creatures: dogs into whales, for instance, or fish into land-dwellers. Yet what was related was totally based on imagination, and possessed no scientific significance or value. The drawings produced consisted of nothing more than the scenarios demanded by the Darwinist theory, which is entirely lacking in any scientific proof. In this article, we shall be explaining how the great transformations discussed on National Geographic TV never actually happened.

A Whale Story for the Very Young

The origin of whales, and of sea mammals in general, is a very important question from the point of view of the theory of evolution. The theory maintains that sea-dwelling creatures moved onto the land, where mammals evolved. This leads to an important question regarding the existence of marine mammals, one which is difficult to answer: If mammals evolved on land, how and why did they return to the sea?

Charles Darwin gave considerable thought to this question, which represented a serious dilemma for his theory, but failed to come up with a conclusion. On this point, which truly deadlocked his theory, he was forced to suggest a none-too-convincing ancestor. The animal Darwin suggested as the ancestor of whales was the bear. He said, "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."1

While applauding Darwin's imagination, evolutionists are now of the view that whales must have had some other ancestor. The latest creature suggested to fill this vacancy is a species of dog.

National Geographic magazine embarked on a campaign of whale propaganda in its November 2001 edition, publishing this inconsistent claim in a 14-page article, complete with illustrations. We published a detailed response to this "whale evolution" claim, revealing all its contradictions and inconsistencies, in a paper on our website, www.harunyahya.com. The whale story on the TV screens went no further than the scenarios in the magazine, and made no new claims.

For that reason, we shall not be going into scientific detail regarding those points, which invalidate these claims about the whale, recommending instead that our readers to turn to our original article. "A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic":
http://www.harunyahya.com/70national_geographic_sci29.php

The Problems with the Transition from Sea to Land and the Acanthostega Error

One of the so-called evolutionary transformations discussed on National Geographic TV had to do with the theory of the transition from the sea to the land. This theory suggests that fish emerged in the sea by means of evolution and moved onto the land some 370 million years ago. No scientific evidence can be produced to show how fish, whose organs and systems were completely suited to allowing them to live in the sea, could have survived on land, nor how they could have turned into other species. Instead of scientifically examining one of the fundamental dogmas of Darwinism, National Geographic TV glosses it over with a fairy-tale account.

The scale of the deception represented by this claim, so blindly defended by National Geographic TV, becomes even clearer upon examination of the fossil record.

According to Darwin, species evolved from a common ancestor, and this evolutionary process must have happened in stages. In the event of one species' evolving from another, there should be a great many intermediate forms between the two. The natural conclusion from this would be that the geological strata should be full of countless fossils displaying such intermediate characteristics. Yet, the situation in the fossil record is actually the exact opposite. Fossils appear to be divided into very clear categories, and species appear to have possessed their characteristic traits from the very beginning. New categories of living things always appear suddenly in the fossil record.

The efforts of evolutionist paleontologists all over the world have been fruitless, and the long-sought-for missing links have never been found. This demonstrates very clearly why no process such as evolution ever happened. National Geographic TV, on the other hand, covers up the dilemma that fossils pose for the theory and portrays the transition from sea to land as if it had actually happened. The TV channel refuses to accept the collapse of Darwinism, and therefore clings to the extinct species known as Acanthostega.

Acanthostega and What it Brings to Mind

When they only had fossils of Coelacanths, evolutionist paleontologists put forward a number of Darwinist assumptions regarding them;however, when living examples were found, all these assumptions were shattered.

Acanthostega is a sea creature with gills. Its age is estimated at some 360 million years. Jenny Clack, a paleontologist from Cambridge University, maintains that this fossil possesses a hand, and that on this hand there are eight fingers, for which reason it is an intermediate form between fish and tetrapods (four-footed land vertebrates). Taking this fossil as their starting point, evolutionists claim that instead of fish developing feet after moving onto the land, they first developed feet and then made that transition. Yet this claim is inconsistent. First of all, despite being an evolutionist, Clack clearly states that she does not know whether Acanthostega made the transition to the land or not. It is an error to regard a marine-dwelling creature with certain bone-like structures in its fins as a form that brought about the transition from sea to land. The fact that evolutionists are making this error shows how quickly they have forgotten their mistakes over the Coelacanth, which was discovered to be living up until 65 years ago.

Up until the end of 1930s, evolutionists portrayed the Coelacanth as an intermediate form. It was thought that the bones in the fins of this 200-million-year-old fossil turned into feet, which carried the creature when it moved onto the land. In 1938, however, they learnt to their great surprise that Coelacanth was still living. On close examination, it was revealed that these fish caught by fishermen off the coast of Madagascar had undergone no changes at all in the last 200 million years. Furthermore, the organ which evolutionists had believed to be a primitive lung turned out to be nothing but a fat-filled swimbladder. Moreover, a great many more Coelacanths were caught shortly afterwards, and evolutionists had to abandon forever the claim that the creature represented an intermediate form.

As can be seen from the Coelacanth example, as well as that of Acanthostega, marine creatures with bone-like structures are portrayed as intermediate forms, not because they might have been able to live on land, but because of evolutionists' prejudices.

Obstacles to the Transition from Water to Land

The profound physiological differences between land and marine mammals can be divided into five basic categories:

1. Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea. However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40% of their energy just in carrying their bodies around. Creatures making the transition from water to land would at the same time have had to develop new muscular and skeletal systems (!) to meet this energy need, and this could not have come about by chance mutations.

2. Heat Retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.

God created every living (creature) from water. Some of them go on their bellies, some of them on two legs, and some on four. God creates whatever He wills. God has power over all things. (Qur'an, 24:45)

3. Water: Essential to metabolism, water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something sea-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a non-aquatic habitat.

4. Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system.

Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide for the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

5. Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water, which they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.

It is most certainly impossible that all of these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance.

National Geographic TV is Reluctant to Tell the Truth About the Cambrian Explosion

The illustration and the fossils seen here include some of the living things with complex structures from the Cambrian age. The emergence of such different creatures with no preceding ancestors completely invalidates Darwinist theory.

One section at the beginning of the documentary "Evolution -The Great Transformations" is devoted to the Cambrian Period. This is when organisms with complex physical structures are first encountered in the fossil record. The most basic categories of living things are known as "phyla." And it is most interesting that just about all the phyla now living should have emerged in the Cambrian Period. Before that time, there were only a few phyla, whereas the fossil record shows the number of phyla emerging during the Cambrian to be around 100. This enormous leap in the variety of living things at that time is so impressive that it has been given the name "Cambrian Explosion" in the scientific literature. The Cambrian Explosion represents one of the most serious dilemmas facing the theory of evolution. The National Geographic TV channel is reluctant to make the facts regarding that period clear, offering an obscure account instead.

The facts concealed by National Geographic TV are expressed by the well-known evolutionist Richard Monastersky in these terms:

A half-billion years ago, . . . the remarkably complex forms of animals that 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.2

Jan Bergström, a paleontologist who studied the early Cambrian deposits also says:

The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other then as they are today.3

No similar organism which evolutionists might be able to put forward as the "ancestor" of the living things which emerged in the Cambrian Explosion exists. The creatures of the Cambrian Explosion came into being instantaneously, with all their features perfectly formed. This, of course, indicates that creation lies at the root of the Cambrian Explosion.

Another aspect of the Cambrian Period explosion, which undermines evolution, is that there are considerably fewer phyla today than there were during the Cambrian. According to the theory of evolution, there should have been an increase over time in the number of categories of living things. Yet, the fossil record demonstrates the exact opposite. The number of phyla existing today is less than half the number that emerged during the Cambrian; the others have gradually become extinct.

One of the most important critics of Darwinism in the world today is the University of California Berkeley professor Phillip E. Johnson, who openly reveals the contradiction between these facts and Darwinism:

Darwinian theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first living organism, or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified to create the higher levels of taxonomic order. The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing.4

There can be only one reason for the indirect way this is dealt with in the documentary screened by National Geographic: This explosion shows that life on Earth did not come about by chance, but emerged suddenly and perfectly formed-in other words, that it was created.

National Geographic TV's DNA Error

In a later part of the National Geographic TV documentary, another major error appears, when it is claimed that genetic similarities account for so-called evolutionary transformations. We are told how similar organs in organisms from different species are controlled by similar genes, and it is then suggested that small changes in the DNA which controls such similarities between organisms can give rise to new species. Yet, this claim is a total violation of all experiments and observations in the field of genetics: Chance alterations in the genes (mutations) have never been seen to develop living things or to increase their genetic information. For nearly a century, scientists studying the inheritance mechanisms by which physical features are encoded and passed on from generation to generation have obtained findings revealing that DNA is a most complex design directed by exceptional control mechanisms. Even a general overview of the structure of DNA will be sufficient to demonstrate that the claims of the Darwinists go no further than fantasy, and that these need to be distinguished from the science of genetics.

DNA: The Molecule Which Refutes Evolution

The DNA molecule is found in structures that are specially packaged in the form of chromosomes.

In the cell nucleus, far too small to be seen by the naked eye, are curled a total of 3 meters of DNA strings. These spiral DNA strings bound up in the chromosomes are divided up into the parts we know as "genes." Despite the tiny volume occupied by this packaging system, it possesses a huge information-storage capacity. It is calculated that there is enough information to fill around 1 million encyclopaedia pages in the nucleus of a single human cell.

Exceedingly complex systems allow this information to function. The functioning of the DNA molecule is of vital importance to a living thing's survival. Every stage of this functioning is controlled. Some stages in the functioning of the perfect system that is DNA are the following:

Encoding: Nucleotides are sequenced in the DNA string. There are four types of these; adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine. Consecutively arranged, three-part nucleotide sequences are known as "codons." If we imagine the nucleotides as letters (A, T, C and G), then the codons are words (AAT, CAG, TCC, etc.).

Location: All the information describing all of a living thing's physical and biochemical structures is set out in the cell nucleus. However, cells in different structures will generally only require that part of the information for their own functioning. For that reason, the necessary information must be located within the huge information bank, which includes all the details of the body plan. This is done by means of enzymes: enzymes stand at specific points and open up the links which extend between the two spiral strings of the DNA, like a zipper. The points where the zipper begins and stops opening, are the borders of the relevant information. It is rather as if enzymes searched among the shelves of a giant library and took out the book they were looking for. This is a genuine miracle, because enzymes are nothing more than molecules made up of unconscious atoms.

The molecule known as Dna, which is found in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our bodies, contains the complete blueprint for the construction of the human body. If we were to write down the information coded in DNA, then we would have the compile a giant library consisting of 900 volumes of 500 pages each. But the information this enormous library would hold is encoded inside the DNA molecules in the cell nucleus, which is far smaller than the 1/100 th-of-a-millimeter-long cell itself.

Reading: After the required section of DNA has been found, the special enzymes attached to this section begin to read the nucleotides, three by three. The reading of these triplet nucleotide strings, in which the information is encoded, is a very particular phenomenon. The enzyme, which carries out the reading process, separates the combined millions of nucleotides into the triplets. This process takes less than one second.

Translation: There are four types of nucleotides in DNA. The proteins, which will be used in the activities and development of the organism, however, emerge from amino acids, not from the nucleotides. Living things contain 20 amino acids. In essence, the language of DNA consists of four letters, but the language of proteins consists of 20. Thus, these letters are different from one another. Yet, a surprising "translation" takes place: the enzymes, which read the codons in the DNA, "understand" that this codon refers to an amino-acid, despite the fact that there are no amino acids in the codon. The nucleotide language in the DNA is translated into the amino-acid language in the protein. Unconscious enzymes thus work yet another miracle.

Repair: Cell multiplication in the development of the body is of vital importance. During this process, the DNA in the dividing cell is copied and reproduced in the new cell. During this replication, some 3.1 billion nucleotides need to be copied in exactly the same order. If just one nucleotide in a gene is missing, then the codons in the new nucleotide order will go wrong, resulting in the synthesis of totally different proteins, which may in turn result in the death of the organism. (With the missing nucleotide, all the triple-read codons will change.) There is a system in the cells which checks and repairs these mistakes (mutations). The copied nucleotide string is checked against the original, and any errors are restored to the original form. This repair process, known as "proofreading," takes place an average of 20,000 times a second in the human body.

The complex design of these systems in DNA makes the claims of genetic transformation put forward on National Geographic TV ridiculous. Random changes in DNA-mutations, in other words-damage the sensitive genetic code in living things and give rise to abnormal organs. As shown on National Geographic, embryos exposed to poison or radiation are born totally abnormal. Mutation experiments over nearly a century have not been seen to add any information to organisms' DNA. This fact reveals the invalidity of the claim that organisms evolved from simple to complex forms by chance mutations.

Beyond these scientific facts, we can also see the truth of this from our experiences in our daily lives. Random changes in complex designs do not turn these into other complex designs. For instance, taking a chip out of a jet airplane's electronic circuits does not turn that plane into a helicopter.

In short, the complex structure of DNA represents a great obstacle to the theory of evolution. National Geographic TV's claim that DNA possesses a structure which can facilitate so-called evolution rests on Darwinist prejudices, not on the scientific facts.

The Same Old Scenarios from National Geographic TV

In the last part of the program, the claim is made that man and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. This part relies on an account by the evolutionist paleontologist Donald Johanson, and the methods of glossing over and distortion employed in the beginning of the program once again attract one's attention.

This diagram presents a summary of protein synthesis. All proteins in nature are produced by this complex and specially designed process. No protein comes about by "chance."

He created all things. That is God, your Lord. There is no deity but Him, the Creator of everything. So worship Him. He is responsible for everything. (Qur'an, 6:101-102)

Not a word is mentioned about recent fossil discoveries that have left the theory of evolution in tatters. The fact that National Geographic TV, which claims to be a channel of science and discovery, devotes no space to the fossil known as Sahelanthropus tchadensis, which has led to intense debates in the world of paleontology and which has hit evolutionist scenarios like an atom bomb, once again clearly reveals its blind devotion to Darwinism.

Another issue ignored in this section concerned the scenario of a genetic relationship between man and chimpanzees. The old tales of a genetic relationship were trotted out once more, while research, which has revealed that the genetic similarity between the two species has been overstated by up to three times the correct figure, was ignored.

Conclusion: There is no Transformation Between Species

No transformation between species ever happened. Species were created separately, together with their own genetic codes. Those species that have survived to the present day have never undergone any change. The Cambrian Explosion and the structure of DNA are proof of this. The stories about whales and the transition from water to the land supported by National Geographic TV are completely absurd. This channel, which supports nonsense of this kind in the face of modern scientific findings, is behaving in exactly the same way as those who once believed that the Earth was flat. It should give up these superstitions at once.

 

TALL TALES FROM THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CHANNEL

TALL TALES FROM THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CHANNEL

The documentary Humans: Who Are We?, one of the documentaries being broadcast on the National Geographic Channel (NGC), consists of the best-known scenarios of the myth of evolution. The scientific errors and deceptions in the documentary are explained below.

The NGC's Contradictions and the Larmarckian View of Evolution

In the documentary on the NGC, there is first of all an address by the anthropologist Ian Tattersall. Among his first statements is the idea, "Human evolution did not happen as the result of needs, it was entirely coincidental." Yet the needs which might have caused ape-men to evolve into human beings are then described several times in the minutes which follow. This is one of the most obvious contradictions in the whole program.

Actually, this is a contradiction experienced by many evolutionists, not just the NGC or Ian Tattersall. In order to shed more light on this subject, let us summarize the difference between the concepts of "evolution as a response to need" and "evolution as the result of chance alone" (even though both are in fact unscientific fairy tales).

Before Darwin, another important figure put forward an evolutionary model on the subject of the origin of living things: the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarck's claim was rather different from the contemporary evolutionist view. In his opinion, requirements or needs gave rise to their own organs. Let us illustrate Lamarckism with the example of the giraffe's neck. According to this theory, the necks of the first giraffes were the same length as those of deer or gazelles. However, giraffes experiencing food shortages wanted to be able to reach the rich sources of food in the upper levels of trees. A need was thus born. As a result of that need, the necks of giraffes wishing to reach up into the tops of trees grew longer.

Lamarckism based this claim on the thesis of "inheritance of acquired traits." In other words, the giraffe which had tried to reach up to trees' highest levels throughout its life should be able to hand this characteristic on to its young. Yet, with the discovery of the laws of genetics, it was seen that acquired traits could not actually be inherited at all.

As a result, Lamarckism had been invalidated by science by the beginning of the twentieth century. Yet, evolutionists continued to put forward Lamarckian views between the lines. While fiercely criticizing Lamarckism on the one hand, their scenarios regarding the origins of living things still bore powerful traces of it. The myth of front legs' remaining free in order to make tools, making man a bipedal (two-footed) creature, the claim that Neanderthal man evolved in order to be able to live in cold climates, as put forward by the NGC, and that Australopithecus evolved in order to adapt to its environment as the thick forests thinned out-all of these rest on the assumption of evolution out of need.

The reason why evolutionists employ Lamarckian expressions, on the one hand, while fiercely criticizing the thesis, on the other, is this: According to the theory of evolution, in order for a monkey to be able to stand on two legs, for instance, it needs to be exposed to mutations that will bring about such a sensitive change in its skeleton, and which furthermore will not cause it any damage. This is in any case a scenario that cannot possibly happen. It would require a chance mutation to come about at just the very time when the living thing in question has need of it, and this would have to occur many times in individuals of the same species, bringing about a little more development each time. The impossibility of this scenario just reinforces the absurdity of the whole concept of evolution.

On the surface, evolutionists refuse to say, "there was evolution out of need," but underneath, they actually support that idea.

Australopithecus was a Species of Ape, and was not Bipedal

Right: Donald Johanson Left: Richard Leakey

According to the NGC, the species known as Australopithecus was the ancestor of the first man to walk upright. Yet that claim is not correct. All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than those of the chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet that they used to climb trees, just like in today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. Australopithecus specimens are short (130 cm, maximum) and, just as in modern apes, the males are much bigger than the females. Many other characteristics-such as the details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms, and their short legs-constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today's apes.

NGC's claim that Australopithecus walked upright is a view that has been held by paleoanthropologists like Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet many scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of Australopithecus have proved the invalidity of that argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, showed that these creatures did not walk upright in the human manner, and had exactly the same movements as modern apes. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years thanks to grants from the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of five specialists reached the conclusion that Australopithecus was only an ordinary species of ape, and was definitely not bipedal-this even though Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.1 Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionary anatomist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of Australopithecus to that of modern orangutans.2

Many characteristics of the australopithecines' head, such as a low forehead, a large eyebrow ridge, a flat nose, and a jutting jaw constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today's apes. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens has shown that these creatures did not walk upright in human manner. In fact, it is impossible for them to have done so, because they had the anatomy of apes, which enabled them only to walk on all fours. The human skeleton, on the other hand, is designed to walk upright.

"GOODBYE, LUCY" Scientific discoveries have revealed evolutionist assumptions regarding "Lucy," once considered the most important example of the Australopithecus genus, as completely unfounded. Actually, each new discovery in paleontology causes evolutionists to redesign their tree of life, which is nothing but a figment of their imagination.

Probably the most important study demonstrating that Australopithecus could not have been bipedal came in 1994 from the research anatomist Fred Spoor and his team at the University of Liverpool, England. This group conducted studies in the inner ear of fossilized Australopithecus specimens. In the inner ears of human beings and other complex living beings, there is an organ named the "cochlea" that determines the position of the body in relation to the ground. The function of this organ, which maintains balance in human beings, is the same as the "gyroscope," which maintains correct flight attitude in airplanes. Fred Spoor investigated the involuntary balance mechanism found in this "snail-shell" like organ, and his findings showed conclusively that Australopithecus was quadrupedal (four legged).3

This means Australopithecus is an extinct ape species and has no relation with human beings.

That Australopithecus cannot be counted an ancestor of man has recently been accepted by evolutionist sources. The famous French popular-science magazine, Science et Vie, made the subject the cover of its May 1999 issue. Under the headline "Adieu Lucy" ("Goodbye, Lucy"-Lucy being the most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus afarensis), the magazine reported that apes of the species Australopithecus would have to be removed from the human family tree. In this article, based on the discovery of another Australopithecus fossil known simply as St W573, the following sentences appear:

A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree… Australopithecus and Homo [human] species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered.4

Humans hold the upper body erect and walk upright on two feet. This is a very special form of locomotion. Apes, on the other hand, are knuckle-walkers, who walk with the upper body bent forward, using the arms to provide extra support. This is one of the unbridgeable anatomical gaps between men and apes which also invalidate the fiction of human evolution. There is a big anatomical difference between human and ape feet. Apes have longer toes and a divergent great toe, and lack the arch that gives spring to the human stride. As may be seen from these pictures, the ape hand lacks the long and mobile thumb, which is an essential feature of human hand. Without the current structure of the thumb, we would not be able to do many of the things that we do now.

Another important discovery concerning Australopithecus is the realization that this creature's hands were used for walking, just like those of present-day apes. Apes employ a four-legged mode of walking in which they lean on the knuckles of their fingers. Known as "knuckle walking," this is one of the major structural differences between apes and men. The skeletal studies performed in 2000 on Lucy by two evolutionist scientists called B. G. Richmond and D. S. Strait, resulted in a conclusion that astonished the two evolutionists: Lucy's hand possessed a four-legged "knuckle walking structure," just like those of the apes of today. Strait's comment in an interview regarding this discovery, the details of which were covered by the journal Nature, is striking: "I walked over to the cabinet, pulled out Lucy, and-shazam!-she had the morphology that was classic for knuckle walkers."5

Homo erectus was a Human Race, not an Ape-Man

As seen in this picture, there is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus. It is now an acknowledged fact in the scientific community that Homo erectus is a superfluous taxon, and that fossils assigned to the Homo erectus class are actually not so different from Homo sapiens as to be considered a different species. This thesis can be summarized as "Homo erectus is not a different species from Homo sapiens, but rather a race within Homo sapiens."

In the NGC documentary Homo erectus is portrayed as a half-ape, half-man creature which walked upright and tried to speak by making peculiar noises. The fact is, however, that Homo erectus was a human race, with no ape characteristics at all.

There is no difference between the Homo erectus skeleton and that of modern man. The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primitive" is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance).

It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organization of the brain, rather than on its volume.6

The fossils that have made Homo erectus known to the entire world are those of Peking man and Java man in Asia. However, in time it was realized that these two fossils are not reliable. Peking Man consists of some elements made of plaster whose originals have been lost, and Java Man is "composed" of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was found meters away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same creature. This is why the Homo erectus fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance.

RichardLeakey (left) and Alan Walker, who studied the Turkana Boy fossil-the most complete known specimen of Homo erectus-concluded that it belonged to a 12-year-old boy 1.6 meters tall. The interesting thing is that there is no major difference between this 1.6 million-year-old fossil and people of our day. This situation reveals once again that Homo erectus was a genuine human race, with no "primitive" features.

The most famous of the Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the fossil of the "Turkana Boy," which was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in adolescence. The upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal."7 Since Neanderthals are a modern human race, Homo erectus is also a modern human race.

Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:

One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time.8

Professor William Laughlin from the University of Connecticut made extensive anatomical examinations of Inuits and the people living on the Aleutian islands, and noticed that these people were extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus. The conclusion Laughlin arrived at was that all these distinct races were in fact different races of Homo sapiens (modern man):

When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong to the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen] belongs within this same diverse species.9

There is a huge gap between Homo erectus, a human race, and the apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human evolution" scenario (Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, and Homo rudolfensis). This means that the first men appeared in the fossil record suddenly and without any prior evolutionary history.

NGC Fairy Tales Appropriate for Bedtime Programs

The scientists expressing their views on NGC told the viewer stories, relying on their imaginations instead of scientific findings. Almost the entire length of the documentary consisted of such story-telling. The most striking example of this appeared in the section about Homo erectus' power of speech. People enjoying the status of scientists gave their views, in all seriousness, regarding what members of the Homo erectus species talked about amongst themselves. According to the anthropologist Dr. Steven Mithen, when Homo erectus spoke, they engaged in gossip! Another evolutionist scientist claimed that rather than gossiping, they talked about serving food!

Neither was this the limit of the stories related on NGC. These scientists were also somehow aware of a great many more details, such as what one migrating ape-man thought, and the fixed-thoughts possessed by yet another one. The odd thing is that these Darwinist mental gymnastics, devoid of any scientific foundations, were portrayed to the viewer as scientific fact.

The NGC's Visual Evolutionist Propaganda

Even if evolutionists are unsuccessful in finding scientific evidence to support their theories, they are very successful at one thing:propaganda. The most important element of this propaganda is the practice of creating false designs known as "reconstructions."

Throughout the documentary on NGC, images of half-ape, half-man creatures hunting on the African savannah, eating, and migrating were shown. Those who imagined the NGC to be a scientific institution would have been deceived into thinking that these creatures were based on scientific evidence. The fact is, however, that just like the information provided, these images had been prepared solely on the basis of evolutionists' imaginations and the abilities of various artists.

Reconstructions are one of evolutionists' most important propaganda tools. The ape-man models and drawings seen in such documentaries as this, and in evolutionist magazines and newspapers, are termed reconstructions. These are totally unscientific, and in no way reflect the truth, because it is impossible to obtain any information about a living thing's soft tissues on the basis of fossils. Reconstructions based on bone remains can only reveal the most general characteristics of the creature, since the really distinctive morphological features of any animal are soft tissues, which quickly vanish after death. Therefore, due to the speculative nature of the interpretation of the soft tissues, the reconstructed drawings or models become totally dependent on the imagination of the person producing them. Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard University explains the situation like this:

To Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: It is He Who gives life and death: and He has Power over all things. (Qur'an, 57:2)

To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public … So put not your trust in reconstructions.10

In the NGC documentary, all kinds of details, such as living things' hair, eyes, lips, the expressions in their eyes, and the shape of their eyebrows, could be seen. In fact, since evolutionists are so caught up by their evolutionary fantasies as to debate what these imaginary creatures might have talked about, it comes as no surprise that they should also come up with models and drawings of them. This is not science, however. It could only be a part of a science fiction film. Evolutionists are not behaving like scientists. Like fortune-tellers engaging in prophecies, they produce scenarios about the past and future based on no evidence whatsoever.

Conclusion

NGC's documentary, which describes the so-called evolution of man, offering no evidence but supplying details which can never be known, is of absolutely no scientific value. The only place for this documentary is in a science fiction movie or a screenwriter's fantasies about human history. The way that the NGC broadcasts scenarios, which not even children could possibly find convincing, under the guise of science casts a shadow over the institution's credibility.

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TV'S UNDERSEA FAIRY TALES

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TV'S UNDERSEA FAIRY TALES

A documentary called Built for the Kill has been screened on National Geographic TV. Its aim was twofold. On the one hand, the program described some of the techniques used by sea creatures to hunt or evade capture. On the other, it sent out a Darwinist message by describing some creatures as "programmed to kill" or "ruthless killers."

The flawless design in the creatures described in the documentary were portrayed as mechanisms "developed for survival," although no evidence of this was offered. This is a technique frequently encountered in broadcasts by National Geographic TV and similar Darwinist institutions. However, it is obvious that these descriptions lack any scientific basis, since looking at the features possessed by the creatures and saying "they developed these in order to survive" or sticking an evolutionary label on the design in living things is itself of no scientific value.

For instance, attempting to account for the shiny skin on the underside of the blue shark and the dark skin on the top by means of evolution, while failing to provide any evidence, merely reveals National Geographic TV's prejudices. Another fish, looking down, cannot make out the shark against the dark tones of the sea bottom thanks to the dark color of the shark's skin. The shark will similarly be camouflaged against the brightness of the sea surface stemming from the rays of the sun. If this is to be explained by evolution, then it must also be explained how the information for this camouflage design emerged by chance in the creature's DNA, and scientific proof must be given. Maintaining that this information came about by natural selection and random mutations, in the absence of any scientific evidence whatsoever, is merely Darwinist dogma.

On the other hand, this feature of the shark can be perfectly convincingly accounted for by intelligent design: the information regarding which areas of the shark's skin are to be which colors is present in its DNA. It is utterly rational and scientific to maintain that the encoding of this information came about not by chance but by conscious intervention.

The fundamental factor, which reveals the invalidity of the evolutionist claims put forward in the film, is the exceedingly complex nature of the design in the creatures discussed. The dolphin sonar dealt with in the documentary is one instance of this. Dolphins possess a special organ in their heads that allows them to send out sound waves and sense the echoes that reflect from physical bodies. These sound waves can penetrate some 30 cm beneath the sand and can be picked up in an amazing way by the dolphins as the environment changes (from water to sand and back from sand to water). In this way the dolphin plots a sort of map of what lies beneath the sand.

Another aspect indicative of the perfection in dolphin sonar is the way the U.S. Navy has imitated it in its own development of sonar. Since existing forms of sonar were unable to locate mines buried in the sand during the Gulf War, the U.S. fleet lost a number of ships. It then set out to use the dolphin wave range in the research it supported and to employ the dolphin's sensory technique in its own vessels.

Whitlow Au

The perfect sonar system in dolphins inspired many scientists and led them to make use of this system in marine technology. ASDIC, the first active sonar technology invented in World War II, was able to detect and track a submerged submarine at about 2,000 yards in good conditions. The sonar system, which humans only started to use in the twentieth century, has been used by dolphins for millions of years. All these perfect designs in nature are evidence for God's matchless artistry in creation.

Whitlow Au, a researcher from the Hawaii Marine Biology Institute in Kailua, together with his colleagues, managed to come up with such a sonar system four years ago. A computerized sonar device which monitored and decoded the echoes of the waves it sent was added to this artificial dolphin sonar. This sonar, developed by scientists, was subjected to a number of tests and produced very positive results, registering a 90% success rate in locating mines buried 40 cm under the sand.1

As we can see, an advanced computer needs to be used in order to imitate the action of dolphin sonar. This animal's sonar faculty, which does what an advanced computer can do but in an even more efficient manner, and which is also far more compact than a computer, is a miracle of engineering. To maintain that such an organ emerged by mutations-which evolution depends on-is just as illogical as maintaining that a computer could emerge from the soil as a result of natural phenomena such as wind and rain. No rational person would obviously ever believe such a claim. Yet National Geographic TV glosses over this complex organ during its account of dolphin sonar by calling it "a product of evolution," without offering the slightest evidence.

Another creature whose complex design leaves the theory of evolution floundering is the angelfish. Thanks to its flat body, this animal buries itself in the sand to wait for its prey, and keeps a lookout with two eyes which protrude like periscopes. One of the creature's most astonishing aspects is that it can also detect the approach of prey thanks to an organ which senses electrical signals. When the moment comes, it suddenly lunges out of its hiding place and swallows its prey in a single gulp.

National Geographic TV employed the expression "it developed a sixth sense" during its description of this sense possessed by the creature. This sensory system contains a most complex design: the animal possesses an organ that perceives electrical impulses, nerves which carry the signals received by that organ, and, most important of all, a brain capable of transforming these signals into a meaningful map. Highly effective connections transmit the signals between the nerve cells. These connections have been designed to prevent the signals from being lost or diminished in any way. In short, there is a very detailed design and organization in the sensory system. Since even a simple ammeter for measuring electric currents requires a specific design, it is clear that this much more complex sensory system was also intelligently designed.

After describing all these complex systems, National Geographic TV claimed that they all emerged "by evolution," without feeling the need to offer any evidence for this. Yet again, this shows how dogmatically devoted National Geographic TV is to the theory of evolution. It feels no need to test the foundations of the theory. On the contrary, it seeks to account for the whole of nature in the light of the theory after having swallowed it verbatim.

Nor do the descriptions of some creatures in the program as "ruthless killers" actually reflect the truth. This expression is employed to impose the Darwinist dogma that there is a ruthless struggle for survival in nature and that living things are aggressive, selfish, and ruthless. Yet, the hunting that goes on among living things is not "ruthless killing." Animals kill only for food or self-defense. The method they employ is usually the swiftest, and thus the method that inflicts the least suffering. (For instance, a lion kills its prey by biting its throat.)

Conclusion

The magnificent hunting mechanisms and camouflage skills in living things cannot have come about by evolution. The complex design in animals and all other organisms can only be accounted for by intelligent design. National Geographic TV merely repeats Darwinist shibboleths as it describes natural phenomena. If the channel really wants to defend the theory of evolution, it must account for the origin of complex organs in evolutionary terms. Indeed, the reason why it makes do with offering accounts full of Darwinist slogans is that it is impossible to offer such an explanation.