Molecular Biology and the Origin of Life

Molecular Biology and the Origin of Life

In previous sections of this book, we have shown how the fossil record invalidates the theory of evolution. In point of fact, there was no need for us to relate any of that, because the theory of evolution collapses long before one gets to any claims about the evidence of fossils. The subject that renders the theory meaningless from the very outset is the question of how life first appeared on earth.

When it addresses this question, evolutionary theory claims that life started with a cell that formed by chance. According to this scenario, four billion years ago various chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell.

The first thing that must be said is that the claim that nonliving materials can come together to form life is an unscientific one that has not been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life. Each living cell is formed by the replication of another cell. No one in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.

The theory of evolution claims that a living cell-which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and technology are brought to bear-nevertheless managed to form by chance under primordial conditions on the earth. In the following pages, we will examine why this claim is contrary to the most basic principles of science and reason.

An Example of the Logic of "Chance"

If one believes that a living cell can come into existence by chance, then there is nothing to prevent one from believing a similar story that we will relate below. It is the story of a town.

One day, a lump of clay, pressed between the rocks in a barren land, becomes wet after it rains. The wet clay dries and hardens when the sun rises, and takes on a stiff, resistant form. Afterwards, these rocks, which also served as a mould, are somehow smashed into pieces, and then a neat, well shaped, and strong brick appears. This brick waits under the same natural conditions for years for a similar brick to be formed. This goes on until hundreds and thousands of the same bricks have been formed in the same place. However, by chance, none of the bricks that were previously formed are damaged. Although exposed to storms, rain, wind, scorching sun, and freezing cold for thousands of years, the bricks do not crack, break up, or get dragged away, but wait there in the same place with the same determination for other bricks to form.

When the number of bricks is adequate, they erect a building by being arranged sideways and on top of each other, having been randomly dragged along by the effects of natural conditions such as winds, storms, or tornadoes. Meanwhile, materials such as cement or soil mixtures form under "natural conditions," with perfect timing, and creep between the bricks to clamp them to each other. While all this is happening, iron ore under the ground is shaped under "natural conditions" and lays the foundations of a building that is to be formed with these bricks. At the end of this process, a complete building rises with all its materials, carpentry, and installations intact.

Of course, a building does not only consist of foundations, bricks, and cement. How, then, are the other missing materials to be obtained? The answer is simple: all kinds of materials that are needed for the construction of the building exist in the earth on which it is erected. Silicon for the glass, copper for the electric cables, iron for the columns, beams, water pipes, etc. all exist under the ground in abundant quantities. It takes only the skill of "natural conditions" to shape and place these materials inside the building. All the installations, carpentry, and accessories are placed among the bricks with the help of the blowing wind, rain, and earthquakes. Everything has gone so well that the bricks are arranged so as to leave the necessary window spaces as if they knew that something called glass would be formed later on by natural conditions. Moreover, they have not forgotten to leave some space to allow the installation of water, electricity and heating systems, which are also later to be formed by chance. Everything has gone so well that "coincidences" and "natural conditions" produce a perfect design.

If you have managed to sustain your belief in this story so far, then you should have no trouble surmising how the town's other buildings, plants, highways, sidewalks, substructures, communications, and transportation systems came about. If you possess technical knowledge and are fairly conversant with the subject, you can even write an extremely "scientific" book of a few volumes stating your theories about "the evolutionary process of a sewage system and its uniformity with the present structures." You may well be honored with academic awards for your clever studies, and may consider yourself a genius, shedding light on the nature of humanity.

The theory of evolution, which claims that life came into existence by chance, is no less absurd than our story, for, with all its operational systems, and systems of communication, transportation and management, a cell is no less complex than a city. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, the molecular biologist Michael Denton discusses the complex structure of the cell:

To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene-is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?237

In Darwin's time, it was thought that the cell had a very simple structure. Darwin's ardent supporter Ernst Haeckel suggested that the above mud pulled up from the bottom of the sea could produce life by itself.

The Complex Structure and Systems in the Cell

The complex structure of the living cell was unknown in Darwin's day and at the time, ascribing life to "coincidences and natural conditions" was thought by evolutionists to be convincing enough. Darwin had proposed that the first cell could easily have formed "in some warm little pond."238 One of Darwin's supporters, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, examined under the microscope a mixture of mud removed from the sea bed by a research ship and claimed that this was a nonliving substance that turned into a living one. This so-called "mud that comes to life," known as Bathybius haeckelii ("Haeckel's mud from the depths"), is an indication of just how simple a thing life was thought to be by the founders of the theory of evolution.

The technology of the twentieth century has delved into the tiniest particles of life, and has revealed that the cell is the most complex system mankind has ever confronted. Today we know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.

W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."239

Sir Fred Hoyle

A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned.

The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. Actually, the probability of forming a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing house.

The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.240 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been "created."

One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.

The Problem of the Origin of Proteins

So much for the cell, but evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called amino acids that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands.

The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore, the theory cannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of amino acids, as will be discussed later.)

The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand.

For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all of these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless, or else potentially harmful to living things.

In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10³⁰⁰." The probability of this "1" actually occurring is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10⁵⁰ are thought of as "zero probability").

The complex 3-D structure of the protein cytochrome-C. The slightest difference in the order of the amino acids, represented by little balls, will render the protein nonfunctional.

Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" is insufficient to describe the true situation.

When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 types of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.

Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers.

This situation is in fact acknowledged by many evolutionists. For example, Harold F. Blum, a prominent evolutionist scientist, states that "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."241

Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place over a very long period of time and that this made the impossible possible. Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History, writing that the probability is so small "that it would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids."242

So what does all this mean? Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry, answers the question:

When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task.243

If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times "more impossible" for some one million of those proteins to come together by chance and make up a complete human cell. What is more, by no means does a cell consist of a mere heap of proteins. In addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals such as electrolytes arranged in a specific proportion, equilibrium, and design in terms of both structure and function. Each of these elements functions as a building block or co-molecule in various organelles.

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell.) The number that was found was 1 over 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰.244 (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros after the 1)

A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University College Cardiff, Wales, Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments:

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.245

Sir Fred Hoyle comments on these implausible numbers:

Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.246

An article published in the January 1999 issue of Science News revealed that no explanation had yet been found for how amino acids could turn into proteins:

….no one has ever satisfactorily explained how the widely distributed ingredients linked up into proteins. Presumed conditions of primordial Earth would have driven the amino acids toward lonely isolation.247

Left-handed Proteins

Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding the formation of proteins is impossible.

Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called "left-handed" and "right-handed." The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands.

The same protein's left- (L) and right- (D) handed isomers. The proteins in living creatures consist only of left-handed amino acids.

Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components.

Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.

The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution.

Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to "chance" even worse. In order for a "meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognize that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.

The Britannica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth.248

If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of conscious intervention.

A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can never be explained by chance.

In conclusion, it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by the probabilities we have examined that the origin of life cannot be explained by chance. If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average-sized protein consisting of 400 amino acids being selected only from left-handed amino acids, we come up with a probability of 1 in 2⁴⁰⁰, or 10¹²⁰. Just for a comparison, let us remember that the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 1079, which although vast, is a much smaller number. The probability of these amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would generate much larger numbers. If we add these probabilities to each other, and if we go on to work out the probabilities of even higher numbers and types of proteins, the calculations become inconceivable.

The Indispensability of the Peptide Link

The difficulties the theory of evolution is unable to overcome with regard to the development of a single protein are not limited to those we have recounted so far. It is not enough for amino acids to be arranged in the correct numbers, sequences, and required three-dimensional structures. The formation of a protein also requires that amino acid molecules with more than one arm be linked to each other only in certain ways. Such a bond is called a "peptide bond." Amino acids can make different bonds with each other; but proteins are made up of those-and only those-amino acids which are joined by peptide bonds.

A comparison will clarify this point. Suppose that all the parts of a car were complete and correctly assembled, with the sole exception that one of the wheels was fastened in place not with the usual nuts and bolts, but with a piece of wire, in such a way that its hub faced the ground. It would be impossible for such a car to move even the shortest distance, no matter how complex its technology or how powerful its engine. At first glance, everything would seem to be in the right place, but the faulty attachment of even one wheel would make the entire car useless. In the same way, in a protein molecule the joining of even one amino acid to another with a bond other than a peptide bond would make the entire molecule useless.

Research has shown that amino acids combining at random combine with a peptide bond only 50 percent of the time, and that the rest of the time different bonds that are not present in proteins emerge. To function properly, each amino acid making up a protein must be joined to others only with a peptide bond, in the same way that it likewise must be chosen only from among left-handed forms.

The probability of this happening is the same as the probability of each protein's being left-handed. That is, when we consider a protein made up of 400 amino acids, the probability of all amino acids combining among themselves with only peptide bonds is 1 in 2³⁹⁹.

Zero Probability

If we add together the three probabilities (that of amino acids being laid out correctly, that of their all being left-handed, and that of their all being joined by peptide links), then we come face to face with the astronomical figure of 1 in 10⁹⁵⁰. This is a probability only on paper. Practically speaking, there is zero chance of its actually happening. As we saw earlier, in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 in 10⁵⁰ is statistically considered to have a "zero" probability of occurring.

Even if we suppose that amino acids have combined and decomposed by a "trial and error" method, without losing any time since the formation of the earth, in order to form a single protein molecule, the time that would be required for something with a probability of 10⁹⁵⁰ to happen would still hugely exceed the estimated age of the earth.

PROTEIN SYNTHESIS The ribosome reads the messenger RNA, and arranges the amino acids according to the information it receives there. In the illustrations, the consecutive order of the [ val, cys, and ala amino acids ], established by the ribosome and transfer RNA, can be seen. All proteins in nature are produced by this complex process. No protein comes about by "accident."

The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that evolution falls into a terrible abyss of improbability even when it comes to the formation of a single protein.

One of the foremost proponents of the theory of evolution, Professor Richard Dawkins, states the impossibility the theory has fallen into in these terms:

So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet-because here we are talking about it.249

This admission by one of evolution's foremost authorities clearly reflects the logical muddle the theory of evolution is built on. The above statements in Dawkins's book Climbing Mount Improbable are a striking example of circular reasoning which actually explains nothing: "If we are here, then that means that evolution happened."

As we have seen, even the most prominent of the proponents of evolution confess that the theory is buried in impossibility when it comes to accounting for the first stage of life. But how interesting it is that, rather than accept the complete unreality of the theory they maintain, they prefer to cling to evolution in a dogmatic manner! This is a completely ideological fixation.

Is There a Trial-and-Error Mechanism in Nature?

Finally, we may conclude with a very important point in relation to the basic logic of probability calculations, of which we have already seen some examples. We indicated that the probability calculations made above reach astronomical levels, and that these astronomical odds have no chance of actually happening. However, there is a much more important and damaging fact facing evolutionists here. This is that under natural conditions, no period of trial and error can even start, despite the astronomical odds, because there is no trial-and-error mechanism in nature from which proteins could emerge.

The calculations we gave above to demonstrate the probability of the formation of a protein molecule with 500 amino acids are valid only for an ideal trial-and-error environment, which does not actually exist in real life. That is, the probability of obtaining a useful protein is "1" in 10⁹⁵⁰ only if we suppose that there exists an imaginary mechanism in which an invisible hand joins 500 amino acids at random and then, seeing that this is not the right combination, disentangles them one by one, and arranges them again in a different order, and so on. In each trial, the amino acids would have to be separated one by one, and arranged in a new order. The synthesis should be stopped after the 500th amino acid has been added, and it must be ensured that not even one extra amino acid is involved. The trial should then be stopped to see whether or not a functional protein has yet been formed, and, in the event of failure, everything should be split up again and then tested for another sequence. Additionally, in each trial, not even one extraneous substance should be allowed to become involved. It is also imperative that the chain formed during the trial should not be separated and destroyed before reaching the 499^th link. These conditions mean that the probabilities we have mentioned above can only operate in a controlled environment where there is a conscious mechanism directing the beginning, the end, and each intermediate stage of the process, and where only "the selection of the amino acids" is left to chance. It is clearly impossible for such an environment to exist under natural conditions. Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logically and technically impossible.

Since some people are unable to take a broad view of these matters, but approach them from a superficial viewpoint and assume protein formation to be a simple chemical reaction, they may make unrealistic deductions such as "amino acids combine by way of reaction and then form proteins." However, accidental chemical reactions taking place in a nonliving structure can only lead to simple and primitive changes. The number of these is predetermined and limited. For a somewhat more complex chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, and laboratories have to be involved. Medicines and many other chemical materials that we use in our daily life are made in just this way. Proteins have much more complex structures than these chemicals produced by industry. Therefore, it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of design and engineering, in which every part takes its place in a fixed order, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions.

Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described so far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously "by accident." Even so, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to survive, it would need to be isolated from its natural habitat and be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, it would either disintegrate from exposure to natural conditions on earth, or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, thereby losing its particular properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance.

What we have been discussing so far is the impossibility of just one protein's coming about by chance. However, in the human body alone there are some 100,000 proteins functioning. Furthermore, there are about 1.5 million species named, and another 10 million are believed to exist. Although many similar proteins are used in many life forms, it is estimated that there must be 100 million or more types of protein in the plant and animal worlds. And the millions of species which have already become extinct are not included in this calculation. In other words, hundreds of millions of protein codes have existed in the world. If one considers that not even one protein can be explained by chance, it is clear what the existence of hundreds of millions of different proteins must mean.

Bearing this truth in mind, it can clearly be understood that such concepts as "coincidence" and "chance" have nothing to do with the existence of living things.

The Evolutionary Argument about the Origin of Life

Above all, there is one important point to take into consideration: If any one step in the evolutionary process is proven to be impossible, this is sufficient to prove that the whole theory is totally false and invalid. For instance, by proving that the haphazard formation of proteins is impossible, all other claims regarding the subsequent steps of evolution are also refuted. After this, it becomes meaningless to take some human and ape skulls and engage in speculation about them.

How living organisms came into existence out of nonliving matter was an issue that evolutionists did not even want to mention for a long time. However, this question, which had constantly been avoided, eventually had to be addressed, and attempts were made to settle it with a series of experiments in the second quarter of the twentieth century.

The main question was: How could the first living cell have appeared in the primordial atmosphere on the earth? In other words, what kind of explanation could evolutionists offer?

The first person to take the matter in hand was the Russian biologist Alexander I. Oparin, the founder of the concept of "chemical evolution." Despite all his theoretical studies, Oparin was unable to produce any results to shed light on the origin of life. He says the following in his book The Origin of Life, published in 1936:

Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms.250

Since Oparin, evolutionists have performed countless experiments, conducted research, and made observations to prove that a cell could have been formed by chance. However, every such attempt only made the complex design of the cell clearer, and thus refuted the evolutionists' hypotheses even more. Professor Klaus Dose, the president of the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg, states:

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.251

In his book The End of Science, the evolutionary science writer John Horgan says of the origin of life, "This is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology."252

The following statement by the geochemist Jeffrey Bada, from the San Diego-based Scripps Institute, makes the helplessness of evolutionists clear:

Today, as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?253

Let us now look at the details of the theory of evolution's "biggest unsolved problem". The first subject we have to consider is the famous Miller experiment.

Miller's Experiment

The most generally respected study on the origin of life is the Miller experiment conducted by the American researcher Stanley Miller in 1953. (The experiment is also known as the "Urey-Miller experiment" because of the contribution of Miller's instructor at the University of Chicago, Harold Urey.) This experiment is the only "evidence" evolutionists have with which to allegedly prove the "chemical evolution thesis"; they advance it as the first stage of the supposed evolutionary process leading to life. Although nearly half a century has passed, and great technological advances have been made, nobody has made any further progress. In spite of this, Miller's experiment is still taught in textbooks as the evolutionary explanation of the earliest generation of living things. That is because, aware of the fact that such studies do not support, but rather actually refute, their thesis, evolutionist researchers deliberately avoid embarking on such experiments.

Stanley Miller's aim was to demonstrate by means of an experiment that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could have come into existence "by chance" on the lifeless earth billions of years ago. In his experiment, Miller used a gas mixture that he assumed to have existed on the primordial earth (but which later proved unrealistic), composed of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor. Since these gases would not react with each other under natural conditions, he added energy to the mixture to start a reaction among them. Supposing that this energy could have come from lightning in the primordial atmosphere, he used an electric current for this purpose.

Miller heated this gas mixture at 100°C for a week and added the electrical current. At the end of the week, Miller analyzed the chemicals which had formed at the bottom of the jar, and observed that three out of the 20 amino acids which constitute the basic elements of proteins had been synthesized.

This experiment aroused great excitement among evolutionists, and was promoted as an outstanding success. Moreover, in a state of intoxicated euphoria, various publications carried headlines such as "Miller creates life." However, what Miller had managed to synthesize was only a few inanimate molecules.

Encouraged by this experiment, evolutionists immediately produced new scenarios. Stages following the development of amino acids were hurriedly hypothesized. Supposedly, amino acids had later united in the correct sequences by accident to form proteins. Some of these proteins which emerged by chance formed themselves into cell membrane-like structures which "somehow" came into existence and formed a primitive cell. These cells then supposedly came together over time to form multicellular living organisms.

However, Miller's experiment has since proven to be false in many respects.

Four Facts That Invalidate Miller's Experiment

Miller's experiment sought to prove that amino acids could form on their own in primordial earth-like conditions, but it contains inconsistencies in a number of areas:

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

Doubtless, this kind of conscious isolation mechanism did not exist on the primordial earth. Without such a mechanism, even if one amino acid were obtained, it would immediately have been destroyed. The chemist Richard Bliss expresses this contradiction by observing that "Actually, without this trap, the chemical products, would have been destroyed by the energy source."254 And, sure enough, in his previous experiments, Miller had been unable to make even one single amino acid using the same materials without the cold trap mechanism.

2- The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia.

So why did Miller insist on these gases? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesize any amino acid. Kevin Mc Kean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:

Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere on the Earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. ...However in the latest studies, it has been understood that the Earth was very hot at those times, and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N₂), carbon dioxide (CO₂) and water vapour (H₂O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.255

The artificial atmosphere created by Miller in his experiment actually bore not the slightest resemblance to the primitive atmosphere on earth.

The American scientists J. P. Ferris and C. T. Chen repeated Miller's experiment with an atmospheric environment that contained carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, and water vapor, and were unable to obtain even a single amino acid molecule.256

3- Another important point that invalidates Miller's experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when they were thought to have been formed. This fact, overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidized iron found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old.257

There are other findings showing that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere at that time was much higher than originally claimed by evolutionists. Studies also show that the amount of ultraviolet radiation to which the earth was then exposed was 10,000 times more than evolutionists' estimates. This intense radiation would unavoidably have freed oxygen by decomposing the water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This situation completely negates Miller's experiment, in which oxygen was completely neglected. If oxygen had been used in the experiment, methane would have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia into nitrogen and water. On the other hand, in an environment where there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer either; therefore, the amino acids would have immediately been destroyed, since they would have been exposed to the most intense ultraviolet rays without the protection of the ozone layer. In other words, with or without oxygen in the primordial world, the result would have been a deadly environment for the amino acids.

4- At the end of Miller's experiment, many organic acids had also been formed with characteristics detrimental to the structure and function of living things. If the amino acids had not been isolated, and had been left in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable.

Moreover, Miller's experiment also produced right-handed amino acids.258 The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even within its own terms, because right-handed amino acids cannot function in the composition of living organisms. To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids were formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life. In truth, this medium took the form of an acidic mixture destroying and oxidizing the useful molecules obtained.

Today, Miller too accepts that his 1953 experiment was very far from explaining the origin of life.

All these facts point to one firm truth: Miller's experiment cannot claim to have proved that living things formed by chance under primordial earth-like conditions. The whole experiment is nothing more than a deliberate and controlled laboratory experiment to synthesize amino acids. The amount and types of the gases used in the experiment were ideally determined to allow amino acids to originate. The amount of energy supplied to the system was neither too much nor too little, but arranged precisely to enable the necessary reactions to occur. The experimental apparatus was isolated, so that it would not allow the leaking of any harmful, destructive, or any other kind of elements to hinder the formation of amino acids. No elements, minerals or compounds that were likely to have been present on the primordial earth, but which would have changed the course of the reactions, were included in the experiment. Oxygen, which would have prevented the formation of amino acids because of oxidation, is only one of these destructive elements. Even under such ideal laboratory conditions, it was impossible for the amino acids produced to survive and avoid destruction without the "cold trap" mechanism.

In fact, by his experiment, Miller destroyed evolution's claim that "life emerged as the result of unconscious coincidences." That is because, if the experiment proves anything, it is that amino acids can only be produced in a controlled laboratory environment where all the conditions are specifically designed by conscious intervention.

Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled "Life's Crucible":

Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs with exasperation. "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."259

As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled "The Emergence of Life on Earth," the following comments appear:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.

That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules - the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.260

In brief, neither Miller's experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.261

The Primordial Atmosphere and Proteins

Evolutionist sources use the Miller experiment, despite all of its inconsistencies, to try to gloss over the question of the origin of amino acids. By giving the impression that the issue has long since been resolved by that invalid experiment, they try to paper over the cracks in the theory of evolution.

However, to explain the second stage of the origin of life, evolutionists faced an even greater problem than that of the formation of amino acids-namely, the origin of proteins, the building blocks of life, which are composed of hundreds of different amino acids bonding with each other in a particular order.

Claiming that proteins were formed by chance under natural conditions is even more unrealistic and unreasonable than claiming that amino acids were formed by chance. In the preceding pages we have seen the mathematical impossibility of the haphazard uniting of amino acids in proper sequences to form proteins with probability calculations. Now, we will examine the impossibility of proteins being produced chemically under primordial earth conditions.

The Problem of Protein Synthesis in Water

As we saw before, when combining to form proteins, amino acids form a special bond with one another called the peptide bond. A water molecule is released during the formation of this peptide bond.

This fact definitely refutes the evolutionist explanation that primordial life originated in water, because, according to the "Le Châtelier principle" in chemistry, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water (a condensation reaction) to take place in a hydrous environment. The chances of this kind of a reaction happening in a hydrate environment is said to "have the least probability of occurring" of all chemical reactions.

Hence the ocean, which is claimed to be where life began and amino acids originated, is definitely not an appropriate setting for amino acids to form proteins.262 On the other hand, it would be irrational for evolutionists to change their minds and claim that life originated on land, because the only environment where amino acids could have been protected from ultraviolet radiation is in the oceans and seas. On land, they would be destroyed by ultraviolet rays. The Le Châtelier principle, on the other hand, disproves the claim of the formation of life in the sea. This is another dilemma confronting evolution.

FOX'S "PROTEINOIDS" Sydney Fox, who was influenced by Miller's scenario, formed the above molecules, which he called "proteinoids," by joining amino acids together. However, these chains of nonfunctioning amino acids had no resemblance to the real proteins that make up the bodies of living things. Actually, all these efforts showed not only that life did not come about by chance, but also that it could not be reproduced in laboratory conditions.

Fox's Experiment

Challenged by the above dilemma, evolutionists began to invent unrealistic scenarios based on this "water problem" that so definitively refuted their theories. Sydney Fox was one of the best known of these researchers. Fox advanced the following theory to solve the problem. According to him, the first amino acids must have been transported to some cliffs near a volcano right after their formation in the primordial ocean. The water contained in this mixture that included the amino acids must have evaporated when the temperature increased above boiling point on the cliffs. The amino acids which were "dried out" in this way, could then have combined to form proteins.

However this "complicated" way out was not accepted by many people in the field, because the amino acids could not have endured such high temperatures. Research confirmed that amino acids are immediately destroyed at very high temperatures.

But Fox did not give up. He combined purified amino acids in the laboratory, "under very special conditions," by heating them in a dry environment. The amino acids combined, but still no proteins were obtained. What he actually ended up with was simple and disordered loops of amino acids, arbitrarily combined with each other, and these loops were far from resembling any living protein. Furthermore, if Fox had kept the amino acids at a steady temperature, then these useless loops would also have disintegrated.

Another point that nullified the experiment was that Fox did not use the useless end products obtained in Miller's experiment; rather, he used pure amino acids from living organisms. This experiment, however, which was intended to be a continuation of Miller's experiment, should have started out from the results obtained by Miller. Yet neither Fox, nor any other researcher, used the useless amino acids Miller produced.

Fox's experiment was not even welcomed in evolutionist circles, because it was clear that the meaningless amino acid chains that he obtained (which he termed "proteinoids") could not have formed under natural conditions. Moreover, proteins, the basic units of life, still could not be produced. The problem of the origin of proteins remained unsolved. In an article in the popular science magazine, Chemical Engineering News, which appeared in the 1970s, Fox's experiment was mentioned as follows:

When Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, they revealed that life was much more complicated than had previously been thought.

Sydney Fox and the other researchers managed to unite the amino acids in the shape of "proteinoids" by using very special heating techniques under conditions which in fact did not exist at all in the primordial stages of Earth. Also, they are not at all similar to the very regular proteins present in living things. They are nothing but useless, irregular chemical stains. It was explained that even if such molecules had formed in the early ages, they would definitely be destroyed.263

Indeed, the proteinoids Fox obtained were totally different from real proteins, both in structure and function. The difference between proteins and these proteinoids was as huge as the difference between a piece of high-tech equipment and a heap of unprocessed iron.

Furthermore, there was no chance that even these irregular amino acid chains could have survived in the primordial atmosphere. Harmful and destructive physical and chemical effects caused by heavy exposure to ultraviolet light and other unstable natural conditions would have caused these proteinoids to disintegrate. Because of the Le Châtelier principle, it was also impossible for the amino acids to combine underwater, where ultraviolet rays would not reach them. In view of this, the idea that the proteinoids were the basis of life eventually lost support among scientists.

The Origin of the DNA Molecule

Our examinations so far have shown that the theory of evolution is in a serious quandary at the molecular level. Evolutionists have shed no light on the formation of amino acids at all. The formation of proteins, on the other hand, is another mystery all its own.

Yet the problems are not even limited just to amino acids and proteins: These are only the beginning. Beyond them, the extremely complex structure of the cell leads evolutionists to yet another impasse. The reason for this is that the cell is not just a heap of amino-acid-structured proteins, but rather the most complex system man has ever encountered.

While the theory of evolution was having such trouble providing a coherent explanation for the existence of the molecules that are the basis of the cell structure, developments in the science of genetics and the discovery of nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) produced brand-new problems for the theory. In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick launched a new age in biology with their work on the structure of DNA.

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. The information regarding all the characteristics of a person, from physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, is recorded in DNA within the sequence of four special bases that make up the giant molecule. These bases are known as A, T, G, and C, according to the initial letters of their names. All the structural differences among people depend on variations in the sequences of these letters. In addition to features such as height, and eye, hair and skin colors, the DNA in a single cell also contains the design of the 206 bones, the 600 muscles, the 100 billion nerve cells (neurons), 1.000 trillion connections between the neurons of the brain, 97,000 kilometers of veins, and the 100 trillion cells of the human body. If we were to write down the information coded in DNA, then we would have to 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 1/100th-of-a-millimeter-long cell itself.

DNA Cannot Be Explained by Non-Design

At this point, there is an important detail that deserves attention. An error in the sequence of the nucleotides making up a gene would render that gene completely useless. When it is considered that there are 200,000 genes in the human body, it becomes clearer how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to have been formed, in the right sequence, by chance. The evolutionary biologist Frank Salisbury has comments on this impossibility:

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4^1,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 4^1,000=10⁶⁰⁰. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.264

The number 4^1,000 is the equivalent of 10⁶⁰⁰. This means 1 followed by 600 zeros. As 1 with 12 zeros after it indicates a trillion, 600 zeros represents an inconceivable number.

The impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by a coincidental accumulation of nucleotides is expressed by the French scientist Paul Auger in this way:

We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of complex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one-which is possible-and the combination of these within very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible.265

The extraordinary information concealed in DNA is clear proof that life did not emerge by chance, but was deliberately designed. No natural process can account for the origin of DNA.

For many years, Francis Crick believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually even he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule could not have emerged spontaneously by chance, as the result of an evolutionary process:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.266

The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following confession on the issue:

In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic.267

A very interesting paradox emerges at this point: While DNA can only replicate with the help of special proteins (enzymes), the synthesis of these proteins can only be realized by the information encoded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. Science writer John Horgan explains the dilemma in this way:

DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalyticproteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.268

This situation once again undermines the scenario that life could have come about by accident. Homer Jacobson, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, comments:

Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance...269

The quotation above was written two years after the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. But despite all the developments in science, this problem for evolutionists remains unsolved. This is why German biochemist Douglas R. Hofstadter says:

'How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?' For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.270

Stanley Miller and Francis Crick's close associate from the University of San Diego, California, the highly reputed evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel says in an article published in 1994:

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.271

Alongside all of this, it is chemically impossible for nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, which possess a definite string of information, to have emerged by chance, or for even one of the nucleotides which compose them to have come about by accident and to have survived and maintained its unadulterated state under the conditions of the primordial world. Even the famous journal Scientific American, which follows an evolutionist line, has been obliged to confess the doubts of evolutionists on this subject:

Even the simpler molecules are produced only in small amounts in realistic experiments simulating possible primitive earth conditions. What is worse, these molecules are generally minor constituents of tars: It remains problematical how they could have been separated and purified through geochemical processes whose normal effects are to make organic mixtures more and more of a jumble. With somewhat more complex molecules these difficulties rapidly increase. In particular a purely geochemical origin of nucleotides (the subunits of DNA and RNA) presents great difficulties.272

Of course, the statement "it is quite impossible for life to have emerged by chemical means" simply means that life is the product of an intelligent design. This "chemical evolution" that evolutionists have been talking about since the beginning of the last century never happened, and is nothing but a myth.

But most evolutionists believe in this and similar totally unscientific fairy tales as if they were true, because accepting intelligent design means accepting creation-and they have conditioned themselves not to accept this truth. One famous biologist from Australia, Michael Denton, discusses the subject in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:

To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!273

The Invalidity of the RNA World

The discovery in the 1970s that the gases originally existing in the primitive atmosphere of the earth would have rendered amino acid synthesis impossible was a serious blow to the theory of molecular evolution. Evolutionists then had to face the fact that the "primitive atmosphere experiments" by Stanley Miller, Sydney Fox, Cyril Ponnamperuma and others were invalid. For this reason, in the 1980s the evolutionists tried again. As a result, the "RNA World" hypothesis was advanced. This scenario proposed that, not proteins, but rather the RNA molecules that contained the information for proteins, were formed first.

According to this scenario, advanced by Harvard chemist Walter Gilbert in 1986, inspired by the discovery about "ribozymes" by Thomas Cech, billions of years ago an RNA molecule capable of replicating itself formed somehow by accident. Then this RNA molecule started to produce proteins, having been activated by external influences. Thereafter, it became necessary to store this information in a second molecule, and somehow the DNA molecule emerged to do that.

Made up as it is of a chain of impossibilities in each and every stage, this scarcely credible scenario, far from providing any explanation of the origin of life, only magnified the problem, and raised many unanswerable questions:

1. Since it is impossible to accept the coincidental formation of even one of the nucleotides making up RNA, how can it be possible for these imaginary nucleotides to form RNA by coming together in a particular sequence? Evolutionist John Horgan admits the impossibility of the chance formation of RNA;

As researchers continue to examine the RNA-World concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA initially arise? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under really plausible ones.274

2. Even if we suppose that it formed by chance, how could this RNA, consisting of just a nucleotide chain, have "decided" to self-replicate, and with what kind of mechanism could it have carried out this self-replicating process? Where did it find the nucleotides it used while self-replicating? Even evolutionist microbiologists Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel express the desperate nature of the situtation in their book In the RNA World:

This discussion… has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential.275

3. Even if we suppose that there was self-replicating RNA in the primordial world, that numerous amino acids of every type ready to be used by RNA were available, and that all of these impossibilities somehow took place, the situation still does not lead to the formation of even one single protein. For RNA only includes information concerning the structure of proteins. Amino acids, on the other hand, are raw materials. Nevertheless, there is no mechanism for the production of proteins. To consider the existence of RNA sufficient for protein production is as nonsensical as expecting a car to assemble itself by simply throwing the blueprint onto a heap of parts piled up on top of each other. A blueprint cannot produce a car all by itself without a factory and workers to assemble the parts according to the instructions contained in the blueprint; in the same way, the blueprint contained in RNA cannot produce proteins by itself without the cooperation of other cellular components which follow the instructions contained in the RNA.

Proteins are produced in the ribosome factory with the help of many enzymes, and as a result of extremely complex processes within the cell. The ribosome is a complex cell organelle made up of proteins. This leads, therefore, to another unreasonable supposition-that ribosomes, too, should have come into existence by chance at the same time. Even Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod, who was one of the most fanatical defenders of evolution-and atheism-explained that protein synthesis can by no means be considered to depend merely on the information in the nucleic acids:

The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least 50 macromolecular components, which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation themselves. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine.276

How could an RNA chain in the primordial world have taken such a decision, and what methods could it have employed to make protein production happen by doing the work of 50 specialized particles on its own? Evolutionists have no answer to these questions. One article in the preeminent scientific journal Nature makes it clear that the concept of "self-replicating RNA" is a complete product of fantasy, and that actually this kind of RNA has not been produced in any experiment:

DNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of protein enzymes to improve the copying fidelity of a gene-size piece of DNA. "Catch-22" say Maynard Smith and Szathmary. So, wheel on RNA with its now recognized properties of carrying both informational and enzymatic activity, leading the authors to state: "In essence, the first RNA molecules did not need a protein polymerase to replicate them; they replicated themselves." Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for 'biologists in general' that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (10²⁴) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences.277

Dr. Leslie Orgel, one of the associates of Stanley Miller and Francis Crick from the University of California at San Diego, uses the term "scenario" for the possibility of "the origination of life through the RNA World." Orgel described what kind of features this RNA would have had to have and how impossible these would have been in his article "The Origin of Life," published in Scientific American in October 1994:

This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: A capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.278

As should by now be clear, to expect these two complex and extremely essential processes from a molecule such as RNA is againt scientific thought. Concrete scientific facts, on the other hand, makes it explicit that the RNA World hypothesis, which is a new model proposed for the chance formation of life, is an equally implausible fable.

John Horgan, in his book The End of Science, reports that Stanley Miller viewed the theories subsequently put forward regarding the origin of life as quite meaningless (It will be recalled that Miller was the originator of the famous Miller Experiment, which was later revealed to be invalid.):

In fact, almost 40 years after his original experiment, Miller told me that solving the riddle of the origin of life had turned out to be more difficult than he or anyone else had envisioned… Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as "nonsense" or "paper chemistry." He was so contemptuous of some hypotheses that, when I asked his opinion of them, he merely shook his head, sighed deeply, and snickered-as if overcome by the folly of humanity. Stuart Kauffman's theory of autocatalysis fell into this category. "Running equations through a computer does not constitute an experiment," Miller sniffed. Miller acknowledged that scientists may never know precisely where and when life emerged.279

This statement, by a pioneer of the struggle to find an evolutionary explanation for the origin of life, clearly reflects the despair felt by evolutionist scientists over the cul-de-sac they find themselves in.

Can Design Be Explained by Coincidence?

So far, we have examined how impossible the accidental formation of life is. Let us again ignore these impossibilities for just a moment. Let us suppose that millions of years ago a cell was formed which had acquired everything necessary for life, and that it duly "came to life." Evolution again collapses at this point. For even if this cell had existed for a while, it would eventually have died and after its death, nothing would have remained, and everything would have reverted to where it had started. This is because this first living cell, lacking any genetic information, would not have been able to reproduce and start a new generation. Life would have ended with its death.

This illustration shows the sketch of the chemical reactions taking place in a single cell. These intricate activities in the cell, which can only be viewed with an electron microscope, continue to take place flawlessly and ceaselessly.

The genetic system does not only consist of DNA. The following things must also exist in the same environment: enzymes to read the code on the DNA, messenger RNA to be produced after reading these codes, a ribosome to which messenger RNA will attach according to this code, transfer RNA to transfer the amino acids to the ribosome for use in production, and extremely complex enzymes to carry out numerous intermediary processes. Such an environment cannot exist anywhere apart from a totally isolated and completely controlled environment such as the cell, where all the essential raw materials and energy resources exist.

As a result, organic matter can self-reproduce only if it exists as a fully developed cell, with all its organelles. This means that the first cell on earth was formed "all of a sudden," together with its incredibly complex structure.

So, if a complex structure came into existence all of a sudden, what does this mean?

Let us ask this question with an example. Let us liken the cell to a high-tech car in terms of its complexity. (In fact, the cell is a much more complex and developed system than a car .) Now let us ask the following question: What would you think if you went out hiking in the depths of a thick forest and ran across a brand-new car among the trees? Would you imagine that various elements in the forest had come together by chance over millions of years and produced such a vehicle? All the parts in the car are made of products such as iron, copper, and rubber-the raw ingredients for which are all found on the earth-but would this fact lead you to think that these materials had synthesized "by chance" and then come together and manufactured such a car?

There is no doubt that anyone with a sound mind would realize that the car was the product of an intelligent design-in other words, a factory-and wonder what it was doing there in the middle of the forest. The sudden emergence of a complex structure in a complete form, quite out of the blue, shows that this is the work of an intelligent design.

Believing that pure chance can produce perfect designs goes well beyond the bounds of reason. Yet every "explanation" put forward by the theory of evolution regarding the origin of life is like that. One outspoken authority on this issue is the famous French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé, the former president of the French Academy of Sciences. Grassé is an evolutionist, yet he acknowledges that Darwinist theory is unable to explain life and makes a point about the logic of "coincidence," which is the backbone of Darwinism:

The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.280

All living things in the world, all of which are clear examples of the intelligent planning we have just been discussing, are at the same time living evidence that coincidence can have no role to play in their existence. Each of its component parts-never mind a whole living creature-contains structures and systems so complex that they cannot be the work of coincidence. We need go no further than our own bodies to find examples of this.

One example of this is our eyes. The human eye sees by the working together of some 40 separate parts. If one of these is not present, the eye will be useless. Each of these 40 parts possesses complicated designs within itself. The retina at the back of the eye, for instance, is made up of 11 layers. Each layer has a different function. The chemical processes that go on inside the retina are so complex that they can only be explained with pages full of formulae and diagrams.

The theory of evolution is unable to account for the emergence of even such a flawless and complex structure as a single eye by means of "accident," let alone life itself, or mankind.

So, what does this extraordinary design in living things prove to us about the origin of life? As we made clear in the opening part of this book, only two different accounts can be given regarding the origin of life. One is evolution, the other intelligent creation. Since the evolution claim is impossible, scientific discoveries therefore prove the truth of creation. This truth may surprise some scientists, who from the nineteenth century to the present have seen the concept of "creation" as unscientific, but science can only progress by overcoming shocks of this kind and accepting the truth. Chandra Wickramasinghe describes the reality he faced as a scientist who had been told throughout his life that life had emerged as a result of chance coincidences:

From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can't find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling.281

237 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pp. 328, 342.
238 Charles Darwin, Life and Letter of Charles Darwin, vol. II, From Charles Darwin to J. Do Hooker, March 29, 1863
239 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, pp. 298-99.
240 "Hoyle on Evolution," Nature, vol. 294, November 12, 1981, p. 105.
241 H. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution, 158 (3d ed. 1968), cited in W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 304. (emphasis added)
242 W. Stokes, Essentials of Earth History, 186 (4th ed. 1942), cited in W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 305.
243 J. D. Thomas, Evolution and Faith, ACU Press, Abilene, TX, 1988, pp. 81-82. (emphasis added)
244 Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books, New York, 1986, p. 127.
245 Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1984, p. 148. (emphasis added)
246 Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1984, p. 130. (emphasis added)
247 Simpson, Sarah, "Life's First Scalding Steps," Science News, Jan. 9, 1999, 155(2):25.
248 Fabbri Britannica Bilim Ansiklopedisi (Fabbri Britannica Science Encyclopaedia), vol. 2, no. 22, p. 519.
249 Dawkins, Richard, Climbing Mount Improbable, W.W. Norton, New York, 1996, p. 283.
250 Alexander I. Oparin, Origin of Life, Dover Publications, NewYork, 1936, 1953 (reprint), p. 196.
251 Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 1988, p. 348. (emphasis added)
252 Horgan, John, The End of Science, MA Addison-Wesley, 1996, p. 138. (emphasis added)
253 Jeffrey Bada, Earth, "Life's Crucible," February 1998, p. 40. (emphasis added)
254 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.
255 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.
256 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, "Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth," Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.
257 "New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.
258 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.
259 "Life's Crucible," Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)
260 "The Rise of Life on Earth," National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)
261 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added)
262 Richard Dickerson, "Chemical Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239:3, 1978, p. 75. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains the reason for this in this way: "If polymeric chains of proteins and nucleic acids are to be forged out of their precursor monomers, a molecule of water must be removed at each link in the chain. It is therefore hard to see how polymerization could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization rather than polymerization."
263 S. W. Fox, K. Harada, G. Kramptiz, G. Mueller, "Chemical Origin of Cells," Chemical Engineering News, June 22, 1970, p. 80.
264 Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.
265 Paul Auger, De La Physique Theorique a la Biologie, 1970, p. 118.
266 Francis Crick, Life Itself: It's Origin and Nature, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88. (emphasis added)
267 Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 39.
268 John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119. (emphasis added)
269 Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life," American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121.
270 Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Vintage Books, New York, 1980, p. 548. (emphasis added)
271 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78. (emphasis added)
272 Cairns-Smith, Alexander G., "The First Organisms," Scientific American, 252: 90, June 1985. (emphasis added)
273 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351.
274 John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119.
275 G. F. Joyce, L. E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," In the RNA World, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York, 1993, p. 13.
276 Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, New York, 1971, p. 143. (emphasis added)
277 Dover, Gabby L., Looping the Evolutionary loop, review of the origin of life from the birth of life to the origin of language, Nature, 1999, vol. 399, p. 218. (emphasis added)
278 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, October 1994, vol. 271, p. 78.
279 Horgan, John, The End of Science, MA Addison-Wesley, 1996, p. 139.
280 Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 103. (emphasis added)
281 Chandra Wickramasinghe, Interview in London Daily Express, August 14, 1981.

The Origin of Man

The Origin of Man

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

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

If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on."181

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

As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence...182

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

This claim of evolution, which "lacks any evidence," starts the human family tree with a group of apes that have been claimed to constitute a distinct genus, Australopithecus. According to the claim, Australopithecus gradually began to walk upright, his brain grew, and he passed through a series of stages until he arrived at man's present state (Homo sapiens). But the fossil record does not support this scenario. Despite the claim that all kinds of intermediate forms exist, there is an impassable barrier between the fossil remains of man and those of apes. Furthermore, it has been revealed that the species which are portrayed as each other's ancestors are actually contemporary species that lived in the same period. Ernst Mayr, one of the most important proponents of the theory of evolution in the twentieth century, contends in his book One Long Argument that "particularly historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation."183

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

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

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

After these general explanations, let us now examine the human evolution hypothesis together.

The Imaginary Family Tree of Man

The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from some kind of ape-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started from 5 to 6 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some transitional forms between modern man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, the following four basic categories are listed:

1. Australophithecines (any of the various forms belonging to the genus Australophithecus)

2. Homo habilis

3. Homo erectus

4. Homo sapiens

Evolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of man belonged Australopithecus, which means "southern ape." Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old type of ape that has become extinct, is found in various different forms. Some of them are larger and strongly built ("robust"), while others are smaller and delicate ("gracile").

Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as the genus Homo, that is "man." According to the evolutionist claim, the living things in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very different from modern man. The modern man of our day, that is, the species Homo sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this genus Homo. Fossils like "Java man," "Peking man," and "Lucy," which appear in the media from time to time and are to be found in evolutionist publications and textbooks, are included in one of the four groups listed above. Each of these groupings is also assumed to branch into species and sub-species, as the case may be. Some suggested transitional forms of the past, such as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded from the imaginary human family tree after it was realised that they were ordinary apes.184

By outlining the links in the chain as "australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens," the evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by paleoanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time. Moreover, some of those humans classified as Homo erectus probably lived up until very modern times. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia," it was reported in the journal that Homo erectus fossils found in Java had "mean ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this "raise[s] the possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia"185

Furthermore, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man) and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) also clearly co-existed. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other.

Intrinsically, all the findings and scientific research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists propose. The fossils, which evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of humans, in fact belong either to different human races, or else to species of ape.

Then which fossils are human and which ones are apes? Is it ever possible for any one of them to be considered a transitional form? In order to find the answers, let us have a closer look at each category.

Australopithecus

The first category, the genus Australopithecus, means "southern ape," as we have said. It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago, and lived until 1 million years ago. There are a number of different species among the australopithecines. Evolutionists assume that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. afarensis. After that comes A. africanus, and then A. robustus, which has relatively bigger bones. As for A. Boisei, some researchers accept it as a different species, and others as a sub-species of A. Robustus.

Australopithecus skulls and skeletons closely resemble those of modern apes. The drawing to the side shows a chimpanzee on the left, and an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton on the right. Adrienne L. Zhilman, the professor of anatomy who did the drawing, stresses that the structures of the two skeletons are very similar. (left) An Australopithecus robustus skull. It bears a close resemblance to that of modern apes. (right)

"GOODBYE, LUCY" Scientific discoveries have left evolutionist assumptions regarding "Lucy," once considered the most important example of the Australopithecus genus, completely unfounded. The famous French scientific magazine, Science et Vie, accepted this truth under the headline "Goodbye, Lucy," in its February 1999 issue, and confirmed that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man.

All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. 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 ape. However, evolutionists claim that, although australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, unlike apes, they walked upright like humans.

This claim that australopithecines walked upright is a view that has been held by paleoanthropologists such as 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 australopithecines 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 human manner. 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 australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.186 Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionary anatomist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of australopithecines to that of modern orangutans.187

That Australopithecus cannot be counted an ancestor of man has recently been accepted by evolutionist sources. The famous French popular scientific magazine Science et Vie made the subject the cover of its May 1999 issue. Under the headline "Adieu 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.188

AFARENSIS AND CHIMPANZEES On top is the AL 444-2 Australopithecus afarensis skull, and on the bottom a skull of a modern chimpanzee. The clear resemblance between them is an evident sign that A. afarensis is an ordinary species of ape, with no human characteristics.

Homo Habilis

The great similarity between the skeletal and cranial structures of australopithecines and chimpanzees, and the refutation of the claim that these creatures walked upright, have caused great difficulty for evolutionary paleoanthropologists. The reason is that, according to the imaginary evolution scheme, Homo erectus comes after Australopithecus. As the genus name Homo (meaning "man") implies, Homo erectus is a human species, and its skeleton is straight. Its cranial capacity is twice as large as that of Australopithecus. A direct transition from Australopithecus, which is a chimpanzee-like ape, to Homo erectus, which has a skeleton no different from modern man's, is out of the question, even according to evolutionist theory. Therefore, "links"- that is, transitional forms-are needed. The concept of Homo habilis arose from this necessity.

Femur KNM-ER 1472. This femur is no different from that of modern man. The finding of this fossil in the same layer as Homo habilis fossils, although a few kilometers away, gave rise to incorrect opinions, such as that Homo habilis was bipedal. Fossil OH 62, found in 1987, showed that Homo habilis was not bipedal, as had been believed. Many scientists today accept that Homo habilis was a species of ape very similar to Australopithecus.

The classification of Homo habilis was put forward in the 1960s by the Leakeys, a family of "fossil hunters." According to the Leakeys, this new species, which they classified as Homo habilis, had a relatively large cranial capacity, the ability to walk upright and to use stone and wooden tools. Therefore, it could have been the ancestor of man.

New fossils of the same species unearthed in the late 1980s were to completely change this view. Some researchers, such as Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace, who relied on those newly-found fossils, stated that Homo habilis (which means "skillful man," that is, man capable of using tools), should be classified as Australopithecus habilis, or "skillful southern ape," because Homo habilis had a lot of characteristics in common with the austalopithecine apes. It had long arms, short legs and an ape-like skeletal structure just like Australopithecus. Its fingers and toes were suitable for climbing. Their jaw was very similar to that of today's apes. Their 600 cc average cranial capacity is also an indication of the fact that they were apes. In short, Homo habilis, which was presented as a different species by some evolutionists, was in reality an ape species just like all the other australopithecines.

Research carried out in the years since Wood and Brace's work has demonstrated that Homo habilis was indeed no different from Australopithecus. The skull and skeletal fossil OH62 found by Tim White showed that this species had a small cranial capacity, as well as long arms and short legs, which enabled them to climb trees just like modern apes do.

The detailed analyses conducted by American anthropologist Holly Smith in 1994 indicated that Homo habilis was not Homo, in other words, human, at all, but rather unequivocally an ape. Speaking of the analyses she made on the teeth of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, Smith stated the following;

Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, patterns of dental development of gracile australopithecines and Homo Habilis remain classified with African apes. Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals are classified with humans.189

Within the same year, Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld, all specialists on anatomy, reached a similar conclusion through a totally different method. This method was based on the comparative analysis of the semicircular canals in the inner ear of humans and apes, which allow them to maintain their balance. Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld concluded that:

Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the semi-circular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant great apes.190

Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld also studied a Homo habilis specimen, namely Stw 53, and found out that "Stw 53 relied less on bipedal behavior than the australopithecines." This meant that the H. habilis specimen was even more ape-like than the Australopithecus species. Thus they concluded that "Stw 53 represents an unlikely intermediate between the morphologies seen in the australopithecines and H. erectus."191

This finding yielded two important results:

1. Fossils referred to as Homo habilis did not actually belong to the genus Homo, i.e., humans, but to that of Australopithecus, i.e., apes.

2. Both Homo habilis and Australopithecus were creatures that walked stooped forward-that is to say, they had the skeleton of an ape. They have no relation whatsoever to man.

The claim that Australopithecus and Homo habilis walked upright was disproved by inner ear analyses carried out by Fred Spoor. He and his team compared the centers of balances in the inner ears, and showed that both moved in a similar way to apes of our own time.

The Misconception about Homo rudolfensis

The term Homo rudolfensis is the name given to a few fossil fragments unearthed in 1972. The species supposedly represented by this fossil was designated Homo rudolfensis because these fossil fragments were found in the vicinity of Lake Rudolf in Kenya. Most paleoanthropologists accept that these fossils do not belong to a distinct species, but that the creature called Homo rudolfensis is in fact indistinguishable from Homo habilis.

Richard Leakey, who unearthed the fossils, presented the skull designated KNM-ER 1470, which he said was 2.8 million years old, as the greatest discovery in the history of anthropology. According to Leakey, this creature, which had a small cranial capacity like that of Australopithecus together with a face similar to that of present-day humans, was the missing link between Australopithecus and humans. Yet, after a short while, it was realized that the human-like face of the KNM-ER 1470 skull, which frequently appeared on the covers of scientific journals and popular science magazines, was the result of the incorrect assembly of the skull fragments, which may have been deliberate. Professor Tim Bromage, who conducts studies on human facial anatomy, brought this to light by the help of computer simulations in 1992:

When it [KNM-ER 1470] was first reconstructed, the face was fitted to the cranium in an almost vertical position, much like the flat faces of modern humans. But recent studies of anatomical relationships show that in life the face must have jutted out considerably, creating an ape-like aspect, rather like the faces of Australopithecus .192

Richard Leakey misled both himself and the world of paleontology about Homo rudolfensis.

The evolutionary paleoanthropologist J. E. Cronin states the following on the matter:

... its relatively robustly constructed face, flattish naso-alveolar clivus, (recalling australopithecine dished faces), low maximum cranial width (on the temporals), strong canine juga and large molars (as indicated by remaining roots) are all relatively primitive traits which ally the specimen with members of the taxon A. africanus.193

C. Loring Brace from Michigan University came to the same conclusion. As a result of the analyses he conducted on the jaw and tooth structure of skull 1470, he reported that "from the size of the palate and the expansion of the area allotted to molar roots, it would appear that ER 1470 retained a fully Australopithecus -sized face and dentition."194

Professor Alan Walker, a paleoanthropologist from Johns Hopkins University who has done as much research on KNM-ER 1470 as Leakey, maintains that this creature should not be classified as a member of Homo-i.e., as a human species-but rather should be placed in the Australopithecus genus.195

In summary, classifications like Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis, which are presented as transitional links between the australopithecines and Homo erectus, are entirely imaginary. It has been confirmed by many researchers today that these creatures are members of the Australopithecus series. All of their anatomical features reveal that they are species of apes.

This fact has been further established by two evolutionist anthropologists, Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, whose research was published in 1999 in Science. Wood and Collard explained that the Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis (Skull 1470) taxa are imaginary, and that the fossils assigned to these categories should be attributed to the genus Australopithecus :

More recently, fossil species have been assigned to Homo on the basis of absolute brain size, inferences about language ability and hand function, and retrodictions about their ability to fashion stone tools. With only a few exceptions, the definition and use of the genus within human evolution, and the demarcation of Homo, have been treated as if they are unproblematic. But ... recent data, fresh interpretations of the existing evidence, and the limitations of the paleoanthropological record invalidate existing criteria for attributing taxa to Homo....in practice fossil hominin species are assigned to Homo on the basis of one or more out of four criteria. ... It is now evident, however, that none of these criteria is satisfactory. The Cerebral Rubicon is problematic because absolute cranial capacity is of questionable biological significance. Likewise, there is compelling evidence that language function cannot be reliably inferred from the gross appearance of the brain, and that the language-related parts of the brain are not as well localized as earlier studies had implied......

...In other words, with the hypodigms of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis assigned to it, the genus Homo is not a good genus. Thus, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu lato for those who do not subscribe to the taxonomic subdivision of "early Homo") should be removed from Homo. The obvious taxonomic alternative, which is to transfer one or both of the taxa to one of the existing early hominin genera, is not without problems, but we recommend that, for the time being, both H. habilis and H. rudolfensis should be transferred to the genus Australopithecus .196

The conclusion of Wood and Collard corroborates the conclusion that we have maintained here: "Primitive human ancestors" do not exist in history. Creatures that are alleged to be so are actually apes that ought to be assigned to the genus Australopithecus . The fossil record shows that there is no evolutionary link between these extinct apes and Homo, i.e., human species that suddenly appears in the fossil record.

Homo erectus

According to the fanciful scheme suggested by evolutionists, the internal evolution of the Homo genus is as follows: First Homo erectus , then so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), and finally, Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens). However all these classifications are really only variations and unique races in the human family. The difference between them is no greater than the difference between an Inuit and an African, or a pygmy and a European.

The large eyebrow protrusions on Homo erectus skulls, and features such as the backward-sloping forehead, can be seen in a number of races in our own day, as in the Malaysian native shown here.

Let us first examine Homo erectus , which is referred to as the most primitive human species. As the name implies, Homo erectus means "man who walks upright." Evolutionists have had to separate these fossils from earlier ones by adding the qualification of "erectness," because all the available Homo erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in any of the australopithecines or so-called Homo Habilis specimens. There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus .

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.197

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 yards 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. (It should also be noted that some of the fossils said to be Homo erectus were included under a second species named Homo ergaster by some evolutionists. There is disagreement among the experts on this issue. We will treat all these fossils under the classification of Homo erectus .)

The most famous of the Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome Homo erectus ," or 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."198 As we will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a modern human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human race.

THE 10.000 YEAR-OLD HOMO ERECTUS These two skulls, discovered on October 10, 1967, in the Kow Swamp in Victoria, Australia, were named Kow Swamp I and Kow Swamp V.

Alan Thorne and Philip Macumber, who discovered the skulls, interpreted them both as Homo sapiens skulls, whereas they actually contained many features reminiscent of Homo erectus . The only reason they were treated as Homo sapiens was the fact that they were calculated to be 10.000 years old. Evolutionist did not wish to accept the fact that Homo erectus , which they considered a "primitive" species and which lived 500.000 years before modern man, was a human race which lived 10.000 years ago.

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.199

Homo erectus AND THE ABORIGINES The Turkana Boy skeleton shown at the side is the best preserved example of Homo erectus that has so far been discovered. The interesting thing is that there is no major difference between this 1.6 million-year-old-fossil and people of our day. The Australian aboriginal skeleton above particularly resembles Turkana Boy. This situation reveals once again that Homo erectus was a genuine human race, with no "primitive" features.

Professor William Laughlin from the University of Connecticut made extensive anatomical examinations of Inuits and the people living on the Aleut 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):

Homo erectus 'S SAILING CULTURE "Ancient mariners: Early humans were much smarter than we suspected" According to this article in the March 14, 1998, issue of New Scientist, the people that evolutionists call Homo erectus were sailing 700,000 years ago. It is impossible, of course, to think of people who possessed the knowledge, technology and culture to go sailing as primitive.

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.200

It is now a more pronounced 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. In American Scientist, the discussions over this issue and the result of a conference held on the subject in 2000 were summarized in this way:

Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens , with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus , didn't exist.201

The conclusion reached by the scientists defending the abovementioned thesis can be summarized as "Homo erectus is not a different species from Homo sapiens , but rather a race within Homo sapiens ." On the other hand, 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.

Neanderthals: Their Anatomy and Culture

Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis ) were human beings who suddenly appeared 100,000 years ago in Europe, and who disappeared, or were assimilated by mixing with other races, quietly but quickly 35,000 years ago. Their only difference from modern man is that their skeletons are more robust and their cranial capacity slightly bigger.

Neanderthals were a human race, a fact which is admitted by almost everybody today. Evolutionists have tried very hard to present them as a "primitive species," yet all the findings indicate that they were no different from a "robust" man walking on the street today. A prominent authority on the subject, Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist from New Mexico University, writes:

Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.202

Many contemporary researchers define Neanderthal man as a subspecies of modern man, and call him Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

On the other hand, the fossil record shows that Neanderthals possessed an advanced culture. One of the most interesting examples of this is a fossilized flute made by Neanderthal people. This flute, made from the thighbone of a bear, was found by the archaeologist Ivan Turk in a cave in northern Yugoslavia in July 1995. Musicologist Bob Fink then analyzed it. Fink proved that this flute, thought by radio-carbon testing to be between 43,000 and 67,000 years old, produced four notes, and that it had half and full tones. This discovery shows that Neanderthals used the seven-note scale, the basic formula of western music. Fink, who examined the flute, states that "the distance between the second and third holes on the old flute is double that between the third and fourth." This means that the first distance represents a full note, and the distance next to it a half note. Fink says, "These three notes … are inescapably diatonic and will sound like a near-perfect fit within any kind of standard diatonic scale, modern or antique," thus revealing that Neanderthals were people with an ear for and knowledge of music.203

NEANDERTHALS: A HUMAN RACE To the side is shown the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Amud I skull, found in Israel. The owner is estimated to have been 1.80 meters tall. Its brain capacity is as big as that found today: 1,740 cc. Beneath, are shown a fossil skeleton from the Neanderthal race, and a stone tool believed to have been used by its owner. This and similar discoveries show that Neanderthals were a genuine human race who vanished over time.

Some other fossil discoveries show that Neanderthals buried their dead, looked after their sick, and used necklaces and similar adornments.204

NEANDERTHAL SEWING NEEDLE 26,000-year-old needle: This interesting find shows that Neanderthals had the knowledge to make clothing tens of thousands of years ago (D. Johanson, B. Edgar, From Lucy to Language, page 99). NEANDERTHAL FLUTE A Neanderthal flute made from bone. Calculations made from this artifact have shown that the holes were made to produce correct notes, in other words that this was an expertly designed instrument.Above can be seen researcher Bob Fink's calculations regarding the flute.Contrary to evolutionist propaganda, discoveries such as this show that Neanderthal people were civilized, not primitive cavemen (The AAAS Science News Service, "Neanderthals Lived Harmoniously," April 3, 1997).

A 26,000-year-old sewing needle, proved to have been used by Neanderthal people, was also found during fossil excavations. This needle, which is made of bone, is exceedingly straight and has a hole for the thread to be passed through.205 People who wear clothing and feel the need for a sewing needle cannot be considered "primitive."

The best research into the Neanderthals' tool-making abilities is that of Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner, professors of anthropology and archaeology, respectively, at the University of New Mexico. Although these two scientists are proponents of the theory of evolution, the results of their archaeological research and analyses show that the Neanderthals who lived in caves on the coast of southwest Italy for thousands of years carried out activities that required as complex a capacity for thought as modern-day human beings.206

Kuhn and Stiner found a number of tools in these caves. The discoveries were of sharp, pointed cutting implements, including spearheads, made by carefully chipping away layers at the edges of the flint. Making sharp edges of this kind by chipping away layers is without a doubt a process calling for intelligence and skill. Research has shown that one of the most important problems encountered in that process is breakages that occur as a result of pressure at the edge of the stones. For this reason, the individual carrying out the process has to make fine judgments of the amount of force to use in order to keep the edges straight, and of the precise angle to strike at, if he is making an angled tool.

Margaret Conkey from the University of California explains that tools made in periods before the Neanderthals were also made by communities of intelligent people who were fully aware of what they were doing:

COUNTERFACTUAL PROPAGANDA 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 evolutionist museums, as shown in the picture to the side. This is an indication how Darwinism rests on prejudice and propaganda, not on scientific discoveries.

If you look at the things archaic humans made with their hands, Levallois cores and so on, that's not a bumbling king of thing. They had an appreciation of the material they were working with, an understanding of their world.207

In short, scientific discoveries show that Neanderthals were a human race no different from us on the levels of intelligence and dexterity. This race either disappeared from history by assimilating and mixing with other races, or became extinct in some unknown manner. But they were definitely not "primitive" or "half-ape."

Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo heidelbergensis and Cro-Magnon Man

Archaic Homo sapiens is the last step before contemporary man in the imaginary evolutionary scheme. In fact, evolutionists do not have much to say about these fossils, as there are only very minor differences between them and modern human beings. Some researchers even state that representatives of this race are still living today, and point to native Australians as an example. Like Homo sapiens (archaic), native Australians also have thick protruding eyebrows, an inward-inclined mandibular structure, and a slightly smaller cranial capacity.

The group characterized as Homo heidelbergensis in evolutionist literature is in fact the same as archaic Homo sapiens. The reason why two different terms are used to define the same human racial type is the disagreements among evolutionists. All the fossils included under the Homo heidelbergensis classification suggest that people who were anatomically very similar to modern Europeans lived 500,000 and even 740,000 years ago, in England and in Spain.

A typical Cro-magnon skull.

It is estimated that Cro-Magnon man lived 30,000 years ago. He has a dome-shaped cranium and a broad forehead. His cranium of 1,600 cc is above the average for contemporary man. His skull has thick eyebrow projections and a bony protrusion at the back that is characteristic of both Neanderthal man and Homo erectus.

Although the Cro-Magnon is considered to be a European race, the structure and volume of Cro-Magnon's cranium look very much like those of some races living in Africa and the tropics today. Relying on this similarity, it is estimated that Cro-Magnon was an archaic African race. Some other paleoanthropological finds have shown that the Cro-Magnon and the Neanderthal races intermixed and laid the foundations for the races of our day.

As a result, none of these human beings were "primitive species." They were different human beings who lived in earlier times and either assimilated and mixed with other races, or became extinct and disappeared from history.

The Collapse of the Family Tree

What we have investigated so far forms a clear picture: The scenario of "human evolution" is a complete fiction. In order for such a family tree to represent the truth, a gradual evolution from ape to man must have taken place and a fossil record of this process should be able to be found. In fact, however, there is a huge gap between apes and humans. Skeletal structures, cranial capacities, and such criteria as walking upright or bent sharply forward distinguish humans from apes. (We already mentioned that on the basis of recent research done in 1994 on the inner ear, Australopithecus and Homo habilis were reclassified as apes, while Homo erectus was reclassified as a fully modern human.)

Another significant finding proving that there can be no family-tree relationship among these different species is that species that are presented as ancestors of others in fact lived concurrently. If, as evolutionists claim, Australopithecus changed into Homo habilis, which, in turn, turned into Homo erectus , the periods they lived in should necessarily have followed each other. However, there is no such chronological order to be seen in the fossil record.

According to evolutionist estimates, Australopithecus lived from 4 million up until 1 million years ago. The creatures classified as Homo habilis, on the other hand, are thought to have lived until 1.7 to 1.9 million years ago. Homo rudolfensis, which is said to have been more "advanced" than Homo habilis, is known to be as old as from 2.5 to 2.8 million years! That is to say, Homo rudolfensis is nearly 1 million years older than Homo habilis, of which it is alleged to have been the "ancestor." On the other hand, the age of Homo erectus goes as far back as 1.6-1.8 million years ago, which means that Homo erectus appeared on the earth in the same time frame as its so-called ancestor, Homo habilis.

Alan Walker confirms this fact by stating that "there is evidence from East Africa for late-surviving small Australopithecus individuals that were contemporaneous first with H. Habilis, then with H. erectus."208 Louis Leakey has found fossils of Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus almost next to each other in the Olduvai Gorge region of Tanzania, in the Bed II layer.209

There is definitely no such family tree. Stephen Jay Gould, the paleontologist from Harvard University, explains this deadlock faced by evolution, although he is an evolutionist himself:

What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth.210

When we move on from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens , we again see that there is no family tree to talk about. There is evidence showing that Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens continued living up to 27,000 years and even as recently as 10,000 years before our time. In the Kow Swamp in Australia, some 13,000-year-old Homo erectus skulls have been found. On the island of Java, Homo erectus remains were found that are 27,000 years old.211

One of the most surprising discoveries in this area was the 30,000-year-old Homo erectus , Neanderthal , and Homo sapiens fossils found in Java in 1996. The New York Times wrote in its cover story: "Until about a couple of decades ago, scientists conceived of the human lineage as a neat progression of one species to the next and generally thought it impossible that two species could have overlapped in place or time."212

This discovery reveals once again the invalidity of the "evolutionary tree" scenario regarding the origin of man.

Latest Evidence: Sahelanthropus tchadensis and The Missing Link That Never Was

The latest evidence to shatter the evolutionary theory's claim about the origin of man is the new fossil Sahelanthropus tchadensis unearthed in the Central African country of Chad in the summer of 2002.

The fossil has set the cat among the pigeons in the world of Darwinism. In its article giving news of the discovery, the world-renowned journal Nature admitted that "New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution."213

Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University said that "This [discovery] will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb."214

The reason for this is that although the fossil in question is 7 million years old, it has a more "human-like" structure (according to the criteria evolutionists have hitherto used) than the 5 million-year-old Australopithecus ape species that is alleged to be "mankind's oldest ancestor." This shows that the evolutionary links established between extinct ape species based on the highly subjective and prejudiced criterion of "human similarity" are totally imaginary.

John Whitfield, in his article "Oldest Member of Human Family Found" published in Nature on July, 11, 2002, confirms this view quoting from Bernard Wood, an evolutionist anthropologist from George Washington University in Washington:

"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.215

The comments of Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature and a leading paleoanthropologist, about the newly discovered ape fossil are very noteworthy. In his article published in The Guardian, Gee refers to the debate about the fossil and writes:

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.216

The Secret History of Homo sapiens

The most interesting and significant fact that nullifies the very basis of the imaginary family tree of evolutionary theory is the unexpectedly ancient history of modern man. Paleoanthropological findings reveal that Homo sapiens people who looked exactly like us were living as long as 1 million years ago.

A face bone discovered in Atapuerca in Spain, showing that people with the same facial structure as us were living 800,000 years ago.

It was Louis Leakey, the famous evolutionary paleoanthropologist, who discovered the first findings on this subject. In 1932, in the Kanjera region around Lake Victoria in Kenya, Leakey found several fossils that belonged to the Middle Pleistocene and that were no different from modern man. However, the Middle Pleistocene was a million years ago.217 Since these discoveries turned the evolutionary family tree upside down, they were dismissed by some evolutionary paleoanthropologists. Yet Leakey always contended that his estimates were correct.

The skull reconstructed from the Atapuerca fossil (left) bears an incredible resemblance to that of modern man (right).

Just when this controversy was about to be forgotten, a fossil unearthed in Spain in 1995 revealed in a very remarkable way that the history of Homo sapiens was much older than had been assumed. The fossil in question was uncovered in a cave called Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca region of Spain by three Spanish paleoanthropologists from the University of Madrid. The fossil revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. Yet, it had been 800,000 years since the child died. Discover magazine covered the story in great detail in its December 1997 issue.

This fossil even shook the convictions of Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, who lead the Gran Dolina excavation. Ferreras said:

We expected something big, something large, something inflated-you know, something primitive… Our expectation of an 800,000-year-old boy was something like Turkana Boy. And what we found was a totally modern face.... To me this is most spectacular-these are the kinds of things that shake you. Finding something totally unexpected like that. Not finding fossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, and it's okay. But the most spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged to the present, in the past. It's like finding something like-like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We don't expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago-it's the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it.218

The fossil highlighted the fact that the history of Homo sapiens had to be extended back to 800,000 years ago. After recovering from the initial shock, the evolutionists who discovered the fossil decided that it belonged to a different species, because according to the evolutionary family tree, Homo sapiens did not live 800,000 years ago. Therefore, they made up an imaginary species called Homo antecessor and included the Atapuerca skull under this classification.

Huts and Footprints

There have been many findings demonstrating that Homo sapiens dates back even earlier than 800,000 years. One of them is a discovery by Louis Leakey in the early 1970s in Olduvai Gorge. Here, in the Bed II layer, Leakey discovered that Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus species had co-existed at the same time. What is even more interesting was a structure Leakey found in the same layer (Bed II). Here, he found the remains of a stone hut. The unusual aspect of the event was that this construction, which is still used in some parts of Africa, could only have been built by Homo sapiens! So, according to Leakey's findings, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and modern man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago.219 This discovery must surely invalidate the evolutionary theory that claims that modern man evolved from ape-like species such as Australopithecus.

Indeed, some other discoveries trace the origins of modern man back to 1.7 million years ago. One of these important finds is the footprints found in Laetoli, Tanzania, by Mary Leakey in 1977. These footprints were found in a layer that was calculated to be 3.6 million years old, and more importantly, they were no different from the footprints that a contemporary man would leave.

3.6-million-year-old human footprints in Laetoli, in Tanzania.

The footprints found by Mary Leakey were later examined by a number of famous paleoanthropologists, such as Donald Johanson and Tim White. The results were the same. White wrote:

Make no mistake about it,... They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you.220

After examining the footprints, Louis Robbins from the University of North California made the following comments:

The arch is raised - the smaller individual had a higher arch than I do - and the big toe is large and aligned with the second toe … The toes grip the ground like human toes. You do not see this in other animal forms.221

AL 666-1: A 2.3-MILLION-YEAR-OLD HUMAN JAW Fossil AL 666-1 was found in Hadar in Ethiopia, together with A. afarensis fossils. This 2.3-million-year-old jaw bone had features identical to those of Homo sapiens. AL 666-1 resembled neither the A. afarensis jawbones that were found with it, nor a 1.75-million-year-old Homo habilis jaw. The jaws of these two species, with their narrow and rectangular shapes, resembled those of present-day apes. Although there is no doubt that AL 666-1 belonged to a "Homo" (human) species, evolutionary paleontologists do not accept this fact. They refrain from making any comment on this, because the jaw is calculated to be 2.3 million years old-in other words, much older than the age they allow for the Homo, or human, race. The AL 666-1, 2.3-million-year-old Homo sapiens (human) jaw. Side view of AL 666-1 AL 222-1 fossil, an A. afarensis jaw from the same period as AL 666-1. AL 222-1- a side view. The side views of the two jaws make the difference between the two fossils clearer. The AL 222-1 jaw protrudes forwards. This is an ape-like feature. But the AL 666-1 jaw on the top is a completely human one.

Examinations of the morphological form of the footprints showed time and again that they had to be accepted as the prints of a human, and moreover, a modern human (Homo sapiens). Russell Tuttle, who also examined the footprints, wrote:

A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them... In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans.222

Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners. In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilized footprints of a 10-year-old modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger one. They were certainly modern people like us.

SKELETAL VARIATION AMONG ODERN HUMAN RACES Evolutionary paleontologists portray different Homo erectus, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and archaic Homo sapiens human fossils as indicating different species or subspecies on the evolutionary path. They base this on the differences between these fossil skulls. However, these differences actually consist of variations among different human races that have existed, some of which have become extinct or have been assimilated. These differences have grown less pronounced as human races have intermixed over time. Despite this, quite striking differences can still be observed between human races living today. The skulls in these pages, all belonging to modern human beings (Homo sapiens sapiens), are all examples of these differences. To show similar structural differences between races that lived in the past as evidence for evolution is quite simply bias. Native Peruvian from the fifteenth century. Middle-aged Bengali. Male from the Solomon Islands (Melanesia) who died in 1893. German male aged 25-30. Male Congolese aged 35-40. Male Inuit aged 35-40.

This situation put the Laetoli footprints at the center of discussions for years. Evolutionary paleoanthropologists desperately tried to come up with an explanation, as it was hard for them to accept the fact that a modern man had been walking on the earth 3.6 million years ago. During the 1990s, the following "explanation" started to take shape: The evolutionists decided that these footprints must have been left by an Australopithecus, because according to their theory, it was impossible for a Homo species to have existed 3.6 years ago. However, Russell H. Tuttle wrote the following in an article in 1990:

In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that there had been made by a member of our genus, Homo... In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis.223

To put it briefly, these footprints that were supposed to be 3.6 million years old could not have belonged to Australopithecus. The only reason why the footprints were thought to have been left by members of Australopithecus was the 3.6-million-year-old volcanic layer in which the footprints were found. The prints were ascribed to Australopithecus purely on the assumption that humans could not have lived so long ago.

These interpretations of the Laetoli footprints demonstrate one important fact. Evolutionists support their theory not based on scientific findings, but in spite of them. Here we have a theory that is blindly defended no matter what, with all new findings that cast the theory into doubt being either ignored or distorted to support the theory.

Briefly, the theory of evolution is not science, but a dogma kept alive despite science.

The Bipedalism Problem

Apart from the fossil record that we have dealt with so far, unbridgeable anatomical gaps between men and apes also invalidate the fiction of human evolution. One of these has to do with the manner of walking.

Human beings walk upright on two feet. This is a very special form of locomotion not seen in any other mammalian species. Some other animals do have a limited ability to move when they stand on their two hind feet. Animals like bears and monkeys can move in this way only rarely, such as when they want to reach a source of food, and even then only for a short time. Normally, their skeletons lean forward and they walk on all fours.

Well, then, has bipedalism evolved from the quadrupedal gait of apes, as evolutionists claim?

The human skeleton is designed to walk upright. Ape skeletons, however, with their forward-leaning stance, short legs, and long arms, are suited to walking on four legs. It is not possible for there to be an "intermediate form" between them, because this would be extremely unproductive.

Of course not. Research has shown that the evolution of bipedalism never occurred, nor is it possible for it to have done so. First of all, bipedalism is not an evolutionary advantage. The way in which apes move is much easier, faster, and more efficient than man's bipedal stride. Man can neither move by jumping from tree to tree without descending to the ground, like a chimpanzee, nor run at a speed of 125 km per hour, like a cheetah. On the contrary, since man walks on two feet, he moves much more slowly on the ground. For the same reason, he is one of the most unprotected of all species in nature in terms of movement and defence. According to the logic of evolution, apes should not have evolved to adopt a bipedal stride; humans should instead have evolved to become quadrupedal.

Apes' hands and feet are curled in a manner suited to living in trees.

Another impasse of the evolutionary claim is that bipedalism does not serve the "gradual development" model of Darwinism. This model, which constitutes the basis of evolution, requires that there should be a "compound" stride between bipedalism and quadrupedalism. However, with the computerized research he conducted in 1996, Robin Crompton, senior lecturer in anatomy at Liverpool University, showed that such a "compound" stride was not possible. Crompton reached the following conclusion: A living being can either walk upright, or on all fours.224 A type of stride between the two is impossible because it would involve excessive energy consumption. This is why a half-bipedal being cannot exist.

The immense gap between man and ape is not limited solely to bipedalism. Many other issues still remain unexplained, such as brain capacity, the ability to talk, and so on. Elaine Morgan, an evolutionary paleoanthropologist, makes the following confession in relation to this matter:

Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are: 1) why do they walk on two legs? 2) why have they lost their fur? 3) why have they developed such large brains? 4) why did they learn to speak?

The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) 'We do not yet know;' 2) 'We do not yet know;' 3) 'We do not yet know;' 4) 'We do not yet know.' The list of questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony of the answers.225

Evolution: An Unscientific Faith

Lord Solly Zuckerman is one of the most famous and respected scientists in the United Kingdom. For years, he studied the fossil record and conducted many detailed investigations. He was elevated to the peerage for his contributions to science. Zuckerman is an evolutionist. Therefore, his comments on evolution cannot be regarded as ignorant or prejudiced. After years of research on the fossils included in the human evolution scenario however, he reached the conclusion that there is no truth to the family tree that is put forward.

Zuckerman also advanced an interesting concept of the "spectrum of the sciences," ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most "scientific"-that is, dependent on concrete data-fields are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific," are extra-sensory perception-concepts such as telepathy and the "sixth sense"-and finally human evolution. Zuckerman explains his reasoning as follows:

We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.226

Robert Locke, the editor of Discovering Archeology, an important publication on the origins of man, writes in that journal, "The search for human ancestors gives more heat than light," quoting the confession of the famous evolutionary paleoantropologist Tim White:

We're all frustrated by "all the questions we haven't been able to answer."227

Locke's article reviews the impasse of the theory of evolution on the origins of man and the groundlessness of the propaganda spread about this subject:

Perhaps no area of science is more contentious than the search for human origins. Elite paleontologists disagree over even the most basic outlines of the human family tree. New branches grow amid great fanfare, only to wither and die in the face of new fossil finds.228

The same fact was also recently accepted by Henry Gee, the editor of the well-known journal Nature. In his book In Search of Deep Time, published in 1999, Gee points out that all the evidence for human evolution "between about 10 and 5 million years ago-several thousand generations of living creatures-can be fitted into a small box." He concludes that conventional theories of the origin and development of human beings are "a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices," and adds:

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.229

As we have seen, there is no scientific discovery supporting or propping up the theory of evolution, just some scientists who blindly believe in it. These scientists both believe in the myth of evolution themselves, although it has no scientific foundation, and also make other people believe it by using the media, which cooperate with them. In the pages that follow, we shall examine a few examples of this deceptive propaganda carried out in the name of evolution.

Deceptive Reconstructions

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."

Reconstruction can be explained as drawing a picture or constructing a model of a living thing based on a single bone-sometimes only a fragment-that has been unearthed. The "ape-men" we see in newspapers, magazines, and films are all reconstructions.

Since fossils are usually fragmented and incomplete, any conjecture based on them is likely to be completely speculative. As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by evolutionists based on fossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the evolutionary thesis. David R. Pilbeam, an eminent anthropologist from Harvard, stresses this fact when he says: "At least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data."230 Since people are highly affected by visual information, these reconstructions best serve the purpose of evolutionists, which is to convince people that these reconstructed creatures really existed in the past.

Reconstruction drawings reflect only evolutionists' imaginations, not scientific discoveries.

At this point, we have to highlight one particular point: 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 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.231

As a matter of fact, evolutionists invent such preposterous stories that they even ascribe different faces to the same skull. For example, the three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus) are a famous example of such forgery.

The biased interpretation of fossils and outright fabrication of many imaginary reconstructions are an indication of how frequently evolutionists have recourse to tricks. Yet these seem innocent when compared to the deliberate forgeries that have been perpetrated in the history of evolution.

There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures; nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the fossils they cannot find. Piltdown man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.

The Piltdown Man Scandal

In 1912, a well-known doctor and amateur paleoanthropologist named Charles Dawson came out with the assertion that he had found a jawbone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England. Even though the jawbone was more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man's. These specimens were labelled the "Piltdown man." Alleged to be 500,000 years old, they were displayed as an absolute proof of human evolution in several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written on "Piltdown man," many interpretations and drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as important evidence for human evolution. No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject.232 While visiting the British Museum in 1921, leading American paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said "We have to be reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes" and proclaimed Piltdown "a discovery of transcendant importance to the prehistory of man."233

In 1949, Kenneth Oakley, from the British Museum's Paleontology Department, attempted to use "fluorine testing," a new test used for determining the date of fossils. A trial was made on the fossil of Piltdown man. The result was astonishing. During the test, it was realized that the jawbone of Piltdown man did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that it had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a small amount of fluorine, showed that it was only a few thousand years old.

It was determined that the teeth in the jawbone, belonging to an orangutan, had been worn down artificially and that the "primitive" tools discovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with steel implements. In the detailed analysis completed by Joseph Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the jaw bone belonged to a recently deceased ape! The teeth had been specially arranged in a particular way and added to the jaw, and the molar surfaces were filed in order to resemble those of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them an old appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark, who was in the team that uncovered the forgery, could not hide his astonishment at this situation, and said: "The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked-how was it that they had escaped notice before?"234 In the wake of all this, "Piltdown man" was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years.

For 40 years, Piltdown man was accepted as the greatest evidence for human evolution. Evolutionist fossil experts claimed to have found a lot of transitional features in the skull. It only emerged later that the fossil was a fake.

The Nebraska Man Scandal

In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the director of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth belonging to the Pliocene period in western Nebraska near Snake Brook. This tooth allegedly bore common characteristics of both man and ape. An extensive scientific debate began surrounding this fossil, which came to be called "Nebraska man," in which some interpreted this tooth as belonging to Pithecanthropus erectus, while others claimed it was closer to human beings. Nebraska man was also immediately given a "scientific name," Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.

Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.

All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticized.

In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realized that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, "Hesperopithecus Apparently Not an Ape Nor a Man."235 Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.

Nebraska man, and Henry Fairfield Osborn, who named it.

Conclusion

All the scientific deceptions and prejudiced evaluations made to support the theory of evolution show that the theory is a kind of ideology, and not at all a scientific account. Like all ideologies, this one too has its fanatical supporters, who are desperate to prove evolution, at no matter what cost. Or else they are so dogmatically bound to the theory that every new discovery is perceived as a great proof of the theory, even if it has nothing to do with evolution. This is really a very distressing picture for science, because it shows that science is being misdirected in the name of a dogma.

In his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, the Swedish scientist Soren Lovtrup has this to say on the subject:

I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar "Darwinian" vocabulary-"adaptation," "selection pressure," "natural selection," etc.-thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.236

Further proof that Darwinism is the greatest deception in the history of science is provided by molecular biology.

181 Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books Limited, Barcelona, 1982, p. 43.
182 William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1984, pp. 150-153.
183 "Could science be brought to an end by scientists' belief that they have final answers or by society's reluctance to pay the bills?" Scientific American, December 1992, p. 20.
184 David Pilbeam, "Rearranging Our Family Tree," Human Nature, June 1978, p. 40.
185 C. C. Swisher III, W. J. Rink, S. C. Antón, H. P. Schwarcz, G. H. Curtis, A. Suprijo, Widiasmoro, "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia," Science, Volume 274, Number 5294, Issue of 13 Dec 1996, pp. 1870-1874; also see, Jeffrey Kluger, "Not So Extinct After All: The Primitive Homo Erectus May Have Survived Long Enough To Coexist With Modern Humans, Time, December 23, 1996
186 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, pp. 75-94.
187 Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt," Nature, vol. 258, 4 December 1975, p. 389.
188 Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62. (emphasis added)
189 Holly Smith, American Journal of Physical Antropology, vol. 94, 1994, pp. 307-325. (emphasis added)
190 Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood & Frans Zonneveld, "Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion," Nature, vol 369, 23 June 1994, p. 645
191 Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood & Frans Zonneveld, "Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion," Nature, vol 369, 23 June 1994, p. 648
192 Tim Bromage, "Faces From the Past," New Scientist, vol. 133, issue 1803, 11 January 1992, p. 41. (emphasis added)
193 J. E. Cronin, N. T. Boaz, C. B. Stringer, Y. Rak, "Tempo and Mode in Hominid Evolution," Nature, vol. 292, 1981, pp. 117.
194 C. L. Brace, H. Nelson, N. Korn, M. L. Brace, Atlas of Human Evolution, 2. b., Rinehart and Wilson, New York, 1979.
195 Alan Walker and Richard E.F. Leakey, "The Hominids of East Turkana", Scientific American, vol. 239 (2), August 1978, p. 54.
196 Bernard Wood, Mark Collard, "The Human Genus," Science, vol. 284, No 5411, 2 April 1999, pp. 65-71.
197 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention: a creationist assessment of the human fossils, Baker Books, 1992, p. 83.
198 Boyce Rensberger, Washington Post, 19 October 1984, p. A11.
199 Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books, London, 1981, p. 116.
200 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention: a creationist assessment of the human fossils, Baker Books, 1992. p. 136.
201 Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi," American Scientist, November- December 2000, p. 491
202 Erik Trinkaus, "Hard Times Among the Neanderthals," Natural History, vol. 87, December 1978, p. 10; R. L. Holloway, "The Neanderthal Brain: What Was Primitive," American Journal of Physical Anthropology Supplement, vol. 12, 1991, p. 94. (emphasis added)
203 "Neandertals Lived Harmoniously," The AAAS Science News Service, April 3, 1997.
204 Ralph Solecki, Shanidar, The First Flower People, Knopf, New York, 1971, p. 196; Paul G. Bahn and Jean Vertut, Images in the Ice, Windward, Leichester, 1988, p. 72.
205 D. Johanson, B. Edgar, From Lucy to Language, p. 99.
206 S. L. Kuhn, "Subsistence, Technology, and Adaptive Variation in Middle Paleolithic Italy," American Anthropologist, vol. 94, no. 2, March 1992, pp. 309-310.
207 Roger Lewin, The Origin of Modern Humans, Scientific American Library, New York, 1993, p. 131.
208 R.E.F. Leakey, A. Walker, "On the Status of Australopithecus afarensis", Science, vol. 207, issue 4435, 7 March 1980, p. 1103.
209 A. J. Kelso, Physical Antropology, 1st ed., J. B. Lipincott Co., New York, 1970, p. 221; M. D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971, p. 272.
210 S. J. Gould, Natural History, vol. 85, 1976, p. 30. (emphasis added)
211 Jeffrey Kluger, "Not So Extinct After All: The Primitive Homo Erectus May Have Survived Long Enough To Coexist With Modern Humans," Time, 23 December 1996.
212 John Noble Wilford, "3 Human Species Coexisted Eons Ago, New Data Suggest," The New York Times, 13 December 1996.
213 John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found," Nature, 11 July 2002.
214 D.L. Parsell, "Skull Fossil From Chad Forces Rethinking of Human Origins," National Geographic News, July 10, 2002.
215 John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found," Nature, 11 July 2002.
216 The Guardian, 11 July 2002
217 L. S. B. Leakey, The Origin of Homo Sapiens, ed. F. Borde, UNESCO, Paris, 1972, pp. 25-29; L. S. B. Leakey, By the Evidence, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1974.
218 Robert Kunzig, "The Face of An Ancestral Child", Discover, December 1997, pp. 97, 100. (emphasis added)
219 A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1.b., 1970, ss. 221; M.D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, volume 3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971, s. 272
220 Donald C. Johanson & M. A. Edey, Lucy, The Beginnings of Humankind, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 250. (emphasis added)
221 "The Leakey Footprints: An Uncertain Path," Science News, vol. 115, 1979, p. 196.
222 Ian Anderson, "Who made the Laetoli footprints?" New Scientist, vol. 98, 12 May 1983, p. 373. (emphasis added)
223 Russell H. Tuttle, "The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet," Natural History, vol. 99, March 1990, p. 64. (emphasis added)
224 Ruth Henke, "Aufrecht aus den Bäumen," Focus, vol. 39, 1996, p. 178.
225 Elaine Morgan, The Scars of Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, p. 5.
226 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19. (emphasis added)
227 Robert Locke, "Family Fights," Discovering Archaeology, July/August 1999, p. 36-39.
228 Robert Locke, "Family Fights," Discovering Archaeology, July/August 1999, p. 36-39.
229 Henry Gee, In Search of Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, New York, The Free Press, 1999, p. 126-127.
230 David R. Pilbeam, "Rearranging Our Family Tree," Human Nature, June 1978, p. 45. (emphasis added)
231 Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape, McMillan, New York, 1931, p. 332. (emphasis added)
232 Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59.
233 Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly," New Scientist, 5 April 1979, p. 44.
234 Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly," New Scientist, 5 April 1979, p. 43. (emphasis added)
235 William K. Gregory, "Hesperopithecus Apparently Not An Ape Nor A Man," Science, vol. 66, issue 1720, 16 December 1927, p. 579.
236 Søren Løvtrup , Darwinism: The Refutation of A Myth, Croom Helm, New York, 1987, p. 422..

The Invalidity of Punctuated Equilibrium

The Invalidity of Punctuated Equilibrium

In an earlier chapter, we examined how the fossil record clearly invalidates the hypotheses of the Darwinist theory. We saw that the different living groups in the fossil record emerged suddenly, and stayed fixed for millions of years without undergoing any changes. This great discovery of paleontology shows that living species exist with no evolutionary processes behind them.

This fact was ignored for many years by paleontologists, who kept hoping that imaginary "intermediate forms" would one day be found. In the 1970s, some paleontologists accepted that this was an unfounded hope and that the "gaps" in the fossil record had to be accepted as a reality. However, because these paleontologists were unable to relinquish the theory of evolution, they tried to explain this reality by modifying the theory. And so was born the "punctuated equilibrium" model of evolution, which differs from neo-Darwinism in a number of respects.

This model began to be vigorously promoted at the start of the 1970s by the paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History. They summarized the evidence presented by the fossil record as revealing two basic characteristics:

1. Stasis

2. Sudden appearance 172

In order to explain these two facts within the theory of evolution, Gould and Eldredge proposed that living species came about not through a series of small changes, as Darwin had maintained, but by sudden, large ones.

This theory was actually a modified form of the "Hopeful Monster" theory put forward by the German paleontologist Otto Schindewolf in the 1930s. Schindewolf suggested that living things evolved not, as neo-Darwinism had proposed, gradually over time through small mutations, but suddenly through giant ones. When giving examples of his theory, Schindewolf claimed that the first bird in history had emerged from a reptile egg by a huge mutation-in other words, through a giant, coincidental change in genetic structure.173 According to this theory, some land animals might have suddenly turned into giant whales through a comprehensive change that they underwent. This fantastic theory of Schindewolf's was taken up and defended by the Berkeley University geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. But the theory was so inconsistent that it was quickly abandoned.

The factor that obliged Gould and Eldredge to embrace this theory again was, as we have already established, that the fossil record is at odds with the Darwinistic notion of step by step evolution through minor changes. The fact of stasis and sudden emergence in the record was so empirically well supported that they had to resort to a more refined version of the "hopeful monster" theory again to explain the situation. Gould's famous article "Return of the Hopeful Monster" was a statement of this obligatory step back.174

Gould and Eldredge did not just repeat Schindewolf's fantastic theory, of course. In order to give the theory a "scientific" appearance, they tried to develop some kind of mechanism for these sudden evolutionary leaps. (The interesting term, "punctuated equilibrium," they chose for this theory is a sign of this struggle to give it a scientific veneer.) In the years that followed, Gould and Eldredge's theory was taken up and expanded by some other paleontologists. However, the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution was based on even more contradictions and inconsistencies than the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution.

The Mechanism of Punctuated Equilibrium

The punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution, in its present state, holds that living populations show no changes over long periods of time, but stay in a kind of equilibrium. According to this viewpoint, evolutionary changes take place in short time frames and in very restricted populations-that is, the equilibrium is divided into separate periods or, in other words, "punctuated." Because the population is very small, large mutations are chosen by natural selection and thus enable a new species to emerge.

For instance, according to this theory, a species of reptile survives for millions of years, undergoing no changes. But one small group of reptiles somehow leaves this species and undergoes a series of major mutations, the reason for which is not made clear. Those mutations which are advantageous quickly take root in this restricted group. The group evolves rapidly, and in a short time turns into another species of reptile, or even a mammal. Because this process happens very quickly, and in a small population, there are very few fossils of intermediate forms left behind, or maybe none.

On close examination, this theory was actually proposed to develop an answer to the question, "How can one imagine an evolutionary period so rapid as not to leave any fossils behind it?" Two basic hypotheses are accepted while developing this answer:

1. that macromutations-wide-ranging mutations leading to large changes in living creatures' genetic make-up-bring advantages and produce new genetic information; and

2. that small animal populations have greater potential for genetic change.

However, both of these hypotheses are clearly at odds with scientific knowledge.

The Misconception About Macromutations

The first hypothesis-that macromutations occur in large numbers, making the emergence of new species possible-conflicts with known facts of genetics.

One rule, put forward by R. A. Fisher, one of the last century's best known geneticists, and based on observations, clearly invalidates this hypothesis. Fisher states in his book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection that the likelihood that a particular mutation will become fixed in a population is inversely proportional to its effect on the phenotype.175 Or, to put it another way, the bigger the mutation, the less chance it has of becoming a permanent trait within the group.

It is not hard to see the reason for this. Mutations, as we have seen in earlier chapters, consist of chance changes in genetic codes, and never have a beneficial influence on organisms' genetic data. Quite the contrary: individuals affected by mutation undergo serious illnesses and deformities. For this reason, the more an individual is affected by mutation, the less chance it has of surviving.

Ernst Mayr, the doyen of Darwinism, makes this comment on the subject:

The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation … is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless'. They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection … the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles … The finding of a suitable mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation from the normal members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable difficulties.176

It is obvious that mutations cannot bring about evolutionary development, and this fact places both neo-Darwinism and the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution in a terrible difficulty. Since mutation is a destructive mechanism, the macromutations that proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory talk about must have "macro" destructive effects. Some evolutionists place their hopes in mutations in the regulatory genes in DNA. But the feature of destructiveness which applies to other mutations, applies to these, as well. The problem is that mutation is a random change: any kind of random change in a structure as complex as genetic data will lead to harmful results.

Two famous proponents of the punctuated evolution model: Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.

In their book The Natural Limits to Biological Change, the geneticist Lane Lester and the population biologist Raymond Bohlin describe the blind alley represented by the notion of macromutation:

The overall factor that has come up again and again is that mutation remains the ultimate source of all genetic variation in any evolutionary model. Being unsatisfied with the prospects of accumulating small point mutations, many are turning to macromutations to explain the origin of evolutionary novelties. Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters have indeed returned. However, though macromutations of many varieties produce drastic changes, the vast majority will be incapable of survival, let alone show the marks of increasing complexity. If structural gene mutations are inadequate because of their inability to produce significant enough changes, then regulatory and developmental mutations appear even less useful because of the greater likelihood of nonadaptive or even destructive consequences… But one thing seems certain: at present, the thesis that mutations, whether great or small, are capable of producing limitless biological change is more an article of faith than fact.177

Observation and experiment both show that mutations do not enhance genetic data, but rather damage living things. Therefore, it is clearly irrational for proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory to expect greater success from "mutations" than the mainstream neo-Darwinists have found.

The Misconception About Restricted Populations

The second concept stressed by the proponents of punctuated equilibrium theory is that of "restricted populations." By this, they mean that the emergence of new species comes about in communities containing very small numbers of plants or animals. According to this claim, large populations of animals show no evolutionary development and maintain their "stasis." But small groups sometimes become separated from these communities, and these "isolated" groups mate only amongst themselves. (It is hypothesized that this usually stems from geographical conditions.) Macromutations are supposed to be most effective within such small, inbreeding groups, and that is how rapid "speciation" can take place.

But why do proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory insist so much on the concept of restricted populations? The reason is clear: Their aim is provide an explanation for the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record.

However, scientific experiments and observations carried out in recent years have revealed that being in a restricted population is not an advantage from the genetic point of view, but rather a disadvantage. Far from developing in such a way as to give rise to new species, small populations give rise to serious genetic defects. The reason for this is that in restricted populations individuals must continually mate within a narrow genetic pool. For this reason, normally heterozygous individuals become increasingly homozygous. This means that defective genes which are normally recessive become dominant, with the result that genetic defects and sickness increase within the population.178

In order to examine this matter, a 35-year study of a small, inbred population of chickens was carried out. It was found that the individual chickens became progressively weaker from the genetic point of view over time. Their egg production fell from 100 to 80 percent of individuals, and their fertility declined from 93 to 74 percent. But when chickens from other regions were added to the population, this trend toward genetic weakening was halted and even reversed. With the infusion of new genes from outside the restricted group, eventually the indicators of the health of the population returned to normal.179

This and similar discoveries have clearly revealed that the claim by the proponents of punctuated equilibrium theory that small populations are the source of evolution has no scientific validity.

Conclusion

Richard Dawkins, busy indoctrinating the young through Darwinist propaganda.

Scientific discoveries do not support the claims of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution. The claim that organisms in small populations can swiftly evolve with macromutations is actually even less valid than the model of evolution proposed by the mainstream neo-Darwinists.

So, why has this theory become so popular in recent years? This question can be answered by looking at the debates within the Darwinist community. Almost all the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution are paleontologists. This group, led by such famous paleontologists as Steven Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, and Steven M. Stanley, clearly see that the fossil record disproves the Darwinist theory. However, they have conditioned themselves to believe in evolution, no matter what. So for this reason they have resorted to the punctuated equilibrium theory as the only way of accounting even in part for the facts of the fossil record.

On the other hand, geneticists, zoologists, and anatomists see that there is no mechanism in nature which can give rise to any "punctuations," and for this reason they insist on defending the gradualistic Darwinist model of evolution. The Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins fiercely criticizes the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution, and accuses them of "destroying the theory of evolution's credibility."

The result of this dialogue of the deaf is the scientific crisis the theory of evolution now faces. We are dealing with an evolution myth which agrees with no experiments or observations, and no paleontological discoveries. Every evolutionist theoretician tries to find support for the theory from his own field of expertise, but then enters into conflict with discoveries from other branches of science. Some people try to gloss over this confusion with superficial comments such as "science progresses by means of academic disputes of this kind." However, the problem is not that the mental gymnastics in these debates are being carried out in order to discover a correct scientific theory; rather, the problem is that speculations are being advanced dogmatically and irrationally in order to stubbornly defend a theory that is demonstrably false.

However, the theoreticians of punctuated equilibrium have made one important, albeit unwitting, contribution to science: They have clearly shown that the fossil record conflicts with the concept of evolution. Phillip Johnson, one of the world's foremost critics of the theory of evolution, has described Stephen Jay Gould, one of the most important punctuated equilibrium theoreticians, as "the Gorbachev of Darwinism."180 Gorbachev thought that there were defects in the Communist state system of the Soviet Union and tried to "reform" that system. However, the problems which he thought were defects were in fact fundamental to the nature of the system itself. That is why Communism melted away in his hands.

The same fate will soon await Darwinism and the other models of evolution.

172 Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977, p. 14.
173 Stephen M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1979, pp. 35, 159.
174 S. J. Gould, "Return of the Hopeful Monster," The Panda's Thumb, W. W. Norton Co., New York, 1980, pp. 186-193.
175 R. A. Fisher, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1930.
176 Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, Belknap Press, Cambridge, 1970, p. 235.
177 Lane P. Lester, Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, Probe Books, Dallas, 1989, pp. 141-142. (emphasis added)
178 M. E. Soulé and L. S. Mills, "Enhanced: No need to isolate genetics," Science, 1998, vol. 282, p. 1658.
179 R. L. Westemeier, J. D. Brawn, J. D. Brawn, S. A. Simpson, T. L. Esker, R. W. Jansen, J. W. Walk, E. L. Kershner, J. L. Bouzat, and K. N. Paige, "Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population", Science, 1998, vol. 282, p. 1695.
180 Phillip Johnson, Objections Sustained, Intervarsity Press, Illinois, 1998, pp. 77-85.

True Natural History - II (Birds and Mammals)

True Natural History - II
(Birds and Mammals)

There are thousands of bird species on the earth. Every one of them possesses distinct features. For example, falcons have acute vision, wide wings and sharp talons, while hummingbirds, with their long beaks, suck the nectar of flowers.

Others migrate over long distances to very specific places in the world. But the most important feature distinguishing birds from other animals is flight. Most birds have the ability to fly.

How did birds come into existence? The theory of evolution tries to provide an answer with a long scenario. According to this story, reptiles are the ancestors of birds. Approximately 150-200 million years ago, birds evolved from their reptile ancestors. The first birds had very poor flying skills. Yet, during the evolution process, feathers replaced the thick skins of these ancient birds, which were originally covered with scales. Their front legs were also completely covered by feathers, and changed into wings. As a result of gradual evolution, some reptiles adapted themselves to flight, and thus became the birds of today.

This scenario is presented in evolutionary sources as an established fact. However, an in-depth study of the details and the scientific data indicates that the scenario is based more on imagination than reality.

The Origin of Flight According to Evolutionists

How reptiles, as land-dwelling creatures, ever came to fly, is an issue which has stirred up considerable speculation among evolutionists. There are two main theories. The first argues that the ancestors of birds descended to the ground from the trees. As a result, these ancestors are alleged to be reptiles that lived in the treetops and came to possess wings gradually as they jumped from one branch to another. This is known as the arboreal theory. The other, the cursorial (or "running") theory, suggests that birds progressed to the air from the land.

Yet both of these theories rest upon speculative interpretations, and there is no evidence to support either of them. Evolutionists have devised a simple solution to the problem: they simply imagine that the evidence exists. Professor John Ostrom, head of the Geology Department at Yale University, who proposed the cursorial theory, explains this approach:

No fossil evidence exists of any pro-avis. It is a purely hypothetical pre-bird, but one that must have existed.106

However, this transitional form, which the arboreal theory assumes "must have lived," has never been found. The cursorial theory is even more problematic. The basic assumption of the theory is that the front legs of some reptiles gradually developed into wings as they waved their arms around in order to catch insects. However, no explanation is provided of how the wing, a highly complex organ, came into existence as a result of this flapping.

One huge problem for the theory of evolution is the irreducible complexity of wings. Only a perfect design allows wings to function, a "half-way developed" wing cannot function. In this context, the "gradual development" model-the unique mechanism postulated by evolution-makes no sense. Thus Robert Carroll is forced to admit that, "It is difficult to account for the initial evolution of feathers as elements in the flight apparatus, since it is hard to see how they could function until they reached the large size seen in Archaeopteryx."107 Then he argues that feathers could have evolved for insulation, but this does not explain their complex design which is specifically shaped for flying.

It is essential that wings should be tightly attached to the chest, and possess a structure able to lift the bird up and enable it to move in all directions, as well as allowing it to remain in the air. It is essential that wings and feathers possess a light, flexible and well proportioned structure. At this point, evolution is again in a quandary. It fails to answer the question of how this flawless design in wings came about as the result of accumulative random mutations. Similarly, it offers no explanation of how the foreleg of a reptile came to change into a perfect wing as a result of a defect (mutation) in the genes.

A half-formed wing cannot fly. Consequently, even if we assume that mutation did lead to a slight change in the foreleg, it is still entirely unreasonable to assume that further mutations contributed coincidentally to the development of a full wing. That is because a mutation in the forelegs will not produce a new wing; on the contrary, it will just cause the animal to lose its forelegs. This would put it at a disadvantage compared to other members of its own species. According to the rules of the theory of evolution, natural selection would soon eliminate this flawed creature.

According to biophysical research, mutations are changes that occur very rarely. Consequently, it is impossible that a disabled animal could wait millions of years for its wings to fully develop by means of slight mutations, especially when these mutations have damaging effects over time…

IMAGINARY THEORIES, IMAGINARY CREATURES The first theory put forward by evolutionists to account for the origin of flight claimed that reptiles developed wings as they hunted flies (above); the second theory was that they turned into birds as they jumped from branch to branch (side). However, there are no fossils of animals which gradually developed wings, nor any discovery to show that such a thing could even be possible.

Birds and Dinosaurs

The theory of evolution holds that birds evolved from carnivorous theropods. However, a comparison between birds and reptiles reveals that the two have very distinct features, making it unlikely that one evolved from the other.

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

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

One of the best-known ornithologists in the world, Alan Feduccia from the University of North Carolina, opposes the theory that birds are related to dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself. Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird evolution:

Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.108

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

To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.109

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

In some evolutionist publications, for instance, emphasis is laid on the differences among dinosaur hip bones to support the thesis that birds are descended from dinosaurs. These so-called differences exist between dinosaurs classified as Saurischian (reptile-like, hip-girdled species) and Ornithischian (bird-like, hip-girdled species). This concept of dinosaurs having hip girdles similar to those of birds is now and then taken as evidence for the alleged dinosaur-bird link. However, the difference in hip girdles is no evidence at all for the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is because Ornithischian dinosaurs do not resemble birds with respect to other anatomical features. For instance, Ankylosaurus is a dinosaur classified as Ornithischian, with short legs, a giant body, and skin covered with scales resembling armor. On the other hand, Struthiomimus, which resembles birds in some of its anatomical features (long legs, short forelegs, and thin structure), is actually a Saurischian.110

In short, the structure of the hip girdle is no evidence for an evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs. The claim that dinosaurs resemble birds because their hip girdles are similar ignores other significant anatomical differences between the two species which make any evolutionary link between them untenable from the evolutionist viewpoint.

Dinosaur bones are thick and solid because of their massive structure, whereas the bones of living and extinct birds are hollow, and thus very light.

BIRDS' UNIQUE SKELETAL SYSTEM Unlike dinosaur and reptile bones, bird bones are hollow. This gives the body stability and lightness. Birds' skeletal structure is employed in designing airplanes, bridges and modern structures.

The Unique Structure of Avian Lungs

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

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

In birds however, air is unidirectional. New air comes in one end, and the used air goes at the other end. Thanks to special air sacs all along the passages between them, air always flows in one direction through the avian lung. In this way, birds are able to take in air nonstop. This satisfies birds' high energy requirements. This highly specialized respiratory system is explained by Michael Denton in his book A Theory in Crisis:

In the case of birds, the major bronchi break down into tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system so that air flows in one direction through the lungs. ...[T]he structure of the lung in birds and the overall functioning of the respiratory system is quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species is known which in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, it is identical in all essential details in birds as diverse as humming birds, ostriches and hawks.111

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

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

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

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

Molecular biologist Michael Denton, from the University of Otago in New Zealand, states that it is impossible to give an evolutionary account of the avian lung:

Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner.112

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

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

The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage.113

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

Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of direction is, again, very difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of the organism. Moreover, the unique function and form of the avian lung necessitates a number of additional unique adaptations during avian development. As H. R. Dunker, one of the world's authorities in this field, explains, because first, the avian lung is fixed rigidly to the body wall and cannot therefore expand in volume and, second, because of the small diameter of the lung capillaries and the resulting high surface tension of any liquid within them, the avian lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as happens in all other vertebrates after birth. The air capillaries are never collapsed as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species; rather, as they grow into the lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes filled with either air or fluid.114

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

In other words, the passages in birds' lungs are so narrow that the air sacs inside their lungs cannot fill with air and empty again, as with land-dwelling creatures.

If a bird lung ever completely deflated, the bird would never be able to re-inflate it, or would at the very least have great difficulty in doing so. For this reason, the air sacs situated all over the lung enable a constant passage of air to pass through, thus protecting the lungs from deflating.

Of course this system, which is completely different from the lungs of reptiles and other vertebrates, and is based on the most sensitive equilibrium, cannot have come about with unconscious mutations, stage by stage, as evolution maintains. This is how Denton describes this structure of the avian lung, which again invalidates Darwinism:

The avian lung brings us very close to answering Darwin's challenge: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."115

Bird Feathers and Reptile Scales

Another impassable gulf between birds and reptiles is feathers, which are peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, and those of birds with feathers. The hypothesis that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionary paleontologist Barbara Stahl admits:

REPTILE SCALES The scales that cover reptiles' bodies are totally different from bird feathers. Unlike feathers, scales do not extend under the skin, but are merely a hard layer on the surface of the animal's body. Genetically, biochemically and anatomically, scales bear no resemblance to feathers. This great difference between the two again shows that the scenario of evolution from reptiles to birds is unfounded.

How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition.116

The Sinosauropteryx fossil, announced by evolutionary paleontologists to be a "feathered dinosaur," but which subsequently turned out to be no such thing.

A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the University of Connecticut, accepts this reality, although he is himself an evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales]."117 Moreover, Professor Brush examines the protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among vertebrates."118

There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, Professor Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character distinguishing birds.119 Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers.120

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

Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are.121

The Design of Feathers

On the other hand, there is such a complex design in bird feathers that the phenomenon can never be accounted for by evolutionary processes. As we all know, there is a shaft that runs up the center of the feather. Attached to the shaft are the vanes. The vane is made up of small thread-like strands, called barbs. These barbs, of different lengths and rigidity, are what give the bird its aerodynamic nature. But what is even more interesting is that each barb has thousands of even smaller strands attached to them called barbules. The barbules are connected to barbicels, with tiny microscopic hooks, called hamuli. Each strand is hooked to an opposing strand, much like the hooks of a zipper.

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

Just one crane feather has about 650 barbs on each of side of the shaft. About 600 barbules branch off the barbs. Each one of these barbules are locked together with 390 hooklets. The hooks latch together as do the teeth on both sides of a zip. If the hooklets come apart for any reason, the bird can easily restore the feathers to their original form by either shaking itself or by straightening its feathers out with its beak.

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

It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations.122

The design of feathers also compelled Darwin to ponder them. Moreover, the perfect aesthetics of the peacock's feathers had made him "sick" (his own words). In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray on April 3, 1860, he said, "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint..." And then continued: "... and now trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!"123

In short, the enormous structural differences between bird feathers and reptile scales, and the unbelievably complex design of feathers, clearly demonstrate the baselessness of the claim that feathers evolved from scales.

The Archaeopteryx Misconception

In response to the question whether there is any fossil evidence for "reptile-bird evolution," evolutionists pronounce the name of one single creature. This is the fossil of a bird called Archaeopteryx, one of the most widely known so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still defend.

Archaeopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.

However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that this explanation lacks any scientific foundation. This is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.

One of the important pieces of evidence that Archaeopteryx was a flying bird is its asymmetric feather structure. Above, one of the creature's fossil feathers.

The thesis that Archaeopteryx was a "half-bird" that could not fly perfectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago. The absence of a sternum (breastbone) in this creature was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The sternum is a bone found under the thorax to which the muscles required for flight are attached. In our day, this breastbone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats, a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.) However, the seventh Archaeopteryx fossil, which was found in 1992, disproved this argument. The reason was that in this recently discovered fossil, the breastbone that was long assumed by evolutionists to be missing was discovered to have existed after all. This fossil was described in the journal Nature as follows:

The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles, but its capacity for long flights is questionable.

This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the claims that Archaeopteryx was a half-bird that could not fly properly.

Morevoer, the structure of the bird's feathers became one of the most important pieces of evidence confirming that Archaeopteryx was a flying bird in the true sense. The asymmetric feather structure of Archaeopteryx is indistinguishable from that of modern birds, and indicates that it could fly perfectly well. As the eminent paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states, "Because of its feathers, [Archaeopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird."125 Paleontologist Robert Carroll further explains the subject:

The geometry of the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds… According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing of Archaeopteryx are similar to that of birds that move through restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves, woodcocks, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds… The flight feathers have been in stasis for at least 150 million years…126

Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archaeopteryx's feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. As was discussed above, reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat fluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather than being homeostatically regulated. A very important function of the feathers on birds is the maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact that Archaeopteryx had feathers shows that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to retain its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs.

The Teeth and Claws of Archaeopteryx

Two important points evolutionary biologists rely on when claiming Archaeopteryx was a transitional form, are the claws on its wings and its teeth.

It is true that Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its mouth, but these traits do not imply that the creature bore any kind of relationship to reptiles. Besides, two bird species living today, the touraco and the hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto branches. These creatures are fully birds, with no reptilian characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless to assert that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on its wings.

Just like Archaeopteryx, there are claw-like nails on the wings of the bird Opisthocomus hoazin, which lives in our own time.

Neither do the teeth in Archaeopteryx's beak imply that it is a transitional form. Evolutionists are wrong to say that these teeth are reptilian characteristics, since teeth are not a typical feature of reptiles. Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not. Moreover, Archaeopteryx is not the only bird species to possess teeth. It is true that there are no toothed birds in existence today, but when we look at the fossil record, we see that both during the time of Archaeopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct group of birds existed that could be categorised as "birds with teeth."

The most important point is that the tooth structure of Archaeopteryx and other birds with teeth is totally different from that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The well-known ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archaeopteryx and other similar birds have unserrated teeth with constricted bases and expanded roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, had serrated teeth with straight roots.127 These researchers also compared the ankle bones of Archaeopteryx with those of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them.128

Studies by anatomists such as S. Tarsitano, M.K. Hecht, and A.D. Walker have revealed that some of the similarities that John Ostrom and others have seen between the limbs of Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs were in reality misinterpretations.129 For example, A.D. Walker has analyzed the ear region of Archaeopteryx and found that it is very similar to that of modern birds.130

Furthermore, J. Richard Hinchliffe, from the Institute of Biological Sciences of the University of Wales, studied the anatomies of birds and their alleged reptilian ancestors by using modern isotopic techniques and discovered that the three forelimb digits in dinosaurs are I-II-III, whereas bird wing digits are II-III-IV. This poses a big problem for the supporters of the Archaeopteryx-dinosaur link.131 Hinchliffe published his studies and observations in Science in 1997, where he wrote:

Doubts about homology between theropods and bird digits remind us of some of the other problems in the "dinosaur-origin" hypothesis. These include the following: (i) The much smaller theropod forelimb (relative to body size) in comparison with the Archaeopteryx wing. Such small limbs are not convincing as proto-wings for a ground-up origin of flight in the relatively heavy dinosaurs. (ii) The rarity in theropods of the semilunate wrist bone, known in only four species (including Deinonychus). Most theropods have relatively large numbers of wrist elements, difficult to homologize with those of Archaeopteryx. (iii) The temporal paradox that most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx.

As Hinchliffe notes, the "temporal paradox" is one of the facts that deal the fatal blow to the evolutionist allegations about Archaeopteryx. In his book Icons of Evolution, American biologist Jonathan Wells remarks that Archaeopteryx has been turned into an "icon" of the theory of evolution, whereas evidence clearly shows that this creature is not the primitive ancestor of birds. According to Wells, one of the indications of this is that theropod dinosaurs-the alleged ancestors of Archaeopteryx-are actually younger than Archaeopteryx: "Two-legged reptiles that ran along the ground, and had other features one might expect in an ancestor of Archaeopteryx, appear later."132

All these findings indicate that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called "toothed birds." Linking this creature to theropod dinosaurs is completely invalid. In an article headed "The Demise of the 'Birds Are Dinosaurs' Theory," the American biologist Richard L. Deem writes the following about Archaeopteryx and the bird-dinosaur evolution claim:

The results of the recent studies show that the hands of the theropod dinosaurs are derived from digits I, II, and III, whereas the wings of birds, although they look alike in terms of structure, are derived from digits II, III, and IV... There are other problems with the "birds are dinosaurs" theory. The theropod forelimb is much smaller (relative to body size) than that of Archaeopteryx. The small "proto-wing" of the theropod is not very convincing, especially considering the rather hefty weight of these dinosaurs. The vast majority of the theropod lack the semilunate wrist bone, and have a large number of other wrist elements which have no homology to the bones of Archaeopteryx. In addition, in almost all theropods, nerve V1 exits the braincase out the side, along with several other nerves, whereas in birds, it exits out the front of the braincase, though its own hole. There is also the minor problem that the vast majority of the theropods appeared after the appearance of Archaeopteryx.133

Archaeopteryx and Other Ancient Bird Fossils

Some recently found fossils also invalidate the evolutionist scenario regarding Archaeopteryx in other respects.

Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, two paleontologists at the Chinese Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology, discovered a new bird fossil in 1995, and named it Confuciusornis. This fossil is almost the same age as Archaeopteryx (around 140 million years), but has no teeth in its mouth. In addition, its beak and feathers share the same features as today's birds. Confuciusornis has the same skeletal structure as modern birds, but also has claws on its wings, just like Archaeopteryx. Another structure peculiar to birds called the "pygostyle," which supports the tail feathers, was also found in Confuciusornis.134 In short, this fossil-which is the same age as Archaeopteryx, which was previously thought to be the earliest bird and was accepted as a semi-reptile-looks very much like a modern bird. This fact has invalidated all the evolutionist theses claiming Archaeopteryx to be the primitive ancestor of all birds.

Confuciusornis, which lived at the same time as Archaeopteryx, has many similarities to modern birds.

Another fossil unearthed in China caused even greater confusion. In November 1996, the existence of a 130-million-year-old bird named Liaoningornis was announced in Science by L. Hou, L. D. Martin, and Alan Feduccia. Liaoningornis had a breastbone to which the muscles for flight were attached, just as in modern birds.135 This bird was indistinguishable from modern birds in other respects, too. The only difference was the teeth in its mouth. This showed that birds with teeth did not possess the primitive structure alleged by evolutionists. That Liaoningornis had the features of a modern bird was stated in an article in Discover, which said, "Whence came the birds? This fossil suggests that it was not from dinosaur stock."136

Another fossil that refuted the evolutionist claims regarding Archaeopteryx was Eoalulavis. The wing structure of Eoalulavis, which was said to be some 25 to 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, was also observed in modern slow-flying birds.137 This proved that 120 million years ago, there were birds indistinguishable from modern birds in many respects, flying in the skies.

These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archaeopteryx nor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The fossils do not indicate that different bird species evolved from each other. On the contrary, the fossil record proves that today's modern birds and some archaic birds such as Archaeopteryx actually lived together at the same time. It is true that some of these bird species, such as Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis, have become extinct, but the fact that only some of the species that once existed have been able to survive down to the present day does not in itself support the theory of evolution.

Archaeoraptor: The Dino-Bird Hoax

Unable to find what they were looking for in Archaeopteryx, the advocates of the theory of evolution pinned their hopes on some other fossils in the 1990s and a series of reports of so-called "dino-bird" fossils appeared in the world media. Yet it was soon discovered that these claims were simply misinterpretations, or, even worse, forgeries.

The first dino-bird claim was the story of "feathered dinosaur fossils unearthed in China," which was put forward in 1996 with a great media fanfare. A reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found, but some paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had bird feathers, unlike modern reptiles. Examinations conducted one year later, however, showed that the fossil actually had no structure similar to a bird's feather. A Science article titled "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur" stated that the structures named as "feathers" by evolutionary paleontologists definitely had nothing to do with feathers:

Exactly 1 year ago, paleontologists were abuzz about photos of a so-called "feathered dinosaur," which were passed around the halls at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The Sinosauropteryx specimen from the Yixian Formation in China made the front page of The New York Times, and was viewed by some as confirming the dinosaurian origins of birds. But at this year's vertebrate paleontology meeting in Chicago late last month, the verdict was a bit different: The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens. ...Paleontologist Larry Martin of Kansas University, Lawrence, thinks the structures are frayed collagenous fibers beneath the skin-and so have nothing to do with birds.138

A yet more sensational case of dino-bird hype broke out in 1999. In its November 1999 issue, National Geographic published an article about a fossil specimen unearthed in China which was claimed to bear both bird and dinosaur features. National Geographic writer Christopher P. Sloan, the author of the article, went so far as to claim, "we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals." This species, which was said to have lived 125 million years ago, was immediately given the scientific name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.139

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

However, the fossil was a fake and was skillfully constructed from five separate specimens. A group of researchers, among whom were also three paleontologists, proved the forgery one year later with the help of X-ray computed tomography. The dino-bird was actually the product of a Chinese evolutionist. Chinese amateurs formed the dino-bird by using glue and cement from 88 bones and stones. Research suggests that Archaeoraptor was built from the front part of the skeleton of an ancient bird, and that its body and tail included bones from four different specimens.

The interesting thing is that National Geographic published a high-profile article about such a crude forgery-and, moreover, used it as the basis for claiming that "bird evolution" scenarios had been verified-without expressing any doubts or caution in the article at all. Dr. Storrs Olson, of the famous Smithsonian Institute Natural History Museum in the USA, later said that he warned National Geographic beforehand that this fossil was a fake, but that the magazine management totally ignored him. According to Olson, "National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism."140

In a letter he wrote to Peter Raven of National Geographic, Olson describes the real story of the "feathered dinosaur" hype since its launch with a previous National Geographic article published in 1998 in a very detailed way:

Prior to the publication of the article "Dinosaurs Take Wing" in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan's article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Sloan's article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that "makes" the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that "we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals" is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.

More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan's article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that "hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers" is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.

The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.

Sincerely,

Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution141

This revealing case demonstrates two important facts. First, there are people who have no qualms about resorting to forgery in an effort to find evidence for the theory of evolution. Second, some highly reputable popular science journals, which have assumed the mission of imposing the theory of evolution on people, are perfectly willing to disregard any facts that may be inconvenient or have alternative interpretations. That is, they have become little more than propaganda tools for propagating the theory of evolution. They take not a scientific, but a dogmatic, stance and knowingly compromise science to defend the theory of evolution to which they are so strongly devoted.

Another important aspect of the matter is that there is no evidence for the thesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Because of the lack of evidence, either fake evidence is produced, or actual evidence is misinterpreted. In truth, there is no evidence that birds have evolved from another living species. On the contrary, all discoveries show that birds emerged on the earth already in full possession of their distinctive body structures.

LATEST EVIDENCE: OSTRICH STUDY REFUTES THE DINO-BIRD STORY Dr. Feduccia: His new study is enough to bury the 'dino-bird" myth The latest blow to the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory came from a study made on the embryology of ostriches. Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied a series of live ostrich eggs and, once again, concluded that there cannot be an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. EurekAlert, a scientific portal held by the American Association for the The Advancement of Science (AAAS), reports the following: Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill... opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs... Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said... "Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three... Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible." 1 In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory: "There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia] said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old." If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences, Feduccia said. Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation and replacement."2 This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird" hype is just another "icon" of Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake of a dogmatic faith in the theory. 1 - David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird 'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs," EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php 2 - David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird 'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs," EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php

The Origin of Insects

While discussing the origin of birds, we mentioned the cursorial theory that evolutionary biologists propose. As we made clear then, the question of how reptiles grew wings involves speculation about "reptiles trying to catch insects with their front legs." According to this theory, these reptiles' forefeet slowly turned into wings over time as they hunted for insects.

There is no difference between this 320-million-year-old fossil cockroach and specimens living today.

We have already stressed that this theory is based on no scientific discoveries whatsoever. But there is another interesting side to it, which we have not yet touched on. Flies can already fly. So how did they acquire wings? And generally speaking, what is the origin of insects, of which flies are just one class?

In the classification of living things, insects make up a subphylum, Insecta, of the phylum Arthropoda. The oldest insect fossils belong to the Devonian Age (410 to 360 million years ago). In the Pennsylvanian Age which followed (325 to 286 million years ago), there emerged a great number of different insect species. For instance, cockroaches emerge all of a sudden, and with the same structure as they have today. Betty Faber, of the American Museum of Natural History, reports that fossil cockroaches from 350 million years ago are exactly the same as those of today.142

Creatures such as spiders, ticks, and millipedes are not insects, but rather belong to other subphyla of Arthropoda. Important fossil discoveries of these creatures were communicated to the 1983 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The interesting thing about these 380-million-year-old spider, tick, and centipede fossils is the fact that they are no different from specimens alive today. One of the scientists who examined the fossils remarked that, "they looked like they might have died yesterday."143

Winged insects also emerge suddenly in the fossil record, and with all the features peculiar to them. For example, a large number of dragonfly fossils from the Pennsylvanian Age have been found. And these dragonflies have exactly the same structures as their counterparts today.

This Acantherpestes major millipede, found in the state of Kansas in the United States, is some 300 million years old, and no different from millipedes today. 145-million-year-old fossil fly. This fossil, found in Liaoning in China, is the same as flies of the same species living today. Winged insects emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record, and from that moment they have possessed the same flawless structures as today. The 320-million-year fossil dragonfly above is the oldest known specimen and is no different from dragonflies living today. No "evolution" has taken place.

One interesting point here is the fact that dragonflies and flies emerge all of a sudden, together with wingless insects. This disproves the theory that wingless insects developed wings and gradually evolved into flying ones. In one of their articles in the book Biomechanics in Evolution, Robin Wootton and Charles P. Ellington have this to say on the subject:

When insect fossils first appear, in the Middle and Upper Carboniferous, they are diverse and for the most part fully winged. There are a few primitively wingless forms, but no convincing intermediates are known.144

One major characteristic of flies, which emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record, is their amazing flying technique. Whereas a human being is unable to open and close his arms even 10 times a second, an average fly flaps its wings 500 times in that space of time. Moreover, it moves both its wings simultaneously. The slightest dissonance in the vibration of its wings would cause the fly to lose balance, but this never happens.

In an article titled "The Mechanical Design of Fly Wings," Wootton further observes:

The better we understand the functioning of insect wings, the more subtle and beautiful their designs appear … Structures are traditionally designed to deform as little as possible; mechanisms are designed to move component parts in predictable ways. Insect wings combine both in one, using components with a wide range of elastic properties, elegantly assembled to allow appropriate deformations in response to appropriate forces and to make the best possible use of the air. They have few if any technological parallels - yet.145

Of course the sudden emergence of living things with such a perfect design as this cannot be explained by any evolutionist account. That is why Pierre-Paul Grassé says, "We are in the dark concerning the origin of insects."146 The origin of insects clearly proves the fact of creation.

The Origin of Mammals

A fossilized fly, trapped in amber 35 million years ago. This fossil, found on the Baltic coast, is again no different from those living in our own time.

As we have stated before, the theory of evolution proposes that some imaginary creatures that came out of the sea turned into reptiles, and that birds evolved from reptiles. According to the same scenario, reptiles are the ancestors not only of birds, but also of mammals. However, there are great differences between these two classes. Mammals are warm-blooded animals (this means they can generate their own heat and maintain it at a steady level), they give live birth, they suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in fur or hair. Reptiles, on the other hand, are cold-blooded (i.e., they cannot generate heat, and their body temperature changes according to the external temperature), they lay eggs, they do not suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in scales.

Given all these differences, then, how did a reptile start to regulate its body temperature and come by a perspiratory mechanism to allow it to maintain its body temperature? Is it possible that it replaced its scales with fur or hair and started to secrete milk? In order for the theory of evolution to explain the origin of mammals, it must first provide scientific answers to these questions.

Yet, when we look at evolutionist sources, we either find completely imaginary and unscientific scenarios, or else a profound silence. One of these scenarios is as follows:

Some of the reptiles in the colder regions began to develop a method of keeping their bodies warm. Their heat output increased when it was cold and their heat loss was cut down when scales became smaller and more pointed, and evolved into fur. Sweating was also an adaptation to regulate the body temperature, a device to cool the body when necessary by evaporation of water. But incidentally the young of these reptiles began to lick the sweat of the mother for nourishment. Certain sweat glands began to secrete a richer and richer secretion, which eventually became milk. Thus the young of these early mammals had a better start in life.147

The above quotation is nothing more than a figment of the imagination. Not only is such a fantastic scenario unsupported by the evidence, it is clearly impossible. It is quite irrational to claim that a living creature produces a highly complex nutrient such as milk by licking its mother's body sweat.

There is no difference between fossil mammals dozens of millions of years old in natural history museums and those living today. Furthermore, these fossils emerge suddenly, with no connection to species that had gone before.

The reason why such scenarios are put forward is the fact that there are huge differences between reptiles and mammals. One example of the structural barriers between reptiles and mammals is their jaw structure. Mammal jaws consist of only one mandibular bone containing the teeth. In reptiles, there are three little bones on both sides of the mandible. Another basic difference is that all mammals have three bones in their middle ear (hammer, anvil, and stirrup). Reptiles have but a single bone in the middle ear. Evolutionists claim that the reptile jaw and middle ear gradually evolved into the mammal jaw and ear. The question of how an ear with a single bone evolved into one with three bones, and how the sense of hearing kept on functioning in the meantime can never be explained. Not surprisingly, not one single fossil linking reptiles and mammals has been found. This is why the renowned evolutionist science writer Roger Lewin was forced to say, "The transition to the first mammal, ...is still an enigma."148

George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most important evolutionary authorities and a founder of the neo-Darwinist theory, makes the following comment regarding this perplexing difficulty for evolutionists:

The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts.149

Furthermore, when mammals suddenly made their appearance, they were already very different from each other. Such dissimilar animals as bats, horses, mice, and whales are all mammals, and they all emerged during the same geological period. Establishing an evolutionary relationship among them is impossible even by the broadest stretch of the imagination. The evolutionist zoologist R. Eric Lombard makes this point in an article that appeared in the leading journal Evolution:

Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.150

In short, the origin of mammals, like that of other groups, fails to conform to the theory of evolution in any way. George Gaylord Simpson admitted that fact many years ago:

This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals ... The earliest and most primitive known members of every order [of mammals] already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed ... This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate...it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.151

The Myth of Horse Evolution

One important subject in the origin of mammals is the myth of the "evolution of the horse," also a topic to which evolutionist publications have devoted a considerable amount of space for a long time. This is a myth, because it is based on imagination rather than scientific findings.

Until recently, an imaginary sequence supposedly showing the evolution of the horse was advanced as the principal fossil evidence for the theory of evolution. Today, however, many evolutionists themselves frankly admit that the scenario of horse evolution is bankrupt. In 1980, a four-day symposium was held at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, with 150 evolutionists in attendance, to discuss the problems with the gradualistic evolutionary theory. In addressing this meeting, evolutionist Boyce Rensberger noted that the scenario of the evolution of the horse has no foundation in the fossil record, and that no evolutionary process has been observed that would account for the gradual evolution of horses:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.152

While discussing this important dilemma in the scenario of the evolution of the horse in a particularly honest way, Rensberger brought the transitional form difficulty onto the agenda as the greatest difficulty of all.

Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, , where "evolution of the horse" diagrams were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:

There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff. 153

Then what is the basis for the scenario of the evolution of the horse? This scenario was formulated by means of the deceitful charts devised by the sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastly different periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe, solely in accordance with the rich power of evolutionists' imaginations. More than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which by the way are totally different from each other, have been proposed by various researchers. Thus, it is obvious that evolutionists have reached no common agreement on these family trees. The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called Eohippus (Hyracotherium), which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. However, the fact is that Eohippus, which became extinct millions of years ago, is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has nothing whatsoever to do with the horse.154

The inconsistency of the theory of the evolution of the horse becomes increasingly apparent as more fossil findings are gathered. Fossils of modern horse species (Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis) have been discovered in the same layer as Eohippus.155 This is an indication that the modern horse and its so-called ancestor lived at the same time.

The Evolution of the Horse exhibition in London's Natural History Museum. This and other "evolution of the horse" diagrams show independent species which lived at different times and in different places, lined up one after the other in a very subjective presentation. In reality, there are no scientific discoveries regarding the evolution of the horse.

The evolutionist science writer Gordon R. Taylor explains this little-acknowledged truth in his book The Great Evolution Mystery:

But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change... The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time.156

All these facts are strong evidence that the charts of horse evolution, which are presented as one of the most solid pieces of evidence for Darwinism, are nothing but fantastic and implausible fairy tales. Like other species, horses, too, came into existence without ancestors in the evolutionary sense.

The Origin of Bats

One of the most interesting creatures in the mammalian class is without doubt the flying mammal, the bat.

Bats' sonar system is more sensitive and efficient than any technological sonar systems so far constructed.

Topping the list of the characteristics of bats is the complex "sonar" system they possess. Thanks to this, bats can fly in the pitch dark, unable to see anything, but performing the most complicated maneuvers. They can even sense and catch a caterpillar on the floor of a dark room.

Bat sonar works in the following way. The animal emits a continuous stream of high-frequency sonic signals, analyses the echoes from these, and as a result forms a detailed image of its surroundings. What is more, it manages to do all of this at an incredible speed, continually and unerringly, while it is flying through the air.

Research into the bat sonar system has produced even more surprising results. The range of frequencies the animal can perceive is very narrow; in other words it can only hear sounds of certain frequencies, which raises a very important point. Since sounds which strike a body in motion change their frequency (the well-known "Doppler effect"), as a bat sends out signals to a fly, say, that is moving away from it, the sound waves reflected from the fly should be at a different frequency that the bat is unable to perceive. For this reason, the bat should have great difficulty in sensing moving bodies.

But this is not the case. The bat continues to catch all kinds of small, fast-moving creatures with no difficulty at all. The reason is that the bat adjusts the frequency of the sound waves it sends out toward the moving bodies in its environment as if it knew all about the Doppler effect. For instance, it emits its highest-frequency signal toward a fly that is moving away from it, so that when the signal comes back, its frequency has not dropped below the threshold of the animal's hearing.

So how does this adjustment take place?

There are two groups of neurons (nerve cells) in the bat's brain which control the sonar system. One of these perceives the echoed ultrasound, and the other gives instructions to the muscles to produce echolocation calls. These regions in the brain work in tandem, in such a way that when the frequency of the echo changes, the first region perceives this, and warns the second one, enabling it to modify the frequency of the sound emitted in accordance with that of the echo. As a result, the pitch of the bat's ultrasound changes according to its surroundings, and sonar system as a whole is used in the most efficient manner.

The oldest known fossil bat, found in Wyoming in the United States. 50 million years old, there is no difference between this fossil and bats alive today.

It is impossible to be blind to the mortal blow that the bat sonar system deals to the theory of gradual evolution through chance mutations. It is an extremely complex structure, and can in no way be accounted for by chance mutations. In order for the system to function at all, all of its components have to work together perfectly as an integrated whole. It is absurd to believe that such a highly integrated system can be explained by chance; on the contrary, it actually demonstrates that the bat is flawlessly created.

In fact, the fossil record also confirms that bats emerged suddenly and with today's complex structures. In their book Bats: A Natural History, the evolutionary paleontologists John E. Hill and James D. Smith reveal this fact in the form of the following admission:

The fossil record of bats extends back to the early Eocene ... and has been documented ... on five continents ... [A]ll fossil bats, even the oldest, are clearly fully developed bats and so they shed little light on the transition from their terrestrial ancestor.157

And the evolutionary paleontologist L. R. Godfrey has this to say on the same subject:

There are some remarkably well preserved early Tertiary fossil bats, such as Icaronycteris index, but Icaronycteris tells us nothing about the evolution of flight in bats because it was a perfectly good flying bat.158

Evolutionist scientist Jeff Hecht confesses the same problem in a 1998 New Scientist article:

[T]he origins of bats have been a puzzle. Even the earliest bat fossils, from about 50 million years ago, have wings that closely resemble those of modern bats.159

In short, bats' complex bodily systems cannot have emerged through evolution, and the fossil record demonstrates that no such thing happened. On the contrary, the first bats to have emerged in the world are exactly the same as those of today. Bats have always existed as bats.

The Origin of Marine Mammals

Marine mammals possess systems which are entirely peculiar to themselves. These are designed in the best way for the environment they live in.

Whales and dolphins belong to the order of marine mammals known as Cetacea. These creatures are classified as mammals because, just like land-dwelling mammals, they give live birth to their young and nurse them, they have lungs to breathe with, and they regulate their body temperature. For evolutionists, the origin of marine mammals has been one of the most difficult issues to explain. In many evolutionist sources, it is asserted that the ancestors of cetaceans left the land and evolved into marine mammals over a long period of time. Accordingly, marine mammals followed a path contrary to the transition from water to land, and underwent a second evolutionary process, returning to the water. This theory both lacks paleontological evidence and is self-contradictory. Thus, evolutionists have been silenced on this issue for a long time.

However, an evolutionist hype about the origin of marine mammals broke out in the 90's, argued to be based on some new fossil findings of the 80's like Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. These evidently quadrupedal and terrestrial extinct mammals were alleged to be the ancestors of whales and thus many evolutionist sources did not hesitate to call them "walking whales." (In fact the full name, Ambulocetus natans, means "walking and swimming whale.") Popular means of evolutionist indoctrination further vulgarized the story. National Geographic in its November 2001 issue, finally declared the full evolutionist scenario on the "Evolution of Whales."

Nevertheless, the scenario was based on evolutionist prejudice, not scientific evidence.

The Myth of the Walking Whale

Fossil remains of the extinct mammal Pakicetus inachus, to give it its proper name, first came onto the agenda in 1983. P. D. Gingerich and his assistants, who found the fossil, had no hesitation in immediately claiming that it was a "primitive whale," even though they actually only found a skull.

Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale. Its skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises, and crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one.

So, why was a quadrupedal land dweller announced to be a "primitive whale" and why is it still presented as such by evolutionist sources like National Geographic? The magazine gives the following reply:

What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in combination-the arrangement of cusps on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull-are absent in other land mammals but a signature of later Eocene whales.160

In other words, based on some details in its teeth and ear bones, National Geographic felt able to describe this quadrupedal, wolf-like land dweller as a "walking whale." These features, however, are not compelling evidence on which to base a link between Pakicetus and the whale:

- As National Geographic also indirectly stated while writing "subtle clues in combination," some of these features are actually found in terrestrial animals as well.

Distortions in the Reconstructions of National Geographic Paleontologists believe that Pakicetus was a quadrupedal mammal. The skeletal structure on the left, published in the Nature magazine clearly demonstrates this. Thus the reconstruction of Pakicetus (below left) by Carl Buell, which was based on that structure, is realistic. National Geographic, however, opted to use a picture of a "swimming" Pakicetus (below) in order to portray the animal as a "walking whale" and to impose that image on its readers. The inconsistencies in the picture, intended to make Pakicetus seem more "whale-like," are immediately obvious: The animal has been portrayed in a "swimming" position. Its hind legs are shown stretching out backwards, and an impression of "fins" has been given. Pakicetus reconstruction by National Geographic. National Geographic's Ambulocetus: The animal's rear legs are shown not with feet that would help it to walk, but as fins that would assist it to swim. However, Carroll, who examines the animal's leg bones, says that it possessed the ability to move powerfully on land. The real Ambulocetus : The legs are real legs, not "fins," and there are no imaginary webs between its toes such as National Geographic had added. (Picture from Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, p. 335)

- None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then there is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree of life. (In fact their similarity indicates common design-not common descent.) Pakicetus, which evolutionists declare to be a "walking whale," was a unique species harboring different features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of which Pakicetus should be a member, as "exhibiting an odd combination of characters."161

In his article "The Overselling of Whale Evolution," the creationist writer Ashby L. Camp reveals the total invalidity of the claim that the Mesonychid class, which should include land mammals such as Pakicetus, could have been the ancestors of Archaeocetea, or extinct whales, in these words:

The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales.162

The second fossil creature after Pakicetus in the scenario on whale origins is Ambulocetus natans. It is actually a land creature that evolutionists have insisted on turning into a whale.

The name Ambulocetus natans comes from the Latin words "ambulare" (to walk), "cetus" (whale) and "natans" (swimming), and means "a walking and swimming whale." It is obvious the animal used to walk because it had four legs, like all other mammals, and even wide claws on its feet and paws on its hind legs. Apart from evolutionists' prejudice, however, there is absolutely no basis for the claim that it swam in water, or that it lived on land and in water (like an amphibian).

After Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, the evolutionist plan moves on to so-called sea mammals and sets out (extinct whale) species such as Procetus, Rodhocetus, and Archaeocetea. The animals in question were mammals that lived in the sea and which are now extinct. (We shall be touching on this matter later.) However, there are considerable anatomical differences between these and Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. When we look at the fossils, it is clear they are not "transitional forms" linking each other:

- The backbone of the quadrupedal mammal Ambulocetus ends at the pelvis, and powerful rear legs then extend from it. This is typical land-mammal anatomy. In whales, however, the backbone goes right down to the tail, and there is no pelvic bone at all. In fact, Basilosaurus, believed to have lived some 10 million years after Ambulocetus, possesses the latter anatomy. In other words, it is a typical whale. There is no transitional form between Ambulocetus, a typical land mammal, and Basilosaurus, a typical whale.

- Under the backbone of Basilosaurus and the sperm whale, there are small bones independent of it. National Geographic claims these to be vestigial legs. Yet that same magazine mentions that these bones actually had another function. In Basilosaurus, these bones functioned as copulary guides and in sperm whales "[act] as an anchor for the muscles of the genitalia."163 To describe these bones, which actually carry out important functions, as "vestigial organs" is nothing but Darwinistic prejudice.

In conclusion, despite evolutionist propaganda, the fact that there were no transitional forms between land and sea mammals and that they both emerged with their own particular features has not changed. There is no evolutionary link. Robert Carroll accepts this, albeit unwillingly and in evolutionist language: "It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales."164

Although he is an evolutionist, the famous Russian whale expert G. A. Mchedlidze, too, does not support the description of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans, and similar four-legged creatures as "possible ancestors of the whale," and describes them instead as a completely isolated group.165

Problems With Superficial Sequences

Alongside the facts we have discussed above, the dates ascribed by National Geographic to the species in question have been selected in line with Darwinist prejudices. The animals are shown as following each other in a geological line, whereas these are questionable. Ashby L. Camp clarifies the situation, based on paleontological data:

In the standard scheme, Pakicetus inachus is dated to the late Ypresian, but several experts acknowledge that it may date to the early Lutetian. If the younger date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus is nearly, if not actually, contemporaneous with Rodhocetus, an early Lutetian fossil from another formation in Pakistan. Moreover, the date of Ambulocetus, which was found in the same formation as Pakicetus but 120 meters higher, would have to be adjusted upward the same amount as Pakicetus. This would make Ambulocetus younger than Rodhocetus and possibly younger than Indocetus and even Protocetus.166

In brief, there are two different views of when the animals that National Geographic chronologically sets out one after the other really lived. If the second view is accepted, then Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, which National Geographic portrays as "the walking whale," are of the same age as, or even younger than, true whales. In other words, no "evolutionary line" is possible.

The Surprisingly Lamarckian Superstitions of Evolutionists

Another very important issue on the origin of marine mammals is the great anatomical and physiological differences between them and their alleged terrestrial ancestors. Evolutionists assume that step-by-step processes were at work for all the necessary transitions, but this is an absurd idea since many of the systems in discussion are irreducibly complex structures that could not form by successive stages.

Let us consider just one case: the ear structure. Like us, land mammals trap sounds from the outside world in the outer ear, amplify them with the bones in the middle ear, and turn them into signals in the inner ear. Marine mammals have no outer ear. They hear sounds by means of vibration-sensitive receptors in their lower jaws. The crucial point is that any evolution by stages between one perfect aural system to a completely different one is impossible. The transitional phases would not be advantageous. An animal that slowly loses its ability to hear with its ears, but has still not developed the ability to hear through its jaw, is at a disadvantage.

The question of how such a "development" could come about is an insoluble dilemma for evolutionists. The mechanisms evolutionists put forward are mutations and these have never been seen to add unequivocally new and meaningful information to animals' genetic information. It is unreasonable to suggest that the complex hearing system in sea mammals could have emerged as the result of mutations.

But evolutionists do believe in this unreasonable scenario and this problem stems from a kind of superstition about the origin of living things. This superstition is the magical "natural force" that allows living things to acquire the organs, biological changes, or anatomical features that they need. Let us have a look at a few interesting passages from National Geographic's article "Evolution of Whales":

…I tried to visualize some of the varieties of whale ancestors that had been found here and nearby... As the rear limbs dwindled, so did the hip bones that supported them. That made the spinal column more flexible to power the developing tail flukes. The neck shortened, turning the leading end of the body into more of a tubular hull to plow through the water with minimum drag, while arms assumed the shape of rudders. Having little need for outer ears any longer, some whales were receiving waterborne sounds directly through their lower jawbones and transmitting them to the inner ears via special fat pads. Each whale in the sequence was a little more streamlined than earlier models and roamed farther from shore.167

On close inspection, in this whole account the evolutionist mentality says that living things feel changing needs according to the changing environment they live in, and this need is perceived as an "evolutionary mechanism." According to this logic, less needed organs disappear, and needed organs appear of their own accord!

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of biology will know that our needs do not shape our organs. Ever since Lamarck's theory of the transfer of acquired characteristics to subsequent generations was disproved, in other words for a century or so, that has been a known fact. Yet when one looks at evolutionist publications, they still seem to be thinking along Lamarckian lines. If you object, they will say: "No, we do not believe in Lamarck. What we say is that natural conditions put evolutionary pressure on living things, and that as a result of this, appropriate traits are selected, and in this way species evolve." Yet here lies the critical point: What evolutionists call "evolutionary pressure" cannot lead to living things acquiring new characteristics according to their needs. That is because the two so-called evolutionary mechanisms that supposedly respond to this pressure, natural selection and mutation, cannot provide new organs for animals:

- Natural selection can only select characteristics that already exist, it cannot create new ones.

- Mutations cannot add to the genetic information, they can only destroy the existing one. No mutation that adds unequivocally new, meaningful information to the genome (and which thus forms a new organ or new biochemical structure) has ever been observed.

If we look at the myth of National Geographic's awkwardly moving whales one more time in the light of this fact, we see that they are actually engaging in a rather primitive Lamarckism. On close inspection, National Geographic writer Douglas H. Chadwick "visualizes" that "Each whale in the sequence was a little more streamlined than earlier models." How could a morphological change happen in a species over generations in one particular direction? In order for that to happen, representatives of that species in every "sequence" would have to undergo mutations to shorten their legs, that mutation would have to cause the animals no harm, those thus mutants would have to enjoy an advantage over normal ones, the next generations, by a great coincidence, would have to undergo the same mutation at the same point in its genes, this would have to carry on unchanged for many generations, and all of the above would have to happen by chance and quite flawlessly.

If the National Geographic writers believe that, then they will also believe someone who says: "My family enjoys flying. My son underwent a mutation and a few structures like bird feathers developed under his arms. My grandson will undergo the same mutation and the feathers will increase. This will go on for generations, and eventually my descendants will have wings and be able to fly." Both stories are equally ridiculous.

As we mentioned at the beginning, evolutionists display the superstition that living things' needs can be met by a magical force in nature. Ascribing consciousness to nature, a belief encountered in animist cultures, is interestingly rising up before our eyes in the 21st century under a "scientific" cloak. Henry Gee, the editor of Nature and an undisputedly prominent evolutionist, points to the same fact and admits that explaining the origin of an organ by its necessity is like saying;

... our noses were made to carry spectacles, so we have spectacles. Yet evolutionary biologists do much the same thing when they interpret any structure in terms of adaptation to current utility while failing to acknowledge that current utility needs tell us nothing about how a structure evolved, or indeed how the evolutionary history of a structure might itself have influenced the shape and properties of that structure.168

The Unique Structures of Marine Mammals

To see the impossibility of the evolutionist scenario on the marine mammals, let us briefly examine some other unique features of these animals. When the adaptations a land-dwelling mammal has to undergo in order to evolve into a marine mammal are considered, even the word "impossible" seems inadequate. During such a transition, if even of one of the intermediary stages failed to happen, the creature would be unable to survive, which would put an end to the entire process. The adaptations that marine mammals must undergo during the transition to water are as follows:

1- Water-retention: Unlike other marine animals, marine mammals cannot use sea water to meet their water needs. They need fresh water to survive. Though we have limited information about the freshwater resources of marine mammals, it is believed that they feed on organisms containing a relatively low proportion of salt (about one third that of sea water). Thus, for marine mammals the retention of water in their bodies is crucial. That is why they have a water retention mechanism similar to that of camels. Like camels, marine mammals do not sweat; however, their kidneys are perfectly functional, producing highly concentrated urine that enables the animal to save water. In this way, water loss is reduced to a minimum.

Design for water retention can be seen even in minor details. For instance, the mother whale feeds her baby with a concentrated form of milk similar to cheese. This milk contains ten times more fat than human milk. There are a number of chemical reasons why this milk is so rich in fat. Water is released as the young whale digests the milk. In this way, the mother meets the young whale's water needs with minimum water loss.

2- Sight and communication: The eyes of dolphins and whales enable them to have acute eyesight in different environments. They have perfect eyesight in water as well as out. Yet most living things, including man, have poor eyesight out of their natural environments.

The eyes of marine and land-dwelling mammals are astonishingly elaborate. On land, the eyes face a number of potential dangers. That is why the eyes of land-dwelling animals have lids to protect them. In the ocean, the greatest threats to the eye come from the high level of salt and the pressure from currents. To avoid direct contact with the currents, the eyes are located on the sides of the head. In addition to this, a hard layer protects the eyes of creatures which dive to great depths. The eyes of marine mammals are equipped with elaborate features enabling them to see at depths where there is little light. For example, their lenses are perfectly circular in shape, while in their retinas, rods (the cells sensitive to light) outnumber cones (the cells sensitive to colours and details). Furthermore, the eyes of cetaceans also contain a phosphorus layer, which also helps them see particularly well in the dark.

Even so, however, sight is not most important sensory modality of marine mammals. They rely more on their sense of hearing than is typically the case with land-dwelling mammals. Light is essential for sight, whereas hearing requires no such assistance. Many whales and dolphins hunt at a depth where it is completely dark, by means of a sonar mechanism they possess. Toothed whales, in particular, "see" by means of sound waves. Just as happens with light waves in the visual system, sound waves are focused and then analyzed and interpreted in the brain. This gives the cetacean accurate information regarding the shape, size, speed and position of the object in front of it. This sonic system is extremely sensitive-for instance, a dolphin can sense a person jumping into the sea. Sound waves are also used for determining direction and for communication. For example, two whales hundreds of kilometers apart can communicate via sound.

The question of how these animals produce the sounds that enable them to determine direction or to communicate is still largely unresolved. As far as we know, one particular feature in the dolphin's body deserves particular attention: namely, the animal's skull is insulated against sound, a feature that protects the brain from continuous and intensive noise bombardment.

Let us now consider the question: Is it possible that all these astonishing features in marine mammals came into existence by means of natural selection and mutation? What mutation could result in the dolphin's body's coming to possess a sonar system and a brain insulated from sound? What kind of mutation could enable its eye to see in dark water? What mutation could lead to the mechanism that allows the most economic use of water?

There is no end to such questions, and evolution has no answer to any of them. Instead, the theory of evolution makes do with an unbelievable story. Consider all the coincidences that this story involves in the case of marine mammals. First of all, fish just happened to come into existence in the water. Next, they made the transition to land by pure chance. Following this, they evolved on the land into reptiles and mammals, also by chance alone. Finally, it just so happened that some of these creatures returned to the water where by chance they acquired all the features they would need to survive there.

Can the theory of evolution prove even a single one of these stages? Certainly not. Far from being able to prove the claim as a whole, the theory of evolution is unable to demonstrate how even one of these different steps could have happened.

The Marine Mammal Scenario Itself

We have so far examined the evolutionist scenario that marine mammals evolved from terrestrial ones. Scientific evidence shows no relationship between the two terrestrial mammals (Pakicetus and Ambulocetus) that evolutionists put at the beginning of the story. So what about the rest of the scenario? The theory of evolution is again in a great difficulty here. The theory tries to establish a phylogenetic link between Archaeocetea (archaic whales), sea mammals known to be extinct, and living whales and dolphins. However, evolutionary paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl admits that; "the serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."169

The evolutionist account of the origin of marine mammals faces a huge impasse in the form of discoveries in the field of molecular biology. The classical evolutionist scenario assumes that the two major whale groups, the toothed whales (Odontoceti) and the baleen whales (Mysticeti), evolved from a common ancestor. Yet Michel Milinkovitch of the University of Brussels has opposed this view with a new theory. He stresses that this assumption, based on anatomical similarities, is disproved by molecular discoveries:

Evolutionary relationships among the major groups of cetaceans is more problematic since morphological and molecular analyses reach very different conclusions. Indeed, based on the conventional interpretation of the morphological and behavioral data set, the echolocating toothed whales (about 67 species) and the filter-feeding baleen whales (10 species) are considered as two distinct monophyletic groups... On the other hand, phylogenetic analysis of DNA... and amino acid... sequences contradict this long-accepted taxonomic division. One group of toothed whales, the sperm whales, appear to be more closely related to the morphologically highly divergent baleen whales than to other odontocetes.170

In short, marine mammals defy the evolutionary scenarios which they are being forced to fit.

Contrary to the claims of the paleontologist Hans Thewissen, who assumes a major role in evolutionist propaganda on the origin of marine mammals, we are dealing not with an evolutionary process backed up by empirical evidence, but by evidence coerced to fit a presupposed evolutionary family tree, despite the many contradictions between the two.

What emerges, if the evidence is looked at more objectively, is that different living groups emerged independently of each other in the past. This is compelling empirical evidence for accepting that all of these creatures were created.

---

THE GREAT MORPHOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ANIMALS WHICH ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE DESCENDED FROM ONE ANOTHER So far, we have seen that different species emerged on earth with no evolutionary "intermediate forms" between them. They appear in the fossil record with such great differences that it is impossible to establish any evolutionary connection between them. When we compare their skeletal structures, this fact can once again clearly be seen. Animals which are alleged to be evolutionary relatives differ enormously. We shall now examine some examples of these. All the drawings have been taken from evolutionist sources by experts on vertebrates. (As also contrasted by Michael Denton in his Evolution:A Theory in Crisis, 1986) Two different species of marine reptiles, and the land animal that evolutionists claim is their nearest ancestor. Take note of the great differences between them. The marine reptile Mesosaurus, alleged to have evolved from Hylonomus. The marine reptile Ichthyosaurus, alleged to have evolved from Hylonomus. Hylonomus, the oldest known marine reptile. The oldest known bird (Archaeopteryx), a flying reptile, and a land reptile that evolutionists claim to have been these creatures' closest ancestor. The differences between them are very great. 1. Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird. 2. Dimorphodon, one of the oldest known flying reptiles, a typical representative of this group. 3. The land reptile Euparkeria, claimed by many evolutionist authorities to be the ancestor of birds and flying reptiles. The oldest known bat, and what evolutionists claim is its closest ancestor. Note the great difference between the bat and its so-called ancestor. 1. The skeleton of the oldest known bat (Icaronycteris) from the Eocene. 2.A modern shrew, which closely resembles the ancient insectivores claimed to be the ancestors of bats. Plesiosaurus, the oldest known marine reptile, and its nearest terrestrial relative according to evolutionists. There is no resemblance between the two. 1. The oldest known Plesiosaurus skeleton 2. Skeleton of Araeoscelis, a Lower Permian reptile. An early whale and what evolutionists claim to be its closest ancestor. Note that there is no resemblance between them. Even the best candidate that evolutionists have found for being the ancestor of whales has nothing to do with them. 1.A typical example of the oldest known whales, Zygorhiza kochii, from the Eocene. 2. The ancestors of the whale are a subject of debate among evolutionist authorities, but some of them have decided on Ambulocetus. To the side is Ambulocetus, a typical tetrapod. A typical seal skeleton, and what evolutionists believe to be its nearest land-dwelling ancestor. Again, there is a huge difference between the two. 1. Skeleton of modern seal, virtually identical to the earliest known seals of the Miocene era. 2. Cynodictis gregarius, the land-dwelling carnivorous mammal which evolutionists believe to have been seals' closest ancestor. A sea cow, and what evolutionists call its nearest terrestrial ancestor. 1. Halitherium, an early sea cow from the Oligocene 2. Hyrax, which is considered to be the nearest terrestrial ancestor of the sirenian aquatic mammals which also include sea cows.

Conclusion

All the findings we have examined so far reveal that species appeared on earth suddenly and fully formed, with no evolutionary process prior to them. If this is so, then this is concrete evidence that living things are created, as evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma has acknowledged. Recall that he wrote: "If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."171 Evolutionists, on the other hand, try to interpret the sequence by which living things appeared on earth as evidence for evolution. However, since no such evolutionary process ever took place, this sequence can only be the sequence of creation. Fossils reveal that living things appeared on earth first in the sea, and then on land, followed by the appearance of man, who possesses a flawless and superior design.

106 John Ostrom, "Bird Flight: How Did It Begin?," American Scientist, January-February 1979, vol. 67, p. 47.
107 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 314.
108 Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February 1997, p. 28.
109 Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February 1997, p. 28.
110 Duane T. Gish, Dinosaurs by Design, Master Books, AR, 1996, pp. 65-66.
111 Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, pp. 210-211.
112 Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, pp. 211-212. (emphasis added)
113 J. A. Ruben, T. D. Jones, N. R. Geist, and W. J. Hillenius, "Lung Structure And Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds," Science, vol. 278, p. 1267.
114 Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, Free Press, New York, 1998, p. 361.
115 Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, Free Press, New York, 1998, pp. 361-62.
116 Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350. (emphasis added)
117 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.132.
118 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.131.
119 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.133.
120 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.131.
121 Alan Feduccia, "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers," The Beginning of Birds, Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, 1985, p. 76. (emphasis added)
122 Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species, Dove, New York, 1964, p. 296.
123 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press, 1971, p. 131.
124 Nature, vol. 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401.
125 Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1961, p. 310.
126 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 280-81.
127 L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone, The Auk, vol. 97, 1980, p. 86.
128 L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone, The Auk, vol. 97, 1980, p. 86; L. D. Martin, "Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods", Ithaca, Comstock Publishing Association, New York, 1991, pp. 485-540.
129 S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, vol. 69, 1980, p. 149; A. D. Walker, Geological Magazine, vol. 117, 1980, p. 595.
130 A.D. Walker, as described in Peter Dodson, "International Archaeopteryx Conference," Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 5(2):177, June 1985.
131 Richard Hinchliffe, "The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?," Science, vol. 278, no. 5338, 24 October 1997, pp. 596-597.
132 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 117
133 Richard L. Deem, "Demise of the 'Birds are Dinosaurs' Theory,"http://www.yfiles.com/dinobird2.html.
134 Pat Shipman, "Birds do it... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February, 1997, p. 31.
135 "Old Bird," Discover, March 21, 1997.
136 "Old Bird," Discover, March 21, 1997.
137 Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," p. 28.
138 Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur," Science, vol. 278, no. 5341, 14 November 1997, pp. 1229 - 1230
139 National Geographic, Vol. 196, No. 5, November 1999, "Feathers for T. Rex?"
140 Tim Friend, "Dinosaur-bird link smashed in fossil flap," USA Today, 25 January 2000
141 "Open Letter: Smithsonian decries National Geographic's "editorial propagandizing" of dinosaur-to-bird "evolution," http://www.trueorigin.org/ birdevoletter.asp
142 M. Kusinitz, Science World, 4 February, 1983, p. 19.
143 San Diego Union, New York Times Press Service, 29 May, 1983; W. A. Shear, Science, vol. 224, 1984, p. 494. (emphasis added)
144 R. J. Wootton, C. P. Ellington, "Biomechanics & the Origin of Insect Flight," Biomechanics in Evolution, ed. J. M. V. Rayner & R. J. Wootton, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991, p. 99.
145 Robin J. Wootton, "The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings," Scientific American, vol. 263, November 1990, p. 120. (emphasis added)
146 Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 30. (emphasis added)
147 George Gamow, Martynas Ycas, Mr. Tompkins Inside Himself, The Viking Press, New York, 1967, p. 149.
148 Roger Lewin, "Bones of Mammals, Ancestors Fleshed Out," Science, vol. 212, June 26, 1981, p. 1492. (emphasis added)
149 George Gaylord Simpson, Life Before Man, Time-Life Books, New York, 1972, p. 42. (emphasis added)
150 R. Eric Lombard, "Review of Evolutionary Principles of the Mammalian Middle Ear, Gerald Fleischer," Evolution, vol. 33, December 1979, p. 1230.
151 George G., Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, Columbia University Press, New York, 1944, pp. 105, 107.
152 Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15. (emphasis added)
153 Niles Eldgridge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland (Santee, CA, Master Books, 1988), page 78.)
154 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New American Library, New York, 1982, pp. 16-17, 19.
155 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New American Library, New York, 1982, pp. 16-17, 19.
156 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 230. (emphasis added)
157 John E. Hill, James D Smith, Bats: A Natural History, British Museum of Natural History, London, 1984, p. 33. (emphasis added)
158 L. R. Godfrey, "Creationism and Gaps in the Fossil Record," Scientists Confront Creationism, W. W. Norton and Company, 1983, p. 199.
159 Jeff Hecht, "Branching Out," New Scientist, 10 October 1998, vol. 160, no. 2155, p. 14.
160 Douglas H. Chadwick, "Evolution of Whales," National Geographic, November 2001, p. 68.
161 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.329.
162 Ashby L. Camp, "The Overselling of Whale Evolution," Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society, May/June 1998.
163 Douglas H. Chadwick, "Evolution of Whales," National Geographic, November 2001, p. 73.
164 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 329.
165 G. A. Mchedlidze, General Features of the Paleobiological Evolution of Cetacea, trans. from Russian (Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1986), p. 91.
166 Ashby L. Camp, "The Overselling of Whale Evolution," Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society, May/June 1998.
167 Douglas H. Chadwick, "Evolution of Whales," National Geographic, November 2001, p. 69.
168 Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time: Beyond The Fossil Record To A New History Of Life, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster Inc., 1999, p. 103.
169 B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications Inc., 1985, p. 489.
170 Michel C. Milinkovitch, "Molecular phylogeny of cetaceans prompts revision of morphological transformations," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10 August 1995, pp. 328-334.
171 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, Pantheon Books, New York, 1983, p. 197.

True Natural History - I (From Intervebrates to Reptiles)

True Natural History - I
(From Intervebrates to Reptiles)

For some people, the very concept of natural history implies the theory of evolution. The reason for this is the heavy propaganda that has been carried out. Natural history museums in most countries are under the control of materialist evolutionary biologists, and it is they who describe the exhibits in them. They invariably describe creatures that lived in prehistory and their fossil remains in terms of Darwinian concepts. One result of this is that most people think that natural history is equivalent to the concept of evolution.

However, the facts are very different. Natural history reveals that different classes of life emerged on the earth not through any evolutionary process, but all at once, and with all their complex structures fully developed right from the start. Different living species appeared completely independently of one another, and with no "transitional forms" between them.

In this chapter, we shall examine real natural history, taking the fossil record as our basis.

The Classification of Living Things

Biologists place living things into different classes. This classification, known as "taxonomy," or "systematics," goes back as far as the eighteenth-century Swedish scientist Carl von Linné, known as Linnaeus. The system of classification established by Linnaeus has continued and been developed right up to the present day.

There are hierarchical categories in this classificatory system. Living things are first divided into kingdoms, such as the plant and animal kingdoms. Then these kingdoms are sub-divided into phyla, or categories. Phyla are further divided into subgroups. From top to bottom, the classification is as follows:

Kingdom

Phylum (plural Phyla)

Class

Order

Family

Genus (plural Genera)

Species

Today, the great majority of biologists accept that there are five (or six) separate kingdoms. As well as plants and animals, they consider fungi, protista (single-celled creatures with a cell nucleus, such as amoebae and some primitive algae), and monera (single-celled creatures with no cell nucleus, such as bacteria), as separate kingdoms. Sometimes the bacteria are subdivided into eubacteria and archaebacteria, for six kingdoms, or, on some accounts, three "superkingdoms" (eubacteria, archaebacteria and eukarya). The most important of all these kingdoms is without doubt the animal kingdom. And the largest division within the animal kingdom, as we saw earlier, are the different phyla. When designating these phyla, the fact that each one possesses completely different physical structures should always be borne in mind. Arthropoda (insects, spiders, and other creatures with jointed legs), for instance, are a phylum by themselves, and all the animals in the phylum have the same fundamental physical structure. The phylum called Chordata includes those creatures with the notochord, or, most commonly, a spinal column. All the animals with the spinal column such as fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals that we are familiar with in daily life are in a subphylum of Chordata known as vertebrates.

There are around 35 different phyla of animals, including the Mollusca, which include soft-bodied creatures such as snails and octopuses, or the Nematoda, which include diminutive worms. The most important feature of these categories is, as we touched on earlier, that they possess totally different physical characteristics. The categories below the phyla possess basically similar body plans, but the phyla are very different from one another.

After this general information about biological classification, let us now consider the question of how and when these phyla emerged on earth.

Fossils Reject the "Tree of Life"

The "tree of life" drawn by the evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel in 1866.

Let us first consider the Darwinist hypothesis. As we know, Darwinism proposes that life developed from one single common ancestor, and took on all its varieties by a series of tiny changes. In that case, life should first have emerged in very similar and simple forms. And according to the same theory, the differentiation between, and growing complexity in, living things must have happened in parallel over time.

In short, according to Darwinism, life must be like a tree, with a common root, subsequently splitting up into different branches. And this hypothesis is constantly emphasized in Darwinist sources, where the concept of the "tree of life" is frequently employed. According to this tree concept, phyla-the fundamental units of classification between living things-came about by stages, as in the diagram to the left. According to Darwinism, one phylum must first emerge, and then the other phyla must slowly come about with minute changes over very long periods of time. The Darwinist hypothesis is that the number of animal phyla must have gradually increased in number. The diagram to the left shows the gradual increase in the number of animal phyla according to the Darwinian view.

According to Darwinism, life must have developed in this way. But is this really how it happened?

Definitely not. Quite the contrary: animals have been very different and complex since the moment they first emerged. All the animal phyla known today emerged at the same time, in the middle of the geological period known as the Cambrian Age. The Cambrian Age is a geological period estimated to have lasted some 65 million years, approximately between 570 to 505 million years ago. But the period of the abrupt appearance of major animal groups fit in an even shorter phase of the Cambrian, often referred to as the "Cambrian explosion." Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, in a 2001 article based on a detailed literature survey, dated 2001, note that the "Cambrian explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years."56

THE FOSSIL RECORD DENIES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION The theory of evolution maintains that different groups of living things (phyla) developed from a common ancestor and grew apart with the passing of time. The diagram above states this claim: According to Darwinism, living things grew apart from one another like the branches on a tree. But the fossil record shows just the opposite. As can be seen from the diagram below, different groups of living things emerged suddenly with their different structures. Some 100 phyla suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. Subsequently, the number of these fell rather than rose (because some phyla became extinct).

Before then, there is no trace in the fossil record of anything apart from single-celled creatures and a few very primitive multicellular ones. All animal phyla emerged completely formed and all at once, in the very short period of time represented by the Cambrian explosion. (Five million years is a very short time in geological terms!)

The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belong to very different creatures, such as snails, trilobites, sponges, jellyfish, starfish, shellfish, etc. Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens. These structures are at one and the same time very advanced, and very different.

Richard Monastersky, a staff writer at ScienceNews magazine states the following about the "Cambrian explosion," which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory:

A half-billion years ago, ...the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures.57

The same article also quotes Jan Bergström, a paleontologist who studied the early Cambrian deposits in Chengjiang, China, as saying, "The Chengyiang fauna demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today."58

This illustration portrays living things with complex structures from the Cambrian Age. The emergence of such different creatures with no preceding ancestors completely invalidates Darwinist theory.

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

For example the Cambrian strata of rocks… are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.59

Phillip Johnson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who is also one of the world's foremost critics of Darwinism, describes the contradiction between this paleontological truth 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.60

A fossil from the Cambrian Age.

As Phillip Johnson has revealed, far from its being the case that phyla came about by stages, in reality they all came into being at once, and some of them even became extinct in later periods. The diagrams on page 53 reveal the truth that the fossil record has revealed concerning the origin of phyla.

As we can see, in the Precambrian Age there were three different phyla consisting of single-cell creatures. But in the Cambrian Age, some 60 to 100 different animal phyla emerged all of a sudden. In the age that followed, some of these phyla became extinct, and only a few have come down to our day.

The well-known paleontologist Roger Lewin discusses this extraordinary fact, which totally demolishes all the Darwinist assumptions about the history of life:

Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms - Baupläne or phyla - that would exist thereafter, including many that were "weeded out" and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.61

INTERESTING SPINES: One of the creatures which suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age was Hallucigenia, seen at top left. And as with many other Cambrian fossils, like the one at the right it has spines or a hard shell to protect it from attack by enemies. The question that evolutionists cannot answer is, "How could they have come by such an effective defense system at a time when there were no predators around?" The lack of predators at the time makes it impossible to explain the matter in terms of natural selection.

The Burgess Shale Fossils

Lewin continues to call this extraordinary phenomenon from the Cambrian Age an "evolutionary event," because of the loyalty he feels to Darwinism, but it is clear that the discoveries so far cannot be explained by any evolutionary approach.

What is interesting is that the new fossil findings make the Cambrian Age problem all the more complicated. In its February 1999 issue, Trends in Genetics (TIG), a leading science journal, dealt with this issue. In an article about a fossil bed in the Burgess Shale region of British Colombia, Canada, it confessed that fossil findings in the area offer no support for the theory of evolution.

The Burgess Shale fossil bed is accepted as one of the most important paleontological discoveries of our time. The fossils of many different species uncovered in the Burgess Shale appeared on earth all of a sudden, without having been developed from any pre-existing species found in preceding layers. TIG expresses this important problem as follows:

It might seem odd that fossils from one small locality, no matter how exciting, should lie at the center of a fierce debate about such broad issues in evolutionary biology. The reason is that animals burst into the fossil record in astonishing profusion during the Cambrian, seemingly from nowhere. Increasingly precise radiometric dating and new fossil discoveries have only sharpened the suddenness and scope of this biological revolution. The magnitude of this change in Earth's biota demands an explanation. Although many hypotheses have been proposed, the general consensus is that none is wholly convincing.62

Marrella: One of the interesting fossil creatures found in the Burgess Shale fossil bed.

These "not wholly convincing" hypotheses belong to evolutionary paleontologists. TIG mentions two important authorities in this context, Stephen Jay Gould and Simon Conway Morris. Both have written books to explain the "sudden appearance of living beings" from the evolutionist standpoint. However, as also stressed by TIG, neither Wonderful Life by Gould nor The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals by Simon Conway Morris has provided an explanation for the Burgess Shale fossils, or for the fossil record of the Cambrian Age in general.

Deeper investigation into the Cambrian Explosion shows what a great dilemma it creates for the theory of evolution. Recent findings indicate that almost all phyla, the most basic animal divisions, emerged abruptly in the Cambrian period. An article published in the journal Science in 2001 says: "The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today."63 The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has not yet proved possible:

This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record.64

The picture presented by the Cambrian fossils clearly refutes the assumptions of the theory of evolution, and provides strong evidence for the involvement of a "supernatural" being in their creation. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionary biologist, admits this fact:

Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.65

The fossil record clearly indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden in a fully formed state. This provides evidence for saying that life did not come into existence through random natural processes, but through an act of intelligent creation. In an article called "the Big Bang of Animal Evolution" in the leading journal Scientific American, the evolutionary paleontologist Jeffrey S. Levinton accepts this reality, albeit unwillingly, saying "Therefore, something special and very mysterious - some highly creative "force" - existed then."66

Molecular Comparisons Deepen Evolution's Cambrian Impasse

Another fact that puts evolutionists into a deep quandary about the Cambrian Explosion is comparisons between different living taxa. The results of these comparisons reveal that animal taxa considered to be "close relatives" by evolutionists until quite recently, are in fact genetically very different, which makes the "intermediate form" hypothesis-which only exists theoretically-even more dubious. An article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, in 2000 reports that recent DNA analyses have rearranged taxa that used to be considered "intermediate forms" in the past:

DNA sequence analysis dictates new interpretation of phylogenic trees. Taxa that were once thought to represent successive grades of complexity at the base of the metazoan tree are being displaced to much higher positions inside the tree. This leaves no evolutionary ''intermediates'' and forces us to rethink the genesis of bilaterian complexity.67

In the same article, evolutionist writers note that some taxa which were considered "intermediate" between groups such as sponges, cnidarians and ctenophores, can no longer be considered as such because of these new genetic findings. These writers say that they have "lost hope" of constructing such evolutionary family trees:

The new molecular based phylogeny has several important implications. Foremost among them is the disappearance of "intermediate" taxa between sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor of bilaterians or "Urbilateria."...A corollary is that we have a major gap in the stem leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomate ancestor" through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages.68

Trilobites vs. Darwin

One of the most interesting of the many different species that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age is the now-extinct trilobites. Trilobites belonged to the Arthropoda phylum, and were very complicated creatures with hard shells, articulated bodies, and complex organs. The fossil record has made it possible to carry out very detailed studies of trilobites' eyes. The trilobite eye is made up of hundreds of tiny facets, and each one of these contains two lens layers. This eye structure is a real wonder of design. David Raup, a professor of geology at Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says, "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today."69

Another illustration showing living things from the Cambrian Age.

The extraordinarily complex structure even in trilobites is enough to invalidate Darwinism on its own, because no complex creatures with similar structures lived in previous geological periods, which goes to show that trilobites emerged with no evolutionary process behind them. A 2001 Science article says:

Cladistic analyses of arthropod phylogeny revealed that trilobites, like eucrustaceans, are fairly advanced "twigs" on the arthropod tree. But fossils of these alleged ancestral arthropods are lacking. ...Even if evidence for an earlier origin is discovered, it remains a challenge to explain why so many animals should have increased in size and acquired shells within so short a time at the base of the Cambrian.70

Trilobite eyes, with their doublet structure and hundreds of tiny lensed units, were a wonder of design.

Very little was known about this extraordinary situation in the Cambrian Age when Charles Darwin was writing The Origin of Species. Only since Darwin's time has the fossil record revealed that life suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age, and that trilobites and other invertebrates came into being all at once. For this reason, Darwin was unable to treat the subject fully in the book. But he did touch on the subject under the heading "On the sudden appearance of groups of allied species in the lowest known fossiliferous strata," where he wrote the following about the Silurian Age (a name which at that time encompassed what we now call the Cambrian):

Darwin said that if his theory was correct, the long periods before the trilobites should have been full of their ancestors. But not one of these creatures predicted by Darwin has ever been found.

For instance, I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal… Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.71

Darwin said "If my theory be true, [the Cambrian] Age must have been full of living creatures." As for the question of why there were no fossils of these creatures, he tried to supply an answer throughout his book, using the excuse that "the fossil record is very lacking." But nowadays the fossil record is quite complete, and it clearly reveals that creatures from the Cambrian Age did not have ancestors. This means that we have to reject that sentence of Darwin's which begins "If my theory be true." Darwin's hypotheses were invalid, and for that reason, his theory is mistaken.

The record from the Cambrian Age demolishes Darwinism, both with the complex bodies of trilobites, and with the emergence of very different living bodies at the same time. Darwin wrote "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."72-that is, the theory at the heart of in his book. But as we saw earlier, some 60 different animal phyla started into life in the Cambrian Age, all together and at the same time, let alone small categories such as species. This proves that the picture which Darwin had described as "fatal to the theory" is in fact the case. This is why the Swiss evolutionary paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengtson, who confesses the lack of transitional links while describing the Cambrian Age, makes the following comment: "Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us."73

Another matter that needs to be dealt with regarding trilobites is that the 530-million-year-old compound structure in these creatures' eyes has come down to the present day completely unchanged. Some insects today, such as bees and dragonflies, possess exactly the same eye structure.74 This discovery deals yet another "fatal blow" to the theory of evolution's claim that living things develop from the primitive to the complex.

The Origin of Vertebrates

As we said at the beginning, one of the phyla that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age is the Chordata, those creatures with a central nervous system contained within a braincase and a notochord or spinal column. Vertebrates are a subgroup of chordates. Vertebrates, divided into such fundamental classes as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, are probably the most dominant creatures in the animal kingdom.

THE FISH OF THE CAMBRIAN Until 1999, the question of whether any vertebrates were present in the Cambrian was limited to the discussion about Pikaia. But that year a stunning discovery deepened the evolutionary impasse regarding the Cambrian explosion: Chinese paleontologists at Chengjiang fauna discovered the fossils of two fish species that were about 530 million years old, a period known as the Lower Cambrian. Thus, it became crystal clear that along with all other phyla, the subphylum Vertebrata (Vertebrates) was also present in the Cambrian, without any evolutionary ancestors. The two distinct fish species of the Cambrian, Haikouichthys ercaicunensis and Myllokunmingia fengjiaoa.

Because evolutionary paleontologists try to view every phylum as the evolutionary continuation of another phylum, they claim that the Chordata phylum evolved from another, invertebrate one. But the fact that, as with all phyla, the members of the Chordata emerged in the Cambrian Age invalidates this claim right from the very start. The oldest member of the Chordata phylum identified from the Cambrian Age is a sea-creature called Pikaia, which with its long body reminds one at first sight of a worm.75 Pikaia emerged at the same time as all the other species in the phylum which could be proposed as its ancestor, and with no intermediate forms between them. Professor Mustafa Kuru, a Turkish evolutionary biologist, says in his book Vertebrates:

There is no doubt that chordates evolved from invertebrates. However, the lack of transitional forms between invertebrates and chordates causes people to put forward many assumptions.76

If there is no transitional form between chordates and invertebrates, then how can one say "there is no doubt that chordates evolved from invertebrates?" Accepting an assumption which lacks supporting evidence, without entertaining any doubts, is surely not a scientific approach, but a dogmatic one. After this statement, Professor Kuru discusses the evolutionist assumptions regarding the origins of vertebrates, and once again confesses that the fossil record of chordates consists only of gaps:

The views stated above about the origins of chordates and evolution are always met with suspicion, since they are not based on any fossil records.77

Evolutionary biologists sometimes claim that the reason why there exist no fossil records regarding the origin of vertebrates is because invertebrates have soft tissues and consequently leave no fossil traces. However this explanation is entirely unrealistic, since there is an abundance of fossil remains of invertebrates in the fossil record. Nearly all organisms in the Cambrian period were invertebrates, and tens of thousands of fossil examples of these species have been collected. For example, there are many fossils of soft-tissued creatures in Canada's Burgess Shale beds. (Scientists think that invertebrates were fossilized, and their soft tissues kept intact in regions such as Burgess Shale, by being suddenly covered in mud with a very low oxygen content.78

The theory of evolution assumes that the first Chordata, such as Pikaia, evolved into fish. However, just as with the case of the supposed evolution of Chordata, the theory of the evolution of fish also lacks fossil evidence to support it. On the contrary, all distinct classes of fish emerged in the fossil record all of a sudden and fully-formed. There are millions of invertebrate fossils and millions of fish fossils; yet there is not even one fossil that is midway between them.

Robert Carroll admits the evolutionist impasse on the origin of several taxa among the early vertebrates:

We still have no evidence of the nature of the transition between cephalochordates and craniates. The earliest adequately known vertebrates already exhibit all the definitive features of craniates that we can expect to have preserved in fossils. No fossils are known that document the origin of jawed vertebrates.79

Another evolutionary paleontologist, Gerald T. Todd, admits a similar fact in an article titled "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes":

All three subdivisions of bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?80

THE ORIGIN OF FISH The fossil record shows that fish, like other kinds of living things, also emerged suddenly and already in possession of all their unique structures. In other words, fish were created, not evolved. Fossil fish called Birkenia from Scotland. This creature, estimated to be some 420 million years old, is about 4 cm. long. Fossil shark of the Stethacanthus genus, some 330 million years old. 110-million-year-old fossil fish from the Santana fossil bed in Brazil. Group of fossil fish from the Mesozoic Age. Fossil fish approximately 360 million years old from the Devonian Age. Called Osteolepis panderi, it is about 20 cm. long and closely resembles present-day fish.

The Origin of Tetrapods

Quadrupeds (or Tetrapoda) is the general name given to vertebrate animals dwelling on land. Amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are included in this class. The assumption of the theory of evolution regarding quadrupeds holds that these living things evolved from fish living in the sea. However, this claim poses contradictions, in terms of both physiology and anatomy. Furthermore, it lacks any basis in the fossil record.

A fish would have to undergo great modifications to adapt to land. Basically, its respiratory, excretory and skeletal systems would all have to change. Gills would have to change into lungs, fins would have to acquire the features of feet so that they could carry the weight of the body, kidneys and the whole excretory system would have to be transformed to work in a terrestrial environment, and the skin would need to acquire a new texture to prevent water loss. Unless all these things happened, a fish could only survive on land for a few minutes.

So, how does the evolutionist view explain the origin of land-dwelling animals? Some shallow comments in evolutionist literature are mainly based on a Lamarckian rationale. For instance, regarding the transformation of fins into feet, they say, "Just when fish started to creep on land, fins gradually became feet." Even Ali Demirsoy, one of the foremost authorities on evolution in Turkey, writes the following: "Maybe the fins of lunged fish changed into amphibian feet as they crept through muddy water."81

As mentioned earlier, these comments are based on a Lamarckian rationale, since the comment is essentially based on the improvement of an organ through use and the passing on of this trait to subsequent generations. It seems that the theory postulated by Lamarck, which collapsed a century ago, still has a strong influence on the subconscious minds of evolutionary biologists today.

If we set aside these Lamarckist, and therefore unscientific, scenarios, we have to turn our attention to scenarios based on mutation and natural selection. However, when these mechanisms are examined, it can be seen that the transition from water to land is at a complete impasse.

Let us imagine how a fish might emerge from the sea and adapt itself to the land: If the fish does not undergo a rapid modification in terms of its respiratory, excretory and skeletal systems, it will inevitably die. The chain of mutations that needs to come about has to provide the fish with a lung and terrestrial kidneys, immediately. Similarly, this mechanism should transform the fins into feet and provide the sort of skin texture that will hold water inside the body. What is more, this chain of mutations has to take place during the lifespan of one single animal.

The "transition from water to land" scenario, often maintained in evolutionist publications in imaginary diagrams like the one above, is often presented with a Lamarckian rationale, which is clearly pseudoscience.

No evolutionary biologist would ever advocate such a chain of mutations. The implausible and nonsensical nature of the very idea is obvious. Despite this fact, evolutionists put forward the concept of "preadaptation," which means that fish acquire the traits they will need while they are still in the water. Put briefly, the theory says that fish acquire the traits of land-dwelling animals before they even feel the need for these traits, while they are still living in the sea.

Nevertheless, such a scenario is illogical even when viewed from the standpoint of the theory of evolution. Surely, acquiring the traits of a land-dwelling living animal would not be advantageous for a marine animal. Consequently, the proposition that these traits occurred by means of natural selection rests on no rational grounds. On the contrary, natural selection should eliminate any creature which underwent "preadaptation," since acquiring traits which would enable it to survive on land would surely place it at a disadvantage in the sea.

In brief, the scenario of "transition from sea to land" is at a complete impasse. It is accepted by evolutionists as a miracle of nature that cannot be re-examined. This is why Henry Gee, the editor of Nature, considers this scenario as an unscientific story:

Conventional stories about evolution, about 'missing links', are not in themselves testable, because there is only one possible course of events - the one implied by the story. If your story is about how a group of fishes crawled onto land and evolved legs, you are forced to see this as a once-only event, because that's the way the story goes. You can either subscribe to the story or not - there are no alternatives.82

There was no "evolutionary" process in the origin of frogs. The oldest known frogs were completely different from fish, and emerged with all their own peculiar features. Frogs in our time possess the same features. There is no difference between the frog found preserved in amber in the Dominican Republic and specimens living today.

The impasse does not only come from the alleged mechanisms of evolution, but also from the fossil record or the study of living tetrapods. Robert Carroll has to admit that "neither the fossil record nor study of development in modern genera yet provides a complete picture of how the paired limbs in tetrapods evolved…"83

The classical candidates for transitional forms in alleged fish-tetrapod evolution have been several fish and amphibian genera.

An Eusthenopteron foordi fossil from the Later Devonian Age found in Canada.

Evolutionist natural historians traditionally refer to coelacanths (and the closely-related, extinct Rhipidistians) as the most probably ancestors of quadrupeds. These fish come under the Crossopterygian subclass. Evolutionists invest all their hopes in them simply because their fins have a relatively "fleshy" structure. Yet these fish are not transitional forms; there are huge anatomical and physiological differences between this class and amphibians.

In fact, the alleged "transitional forms" between fish and amphibians are not transitional in the sense that they have very small differences, but in the sense that they can be the best candidates for an evolutionary scenario. Huge anatomical differences exist between the fish most likely to be taken as amphibian ancestors and the amphibians taken to be their descendants. Two examples are Eusthenopteron (an extinct fish) and Acanthostega (an extinct amphibian), the two favorite subjects for most of the contemporary evolutionary scenarios regarding tetrapod origins. Robert Carroll, in his Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, makes the following comment about these allegedly related forms:

Eusthenopteron and Acanthostega may be taken as the end points in the transition between fish and amphibians. Of 145 anatomical features that could be compared between these two genera, 91 showed changes associated with adaptation to life on land… This is far more than the number of changes that occurred in any one of the transitions involving the origin of the fifteen major groups of Paleozoic tetrapods.84

Ninety-one differences over 145 anatomical features… And evolutionists believe that all these were redesigned through a process of random mutations in about 15 million years.85 To believe in such a scenario may be necessary for the sake of evolutionary theory, but it is not scientifically and rationally sound. This is true for all other versions of the fish-amphibian scenario, which differ according to the candidates that are chosen to be the transitional forms. Henry Gee, the editor of Nature, makes a similar comment on the scenario based on Ichthyostega, another extinct amphibian with very similar characteristics to Acanthostega:

A statement that Ichthyostega is a missing link between fishes and later tetrapods reveals far more about our prejudices than about the creature we are supposed to be studying. It shows how much we are imposing a restricted view on reality based on our own limited experience, when reality may be larger, stranger, and more different than we can imagine.86

Another remarkable feature of amphibian origins is the abrupt appearance of the three basic amphibian categories. Carroll notes that "The earliest fossils of frogs, caecilians, and salamanders all appear in the Early to Middle Jurassic. All show most of the important attributes of their living descendants."87 In other words, these animals appeared abruptly and did not undergo any "evolution" since then.

Speculations About Coelacanths

Fish that come under the coelacanth family were once accepted as strong evidence for transitional forms. Basing their argument on coelacanth fossils, evolutionary biologists proposed that this fish had a primitive (not completely functioning) lung. Many scientific publications stated the fact, together with drawings showing how coelacanths passed to land from water. All these rested on the assumption that the coelacanth was an extinct species.

When they only had fossils of coelacanths, evolutionary paleontologists put forward a number of Darwinist assumptions regarding them; however, when living examples were found, all these assumptions were shattered. Below, examples of living coelacanths. The picture on the right shows the latest specimen of coelacanth, found in Indonesia in 1998.

However on December 22, 1938, a very interesting discovery was made in the Indian Ocean. A living member of the coelacanth family, previously presented as a transitional form that had become extinct 70 million years ago, was caught! The discovery of a "living" prototype of the coelacanth undoubtedly gave evolutionists a severe shock. The evolutionary paleontologist J. L. B. Smith said, "If I'd meet a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished."88 In the years to come, 200 coelacanths were caught many times in different parts of the world.

Living coelacanths revealed how groundless the speculation regarding them was. Contrary to what had been claimed, coelacanths had neither a primitive lung nor a large brain. The organ that evolutionist researchers had proposed as a primitive lung turned out to be nothing but a fat-filled swimbladder.89 Furthermore, the coelacanth, which was introduced as "a reptile candidate preparing to pass from sea to land," was in reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans and never approached nearer than 180 meters from the surface.90

The fundamental reason why evolutionists imagine coelacanths and similar fish to be "the ancestor of land animals" is that they have bony fins. They imagine that these gradually turned into feet. However, there is a fundamental difference between fish bones and the feet of land animals such as Ichthyostega: As shown in Picture 1, the bones of the coelacanth are not attached to the backbone; however, those of Ichthyostega are, as shown in Picture 2. For this reason, the claim that these fins gradually developed into feet is quite unfounded. Furthermore, the structure of the bones in coelacanth fins is very different from that in the bones in Ichthyostega feet, as seen in Pictures 3 and 4.

Following this, the coelacanth suddenly lost all its popularity in evolutionist publications. Peter Forey, an evolutionary paleontologist, says in an article of his in Nature:

The discovery of Latimeria raised hopes of gathering direct information on the transition of fish to amphibians, for there was then a long-held belief that coelacanths were close to the ancestry of tetrapods. ...But studies of the anatomy and physiology of Latimeria have found this theory of relationship to be wanting and the living coelacanth's reputation as a missing link seems unjustified.91

This meant that the only serious claim of a transitional form between fish and amphibians had been demolished.

Physiological Obstacles to Transition from Water to Land

The claim that fish are the ancestors of land-dwelling creatures is invalidated by anatomical and physiological observations as much as by the fossil record. When we examine the huge anatomical and physiological differences between water- and land-dwelling creatures, we can see that these differences could not have disappeared in an evolutionary process with gradual changes based on chance. We can list the most evident of these differences as follows

1- Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea, although the structures of their bodies are not made for such a task on land. However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40 percent 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.

The basic reason why evolutionists imagine the coelacanth and similar fish to be the ancestors of land-dwelling creatures is that their fins contain bones. It is assumed that over time these fins turned into load-bearing feet. However, there is a fundamental difference between these fish's bones and land-dwelling creatures' feet. It is impossible for the former to take on a load-bearing function, as they are not linked to the backbone. Land-dwelling creatures' bones, in contrast, are directly connected to the backbone. For this reason, the claim that these fins slowly developed into feet is unfounded.

THE KIDNEY PROBLEM Fish remove harmful substances from their bodies directly into the water, but land animals need kidneys. For this reason, the scenario of transition from water to the land requires kidneys to havbe developed by chance. However, kidneys possess an exceedingly complex structure and, what is more, the kidney needs to be 100 percent present and in complete working order in order to function. A kidney developed 50, or 70, or even 90 percent will serve no function. Since the theory of evolution depends on the assumption that "organs that are not used disappear," a 50 percent-developed kidney will disappear from the body in the first stage of evolution.

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.

METAMORPHOSIS Frogs are born in water, live there for a while, and finally emerge onto land in a process known as "metamorphosis." Some people think that metamorphosis is evidence of evolution, whereas the two actually have nothing to do with one another. The sole innovative mechanism proposed by evolution is mutation. However, metamorphosis does not come about by coincidental effects like mutation does. On the contrary, this change is written in frogs' genetic code. In other words, it is already evident when a frog is first born that it will have a type of body that allows it to live on land. Research carried out in recent years has shown that metamorphosis is a complex process governed by different genes. For instance, just the loss of the tail during this process is governed, according to Science News magazine, by more than a dozen genes (Science News, July 17, 1999, page 43). The evolutionists' claim of transition from water to land says that fish, with a genetic code completely designed to allow them to live in water, turned into land creatures as a result of chance mutations. However, for this reason metamorphosis actually tears evolution down, rather than shoring it up, because the slightest error in the process of metamorphosis means the creature will die or be deformed. It is essential that metamorphosis should happen perfectly. It is impossible for such a complex process, which allows no room for error, to have come about by chance mutations, as is claimed by evolution.

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 that sea-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.

4- Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment: In freshwater fish, most of the nitrogenous wastes (including large amounts of ammonia, NH3) leave by diffusion out of the gills. The kidney is mostly a device for maintaining water balance in the animal, rather than an organ of excretion. Marine fish have two types. Sharks, skates, and rays may carry very high levels of urea in their blood. Shark's blood may contain 2.5% urea in contrast to the 0.01-0.03% in other vertebrates. The other type, i. e., marine bony fish, are much different. They lose water continuously but replace it by drinking seawater and then desalting it. They rely more on tubular secretion for eliminating excess or waste solutes.

Each of these different excretory systems is very different from those of terrestrial vertebrates. Therefore, 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 that 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 these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance.

The Origin of Reptiles

Dinosaur, lizard, turtle, crocodile-all these fall under the class of reptiles. Some, such as dinosaurs, are extinct, but the majority of these species still live on the earth. Reptiles possess some distinctive features. For example, their bodies are covered with scales, and they are cold-blooded, meaning they are unable to regulate their body temperatures physiologically (which is why they expose their bodies to sunlight in order to warm up). Most of them reproduce by laying eggs.

DIFFERENT EGGS One of the inconsistencies in the amphibian-reptile evolution scenario is the structure of the eggs. Amphibian eggs, which develop in water, have a jelly-like structure and a porous membrane, whereas reptile eggs, as shown in the reconstruction of a dinosaur egg on the right, are hard and impermeable, in order to conform to conditions on land. In order for an amphibian to become a reptile, its eggs would have to have coincidentally turned into perfect reptile eggs, and yet the slightest error in such a process would lead to the extinction of the species.

Regarding the origin of these creatures, evolution is again at an impasse. Darwinism claims that reptiles evolved from amphibians. However, no discovery to verify such a claim has ever been made. On the contrary, comparisons between amphibians and reptiles reveal that there are huge physiological gaps between the two, and a "half reptile-half amphibian" would have no chance of survival.

One example of the physiological gaps between these two groups is the different structures of their eggs. Amphibians lay their eggs in water, and their eggs are jelly-like, with a transparent and permeable membrane. Such eggs possess an ideal structure for development in water. Reptiles, on the other hand, lay their eggs on land, and consequently their eggs are designed to survive there. The hard shell of the reptile egg, also known as an "amniotic egg," allows air in, but is impermeable to water. In this way, the water needed by the developing animal is kept inside the egg.

If amphibian eggs were laid on land, they would immediately dry out, killing the embryo. This cannot be explained in terms of evolution, which asserts that reptiles evolved gradually from amphibians. That is because, for life to have begun on land, the amphibian egg must have changed into an amniotic one within the lifespan of a single generation. How such a process could have occurred by means of natural selection and mutation-the mechanisms of evolution-is inexplicable. Biologist Michael Denton explains the details of the evolutionist impasse on this matter:

Every textbook of evolution asserts that reptiles evolved from amphibia but none explains how the major distinguishing adaptation of the reptiles, the amniotic egg, came about gradually as a result of a successive accumulation of small changes. The amniotic egg of the reptile is vastly more complex and utterly different to that of an amphibian. There are hardly two eggs in the whole animal kingdom which differ more fundamentally… The origin of the amniotic egg and the amphibian - reptile transition is just another of the major vertebrate divisions for which clearly worked out evolutionary schemes have never been provided. Trying to work out, for example, how the heart and aortic arches of an amphibian could have been gradually converted to the reptilian and mammalian condition raises absolutely horrendous problems.92

Nor does the fossil record provide any evidence to confirm the evolutionist hypothesis regarding the origin of reptiles.

Robert L. Carroll, an evolutionary paleontologist and authority on vertebrate paleontology, is obliged to accept this. He has written in his classic work, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, that "The early amniotes are sufficiently distinct from all Paleozoic amphibians that their specific ancestry has not been established."93 In his newer book, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, published in 1997, he admits that "The origin of the modern amphibian orders, (and) the transition between early tetrapods" are "still poorly known" along with the origins of many other major groups.94

The same fact is also acknowledged by Stephen Jay Gould:

THE SEYMOURIA MISTAKE Evolutionists at one time claimed that the Seymouria fossil on the left was a transitional form between amphibians and reptiles. According to this scenario, Seymouria was "the primitive ancestor of reptiles." However, subsequent fossil discoveries showed that reptiles were living on earth some 30 million years before Seymouria. In the light of this, evolutionists had to put an end to their comments regarding Seymouria.

No fossil amphibian seems clearly ancestral to the lineage of fully terrestrial vertebrates (reptiles, birds, and mammals).95

So far, the most important animal put forward as the "ancestor of reptiles" has been Seymouria, a species of amphibian. However, the fact that Seymouria cannot be a transitional form was revealed by the discovery that reptiles existed on earth some 30 million years before Seymouria first appeared on it. The oldest Seymouria fossils are found in the Lower Permian layer, or 280 million years ago. Yet the oldest known reptile species, Hylonomus and Paleothyris, were found in lower Pennsylvanian layers, making them some 315-330 million years old.96 It is surely implausible, to say the least, that the "ancestor of reptiles" lived much later than the first reptiles.

In brief, contrary to the evolutionist claim that living being evolved gradually, scientific facts reveal that they appeared on earth suddenly and fully formed.

Snakes and Turtles

Furthermore, there are impassable boundaries between very different orders of reptiles such as snakes, crocodiles, dinosaurs, and lizards. Each one of these different orders appears all of a sudden in the fossil record, and with very different structures. Looking at the structures in these very different groups, evolutionists go on to imagine the evolutionary processes that might have happened. But these hypotheses are not reflected in the fossil record. For instance, one widespread evolutionary assumption is that snakes evolved from lizards which gradually lost their legs. But evolutionists are unable to answer the question of what "advantage" could accrue to a lizard which had gradually begun to lose its legs, and how this creature could be "preferred" by natural selection.

An approximately 50 million-year-old python fossil of the genus Palaeopython.

It remains to say that the oldest known snakes in the fossil record have no "intermediate form" characteristics, and are no different from snakes of our own time. The oldest known snake fossil is Dinilysia, found in Upper Cretaceous rocks in South America. Robert Carroll accepts that this creature "shows a fairly advanced stage of evolution of these features [the specialized features of the skull of snakes],"97 in other words that it already possesses all the characteristics of modern snakes.

Another order of reptile is turtles, which emerge in the fossil record together with the shells which are so characteristic of them. Evolutionist sources state that "Unfortunately, the origin of this highly successful order is obscured by the lack of early fossils, although turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates. By the middle of the Triassic Period (about 200,000,000 years ago) turtles were numerous and in possession of basic turtle characteristics… Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking."98

Above, a freshwater turtle, some 45 million years old, found in Germany. On the right the remains of the oldest known marine turtle. This 110-million-year-old fossil, found in Brazil, is identical to specimens living today.

Thus Robert Carroll is also forced to mention the origin of turtles among the "important transitions and radiations still poorly known."99

All these types of living things emerged suddenly and independently. This fact is a scientific proof that they were created.

Flying Reptiles

One interesting group within the reptile class are flying reptiles. These first emerged some 200 million years ago in the Upper Triassic, but subsequently became extinct. These creatures were all reptiles, because they possessed all the fundamental characteristics of the reptile class. They were cold-blooded (i.e., they could not regulate their own internal heat) and their bodies were covered in scales. But they possessed powerful wings, and it is thought that these allowed them to fly.

Flying reptiles are portrayed in some popular evolutionist publications as paleontological discoveries that support Darwinism-at least, that is the impression given. However, the origin of flying reptiles is actually a real problem for the theory of evolution. The clearest indication of this is that flying reptiles emerged suddenly and fully formed, with no intermediate form between them and terrestrial reptiles. Flying reptiles possessed very well designed wings, which no terrestrial reptile possesses. No half-winged creature has ever been encountered in the fossil record.

A Eudimorphodon fossil, one of the oldest species of flying reptiles. This specimen, found in northern Italy, is some 220 million years old.

In any case, no half-winged creature could have lived, because if these imaginary creatures had existed, they would have been at a grave disadvantage compared to other reptiles, having lost their front legs but being still unable to fly. In that event, according to evolution's own rules, they would have been eliminated and become extinct.

In fact, when flying reptiles' wings are examined, they have such a flawless design that this could never be accounted for by evolution. Just as other reptiles have five toes on their front feet, flying reptiles have five digits on their wings. But the fourth finger is some 20 times longer than the others, and the wing stretches out under that finger. If terrestrial reptiles had evolved into flying reptiles, then this fourth finger must have grown gradually step by step, as time passed. Not just the fourth finger, but the whole structure of the wing, must have developed with chance mutations, and this whole process would have had to bring some advantage to the creature. Duane T. Gish, one of the foremost critics of the theory of evolution on the paleontological level, makes this comment:

A fossil flying reptile of the species Pterodactylus kochi. This specimen, found in Bavaria, is about 240 million years old.

The very notion that a land reptile could have gradually been converted into a flying reptile is absurd. The incipient, part-way evolved structures, rather than conferring advantages to the intermediate stages, would have been a great disadvantage. For example, evolutionists suppose that, strange as it may seem, mutations occurred that affected only the fourth fingers a little bit at a time. Of course, other random mutations occurring concurrently, incredible as it may seem, were responsible for the gradual origin of the wing membrane, flight muscles, tendons, nerves, blood vessels, and other structures necessary to form the wings. At some stage, the developing flying reptile would have had about 25 percent wings. This strange creature would never survive, however. What good are 25 percent wings? Obviously the creature could not fly, and he could no longer run…100

In short, it is impossible to account for the origin of flying reptiles with the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. And in fact the fossil record reveals that no such evolutionary process took place. Fossil layers contain only land reptiles like those we know today, and perfectly developed flying reptiles. There is no intermediate form. Carroll, who is one of the most respected names in the world in the field of vertebrate paleontology, makes the following admission as an evolutionist:

...all the Triassic pterosaurs were highly specialized for flight... They provide little evidence of their specific ancestry and no evidence of earlier stages in the origin of flight.101

The wings of flying reptiles extend along a "fourth finger" some 20 times longer than the other fingers. The important point is that this interesting wing structure emerges suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record. There are no examples indicating that this "fourth finger" grew gradually-in other words, that it evolved.

Carroll, more recently, in his Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, counts the origin of pterosaurs among the important transitions about which not much is known.102

To put it briefly, there is no evidence for the evolution of flying reptiles. Because the term "reptile" means only land-dwelling reptiles for most people, popular evolutionist publications try to give the impression regarding flying reptiles that reptiles grew wings and began to fly. However, the fact is that both land-dwelling and flying reptiles emerged with no evolutionary relationship between them.

Marine Reptiles

Another interesting category in the classification of reptiles is marine reptiles. The great majority of these creatures have become extinct, although turtles are an example of one group that survives. As with flying reptiles, the origin of marine reptiles is something that cannot be explained with an evolutionary approach. The most important known marine reptile is the creature known as the ichthyosaur. In their book Evolution of the Vertebrates, Edwin H. Colbert and Michael Morales admit the fact that no evolutionary account of the origin of these creatures can be given:

Fossil ichthyosaur of the genus Stenopterygius, about 250 million years old.

The ichthyosaurs, in many respects the most highly specialized of the marine reptiles, appeared in early Triassic times. Their advent into the geologic history of the reptiles was sudden and dramatic; there are no clues in pre-Triassic sediments as to the possible ancestors of the ichthyosaurs… The basic problem of ichthyosaur relationships is that no conclusive evidence can be found for linking these reptiles with any other reptilian order.103

200-million-year-old ichthyosaur fossil.

Similarly, Alfred S. Romer, another expert on the natural history of vertebrates, writes:

No earlier forms [of ichthyosaurs] are known. The peculiarities of ichthyosaur structure would seemingly require a long time for their development and hence a very early origin for the group, but there are no known Permian reptiles antecedent to them.104

Carroll again has to admit that the origin of ichthyosaurs and nothosaurs (another family of aquatic reptiles) are among the many "poorly known" cases for evolutionists.105

In short, the different creatures that fall under the classification of reptiles came into being on the earth with no evolutionary relationship between them. As we shall see in due course, the same situation applies to mammals: there are flying mammals (bats) and marine mammals (dolphins and whales). However, these different groups are far from being evidence for evolution. Rather, they represent serious difficulties that evolution cannot account for, since in all cases the different taxonomical categories appeared on earth suddenly, with no intermediate forms between them, and with all their different structures already intact.

This is clear scientific proof that all these creatures were actually created

56 Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang, 2001, p. 2.
57 Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient," Discover, April 1993, p. 40. (emphasis added)
58 Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient," Discover, April 1993, p. 40.
59 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton, London, 1986, p. 229. (emphasis added)
60 Phillip E. Johnson, "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning," in Darwinism: Science or Philosophy by Buell Hearn, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1994, p. 12. (emphasis added)
61 R. Lewin, Science, vol. 241, 15 July 1988, p. 291. (emphasis added)
62 Gregory A. Wray, "The Grand Scheme of Life," Review of The Crucible Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals by Simon Conway Morris, Trends in Genetics, February 1999, vol. 15, no. 2.
63 Richard Fortey, "The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?," Science, vol. 293, no. 5529, 20 July 2001, pp. 438-439.
64 Richard Fortey, "The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?," Science, vol. 293, no. 5529, 20 July 2001, pp. 438-439.
65 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, Pantheon Books, New York, 1983, p. 197.
66 Jeffrey S. Levinton, "The Big Bang of Animal Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84.
67 "The New Animal Phylogeny: Reliability And Implications", Proc. of Nat. Aca. of Sci., 25 April 2000, vol. 97, no. 9, pp. 4453-4456.
68 "The New Animal Phylogeny: Reliability And Implications, Proc. of Nat. Aca. of Sci., 25 April 2000, vol. 97, no. 9, pp. 4453-4456.
69 David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, January 1979, p. 24.
70 Richard Fortey, "The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?," Science, vol. 293, no. 5529, 20 July 2001, pp. 438-439.
71 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 313-314.
72 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302.
73 Stefan Bengston, Nature, vol. 345, 1990, p. 765. (emphasis added)
74 R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Physiology of Seeing, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 31.
75 Douglas Palmer, The Atlas of the Prehistoric World, Discovery Channel, Marshall Publishing, London, 1999, p. 66.
76 Mustafa Kuru, Omurgal? Hayvanlar (Vertebrates), Gazi University Publications, 5th ed., Ankara, 1996, p. 21. (emphasis added)
77 Mustafa Kuru, Omurgal? Hayvanlar (Vertebrates), Gazi University Publications, 5th ed., Ankara, 1996, p. 27.
78 Douglas Palmer, The Atlas of the Prehistoric World, Discovery Channel, Marshall Publishing, London, 1999, p. 64.
79 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 296.
80 Gerald T. Todd, "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Casual Relationship," American Zoologist, vol. 26, no. 4, 1980, p. 757.
81 Ali Demirsoy, Kal?t?m ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, pp. 495-496.
82 Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time: Going Beyond The Fossil Record To A Revolutionary Understanding of the History Of Life, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster Inc., 1999, p. 7.
83 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 230.
84 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 301.
85 This time frame is also given by Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 304.
86 Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time: Going Beyond The Fossil Record To A Revolutionary Understanding of the History Of Life, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 54.
87 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 292-93.
88 Jean-Jacques Hublin, The Hamlyn Encyclopædia of Prehistoric Animals, The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., New York, 1984, p. 120.
89 www.ksu.edu/fishecology/relict.htm
90 http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9809/23/living.fossil/index.html
91 P. L. Forey, Nature, vol. 336, 1988, p. 727.
92 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, Adler and Adler, 1986, pp. 218-219.
93 Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1988, p. 198.
94 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 296-97.
95 Stephen Jay Gould, "Eight (or Fewer) Little Piggies," Natural History, vol. 100, no. 1, January 1991, p. 25. (emphasis added)
96 Duane Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, Institute For Creation Research, California, 1995, p. 97.
97 Robert Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, p. 235.
98 Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, "Turtle - Origin and Evolution."
99 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 296-97. (emphasis added)
100 Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No, ICR, San Diego, 1998, p. 103.
101 Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. p. 336. (emphasis added)
102 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 296-97.
103 E. H. Colbert, M. Morales, Evolution of the Vertebrates, John Wiley and Sons, 1991, p. 193. (emphasis added)
104 A. S Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed., Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1966, p. 120. (emphasis added)
105 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 296-97.).

The True Origin of Species

The True Origin of Species

When Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859, it was believed that he had put forward a theory that could account for the extraordinary variety of living things. He had observed that there were different variations within the same species. For instance, while wandering through England's animal fairs, he noticed that there were many different breeds of cow, and that stockbreeders selectively mated them and produced new breeds. Taking that as his starting point, he continued with the logic that "living things can naturally diversify within themselves," which means that over a long period of time all living things could have descended from a common ancestor.

However, this assumption of Darwin's about "the origin of species" was not actually able to explain their origin at all. Thanks to developments in genetic science, it is now understood that increases in variety within one species can never lead to the emergence of another new species. What Darwin believed to be "evolution," was actually "variation."

The Meaning of Variations

Variation, a term used in genetics, refers to a genetic event that causes the individuals or groups of a certain type or species to possess different characteristics from one another. For example, all the people on earth carry basically the same genetic information, yet some have slanted eyes, some have red hair, some have long noses, and others are short of stature, all depending on the extent of the variation potential of this genetic information.

Variation does not constitute evidence for evolution because variations are but the outcomes of different combinations of already existing genetic information, and they do not add any new characteristic to the genetic information. The important thing for the theory of evolution, however, is the question of how brand-new information to make a brand-new species could come about.

Variation always takes place within the limits of genetic information. In the science of genetics, this limit is called the "gene pool." All of the characteristics present in the gene pool of a species may come to light in various ways due to variation. For example, as a result of variation, varieties that have relatively longer tails or shorter legs may appear in a certain species of reptile, since information for both long-legged and short-legged forms may exist in the gene pool of that species. However, variations do not transform reptiles into birds by adding wings or feathers to them, or by changing their metabolism. Such a change requires an increase in the genetic information of the living thing, which is certainly not possible through variations.

Darwin was not aware of this fact when he formulated his theory. He thought that there was no limit to variations. In an article he wrote in 1844 he stated:"That a limit to variation does exist in nature is assumed by most authors, though I am unable to discover a single fact on which this belief is grounded."28 In The Origin of Species he cited different examples of variations as the most important evidence for his theory.

For instance, according to Darwin, animal breeders who mated different varieties of cattle in order to bring about new varieties that produced more milk, were ultimately going to transform them into a different species. Darwin's notion of "unlimited variation" is best seen in the following sentence from The Origin of Species:

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.29

The reason Darwin cited such a far-fetched example was the primitive understanding of science in his day. Since then, in the 20^th century, science has posited the principle of "genetic stability" (genetic homeostasis), based on the results of experiments conducted on living things. This principle holds that, since all mating attempts carried out to transform a species into another have been inconclusive, there are strict barriers among different species of living things. This meant that it was absolutely impossible for animal breeders to convert cattle into a different species by mating different variations of them, as Darwin had postulated.

Norman Macbeth, who disproved Darwinism in his book Darwin Retried, states:

The heart of the problem is whether living things do indeed vary to an unlimited extent... The species look stable. We have all heard of disappointed breeders who carried their work to a certain point only to see the animals or plants revert to where they had started. Despite strenuous efforts for two or three centuries, it has never been possible to produce a blue rose or a black tulip.30

Luther Burbank, considered the most competent breeder of all time, expressed this fact when he said, "there are limits to the development possible, and these limits follow a law."31 In his article titled "Some Biological Problems With the Natural Selection Theory," Jerry Bergman comments by quoting from biologist Edward Deevey who explains that variations always take place within strict genetic boundaries:

Deevey concludes, "Remarkable things have been done by cross-breeding ... but wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit. We can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can make cylindrical eggs." A more contemporary example is the average increase in male height that has occurred the past century. Through better health care (and perhaps also some sexual selection, as some women prefer taller men as mates) males have reached a record adult height during the last century, but the increase is rapidly disappearing, indicating that we have reached our limit.32

In short, variations only bring about changes which remain within the boundaries of the genetic information of species; they can never add new genetic data to them. For this reason, no variation can be considered an example of evolution. No matter how often you mate different breeds of dogs or horses, the end result will still be dogs or horses, with no new species emerging. The Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen sums the matter up this way:

The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace placed their emphasis cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of 'indefinite departure'.33

Confessions About "Microevolution"

As we have seen, genetic science has discovered that variations, which Darwin thought could account for "the origin of species," actually do no such thing. For this reason, evolutionary biologists were forced to distinguish between variation within species and the formation of new ones, and to propose two different concepts for these different phenomena. Diversity within a species-that is, variation-they called "microevolution," and the hypothesis of the development of new species was termed "macroevolution."

These two concepts have appeared in biology books for quite some time. But there is actually a deception going on here, because the examples of variation that evolutionary biologists have called "microevolution" actually have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution proposes that living things can develop and take on new genetic data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. However, as we have just seen, variations can never create new genetic information, and are thus unable to bring about "evolution." Giving variations the name of "microevolution" is actually an ideological preference on the part of evolutionary biologists.

The impression that evolutionary biologists have given by using the term "microevolution" is the false logic that over time variations can form brand new classes of living things. And many people who are not already well-informed on the subject come away with the superficial idea that "as it spreads, microevolution can turn into macroevolution." One can often see examples of that kind of thinking. Some "amateur" evolutionists put forward such examples of logic as the following: since human beings' average height has risen by two centimeters in just a century, this means that over millions of years any kind of evolution is possible. However, as has been shown above, all variations such as changes in average height happen within specific genetic bounds, and are trends that have nothing to do with evolution.

In fact, nowadays even evolutionist experts accept that the variations they call "microevolution" cannot lead to new classes of living things-in other words, to "macroevolution." In a 1996 article in the leading journal Developmental Biology, the evolutionary biologists S.F. Gilbert, J.M. Opitz, and R.A. Raff explained the matter this way:

Finch beaks, which Darwin saw in the Galapagos Islands and thought were evidence for his theory, are actually an example of genetic variation, and not evidence for macroevolution.

The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species- Darwin's problem-remains unsolved.34

The fact that "microevolution" cannot lead to "macroevolution," in other words that variations offer no explanation of the origin of species, has been accepted by other evolutionary biologists, as well. The noted author and science expert Roger Lewin describes the result of a four-day symposium held in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of Natural History, in which 150 evolutionists participated:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. …The answer can be given as a clear, No.35

We can sum up the situation like this: Variations, which Darwinism has seen as "evidence of evolution" for some hundred years, actually have nothing to do with "the origin of species." Cows can be mated together for millions of years, and different breeds of cows may well emerge. But cows can never turn into a different species-giraffes or elephants for instance. In the same way, the different finches that Darwin saw on the Galapagos Islands are another example of variation that is no evidence for "evolution." Recent observations have revealed that the finches did not undergo an unlimited variation as Darwin's theory presupposed. Moreover, most of the different types of finches which Darwin thought represented 14 distinct species actually mated with one another, which means that they were variations that belonged to the same species. Scientific observation shows that the finch beaks, which have been mythicized in almost all evolutionist sources, are in fact an example of "variation"; therefore, they do not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. For example, Peter and Rosemary Grant, who spent years observing the finch varieties in the Galapagos Islands looking for evidence for Darwinistic evolution, were forced to conclude that "the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth," a fact which implied that no "evolution" that leads to the emergence of new traits ever takes place there.36

So for these reasons, evolutionists are still unable to resolve Darwin's problem of the "origin of species."

The Origin of Species in the Fossil Record

The evolutionist assertion is that each species on earth came from a single common ancestor through minor changes. In other words, the theory considers life as a continuous phenomenon, without any preordained or fixed categories. However, the observation of nature clearly does not reveal such a continuous picture. What emerges from the living world is that life forms are strictly separated in very distinct categories. Robert Carroll, an evolutionist authority, admits this fact in his Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution:

Although an almost incomprehensible number of species inhabit Earth today, they do not form a continuous spectrum of barely distinguishable intermediates. Instead, nearly all species can be recognized as belonging to a relatively limited number of clearly distinct major groups, with very few illustrating intermediate structures or ways of life.37

Therefore, evolutionists assume that "intermediate" life forms that constitute links between living organisms have lived in the past. This is why it is considered that the fundamental science that can shed light on the matter is paleontology, the science of the study of fossils. Evolution is alleged to be a process that took place in the past, and the only scientific source that can provide us with information on the history of life is fossil discoveries. The well-known French paleontologist Pierre-Paul Grassé has this to say on the subject:

Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms... only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms.38

The most important branch of science for shedding light on the origin of life on earth is paleontology, the study of fossils. Fossil beds, studied with great intensity for the last two hundred years, reveal a picture totally at odds with Darwin's theory. Species did not emerge through small cumulative changes, they appeared quite suddenly, and fully-formed.

In order for the fossil record to shed any light on the subject, we shall have to compare the hypotheses of the theory of evolution with fossil discoveries.

According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time, and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."

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

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.39

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realized that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":

…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.40

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

The Question of Transitional Forms and Stasis

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

Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:

Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.41

Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record:

When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly…42

Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states:

If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.43

There is no gradual development in the fossil record such as Darwin had predicted. Different species emerged all at once, with their own peculiar bodily structures.

The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s:

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.44

Further research only strengthened the facts of stasis and sudden appearance. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge write in 1993 that "most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction."45 Robert Carroll is forced to agree in 1997 that "Most major groups appear to originate and diversify over geologically very short durations, and to persist for much longer periods without major morphological or trophic change."46

At this point, it is necessary to clarify just what the concept of "transitional form" means. The intermediate forms predicted by the theory of evolution are living things falling between two species, but which possess deficient or semi-developed organs. But sometimes the concept of intermediate form is misunderstood, and living structures which do not possess the features of transitional forms are seen as actually doing so. For instance, if one group of living things possesses features which belong to another, this is not an intermediate form feature. The platypus, a mammal living in Australia, reproduces by laying eggs just like reptiles. In addition, it has a bill similar to that of a duck. Scientists describe such creatures as the platypus as "mosaic creatures." That mosaic creatures do not count as intermediate forms is also accepted by such foremost paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.47

The Adequacy of the Fossil Record

Some 140 years ago Darwin put forward the following argument: "Right now there are no transitional forms, yet further research will uncover them." Is this argument still valid today? In other words, considering the conclusions from the entire fossil record, should we accept that transitional forms never existed, or should we wait for the results of new research?

The wealth of the existing fossil record will surely answer this question. When we look at the paleontological findings, we come across an abundance of fossils. Billions of fossils have been uncovered all around the world.48 Based on these fossils, 250,000 distinct species have been identified, and these bear striking similarities to the 1.5 million identified species currently living on earth.49 (Of these 1.5 million species, 1 million are insects.) Despite the abundance of fossil sources, not a single transitional form has been uncovered, and it is unlikely that any transitional forms will be found as a result of new excavations.

A professor of paleontology from Glasgow University, T. Neville George, admitted this fact years ago:

There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration… The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.50

And Niles Eldredge, the well-known paleontologist and curator of the American Museum of Natural History, expresses as follows the invalidity of Darwin's claim that the insufficiency of the fossil record is the reason why no transitional forms have been found:

The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record.51

Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and meaningful." He elaborates this claim in this way:

STASIS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD

If evolution had really happened, then living things should have emerged by gradual changes, and have continued to change over time, whereas the fossil record shows the exact opposite. Different groups of living things suddenly emerged with no similar ancestors behind them, and remained static for millions of years, undergoing no changes at all.

Horseshoe crab" fossil from the Ordovician Age. This 450-million-year-old fossil is no different from specimens living today.	100-150 million-year-old starfish fossil	Oyster fossils from the Ordovician Age, no different from modern oysters.

Ammonites emerged some 350 million years ago, and became extinct 65 million years ago. The structure seen in the fossil above never changed during the intervening 300 million years.	1.9-million-year-old fossil bacteria from Western Ontario in Canada. They have the same structures as bacteria living today.

The oldest known fossil scorpion, found in East Kirkton in Scotland. This species, known as Pulmonoscorpius kirktoniensis, is 320 million years old, and no different from today's scorpions.	An insect fossil in amber, some 170 million years old, found on the Baltic Sea coast. It is no different from its modern counterparts.

140-million-year-old dragonfly fossil found in Bavaria in Germany. It is identical to living dragonflies.	35-million-year-old flies. They have the same bodily structure as flies today.	170-million-year-old fossil shrimp from the Jurassic Age. It is no different from living shrimps.

The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.52

This situation invalidates the above argument, which has been stated by Darwinism for 140 years. The fossil record is rich enough for us to understand the origins of life, and explicitly reveals that distinct species came into existence on earth all of a sudden, with all their distinct forms.

The Truth Revealed by the Fossil Record

But where does the "evolution-paleontology" relationship, which has taken subconscious root in society over many decades, actually stem from? Why do most people have the impression that there is a positive connection between Darwin's theory and the fossil record whenever the latter is mentioned? The answer to these questions is supplied in an article in the leading journal Science:

A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.

25-million-year-old termite fossils in amber. They are identical to termites living today.

N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall also make an important comment:

That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.54

Likewise, the American paleontologist Steven M. Stanley describes how the Darwinist dogma, which dominates the world of science, has ignored this reality demonstrated by the fossil record:

The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured. ... 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.' ... their story has been suppressed.55

Let us now examine the facts of the fossil record, which have been silenced for so long, in a bit more detail. In order to do this, we shall have to consider natural history from the most remote ages to the present, stage by stage.

28 Loren C. Eiseley, The Immense Journey, Vintage Books, 1958, p. 186.; cited in Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press, Boston, 1971, p. 30.
29 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 184.
30 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press, Boston, 1971, pp. 32-33.
31 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press, Boston, 1971, p. 36.
32 Jerry Bergman, Some Biological Problems With the Natural Selection Theory, The Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 3, December 1992.
33 Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey, Vintage Books, 1958. p 227., cited in Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press, Boston, 1971, p. 33.
34 Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff, "Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology", Developmental Biology, 173, Article no. 0032, 1996, p. 361. (emphasis added)
35 R. Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire", Science, vol. 210, 21 November, 1980, p. 883.
36 H. Lisle Gibbs and Peter R. Grant, "Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches," Nature, 327, 1987, pp. 513; For more detailed information, please see Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, 2000, pp. 159-175.
37 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 9
38 Pierre Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 82.
39 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 179.
40 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, The Modern Library, New York, p. 124-125. (emphasis added)
41 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 25.
42 K. S. Thomson, Morphogenesis and Evolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 98.
43 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Tichnor and Fields, New Haven, 1982, p. 40.
44 S.J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977. (emphasis added)
45 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, "Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered", Paleobiology, 3 (2), 1977, p. 115.
46 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 146.
47 S. J. Gould & N. Eldredge, Paleobiology, vol. 3, 1977, p. 147.
48 Duane T. Gish, Evolution: Fossils Still Say No, CA, 1995, p. 41
49 David Day, Vanished Species, Gallery Books, New York, 1989.
50 T. Neville George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48, January 1960, pp. 1, 3. (emphasis added)
51 N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59. (emphasis added)
52 R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 45.
53 Science, July 17, 1981, p. 289. (emphasis added)
54 N. Eldredge, and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, Columbia University Press, 1982, pp. 45-46. (emphasis added)
55 S. M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, Basic Books Inc., N.Y., 1981, p. 71. (emphasis added)

The Mechanisms of Darwinism

The Mechanisms of Darwinism

According to the theory of evolution, living things came into existence by means of coincidences, and developed further as a consequence of coincidental effects. Approximately 3.8 billion years ago, when no living organisms existed on earth, the first simple single-celled organisms (prokaryotes) emerged. Over time, more complex cells (eukaryotes) and multicellular organisms came into being. In other words, according to Darwinism, the forces of nature built simple inanimate elements into highly complex and flawless designs.

In evaluating this claim, one should first consider whether such forces in fact exist in nature. More explicitly, are there really natural mechanisms which can accomplish evolution according to the Darwinian scenario?

The neo-Darwinist model, which we shall take as the mainstream theory of evolution today, argues that life has evolved through two natural mechanisms: natural selection and mutation. The theory basically asserts that natural selection and mutation are two complementary mechanisms. The origin of evolutionary modifications lies in random mutations that take place in the genetic structures of living things. The traits brought about by mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural selection, and by this means living things evolve. However, when we look further into this theory, we find that there is no such evolutionary mechanism. Neither natural selection nor mutations can cause different species to evolve into one another, and the claim that they can is completely unfounded.

Natural Selection

The concept of natural selection was the basis of Darwinism. This assertion is stressed even in the title of the book in which Darwin proposed his theory: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection…

Natural selection is based on the assumption that in nature there is a constant struggle for survival. It favors organisms with traits that best enable them to cope with pressures exerted by the environment. At the end of this struggle, the strongest ones, the ones most suited to natural conditions, survive. For example, in a herd of deer under threat from predators, those individuals that can run fastest will naturally survive. As a consequence, the herd of deer will eventually consist of only fast-running individuals.

However, no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another species. The weak deer are eliminated, the strong survive, but, since no alteration in their genetic data takes place, no transformation of a species occurs. Despite the continuous processes of selection, deer continue to exist as deer.

The deer example is true for all species. In any population, natural selection only eliminates those weak, or unsuited individuals who are unable to adapt to the natural conditions in their habitat. It does not produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot cause anything to evolve. Darwin, too, accepted this fact, stating that "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur."7 That is why neo-Darwinism had to add the mutation mechanism as a factor altering genetic information to the concept of natural selection.

We will deal with mutations next. But before proceeding, we need to further examine the concept of natural selection in order to see the contradictions inherent in it.

A Struggle for Survival?

Darwin had been influenced by Thomas Malthus when he developed his thesis of the struggle for life. But observations and experiments proved Malthus wrong.

The essential assumption of the theory of natural selection holds that there is a fierce struggle for survival in nature, and every living thing cares only for itself. At the time Darwin proposed this theory, the ideas of Thomas Malthus, the British classical economist, were an important influence on him. Malthus maintained that human beings were inevitably in a constant struggle for survival, basing his views on the fact that population, and hence the need for food resources, increases geometrically, while food resources themselves increase only arithmetically. The result is that population size is inevitably checked by factors in the environment, such as hunger and disease. Darwin adapted Malthus's vision of a fierce struggle for survival among human beings to nature at large, and claimed that "natural selection" is a consequence of this struggle.

Further research, however, revealed that there was no struggle for life in nature as Darwin had postulated. As a result of extensive research into animal groups in the 1960s and 1970s, V. C. Wynne-Edwards, a British zoologist, concluded that living things balance their population in an interesting way, which prevents competition for food. Animal groups were simply managing their population on the basis of their food resources. Population was regulated not by elimination of the weak through factors like epidemics or starvation, but by instinctive control mechanisms. In other words, animals controlled their numbers not by fierce competition, as Darwin suggested, but by limiting reproduction.8

Even plants exhibited examples of population control, which invalidated Darwin's suggestion of selection by means of competition. The botanist A. D. Bradshaw's observations indicated that during reproduction, plants behaved according to the "density" of the planting, and limited their reproduction if the area was highly populated with plants.9 On the other hand, examples of sacrifice observed in animals such as ants and bees display a model completely opposed to the Darwinist struggle for survival.

In recent years, research has revealed findings regarding self-sacrifice even in bacteria. These living things without brains or nervous systems, totally devoid of any capacity for thought, kill themselves to save other bacteria when they are invaded by viruses.10

These examples surely invalidate the basic assumption of natural selection-the absolute struggle for survival. It is true that there is competition in nature; however, there are clear models of self-sacrifice and solidarity, as well.

Observation and Experiments

Apart from the theoretical weaknesses mentioned above, the theory of evolution by natural selection comes up against a fundamental impasse when faced with concrete scientific findings. The scientific value of a theory must be assessed according to its success or failure in experiment and observation. Evolution by natural selection fails on both counts.

Since Darwin's time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London and a prominent evolutionist, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the ability to cause things to evolve:

No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.11

Pierre-Paul Grassé, a well-known French zoologist and critic of Darwinism, has these words to say in "Evolution and Natural Selection," a chapter of his book The Evolution of Living Organisms.

The "evolution in action" of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species [i.e. living fossils that remain unchanged for millions of years].12

A close look at a few "observed examples of natural selection" presented by biologists who advocate the theory of evolution, would reveal that, in reality, they do not provide any evidence for evolution.

The True Story of Industrial Melanism

When evolutionist sources are examined, one inevitably sees that the example of moths in England during the Industrial Revolution is cited as an example of evolution by natural selection. This is put forward as the most concrete example of evolution observed, in textbooks, magazines, and even academic sources. In actuality, though, that example has nothing to do with evolution at all.

Let us first recall what is actually said: According to this account, around the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the color of tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-colored moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them, and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, in woodlands where industrial pollution has killed the lichens, the bark of the trees had darkened, and now the light-colored moths became the most hunted, since they were the most easily noticed. As a result, the proportion of light-colored to dark-colored moths decreased. Evolutionists believe this to be a great piece of evidence for their theory. They take refuge and solace in window-dressing, showing how light-colored moths "evolved" into dark-colored ones.

The top picture shows trees with moths on them before the Industrial Revolution, and the bottom picture shows them at a later date. Because the trees had grown darker, birds were able catch light-colored moths more easily and their numbers decreased. However, this is not an example of "evolution," because no new species emerged; all that happened was that the ratio of the two already existing types in an already existing species changed.

However, although we believe these facts to be correct, it should be quite clear that they can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, since no new form arose that had not existed before. Dark colored moths had existed in the moth population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties in the population changed. The moths had not acquired a new trait or organ, which would cause "speciation."13 In order for one moth species to turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to its genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the physical traits of the bird.

This is the answer to be given to the evolutionist story of Industrial Melanism. However, there is a more interesting side to the story: Not just its interpretation, but the story itself is flawed. As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells explains in his book Icons of Evolution, the story of the peppered moths, which is included in every evolutionary biology book and has therefore, become an "icon" in this sense, does not reflect the truth. Wells discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell's experiment, which is known as the "experimental proof" of the story, is actually a scientific scandal. Some basic elements of this scandal are:

- Many experiments conducted after Kettlewell's revealed that only one type of these moths rested on tree trunks, and all other types preferred to rest beneath small, horizontal branches. Since 1980 it has become clear that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. In 25 years of fieldwork, many scientists such as Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield concluded that in Kettlewell's experiment, moths were forced to act atypically, therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scientific.14

- Scientists who tested Kettlewell's conclusions came up with an even more interesting result: Although the number of light moths would be expected to be larger in the less polluted regions of England, the dark moths there numbered four times as many as the light ones. This meant that there was no correlation between the moth population and the tree trunks as claimed by Kettlewell and repeated by almost all evolutionist sources.

- As the research deepened, the scandal changed dimension: "The moths on tree trunks" photographed by Kettlewell, were actually dead moths. Kettlewell used dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks and then photographed them. In truth, there was little chance of taking such a picture as the moths rested not on tree trunks but underneath the leaves.15

These facts were uncovered by the scientific community only in the late 1990s. The collapse of the myth of Industrial Melanism, which had been one of the most treasured subjects in "Introduction to Evolution" courses in universities for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists. One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked:

My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.16

Thus, "the most famous example of natural selection" was relegated to the trash-heap of history as a scientific scandal-which was inevitable, because natural selection is not an "evolutionary mechanism," contrary to what evolutionists claim.

In short, natural selection is capable neither of adding a new organ to a living organism, nor of removing one, nor of changing an organism of one species into that of another. The "greatest" evidence put forward since Darwin has been able to go no further than the "industrial melanism" of moths in England.

Why Natural Selection Can not Explain Complexity

As we showed at the beginning, the greatest problem for the theory of evolution by natural selection, is that it cannot enable new organs or traits to emerge in living things. Natural selection cannot develop a species' genetic data; therefore, it cannot be used to account for the emergence of new species. The greatest defender of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refers to this impasse of natural selection as follows;

The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.17

Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as an intelligent designer. However,natural selection has no intelligence. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity". These systems and organs are composed of a great number of parts cooperating together, and are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, the human eye does not function unless it exists with all its components intact).

Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to foresee the future and aim directly at the advantage that is to be acquired at the final stage. Since natural selection has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact, which demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin, who wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."18

Mutations

A deformed foot, the product of mutation.

Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.19

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20

Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. The evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionary biologists have sought examples of useful mutations by creating mutant flies. But these efforts have always resulted in sick and deformed creatures. The top picture shows the head of a normal fruit fly, and the picture on the right shows the head of fruit fly with legs coming out of it, the result of mutation.

It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world- flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.21

Mutant frogs born with crippled legs.

Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:

Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.22

The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have had deleterious results. All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce forms that are better fitted to survive.

A mutant fly with deformed wings.

The American pathologist David A. Demick notes the following in a scientific article about mutations:

Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations... With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.23

The only instance evolutionary biologists give of "useful mutation" is the disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin molecule, which serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result of mutation, and undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the hemoglobin molecule's ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People with sickle cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for this reason. However, this example of mutation, which is discussed under blood disorders in medical textbooks, is strangely evaluated by some evolutionary biologists as a "useful mutation."

The shape and functions of red corpuscles are compromised in sickle-cell anemia. For this reason, their oxygen-carrying capacities are weakened.

They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a "gift" of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a "useful genetic feature." This logic is clearly totally unfounded.

It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:

Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.24

So for that reason, as Grassé puts it, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."25

The Pleiotropic Effect

The most important proof that mutations lead only to damage, is the process of genetic coding. Almost all of the genes in a fully developed living thing carry more than one piece of information. For instance, one gene may control both the height and the eye color of that organism. Microbiologist Michael Denton explains this characteristic of genes in higher organisms such as human beings, in this way:

1. The wings do not develop. 2. The hind limbs reach full length, but the digits do not fully develop. 3. There is no soft fur covering 4. Although there is a respiratory passage, lungs and air sacs are absent. 5. The urinary tract does not grow, and does not induce the development of the kidney. On the left we can see the normal development of a domesticated fowl, and on the right the harmful effects of a mutation in the pleiotropic gene. Careful examination shows that a mutation in just one gene damages many different organs. Even if we hypothesize that mutation could have a beneficial effect, this "pleiotropic effect" would remove the advantage by damaging many more organs.

The effects of genes on development are often surprisingly diverse. In the house mouse, nearly every coat-colour gene has some effect on body size. Out of seventeen x-ray induced eye colour mutations in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, fourteen affected the shape of the sex organs of the female, a characteristic that one would have thought was quite unrelated to eye colour. Almost every gene that has been studied in higher organisms has been found to effect more than one organ system, a multiple effect which is known as pleiotropy. As Mayr argues in Population, Species and Evolution: "It is doubtful whether any genes that are not pleiotropic exist in higher organisms."26

Because of this characteristic of the genetic structure of living things, any coincidental change because of a mutation, in any gene in the DNA, will affect more than one organ. Consequently, this mutation will not be restricted to one part of the body, but will reveal more of its destructive impact. Even if one of these impacts turns out to be beneficial, as a result of a very rare coincidence, the unavoidable effects of the other damage it causes will more than outweigh those benefits.

To summarize, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot make evolution possible:

l- The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure, but will rather impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.

2- Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.

3- In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation, or by other causes, will not be passed on to subsequent generations.

The Escherichia coli bacterium is no different from specimens a billion years old. Countless mutations over this long period have not led to any structural changes.

All the explanations provided above indicate that natural selection and mutation have no evolutionary effect at all. So far, no observable example of "evolution" has been obtained by this method. Sometimes, evolutionary biologists claim that "they cannot observe the evolutionary effect of natural selection and mutation mechanisms since these mechanisms take place only over an extended period of time." However, this argument, which is just a way of making themselves feel better, is baseless, in the sense that it lacks any scientific foundation. During his lifetime, a scientist can observe thousands of generations of living things with short life spans such as fruit flies or bacteria, and still observe no "evolution." Pierre-Paul Grassé states the following about the unchanging nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution:

Bacteria ...are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. [B]acteria ...exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living insect groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect. 27

Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause evolution. Furthermore, this conclusion agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which does not demonstrate the existence of a process of evolution, but rather just the contrary.

7 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, The Modern Library, New York, p. 127. (emphasis added)
8 V. C. Wynne-Edwards, "Self Regulating Systems in Populations of Animals, Science, vol. 147, 26 March 1965, pp. 1543-1548; V. C. Wynne-Edwards, Evolution Through Group Selection, London, 1986.
9 A. D. Bradshaw, "Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants," Advances in Genetics, vol. 13, pp. 115-155; cited in Lee Spetner, Not By Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, The Judaica Press, Inc., New York, 1997, pp. 16-17.
10 Andy Coghlan "Suicide Squad", New Scientist, 10 July 1999.
11 Colin Patterson, "Cladistics", Interview by Brian Leek, interviewer Peter Franz, March 4, 1982, BBC.(emphasis added)
12 Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin On Trial, Intervarsity Press, Illinois, 1993, p. 27.
13 For more detailed information about Industrial Melanism, please see Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, InterVarsity Press, 2nd. Ed., Washington D.C., p. 26.
14 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, Washington, 2000, pp. 149-150.
15 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, Washington, 2000, pp. 141-151.
16 Jerry Coyne, "Not Black and White", a review of Michael Majerus's Melanism: Evolution in Action, Nature, 396, 1988, pp. 35-36.
17 Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monster", Natural History, vol. 86, June-July 1977, p. 28.
18 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.(emphasis added)
19 B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988. (emphasis added)
20 Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1159. (emphasis added)
21 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 48.
22 Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, River Publishing, London, 1984, p. 70. (emphasis added)
23 David A. Demick, "The Blind Gunman", Impact, no. 308, February 1999. (emphasis added)
24 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 97, 98.
25 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88. (emphasis added)
26 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books Ltd., London, 1985, p. 149.
27 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 87. (emphasis added)

A Short History

A Short History

Despite having its roots in ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was first brought to the attention of the scientific world in the nineteenth century. The most thoroughly considered view of evolution was expressed by the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, in his Zoological Philosophy (1809). Lamarck thought that all living things were endowed with a vital force that drove them to evolve toward greater complexity. He also thought that organisms could pass on to their offspring traits acquired during their lifetimes. As an example of this line of reasoning, Lamarck suggested that the long neck of the giraffe evolved when a short-necked ancestor took to browsing on the leaves of trees instead of on grass.

This evolutionary model of Lamarck's was invalidated by the discovery of the laws of genetic inheritance. In the middle of the twentieth century, the discovery of the structure of DNA revealed that the nuclei of the cells of living organisms possess very special genetic information, and that this information could not be altered by "acquired traits." In other words, during its lifetime, even though a giraffe managed to make its neck a few centimeters longer by extending its neck to upper branches, this trait would not pass to its offspring. In brief, the Lamarckian view was simply refuted by scientific findings, and went down in history as a flawed assumption.

However, the evolutionary theory formulated by another natural scientist who lived a couple of generations after Lamarck proved to be more influential. This natural scientist was Charles Robert Darwin, and the theory he formulated is known as "Darwinism."

The Birth of Darwinism

Charles Darwin based his theory on various observations he made as a young naturalist on board the H.M.S Beagle, which sailed in late 1831 on a five-year official voyage around the world. Young Darwin was heavily influenced by the diversity of species he observed, especially of the different Galapagos Island finches. The differences in the beaks of these birds, Darwin thought, were a result of their adaptation to their different environments.

After this voyage, Darwin started to visit animal markets in England. He observed that breeders produced new breeds of cow by mating animals with different characteristics. This experience, together with the different finch species he observed in the Galapagos Islands, contributed to the formulation of his theory. In 1859, he published his views in his book The Origin of Species. In this book, he postulated that all species had descended from a single ancestor, evolving from one another over time by slight variations.

What made Darwin's theory different from Lamarck's was his emphasis on "natural selection." Darwin theorized that there is a struggle for survival in nature, and that natural selection is the survival of strong species, which can adapt to their environment. Darwin adopted the following line of reasoning:

Within a particular species, there are natural and coincidental variations. For instance some cows are bigger than others, while some have darker colors. Natural selection selects the favorable traits. The process of natural selection thus causes an increase of favorable genes within a population, which results in the features of that population being better adapted to local conditions. Over time these changes may be significant enough to cause a new species to arise.

Charles Darwin developed his theory when science was still in a primitive state. Under primitive microscopes like these, life appeared to have a very simple structure. This error formed the basis of Darwinism.

However, this "theory of evolution by natural selection" gave rise to doubts from the very first:

1- What were the "natural and coincidental variations" referred to by Darwin? It was true that some cows were bigger than others, while some had darker colors, yet how could these variations provide an explanation for the diversity in animal and plant species?

2- Darwin asserted that "Living beings evolved gradually." In this case, there should have lived millions of "transitional forms." Yet there was no trace of these theoretical creatures in the fossil record. Darwin gave considerable thought to this problem, and eventually arrived at the conclusion that "further research would provide these fossils."

3- How could natural selection explain complex organs, such as eyes, ears or wings? How can it be advocated that these organs evolved gradually, bearing in mind that they would fail to function if they had even a single part missing?

4- Before considering these questions, consider the following: How did the first organism, the so-called ancestor of all species according to Darwin, come into existence? Could natural processes give life to something which was originally inanimate?

Darwin was, at least, aware of some these questions, as can be seen from the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory." However, the answers he provided had no scientific validity. H.S. Lipson, a British physicist, makes the following comments about these "difficulties" of Darwin's:

On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled "Difficulties of the Theory" for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen.1

Darwin invested all his hopes in advanced scientific research, which he expected to dispel the "difficulties of the theory." However, contrary to his expectations, more recent scientific findings have merely increased these difficulties.

The Problem of the Origin of Life

In his book, 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. Since mediaeval times, spontaneous generation, the theory that non-living matter could come together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was believed that insects came into existence from leftover bits of food. It was further imagined that mice came into being from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would emerge in due course.

Louis Pasteur destroyed the belief that life could be created from inanimate substances.

Similarly, the fact that maggots appeared in meat was believed to be evidence for spontaneous generation. However, it was only realized some time later that maggots did not appear in meat spontaneously, but were carried by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.

Even in the period when Darwin's Origin of Species was written, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from inanimate matter was widespread.

However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, which disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."2

Advocates of the theory of evolution refused to accept Pasteur's findings for a long time. However, as scientific progress revealed the complex structure of the cell, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse. We shall consider this subject in some detail in this book.

The Problem of Genetics

Another subject that posed a quandary for Darwin's theory was inheritance. At the time when Darwin developed his theory, the question of how living beings transmitted their traits to other generations-that is, how inheritance took place-was not completely understood. That is why the naive belief that inheritance was transmitted through blood was commonly accepted.

Vague beliefs about inheritance led Darwin to base his theory on completely false grounds. Darwin assumed that natural selection was the "mechanism of evolution." Yet one question remained unanswered: How would these "useful traits" be selected and transmitted from one generation to the next? At this point, Darwin embraced the Lamarckian theory, that is, "the inheritance of acquired traits." In his book The Great Evolution Mystery, Gordon R. Taylor, a researcher advocating the theory of evolution, expresses the view that Darwin was heavily influenced by Lamarck:

Lamarckism... is known as the inheritance of acquired characteristics... Darwin himself, as a matter of fact, was inclined to believe that such inheritance occurred and cited the reported case of a man who had lost his fingers and bred sons without fingers... [Darwin] had not, he said, gained a single idea from Lamarck. This was doubly ironical, for Darwin repeatedly toyed with the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics and, if it is so dreadful, it is Darwin who should be denigrated rather than Lamarck... In the 1859 edition of his work, Darwin refers to 'changes of external conditions' causing variation but subsequently these conditions are described as directing variation and cooperating with natural selection in directing it... Every year he attributed more and more to the agency of use or disuse... By 1868 when he published Varieties of Animals and Plants under Domestication he gave a whole series of examples of supposed Lamarckian inheritance: such as a man losing part of his little finger and all his sons being born with deformed little fingers, and boys born with foreskins much reduced in length as a result of generations of circumcision.3

However, Lamarck's thesis, as we have seen above, was disproved by the laws of genetic inheritance discovered by the Austrian monk and botanist, Gregor Mendel. The concept of "useful traits" was therefore left unsupported. Genetic laws showed that acquired traits are not passed on, and that genetic inheritance takes place according to certain unchanging laws. These laws supported the view that species remain unchanged. No matter how much the cows that Darwin saw in England's animal fairs bred, the species itself would never change: cows would always remain cows.

The genetic laws discovered by Mendel proved very damaging to the theory of evolution.

Gregor Mendel announced the laws of genetic inheritance that he discovered as a result of long experiment and observation in a scientific paper published in 1865. But this paper only attracted the attention of the scientific world towards the end of the century. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the truth of these laws had been accepted by the whole scientific community. This was a serious dead-end for Darwin's theory, which tried to base the concept of "useful traits" on Lamarck.

Here we must correct a general misapprehension: Mendel opposed not only Lamarck's model of evolution, but also Darwin's. As the article "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin," published in the Journal of Heredity, makes clear, "he [Mendel] was familiar with The Origin of Species ...and he was opposed to Darwin's theory; Darwin was arguing for descent with modification through natural selection, Mendel was in favor of the orthodox doctrine of special creation."4

The laws discovered by Mendel put Darwinism in a very difficult position. For these reasons, scientists who supported Darwinism tried to develop a different model of evolution in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Thus was born "neo-Darwinism."

The Efforts of Neo-Darwinism

A group of scientists who were determined to reconcile Darwinism with the science of genetics, in one way or another, came together at a meeting organized by the Geological Society of America in 1941. After long discussion, they agreed on ways to create a new interpretation of Darwinism and over the next few years, specialists produced a synthesis of their fields into a revised theory of evolution.

The scientists who participated in establishing the new theory included the geneticists G. Ledyard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky, the zoologists Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, the paleontologists George Gaylord Simpson and Glenn L. Jepsen, and the mathematical geneticists Sir Ronald A. Fisher and Sewall Wright.5

To counter the fact of "genetic stability" (genetic homeostasis), this group of scientists employed the concept of "mutation," which had been proposed by the Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries at the beginning of the 20^th century. Mutations were defects that occurred, for unknown reasons, in the inheritance mechanism of living things. Organisms undergoing mutation developed some unusual structures, which deviated from the genetic information they inherited from their parents. The concept of "random mutation" was supposed to provide the answer to the question of the origin of the advantageous variations which caused living organisms to evolve according to Darwin's theory-a phenomenon that Darwin himself was unable to explain, but simply tried to side-step by referring to Lamarck. The Geological Society of America group named this new theory, which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin's natural selection thesis, the "synthetic theory of evolution" or the "modern synthesis". In a short time, this theory came to be known as "neo-Darwinism" and its supporters as "neo-Darwinists."

The architects of Neo-Darwinism: Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, and Julian Huxley.

Yet there was a serious problem: It was true that mutations changed the genetic data of living organisms, yet this change always occurred to the detriment of the living thing concerned. All observed mutations ended up with disfigured, weak, or diseased individuals and, sometimes, led to the death of the organism. Hence, in an attempt to find examples of "useful mutations" which improve the genetic data in living organisms, neo-Darwinists conducted many experiments and observations. For decades, they conducted mutation experiments on fruit flies and various other species. However, in none of these experiments could a mutation which improved the genetic data in a living being be seen.

Today the issue of mutation is still a great impasse for Darwinism. Despite the fact that the theory of natural selection considers mutations to be the unique source of "useful changes," no mutations of any kind have been observed that are actually useful (that is, that improve the genetic information). In the following chapter, we will consider this issue in detail.

Another impasse for neo-Darwinists came from the fossil record. Even in Darwin's time, fossils were already posing an important obstacle to the theory. While Darwin himself accepted the lack of fossils of "intermediate species," he also predicted that further research would provide evidence of these lost transitional forms. However, despite all the paleontologists' efforts, the fossil record continued to remain a serious obstacle to the theory. One by one, concepts such as "vestigial organs," "embryological recapitulation" and "homology" lost all significance in the light of new scientific findings. All these issues are dealt with more fully in the remaining chapters of this book.

A Theory in Crisis

We have just reviewed in summary form the impasse Darwinism found itself in from the day it was first proposed. We will now start to analyze the enormous dimensions of this deadlock. In doing this, our intention is to show that the theory of evolution is not indisputable scientific truth, as many people assume or try to impose on others. On the contrary, there is a glaring contradiction when the theory of evolution is compared to scientific findings in such diverse fields as the origin of life, population genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology, and biochemistry. In a word, evolution is a theory in "crisis."

Michael Denton

That is a description by Prof. Michael Denton, an Australian biochemist and a renowned critic of Darwinism. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), Denton examined the theory in the light of different branches of science, and concluded that the theory of natural selection is very far from providing an explanation for life on earth.6 Denton's intention in offering his criticism was not to show the correctness of another view, but only to compare Darwinism with the scientific facts. During the last two decades, many other scientists have published significant works questioning the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution.

In this book, we will examine this crisis. No matter how much concrete evidence is provided, some readers may be unwilling to abandon their positions, and will continue to adhere to the theory of evolution. However, reading this book will still be of use to them, since it will help them to see the real situation of the theory they believe in, in the light of scientific findings.

1 H. S. Lipson, "A Physicist's View of Darwin's Theory", Evolution Trends in Plants, cilt 2, No. 1, 1988, s. 6.
2 Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose. Molecular Evolution and The Origin of Life. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1977. s. 2
3 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, London: Abacus, 1984, s. 36- 41
4 B.E. Bishop, "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin," Journal of Heredity 87 (1996): s. 205-213; ayrýca bkz. L.A. Callender, "Gregor Mendel: An Opponent of Descent with Modification," History of Science 26 (1988): s. 41-75.
5 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Books, 1985
6 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985.

Foreword

Foreword

Anyone who seeks an answer to the question of how living things, including himself, came into existence, will encounter two distinct explanations. The first is "creation," the idea that all living things came into existence as a consequence of an intelligent design. The second explanation is the theory of "evolution," which asserts that living things are not the products of an intelligent design, but of coincidental causes and natural processes.

For a century and a half now, the theory of evolution has received extensive support from the scientific community. The science of biology is defined in terms of evolutionist concepts. That is why, between the two explanations of creation and evolution, the majority of people assume the evolutionist explanation to be scientific. Accordingly, they believe evolution to be a theory supported by the observational findings of science, while creation is thought to be a belief based on faith. As a matter of fact, however, scientific findings do not support the theory of evolution. Findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects cannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes.

In this book, we will analyze this scientific crisis faced by the theory of evolution. This work rests solely upon scientific findings. Those advocating the theory of evolution on behalf of scientific truth should confront these findings and question the presumptions they have so far held. Refusal to do this would mean openly accepting that their adherence to the theory of evolution is dogmatic rather than scientific.

 

Chapter 8 Conclusion

Chapter 8

Conclusion

All through the book we have discussed the viewpoint, purpose of existence, moral values, beliefs, fears and characters of the people who adhere to the ignorant way of living. The purpose in examining them in details was to show how a life bereft of religion causes man to drift into a “crude understanding.” Another, yet more important purpose, was to make them think rationally of the detrimental consequences of their preference both in this world and the life beyond, with a sound mind.

The Qur’an draws our attention to the fact that at the end, for those who follow their desires there will be a grave disappointment:

And if the Truth had followed their desires, truly the heavens and the earth and all who dwell whosoever is therein would have been corrupted. We have brought them their Reminder, but from their Reminder they now turn away. (Surah al-Muminum: 71)

Because following vain desires is so pernicious, one should seek ways to avoid doing so. And there is only one way to avoid disappointment: to live up to the moral values of the Qur’an… That is because only the Qur’an grants the “honour” human beings deserve. The Qur’an saves the human soul from the ignorance, crude understanding, negative inspirations, irrational fears, and all perverted beliefs and provides relief from anxiety as well as from the eternal torment in Hell. It grants man wisdom, good conduct, a peaceful environment very similar to Paradise and most importantly, a life in Paradise for all eternity.

This book includes extensive reference to the “gloomy environment” ignorant people are surrounded with as well as the “rewarding life” presented by the Qur’an. A comparison between these two, by nature, summons man to the guidance of the Qur’an. The verse “He it is Who sent down clear revelations to His slave, so that He might bring you forth from darkness unto light… “ (Surah Al-Hadid: 9) suggests that those adhering to the Qur’an will attain eternal salvation.

This book is a reminder and a warning to the ignorant. As the verse “This is a Reminder. Let him who will, then, choose a way to his Lord,” (Surah Al-Muzzammil: 19) suggests, those willing to follow divine guidance should take warning and take heed.

This life is short and temporary. For all men, without exception, the time spent in this world is as short as “the blink of an eye”. It is surely unwise to neglect the next world just for the sake of the temporary joys of this one. The only way to attain eternal salvation is to purify oneself of the teachings of the ignorant society and to adhere to true religion, in other words, the religion enjoined by Allah. What is expected of the readers of this book is that they should make this right choice.

And say:“Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood has been overthrown: for Falsehood is bound to perish.” (Surah Al-Isra: 81)