CHAPTER 12 WHY EVOLUTIONIST CLAIMS ARE INVALID
CHAPTER 12
WHY EVOLUTIONIST CLAIMS ARE INVALID
In previous chapters, we examined the invalidity of the theory of evolution in terms of the bodies of evidence found in fossils and from the standpoint of molecular biology. In this chapter, we will address a number of biological phenomena and concepts presented as theoretical evidence by evolutionists. These topics are particularly important for they show that there is no scientific finding that supports evolution and instead reveal the extent of the distortion and hoodwink employed by evolutionists.
Variations and Species
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.
Evolutionists predicate the variations within a species as evidence to the theory. However, 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.
In The Origin of Species, Darwin confused two separate
concepts: variations within a species and the emergence of an entirely
new one. Darwin observed the variety within the various breeds of dogs,
for example, and imagined that some of these variations would one day
turn into a different species. Even today evolutionists persist in
seeking to portray variations within species as "evolution".
|
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 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".143 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 habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.144
The reason Darwin cited such a far-fetched example was the primitive understanding of science in his day. Since then, in the 20th 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 produce new variations 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.145
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." 146 The Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen sums the matter up this way:
The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such a variability does not contain the secret of 'indefinite departure.147
In The Origin of Species, Darwin asserted that whales had evolved from bears that tried to swim! Darwin mistakenly supposed that the possibilities of variation within a species were unlimited. 20th century science has shown this evolutionary scenario to be imaginary. |
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 no "evolution" that leads to the emergence of new traits ever takes place there.148
Antibiotic Resistance and DDTImmunity are not Evidence for Evolution
One of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present as evidence for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Many evolutionist sources show antibiotic resistance as "an example of the development of living things by advantageous mutations". A similar claim is also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides such as DDT.
However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too.
Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by micro-organisms to fight other micro-organisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realized that mould produced a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this discovery marked a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics derived from micro-organisms were used against bacteria and the results were successful.
Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics.
Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by adapting to conditions".
The truth, however, is very different from this
superficial interpretation. One of the scientists who has done the most
detailed research into this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee
Spetner, who is also known for his book Not by Chance published
in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about
by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence
for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are:
1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.
2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.
Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published in 2001:
Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... The organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.149
Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":
The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution. The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.150
 Evolutionists portray bacteria's resistance to antibiotics as evidence of evolution—but in a deceptive way. |
So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria.
The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes:
...A microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT[Neo Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that (Evolution) cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.151
To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled". (Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less functional than that of normal bacterium). Since this "disability" prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops.
Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic information".
The same situation holds true for the immunity that insects develop to DDT and similar insecticides. In most of these instances, immunity genes that already exist are used. The evolutionist biologist Francisco Ayala admits this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds."152
Some other examples explained by mutation, just as with the ribosome mutation mentioned above, are phenomena that cause "genetic information deficit" in insects.
In this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity mechanisms in bacteria and insects constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. That is because the theory of evolution is based on the assertion that living things develop through mutations. However, Spetner explains that neither antibiotic immunity nor any other biological phenomena indicate such an example of mutation:
The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO!153
The Fallacy of Vestigial Organs
 All instances of vestigial organs have been disproved in time. For example the semicircular fold in the eye, which was mentioned in the Origins as a vestigial structure, has been shown to be fully functional in our time, though its function was unknown in Darwin's time. This organ lubricates the eyeball. |
For a long time, the concept of "vestigial organs" appeared frequently in evolutionist literature as "evidence" of evolution. Eventually, it was silently put to rest when this was proved to be invalid. But some evolutionists still believe in it, and from time to time someone will try to advance "vestigial organs" as important evidence of evolution.
The notion of "vestigial organs" was first put forward a century ago. As evolutionists would have it, there existed in the bodies of some creatures a number of non-functional organs. These had been inherited from progenitors and had gradually become vestigial from lack of use.
The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered". The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S.R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that "vestigial organs" provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.154
The list of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 organs, including the appendix and coccyx. As science progressed, it was discovered that all of the organs in Wiedersheim's list in fact had very important functions. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a "vestigial organ", was in fact a lymphoid organ that fought against infections in the body. This fact was made clear in 1997: "Other bodily organs and tissues-the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and small collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer's patch in the small intestine-are also part of the lymphatic system. They too help the body fight infection."155
 Eagles, bats and insects all have wings. Yet just because they possess similar organs does not prove that they evolved from any common ancestor. |
It was also discovered that the tonsils, which were included in the same list of vestigial organs, had a significant role in protecting the throat against infections, particularly until adolescence. It was found that the coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column supports the bones around the pelvis and is the convergence point of some small muscles and for this reason, it would not be possible to sit comfortably without a coccyx. In the years that followed, it was realised that the thymus triggered the immune system in the human body by activating the T cells, that the pineal gland was in charge of the secretion of some important hormones, that the thyroid gland was effective in providing steady growth in babies and children, and that the pituitary gland controlled the correct functioning of many hormone glands. All of these were once conside-red to be "vestigial organs". Finally, the semi-lunar fold in the eye, which was referred to as a vestigial organ by Darwin, has been found in fact to be in charge of cleansing and lubricating the eyeball.
There was a very important logical error in the evolutionist claim regarding vestigial organs. As we have just seen, this claim was that the vestigial organs in living things were inherited from their ancestors. However, some of the alleged "vestigial" organs are not found in the species alleged to be the ancestors of human beings! For example, the appendix does not exist in some ape species that are said to be ancestors of man. The famous biologist H. Enoch, who challenged the theory of vestigial organs, expressed this logical error as follows:
Apes possess an appendix, whereas their less immediate relatives, the lower apes, do not; but it appears again among the still lower mammals such as the opossum. How can the evolutionists account for this?156
Simply put, the scenario of vestigial organs put forward by evolutionists contains a number of serious logical flaws, and has in any case been proven to be scientifically untrue. There exists not one inherited vestigial organ in the human body, since human beings did not evolve from other creatures as a result of chance, but were created in their current, complete, and perfect form.
The Myth of Homology
Structural similarities between different species are called "homology" in biology. Evolutionists try to present those similarities as evidence for evolution.
Darwin thought that creatures with similar (homologous) organs had an evolutionary relationship with each other, and that these organs must have been inherited from a common ancestor. According to his assumption, both pigeons and eagles had wings; therefore, pigeons, eagles, and indeed all other birds with wings were supposed to have evolved from a common ancestor.
Homology is a deceptive argument, advanced on the basis of no other evidence than an apparent physical resemblance. This argument has never once been verified by a single concrete discovery in all the years since Darwin's day. Nowhere in the world has anyone come up with a fossil remain of the imaginary common ancestor of creatures with homologous structures. Furthermore, the following issues make it clear that homology provides no evidence that evolution ever occurred.
1. One finds homologous organs in creatures belonging to completely different phyla, among which evolutionists have not been able to establish any sort of evolutionary relationship;
2. The genetic codes of some creatures that have homologous organs are completely different from one another.
3. The embryological development of homologous organs in different creatures is completely different.
Let us now examine each of these points one by one.
Similar Organs in Entirely Different Living Species
There are a number of homologous organs shared by different groups among which evolutionists cannot establish any kind of evolutionary relationship. Wings are one example. In addition to birds, we find wings on bats, which are mammals, and on insects and even on some dinosaurs, which are extinct reptiles. Not even evolutionists posit an evolutionary relationship or kinship among those four different groups of animals.
Another striking example is the amazing resemblance and the structural similarity observed in the eyes of different creatures. For example, the octopus and man are two extremely different species, between which no evolutionary relationship is likely even to be proposed, yet the eyes of both are very much alike in terms of their structure and function. Not even evolutionists try to account for the similarity of the eyes of the octopus and man by positing a common ancestor. These and numerous other examples show that the evolutionist claim based on resemblances is completely unscientific.
Mammal Twins That Defy Homology TWO UNRELATED EXTINCT MAMMALS WITH GIANT TEETH Another example of extraordinary resemblance
between placental and marsupial mammal "twins," is that between the
extinct mammals Smilodon (below) and Thylacosmilus (above), both
predators with enormous front teeth. The great degree of resemblance
between the skull and teeth structures of these two mammals, between
which no evolutionary relationship can be established, overturns the
homological view that similar structures are evidence in favour of
evolution. TASMANIAN WOLF AND ITS NORTH AMERICAN COUNTERPART The presence of "twin" species between marsupial and placental mammals deals a serious blow to the claim of homology. For example, the marsupial Tasmanian wolf (above) and the placental wolf found in North America resemble each other to an extraordinary degree. Above can be seen the skulls of these two highly similar animals. Such a close resemblance between the two, which cannot be suggested to have any "evolutionary relationship", completely invalidates the claim of homology. a) North American wolf skull |
In fact, homologous organs should be a great embarrassment for evolutionists. The famous evolutionist Frank Salisbury's confessions revealed in his statements on how extremely different creatures came to have very similar eyes underscores the impasse of homology:
Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It's bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim.157
 In terms of structure, the eyes of humans and octopuses are very much alike. However, the fact that the two species have similar organs doesn't imply that they evolved from a common ancestor. Not even evolutionists try to account for the similarity of the eyes of the octopus and man by positing a common ancestor. |
There are many creatures which, despite their very similar physical make-up, do not permit any claims of evolutionary relationship. Two large mammal categories, placentals and marsupials, are an example. Evolutionists consider this distinction to have come about when mammals first appeared, and that each group lived its own evolutionary history totally independent of the other. But it is interesting that there are "pairs" in placentals and marsupials which are nearly the same. The American biologists Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis make the following comment:
According to Darwinian theory, the pattern for wolves, cats, squirrels, ground hogs, anteaters, moles, and mice each evolved twice: once in placental mammals and again, totally independently, in marsupials. This amounts to the astonishing claim that a random, undirected process of mutation and natural selection somehow hit upon identical features several times in widely separated organisms.158
Extraordinary resemblances and similar organs like these, which evolutionist biologists cannot accept as examples of "homology," show that there is no evidence for the thesis of evolution from a common ancestor. What, in that case, could be the scientific explanation of the similar structures in living things? The answer to that question was given before Darwin's theory of evolution came to dominate the world of science. Scientists like Carl Linnaeus, who first systematized living things according to their similar structures, and Richard Owen regarded these structures as examples of "common" creation. In other words, similar organs (or, nowadays, similar genes) are held to be so because they were created to serve a particular purpose, not because they evolved by chance from a common ancestor.
Modern scientific findings show that the claim of a "common ancestor" made with regard to similar organs is incorrect, and that the only possible explanation is common creation, confirming once again that living things were created by God.
The Genetic and Embryological Impasse of Homology
 Professor Michael Denton: "Evolution is a theory in crisis" |
In order for the evolutionist claim concerning "homology" to be taken seriously, similar (homologous) organs in different creatures should also be coded with similar (homologous) DNA codes. However, they are not. Similar organs are usually governed by very different genetic (DNA) codes. Furthermore, similar genetic codes in the DNA of different creatures are often associated with completely different organs.
Michael Denton, an Australian professor of biochemistry, describes in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis the genetic impasse of the evolutionist interpretation of homology: "Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology."159
A famous example on this subject is the "five digit skeletal structure" of quadrupeds which is quoted in almost all evolutionist textbooks. Quadrupeds, i.e., land-living vertebrates, have five digits on their fore- and hindlimbs. Although these do not always have the appearance of five digits as we know them, they are all counted as pentadactyl due to their bone structure. The fore- and hindlimbs of a frog, a lizard, a squirrel or a monkey all have this same structure. Even the bone structures of birds and bats conform to this basic design.
Evolutionists claim that all living things descended from a common ancestor, and they have long cited pentadactyl limb as evidence of this. This claim was mentioned in almost all basic sources on biology throughout the 20th century as very strong evidence for evolution. Genetic findings in the 1980s refuted this evolutionist claim. It was realised that the pentadactyl limb patterns of different creatures are controlled by totally different genes. Evolutionist biologist William Fix describes the collapse of the evolutionist thesis regarding pentadactylism in this way:
The older text-books on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the "pentadactyl" limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and the flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down...160
Another point is that in order for the evolutionary thesis regarding homology to be taken seriously, the periods of similar structures' embryological development-in other words, the stages of development in the egg or the mother's womb-would need to be parallel, whereas, in reality, these embryological periods for similar structures are quite different from each other in every living creature.
To conclude, we can say that genetic and embryological research has proven that the concept of homology defined by Darwin as "evidence of the evolution of living things from a common ancestor" can by no means be regarded as any evidence at all. In this respect, science can be said to have proven the Darwinist thesis false time and time again.
Invalidity of the Claim of Molecular Homology
Evolutionists' advancement of homology as evidence for evolution is invalid not only at the morphological level, but also at the molecular level. Evolutionists say that the DNA codes, or the corresponding protein structures, of different living species are similar, and that this similarity is evidence that these living species have evolved from common ancestors, or else from each other.
In truth, however, the results of molecular comparisons do not work in favour of the theory of evolution at all. There are huge molecular differences between creatures that appear to be very similar and related. For instance, the cytochrome-C protein, one of the proteins vital to respiration, is incredibly different in living beings of the same class. According to research carried out on this matter, the difference between two different reptile species is greater than the difference between a bird and a fish or a fish and a mammal. Another study has shown that molecular differences between some birds are greater than the differences between those same birds and mammals. It has also been discovered that the molecular difference between bacteria that appear to be very similar is greater than the difference between mammals and amphibians or insects.161 Similar comparisons have been made in the cases of haemoglobin, myoglobin, hormones, and genes and similar conclusions are drawn.162
Concerning these findings in the field of molecular biology, Dr. Michael Denton comments:
Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology… At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives… There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago… the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.163
The "Tree of Life" Is Collapsing
In the 1990s, research into the genetic codes of living things worsened the quandary faced by the theory of evolution in this regard. In these experiments, instead of the earlier comparisons that were limited to protein sequences, "ribosomal RNA" (rRNA) sequences were compared. From these findings, evolutionist scientists sought to establish an "evolutionary tree". However, they were disappointed by the results. According to a 1999 article by French biologists Hervé Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "with more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein pyhlogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA tree."164
Besides rRNA comparisons, the DNA codes in the genes of living things were also compared, but the results have been the opposite of the "tree of life" presupposed by evolution. Molecular biologists James A. Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera elaborated on this in an article in 1999:
"Scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone."165
Neither the comparisons that have been made of proteins, nor those of rRNAs or of genes, confirm the premises of the theory of evolution. Carl Woese, a highly reputed biologist from the University of Illinois admits that the concept of "phylogeny" has lost its meaning in the face of molecular findings in this way:
No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various (groups) to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves."166
The fact that results of molecular comparisons are not in favour of, but rather opposed to, the theory of evolution is also admitted in an article called "Is it Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" published in Science in 1999. This article by Elizabeth Pennisi states that the genetic analyses and comparisons carried out by Darwinist biologists in order to shed light on the "tree of life" actually yielded directly opposite results, and goes on to say that "new data are muddying the evolutionary picture":
A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes from more than a dozen microorganisms thought these data might support the accepted plot lines of life's early history. But what they saw confounded them. Comparisons of the genomes then available not only didn't clarify the picture of how life's major groupings evolved, they confused it. And now, with an additional eight microbial sequences in hand, the situation has gotten even more confusing.... Many evolutionary biologists had thought they could roughly see the beginnings of life's three kingdoms... When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing other kinds of genes, researchers expected that they would simply add detail to this tree. But "nothing could be further from the truth," says Claire Fraser, head of The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead, the comparisons have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well...167
In short, as molecular biology advances, the homology concept loses more ground. Comparisons that have been made of proteins, rRNAs and genes reveal that creatures which are allegedly close relatives according to the theory of evolution are actually totally distinct from each other. A 1996 study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with primates instead of rodents; a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins among the chordates; and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses. Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells sums up the situation in 2000 in this way:
Inconsistencies among trees based on different molecules, and the bizarre trees that result from some molecular analyses, have now plunged molecular phylogeny into a crisis.168
"Molecular phylogeny" is facing a crisis—which means that the theory of evolution also faces a crisis. (Phylogeny refers to the so-called "family relationships" among various living things and is the hypothetical basis of the theory of evolution.) Once again, science undermines the thesis that living things evolved from one another, demonstrating that all living groups were created separately.
The Myth of Embryological Recapitulation
 Haeckel was an evolutionist even more ardent than Darwin in many respects. For this reason, he did not hesitate to distort the scientific data and devise various forgeries. |
What used to be called the "recapitulation theory" has long been eliminated from scientific literature, but it is still being presented as a scientific reality by some evolutionist publications. The term "recapitulation" is a condensation of the dictum "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", put forward by the evolutionist biologist Ernst Haeckel at the end of the 19th century.
This theory of Haeckel's postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theorised that during its development in its mother's womb, the human embryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish, and then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human.
It has since been proven that this theory is completely bogus. It is now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. The part of the embryo that was likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that had been identified as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.
These drawings were fabricated by Haeckel to demonstrate the "similarities" between human and fish embryos. Comparing his sketch with a genuine human embryo, you can see that he has deliberately omitted a large portion of the actual organs. (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, p. 205) |
These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves. George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, writes:
Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.169
In an article published in American Scientist, we read:
Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry it was extinct in the twenties…170
Another interesting aspect of "recapitulation" was Ernst Haeckel himself, a faker who falsified his drawings in order to support the theory he advanced. Haeckel's forgeries purported to show that fish and human embryos resembled one another. When he was caught out, the only defence he offered was that other evolutionists had committed similar offences:
After this compromising confession of "forgery" I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoners' dock hundreds of fellow culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of "forgery", for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed.171
There are indeed "hundreds of fellow culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists" whose studies are full of prejudiced conclusions, distortions, and even forgeries. This is because they have all conditioned themselves to champion evolutionary theory although there is not a shred of scientific evidence supporting it.
143. Loren C. Eiseley, The Immense Journey, Vintage Books, 1958, p. 186
144. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 184
145. Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press, New York : 1971, p. 33
146. Ibid, p. 36
147
Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey, Vintage Books, 1958. p. 227
148 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.
149 Dr. Lee Spetner,
"Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue : Continuing an exchange with Dr.
Edward E. Max", 2001, http ://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.ap
150 Ibid.
151 Ibid.
152 Francisco J. Ayala, "The Mechanisms of Evolution", Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 64
153 Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/Edward Max
Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max", 2001, http
://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.ap
154 S. R. Scadding, "Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?", Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173
155 The Merck Manual of Medical Information, Home
edition, New Jersey : Merck & Co., Inc. The Merck Publishing Group,
Rahway, 1997
156 H. Enoch, Creation and Evolution, New York : 1966, pp. 18-19
157 Frank Salisbury, "Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 338
158 Dean Kenyon & Percival Davis, Of Pandas
and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, Dallas :
Haughton Publishing, 1993, p. 33
159 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Londres, Burnett Books, 1985, p. 145
160 William Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, New York : Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 189
161 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited,
Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville : 1991, pp. 98-99 ; Percival Davis, Dean
Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, Haughton Publishing Co., 1990, pp. 35-38
162 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, pp. 98-99, 199-202
163 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Londres : Burnett Books, 1985, pp. 290-91
164 Hervé Philippe et Patrick Forterre, "The
Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life is Not Reliable", Journal of
Molecular Evolution, Vol. 49, 1999, p. 510
165 James Lake, Ravi Jain et Maria Rivera, "Mix and Match in the Tree of Life", Science, Vol. 283, 1999, p. 2027
166 Carl Woese, "The Universel Ancestor", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 95, (1998) p. 6854
167 Ibid.
168 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 51
169 G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, New York, Harcourt Brace and World, 1965, p. 241
170 Keith S. Thompson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated", American Scientist, Vol. 76, May/June 1988, p. 273
171 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New York : Ticknor and Fields 1982, p. 204
CHAPTER 11 DESIGN CANNOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY COINCIDENCE
CHAPTER 11
DESIGN CANNOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY COINCIDENCE
In the previous chapter, 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". The theory of 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.
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 aa 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 and in an appropriate environment where it can survive, exchange materials, and get energy from its surroundings. This means that the first cell on earth was formed "all of a sudden" together with its amazingly 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 with its engine and all its technical equipment.) 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 synthesised "by chance" and then come together and manufactured such a car?
There is no doubt that anyone with a sound mind would realise 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 agent. A complex system like the cell is no doubt created by a superior will and wisdom. In other words, it came into existence as a creation of God.
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 a materialist, 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.139
Grasse summarises what the concept of "coincidence" means for evolutionists: "...Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped."140
The logical failure of evolutionists is an outcome of their enshrining the concept of coincidence. In the Qur'an, it is written that those who worship beings other than God are devoid of understanding;
They have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not. They are like cattle - nay more misguided: for they are heedless (of warning). (Surat al-Araf : 179)
Darwinian Formula!
Besides all the technical evidence we have dealt with so far, let us now for once, examine what kind of a superstition the evolutionists have with an example so simple as to be understood even by children:
Evolutionary theory asserts that life is formed by chance. According to this claim, lifeless and unconscious atoms came together to form the cell and then they somehow formed other living things, including man. Let us think about that. When we bring together the elements that are the building-blocks of life such as carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium, only a heap is formed. No matter what treatments it undergoes, this atomic heap cannot form even a single living being. If you like, let us formulate an "experiment" on this subject and let us examine on the behalf of evolutionists what they really claim without pronouncing loudly under the name "Darwinian formula":
Let evolutionists put plenty of materials present in the composition of living beings such as phosphorus, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, iron, and magnesium into big barrels. Moreover, let them add in these barrels any material that does not exist under normal conditions, but they think as necessary. Let them add in this mixture as many amino acids-which have no possibility of forming under natural conditions-and as many proteins-a single one of which has a formation probability of 10-950-as they like. Let them expose these mixtures to as much heat and moisture as they like. Let them stir these with whatever technologically developed device they like. Let them put the foremost scientists beside these barrels. Let these experts wait in turn beside these barrels for billions, and even trillions of years. Let them be free to use all kinds of conditions they believe to be necessary for a living thing's formation. No matter what they do, they cannot produce from these barrels a living being, say a professor that examines his cell structure under the electron microscope. They cannot produce giraffes, lions, bees, canaries, horses, dolphins, roses, orchids, lilies, carnations, bananas, oranges, apples, dates, tomatoes, melons, watermelons, figs, olives, grapes, peaches, peafowls, pheasants, multicoloured butterflies, or millions of other living beings such as these. Indeed, they could not obtain even a single cell of any one of them.
They will be unable to produce even a single cell from this barrel. They will be unable to produce a horse, butterfly, flower, duck, , cherry or lemon tree, owl or ant. No matter what they do, they will be unable to produce scientists who examine their own cells under the microscope, and human beings who think, reason, judge, rejoice and feel excitement and longing. |
Briefly, unconscious atoms cannot form the cell by coming together. They cannot take a new decision and divide this cell into two, then take other decisions and form the professors who first invent the electron microscope and then examine their own cell structure under that microscope. Matter comes to life only with God's superior creation.
Evolutionary theory, which claims the opposite, is a total fallacy completely contrary to reason. Thinking even a little bit on the claims of tevolutionists discloses this reality, just as in the above example.
Technology In The Eye and The Ear
When we compare the eye and the ear with cameras and sound recorders, we see that the eye and the ear are far more complex, functional, and perfect than those technological products. |
Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye and the ear.
Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of "how we see". Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the retina of the eye. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and they reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain called the centre of vision. These electric signals are perceived in this centre of the brain as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.
The brain is insulated from light. That means that the inside of the brain is solid dark, and light does not reach the location where the brain is situated. The place called the centre of vision is a solid dark place where no light ever reaches; it may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness.
The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the 20th century has not been able to attain it. For instance, look at the book you read, your hands with which you hold it, then lift your head and look around you. Have you ever seen such a sharp and distinct image as this one at any other place? Even the most developed television screen produced by the greatest television producer in the world cannot provide such a sharp image for you. This is a three-dimensional, coloured, and extremely sharp image. For more than 100 years, thousands of engineers have been trying to achieve this sharpness. Factories, huge premises were established, much research has been done, plans and designs have been made for this purpose. Again, look at a TV screen and the book you hold in your hands. You will see that there is a big difference in sharpness and distinction. Moreover, the TV screen shows you a two-dimensional image, whereas with your eyes, you watch a three-dimensional perspective having depth. When you look carefully, you will see that there is a blurring in the television, is there any blurring in your vision? Surely there is not.
For many years, ten of thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV, and reach the vision quality of the eye. Although they have made a three-dimensional television system, it is not possible to watch it without putting on glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three-dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.
Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot?
For nearly a century, tens of thousands of engineers have been researching and striving in high-tech laboratories and great industrial complexes using the most advanced technological devices, and they have been able to do no more than this.
If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. It requires a much more detailed and miraculous plan and creation than the one in the TV. The plan and creation of the image as distinct and sharp as this one belongs to God, Who has power over all things.
The same situation applies to the ear. The outer ear picks up the available sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middle ear; the middle ear transmits the sound vibrations by intensifying them; the inner ear sends these vibrations to the brain by translating them into electric signals. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing finalises in the centre of hearing in the brain.
The situation in the eye is also true for the ear. That is, the brain is insulated from sound just like it is from light: it does not let any sound in. Therefore, no matter how noisy is the outside, the inside of the brain is completely silent. Nevertheless, the sharpest sounds are perceived in the brain. In your brain, which is insulated from sound, you listen to the symphonies of an orchestra, and hear all the noises in a crowded place. However, if the sound level in your brain was measured by a precise device at that moment, it would be seen that a complete silence is prevailing there.
Let us again compare the high quality and superior technology present in the ear and the brain with the technology produced by human beings. As is the case with imagery, decades of effort have been spent in trying to generate and reproduce sound that is faithful to the original. The results of these efforts are sound recorders, high-fidelity systems, and systems for sensing sound. Despite all this technology and the thousands of engineers and experts who have been working in this endeavour, no sound has yet been obtained that has the same sharpness and clarity as the sound perceived by the ear. Think of the highest-quality HI-FI systems produced by the biggest company in the music industry. Even in these devices, when sound is recorded some of it is lost; or when you turn on the HI-FI you always hear a hissing sound before the music starts. However, the sounds that are the products of the technology of the human body are extremely sharp and clear. A human ear never perceives a sound accompanied by a hissing sound or with atmospherics as a HI-FI does; it perceives the sound exactly as it is, sharp and clear. This is the way it has been since the creation of man.
Briefly, the technology in our body is far superior to the technology mankind has produced using its accumulated information, experience, and opportunities. No one would say that a HI-FI or a camera came into being as a result of chance. So how can it be claimed that the technologies that exist in the human body, which are superior even to these, could have come into being as a result of a chain of coincidences called evolution?
It is evident that the eye, the ear, and indeed all the other parts of the human body are products of a very superior creation. These are crystal-clear indications of God's unique and unmatched creation, of His eternal knowledge and might.
The reason we specifically mention the senses of seeing and hearing here is the inability of evolutionists to understand evidence of creation so clear as this. If, one day, you ask an evolutionist to explain to you how this excellent structure and technology became possible in the eye and the ear as a result of chance, you will see that he will not be able to give you any reasonable or logical reply. Even Darwin, in his letter to Asa Gray on April 3rd 1860, wrote that "the thought of the eye made him cold all over" and he confessed the desperation of the evolutionists in the face of the excellent creation of living things.141
The Theory of Evolution is the Most Potent Spell in the World
 In the same way that the beliefs of people who worshipped crocodiles now seem odd and unbelievable, so the beliefs of Darwinists are just as incredible. Darwinists regard chance and lifeless, unconscious atoms as a creative force, and are as devoted to that belief as if to a religion. |
Throughout this book it has been explained that the theory of evolution lacks any scientific evidence and that on the contrary, scientific proofs from such branches of science such as paleontology, microbiology and anatomy reveal it to be a bankrupt theory. It has been stressed that evolution is incompatible with scientific discoveries, reason and logic.
It needs to be made clear that anyone free of prejudice and the influence of any particular ideology, who uses only his reason and logic, will clearly understand that belief in the theory of evolution, which brings to mind the superstitions of societies with no knowledge of science or civilization, is quite impossible.
As has been explained above, those who believe in the theory of evolution think that a few atoms and molecules thrown into a huge vat could produce thinking, reasoning professors, university students, scientists such as Einstein and Galileo, artists such as Humphrey Bogart, Frank Sinatra and Pavarotti, as well as antelopes, lemon trees and carnations. Moreover, the scientists and professors who believe in this nonsense are educated people. That is why it is quite justifiable to speak of the theory of evolution as "the most potent spell in history." Never before has any other belief or idea so taken away peoples' powers of reason, refused to allow them to think intelligently and logically and hidden the truth from them as if they had been blindfolded. This is an even worse and unbelievable blindness than the Egyptians worshipping the Sun God Ra, totem worship in some parts of Africa, the people of Saba worshipping the Sun, the tribe of the Prophet Abraham worshipping idols they had made with their own hands or the people of the Prophet Moses worshipping the Golden Calf.
In fact, this situation is a lack of reason God points out in the Qur'an. He reveals in many verses that some peoples' minds will be closed and that they will be powerless to see the truth. Some of these verses are as follows:
As for those who disbelieve, it makes no difference to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. God has sealed up their hearts and hearing and over their eyes is a blindfold. They will have a terrible punishment. (Surat al-Baqara: 6-7)
…They have hearts they do not understand with. They have eyes they do not see with. They have ears they do not hear with. Such people are like cattle. No, they are even further astray! They are the unaware. (Surat al-A'raf: 179)
Even if We opened up to them a door into heaven, and they spent the day ascending through it, they would only say, "Our eyesight is befuddled! Or rather we have been put under a spell!" (Surat al-Hijr: 14-15)
Words cannot express just how astonishing it is that this spell should hold such a wide community in thrall, keep people from the truth, and not be broken for 150 years. It is understandable that one or a few people might believe in impossible scenarios and claims full of stupidity and illogicality. However, "magic" is the only possible explanation for people from all over the world believing that unconscious and lifeless atoms suddenly decided to come together and form a universe that functions with a flawless system of organization, discipline, reason and consciousness, the planet Earth with all its features so perfectly suited to life, and living things full of countless complex systems.
In fact, God reveals in the Qur'an in the incident of the Prophet Moses and Pharaoh that some people who support atheistic philosophies actually influence others by magic. When Pharaoh was told about the true religion, he told the Prophet Moses to meet with his own magicians. When the Prophet Moses did so, he told them to demonstrate their abilities first. The verses continue:
He said, "You throw." And when they threw, they cast a spell on the people's eyes and caused them to feel great fear of them. They produced an extremely powerful magic. (Surat al-A'raf: 116)
As we have seen, Pharaoh's magicians were able to deceive everyone, apart from the Prophet Moses and those who believed in him. However, the evidence put forward by the Prophet Moses broke that spell, or "swallowed up what they had forged" as the verses put it.
We revealed to Moses, "Throw down your staff." And it immediately swallowed up what they had forged. So the Truth took place and what they did was shown to be false. (Surat al-A'raf: 117-119)
As we can see from that verse, when it was realised that what these people who had first cast a spell over others had done was just an illusion, they lost all credibility. In the present day too, unless those who under the influence of a similar spell believe in these ridiculous claims under their scientific disguise and spend their lives defending them abandon them, they too will be humiliated when the full truth emerges and the spell is broken. In fact, Malcolm Muggeridge, who was an atheist philosopher and supporter of evolution for some 60 years, but who subsequently realized the truth, admitted he was worried by just that prospect:
I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.142
That future is not far off: On the contrary, people will soon see that "chance" is not a god, and will look back on the theory of evolution as the worst deceit and the most terrible spell in the world. That spell is already rapidly beginning to be lifted from the shoulders of people all over the world. Many people who see the true face of the theory of evolution are wondering with amazement how it was that they were ever taken in by it.
139. Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York : Academic Press, 1977, p. 103
140. Ibid, p. 107
141. Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Boston : Gambit, 1971, p. 101
142. Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1980, p. 43
CHAPTER 10 THE MOLECULAR IMPASSE OF EVOLUTION
CHAPTER 10
THE MOLECULAR IMPASSE OF EVOLUTION
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.
 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. However, by chance, none of the bricks that were previously formed are damaged. 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. At the end of this process, a complete building rises with all its materials, carpentry, and installations intact. 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 much more complex than a building. |
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 lifeless 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 inanimate 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 of the earth. In the following pages, we will examine why this claim is contrary to the most basic principles of science and reason.
The Tale of the "Cell Produced by Chance"
If one believes that a living cell can come into existence by coincidence, 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 storm, 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 coincidence. 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 honoured 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.
The Complexity of the Cell
The cell is the most complex and most elegantly designed system man has ever witnessed. Professor of biology Michael Denton, in his book entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, explains this complexity with an example: "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 unparalelled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like 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... (a complexity) 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..." |
Confessions from Evolutionists
The theory of evolution faces no greater crisis than on the point of explaining the emergence of life. The reason is that organic molecules are so complex that their formation cannot possibly be explained as being coincidental and it is manifestly impossible for an organic cell to have been formed by chance. Evolutionists confronted the question of the origin of life in the second quarter of the 20th century. One of the leading authorities of the theory of molecular evolution, the Russian evolutionist Alexander I. Oparin, said this in his book The Origin of Life, which was published in 1936:
Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question which is actually the darkest point of the complete evolution theory.1 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 clearer the complex design of the cell 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.2 The following statement by the geochemist Jeffrey Bada from San Diego Scripps Institute makes clear the helplessness of evolutionists concerning this impasse: 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?3 1- Alexander I. Oparin, Origin of Life, (1936) NewYork: Dover Publications, 1953 (Reprint), p.196
2- Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol 13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348 3- Jeffrey Bada, Earth, February 1998, p. 40 |
The Miracle in the Cell and the End of Evolution
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.
The technology of the 20th 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 specialised 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."105
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. To give another example, the probability of forming of 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.106 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by coincidence, 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.
Proteins Challenge Chance
 |
So much for the cell, but the theory of 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 proteins, 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 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" to occur is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as "zero probability").
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. They accept that the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes".107 However, instead of accepting the other explanation, which is creation, they go on defending this impossibility.
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." 108
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."109
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.110
|
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 properly by chance and make up a complete 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 1040.000.111 (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.112
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.113
The reason Hoyle used the term "psychological" is the self-conditioning of evolutionists not to accept that life could have been created. The rejection of God's existence is their main goal. For this reason alone, they go on defending irrational theories which they at the same time acknowledge to be impossible.
Left-handed Proteins
 In nature, there are two different types of amino acids, called "left-handed" and "right-handed". The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands. |
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.
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 "coincidence" 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 recognise that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.
The Brittanica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all the 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.114
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 coincidence.
In conclusion, it is proven beyond a shadow of 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.
Correct Bond is Vital
 The amino acid molecules that make up proteins must be linked to each other in a so-called "peptide bond", which is only one of the many possible types of bonds found in nature. Otherwise, the resulting amino acid chains would be useless, and no proteins would be formed. |
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% 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.
This 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
As can be seen below, the probability of formation of a protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids is "1" over a number formed by placing 950 zeros next to 1, which is a number incomprehensible for the human mind. 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 "0" probability of occurring.
A probability of "1 over 10950" is far beyond the limits of this definition.
While the improbability of the formation of a protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids reaches such an extent, we can further proceed to push the limits of the mind with higher levels of improbability. In the "haemoglobin" molecule, which is a vital protein, there are 574 amino acids, which is more than the amino acids making up the protein mentioned above. Now consider this: in only one out of the billions of red blood cells in your body, there are "280,000,000" (280 million) haemoglobin molecules.
The supposed age of the earth is not sufficient to allow the formation of even a single protein by a "trial and error" method, let alone that of a red blood cell. 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.
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.
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.
10950 = 100.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000. |
There are 3 basic conditions for the formation of a useful protein: First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence Second condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handed Third condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called "peptide bond". In order for a protein to be formed by chance, all three basic conditions must exist simultaneously. The probability of the formation of a protein by chance is equal to the multiplication of the probabilities of the realisation of each of these conditions. For instance, for an average molecule comprising of 500 amino acids: 1- The probability of the amino acids being in the right sequence: There are 20 types of amino acids used in the composition of proteins. According to this:
2- The probability of the amino acids being left-handed:
Amino acids can combine with each other with different kinds of chemical bonds. In order for a useful protein to be formed, all the amino acids in the chain must have been combined with a special chemical bond called a "peptide bond". It is calculated that the probability of the amino acids being combined not with another chemical bond but by a peptide bond is 50%. In relation to this:
|
The calculations we give on page across 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 be 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 499th 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 correct selection of the amino acids" is left uncontrolled. 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. In fact, to talk of the probabilities of such an event is quite unscientific.
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 an inanimate 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 creation, 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.
The Evolutionary Fuss About the Origin of Life
The question of "how living things first appeared" is such a critical impasse for evolutionists that they usually try not even to touch upon this subject. They try to pass over this question by saying "the first creatures came into existence as a result of some random events in water". They are at a road-block that they can by no means get around. In spite of the paleontological evolution arguments, in this subject they have no fossils available to distort and misinterpret as they wish to support their assertions. Therefore, the theory of evolution is definitely refuted from the very beginning.
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 20th 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 answers to the questions were sought through experiments. Evolutionist scientists and researchers carried out laboratory experiments directed at answering these questions but these did not create much interest. 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 "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 "molecular 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. Aware of the fact that such studies do not support, but rather actually refute, their thesis, evolutionist researchers deliberately avoid embarking on such experiments.
Miller's Experiment
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 vapour. Since these gasses 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 1000C for a week and added the electrical current. At the end of the week, Miller analysed 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 synthesised.
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 synthesise was only a few "inanimate" molecules.
Encouraged by this experiment, evolutionists immediately produced new scenarios. Stages following the development of amino acids were hurriedly hypothesised. 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. The cells then supposedly came together over time to form multicellular living organisms. However, Miller's experiment was nothing but make-believe and has since proven to be false in many aspects.
Miller's Experiment was Nothing but Make-believe
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 a conscious mechanism of isolation 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."115
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 atmospheric environment 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. After a long period of silence, Miller himself also confessed that the atmospheric environment he used in his experiment was not realistic.116
Latest Evolutionist Sources Dispute Miller's Experiment
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."1 As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. The fact that evolutionist scientists embraced this experiment so fervently only indicates the difficulties facing evolution, and the desperation of its advocates. 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 from 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.2 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. 1- Earth, "Life's Crucible", February 1998, p.34 |
So why did Miller insist on these gasses? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesise 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. According to them, the Earth was a true homogeneous mixture of metal, rock and ice. 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.117
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 vapour, and were unable to obtain even a single amino acid molecule.118
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 oxidised iron and uranium found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old.119
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 at that time, 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 vapour 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 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, a large number of right-handed amino acids were formed at the end of the experiment.120 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 oxidising the useful molecules obtained.
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 synthesise 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. That is, the power that brings about life cannot be by unconscious chance but rather by conscious creation.
The reason evolutionists do not accept this evident reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organised the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on the 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.121
Primordial World Atmosphere and Proteins
 One of the evolutionists' gravest deceptions is the way they imagine that life could have emerged spontaneously on what they refer to as the primitive Earth, represented in the picture above. They tried to prove these claims with such studies as the Miller experiment. Yet they again suffered defeat in the face of the scientific facts: The results obtained in the 1970s proved that the atmosphere on what they describe as the primitive Earth was totally unsuited to life. |
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-namel, 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.
Protein Synthesis Is not Possible 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. 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 disproves the claim of the formation of life in the sea. This is another dilemma confronting evolution.
Another Desperate Effort: 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 this 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 present on the cliffs, must have evaporated when the temperature increased above boiling point. 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.122
Another point that nullified the experiment was that Fox did not usethe 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.123
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:
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.124
Inanimate Matter Cannot Generate Life A number of evolutionist experiments such as the Miller Experiment and the Fox Experiment have been devised to prove the claim that inanimate matter can organise itself and generate a complex living being. This is an utterly unscientific conviction: every observation and experiment has incontrovertibly proven that matter has no such ability. The famous English astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle notes that matter cannot generate life by itself, without deliberate interference: If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes (proteins produced by living cells) have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.1 Evolutionist biologist Andrew Scott admits the same fact: Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The 'fundamental' forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest... But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment.2 1- Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, New York, Holt, Rinehard & Winston, 1983, p. 256
2- Andrew Scott, "Update on Genesis", New Scientist, vol. 106, May 2nd, 1985, p. 30 |
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 Miraculous Molecule: 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. |
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 revealing the amazingly complex 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. This is a sort of a data-bank composed of four letters.
The sequential order of the letters in DNA determines the structure of a human being down to its slightest details. In addition to features such as height, and eye, hair and skin colours, 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 kilometres 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-millimetre-long cell itself.
Why Cannot DNA Come into Being by Chance?
|
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 about 30,000 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 evolutionist biologist Frank Salisbury has comments on this impossibility:
A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNAgene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNAchain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41.000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41.000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.125
The number 41.000 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 with in very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible.126
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 coincidence, 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.127
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.128
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 realised by the information encoded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, either they have to exist at the same time for replication, or one of them has to be "created" before the other. The American microbiologist Homer Jacobson 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, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention.129
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. Two German scientists Junker and Scherer explained that the synthesis of each of the molecules required for chemical evolution, necessitates distinct conditions, and that the probability of the compounding of these materials having theoretically very different acquirement methods is zero:
Until now, no experiment is known in which we can obtain all the molecules necessary for chemical evolution. Therefore, it is essential to produce various molecules in different places under very suitable conditions and then to carry them to another place for reaction by protecting them from harmful elements like hydrolysis and photolysis.130
In short, the theory of evolution is unable to prove any of the evolutionary stages that allegedly occur at the molecular level. Rather than providing answers to such questions, the progress of science renders them even more complex and inextricable.
Interestingly enough, most evolutionists believe in this and similar totally unscientific fairy tales as if they were true. Because they have conditioned themselves not to accept creation, they have no other choice than to believe in the impossible. 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!131
Another Evolutionist Vain Attempt: "The RNA World"
The discovery in the 1970s that the gasses 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, based on a 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.132
Confessions from Evolutionists
Probabilistic calculations make it clear that complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) could not ever have been formed by chance independently of each other. Yet evolutionists have to face the even greater problem that all these complex molecules have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all. Evolutionary theory is utterly confounded by this requirement. This is a point on which some leading evolutionists have been forced to confession. For instance, Stanley Miller's and Francis Crick's close associate from the University of San Diego California, reputable evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel says: 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.1 The same fact is also admitted by other scientists: DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.2 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.3 The New York Times science correspondent, Nicholas Wade made this comment in an article dated 2000: Everything about the origin of life on Earth is a mystery, and it seems the more that is known, the more acute the puzzle get. 4 1- Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth", Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78
2- John Horgan, "In the Beginning", Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119 3- Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach : An Eternal Golden Braid, New York, Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548 4- Nicholas Wade, "Life's Origins Get Murkier and Messier", The New York Times, June 13, 2000, pp. D1-D2 |
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 situation 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.133
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 simplyh 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.134
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.
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 have had to have and how impossible this would have been in his article "The Origin of Life" published in American Scientist in October 1994:
This scenario could have occured, 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.135
As should by now be clear, to expect these two complex and extremely essential processes from a molecule such as RNA is only possible from the evolutionist's viewpoint and with the help of his power of imagination. 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.
Biochemist Gordon C. Mills from the University of Texas and Molecular biologist Dean Kenyon from San Francisco State University assess the flaws of the RNA World scenario, and reach to a brief conclusion in their article titled " The RNA World: A Critique": "RNA is a remarkable molecule. The RNA World hypothesis is another matter. We see no grounds for considering it established, or even promising." 136
Science writer Brig Klyce's 2001 article explains that evolutionist scientists are very persistent on this issue, but the results obtained so far have already shown that these efforts are all in vain:
Research in the RNA world is a medium-sized industry. This research has demonstrated how exceedingly difficult it would be for living cells to originate by chance from nonliving matter in the time available on Earth. That demonstration is a valuable contribution to science. Additional research will be valuable as well. But to keep insisting that life can spontaneously emerge from nonliving chemicals in the face of the newly comprehended difficulties is puzzling. It is reminiscent of the work of medieval alchemists who persistently tried to turn lead into gold.137
Life is a Concept Beyond Mere Heaps of Molecules
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 a protein molecule was formed in the most inappropriate, most uncontrolled environment such as the primordial earth conditions. The formation of only one protein would not be sufficient; this protein would have to wait patiently for thousands, maybe millions of years in this uncontrolled environment without sustaining any damage, until another molecule was formed beside it by chance under the same conditions. It would have to wait until millions of correct and essential proteins were formed side by side in the same setting all "by chance". Those that formed earlier had to be patient enough to wait, without being destroyed despite ultraviolet rays and harsh mechanical effects, for the others to be formed right next to them. Then these proteins in adequate number, which all originated at the very same spot, would have to come together by making meaningful combinations and form the organelles of the cell. No extraneous material, harmful molecule, or useless protein chain may interfere with them. Then, even if these organelles were to come together in an extremely harmonious and co-operative way within a plan and order, they must take all the necessary enzymes beside themselves and become covered with a membrane, the inside of which must be filled with a special liquid to prepare the ideal environment for them. Now even if all these "highly unlikely" events actually occurred by chance, would this molecular heap come to life?
The answer is No, because research has revealed that the mere combination of all the materials essential for life is not enough for life to get started. Even if all the essential proteins for life were collected and put in a test tube, these efforts would not result with producing a living cell. All the experiments conducted on this subject have proved to be unsuccessful. All observations and experiments indicate that life can only originate from life. The assertion that life evolved from non-living things, in other words, "abiogenesis", is a tale only existing in the dreams of the evolutionists and completely at variance with the results of every experiment and observation.
In this respect, the first life on earth must also have originated from other life. This is a reflection of God's epithet of "Hayy" (The Owner of Life). Life can only start, continue, and end by His will. As for evolution, not only is it unable to explain how life began, it is also unable to explain how the materials essential for life have formed and come together.
Thermodynamics Falsifies Evolution The second law of thermodynamics, which is accepted as one of the basic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions all systems left on their own tend to become disordered, dispersed, and corrupted in direct relation to the amount of time that passes. Everything, whether living or not wears out, deteriorates, decays, disintegrates, and is destroyed. This is the absolute end that all beings will face one way or another, and according to the law, the process cannot be avoided. This is something that all of us have observed. For example if you take a car to a desert and leave it there, you would hardly expect to find it in a better condition when you came back years later. On the contrary, you would see that its tires had gone flat, its windows had been broken, its chassis had rusted, and its engine had stopped working. The same inevitable process holds true for living things. The second law of thermodynamics is the means by which this natural process is defined with physical equations and calculations. This famous law of physics is also known as "the law of entropy". In physics, entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system. A system's entropy increases as it moves from an ordered, organised, and planned state towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned one. The more disorder there is in a system, the higher its entropy is. The law of entropy holds that the entire universe is unavoidably proceeding towards a more disordered, unplanned, and disorganised state. The truth of the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy, has been experimentally and theoretically established. All foremost scientists agree that the law of entropy will remain the principle paradigm for the foreseeable future. Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of our age, described it as the "premier law of all of science". Sir Arthur Eddington also referred to it as the "supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe".1 Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged. According to the theory of evolution, this supposed process-which yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organised structure at each stage-was formed all by itself under natural conditions. The law of entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics. Evolutionist scientists are also aware of this fact. J.H. Rush states: In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. 2 The evolutionist author Roger Lewin expresses the thermodynamic impasse of evolution in an article in Science: One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order.3 Another defender of the theory of evolution, George Stravropoulos states the thermodynamic impossibility of the spontaneous formation of life and the impossibility of explaining the existence of complex living mechanisms by natural laws in the well-known evolutionist journal American Scientist: Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it will be, and the more assured, sooner or later, its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes, and even life itself, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science, despite the use of confused or deliberately confusing language.4 As we have seen, the second law of thermodynamics constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for the scenario of evolution, in terms of both science and logic. Unable to offer any scientific and consistent explanation to overcome this obstacle, evolutionists can only do so in their imagination. For instance, the well-known evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin notes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a "magical power": The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth.5 These words well indicate that evolution is a dogmatic belief rather than a scientific thesis. The Myth of the "Open System" Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the second law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems", and that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law. An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures. However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol. The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts. As may be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on their own. The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins, or of making proteins from the much complex and organised structures of cell organelles. The real and essential source of this organisation at all levels is flawless creation. The Myth of the "Self Organization of Matter" Quite aware that the second law of thermodynamics renders evolution impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative attempts to square the circle between the two, in order to be able to claim that evolution is possible. As usual, even those endeavours show that the theory of evolution faces an inescapable impasse. One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine. Starting out from chaos theory, Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which order develops from chaos (disorder). He argued that some open systems can portray a decrease in entropy due to an influx of outer energy and the outcoming "ordering" is a proof that "matter can organise itself." Since then, the concept of the "self-organization of matter" has been quite popular among evolutionists and materialists. They act like they have found a materialistic origin for the complexity of life and a materialistic solution for the problem of life's origin. But a closer look reveals that this argument is totally abstract and in fact just wishful thinking. Moreover, it includes a very naive deception. The deception lies in the deliberate confusing of two distinct concepts, "ordered" and "organised." 6 We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely flat beach on the seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds of sand, large and small, form bumps on the surface of the sand. This is a process of "ordering": The seashore is an open system and the energy flow (the wave) that enters it can form simple patterns in the sand, which look completely regular. From the thermodynamic point of view, it can set up order here where before there was none. But we must make it clear that those same waves cannot build a castle on the beach. If we see a castle there, we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it, because the castle is an "organised" system. In other words, it possesses a clear design and information. Every part of it has been made by a conscious entity in a planned manner. The difference between the sand and the castle is that the former is an organised complexity, whereas the latter possesses only order, brought about by simple repetitions. The order formed from repetitions is as if an object (in other words the flow of energy entering the system) had fallen on the letter "a" on a typewriter keyboard, writing "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" hundreds of times. But the string of "a"s in an order repeated in this manner contains no information, and no complexity. In order to write a complex chain of letters actually containing information (in other words a meaningful sequence, paragraph or book), the presence of intelligence is essential. The same thing applies when wind blows into a dusty room. When the wind blows in, the dust which had been lying in an even layer may gather in one corner of the room. This is also a more ordered situation than that which existed before, in the thermodynamic sense, but the individual specks of dust cannot form a portrait of someone on the floor in an organised manner. This means that complex, organised systems can never come about as the result of natural processes. Although simple examples of order can happen from time to time, these cannot go beyond limits. But evolutionists point to this self-ordering which emerges through natural processes as a most important proof of evolution, portray such cases as examples of "self-organization". As a result of this confusion of concepts, they propose that living systems could develop their own accord from occurrences in nature and chemical reactions. The methods and studies employed by Prigogine and his followers, which we considered above, are based on this deceptive logic. The American scientists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, in their book titled The Mystery of Life's Origin, explain this fact as follows:
In fact even Prigogine himself has accepted that the theories he has produced for the molecular level do not apply to living systems-for instance, a living cell: The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular activity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far from being solved.8 So why do evolutionists continue to believe in scenarios such as the "self organization of matter", which have no scientific foundation? Why are they so determined to reject the intelligence and planning that so clearly can be seen in living systems? The answer is that they have a dogmatic faith in materialism and they believe that matter has some mysterious power to create life. A professor of chemistry from New York University and DNA expert, Robert Shapiro, explains this belief of evolutionists about the "self-organization of matter" and the materialist dogma lying at its heart as follows: Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin.9 All this situation clearly demonstrates that evolution is a dogma that is against emprical science and the origin of living beings can only be explained by the intervention of a supernatural power. That supernatural power is the creation of God, who created the entire universe from nothing. Science has proven that evolution is still impossible as far as thermodynamics is concerned and the existence of life has no explanation but Creation. 1. Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy : A New World View, New York, Viking Press, 1980, p. 6 |
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.138
105 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville : Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, pp. 298-99
106 "Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, Vol. 294, November 12, 1981, p. 105
107 Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Héritage et évolution), Ankara : Publications Meteksan, 1984, p. 64
108 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville : Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 304
109 Ibid, p. 305
110 J. D. Thomas, Evolution and Faith, Abilene, TX, ACU Press, 1988. pp. 81-82
111 Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, New York, Summit Books, 1986. p. 127
112 Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1984, p. 148
113 Ibid, p. 130
114 Fabbri Britannica Bilim Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 2, No. 22, p. 519
115 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Origin of Life, California : 1979, p. 14
116 Stanley Miller, Molecular Evolution of Life: Current Status of the Prebiotic Synthesis of Small Molecules, 1986, p. 7
117 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik, No. 189, p. 7
118 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
119 "New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life", Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330
120 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Origin of Life, California, 1979, p. 25
121 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville : Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 325
122 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Origin of Life, California : 1979, p. 25
123 Ibid.
124 S. W. Fox, K. Harada, G. Kramptiz, G. Mueller, "Chemical Origin of Cells", Chemical Engineering News, June 22, 1970, p. 80
125 Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336
126 Paul Auger, De la physique théorique à la biologie, 1970, p. 118
127 Francis Crick, Life Itself: It’s Origin and Nature, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88
128 Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Héritage et évolution), Ankara : Publications Meteksan, 1984, p. 39
129 Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life", American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121
130 Reinhard Junker & Siegfried Scherer, "Entstehung und Geschichte der Lebewesen", Weyel, 1986, p. 89
131 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Londres : Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351
132 John Horgan, "In the Beginning", Scientific American, Vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119
133 G.F. Joyce, L. E. Orgel, "Prospects for
Understanding the Origin of the RNA World", In the RNA World, New York :
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993, p. 13
134 Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, New York : 1971, p. 143
135 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth", Scientific American, October 1994, Vol. 271, p. 78
136 Gordon C. Mills, Dean Kenyon, "The RNA World : A Critique", Origins & Design, 17 :1, 1996 .
137 Brig Klyce, The RNA World, http ://www. panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm
138
Chandra Wickramasinghe, Interview dans London Daily Express, 14 August 1981
CHAPTER 9 THE SCENARIO OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
CHAPTER 9
THE SCENARIO OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
 A Single Jawbone as a Spark of Inspiration The first Ramapithecus fossil found: a missing jaw
composed of two parts (on the right). The evolutionists daringly
pictured Ramapithecus, his family and the environment they lived in, by
relying only on these jawbones. When it was realised that this
creature, every detail of which, from its family to the environment it
lived in, they had illustrated on the basis of a jaw bone was actually
an ordinary ape, Ramapithecus was quietly removed from the imaginary
human family tree. |
In previous chapters, we saw that there are no mechanisms in nature to lead the living beings to evolve and that living species came into existence not as the result of an evolutionary process, but rather emerged all of a sudden in their present perfect structure. That is, they were created individually. Therefore, it is obvious that "human evolution", too, is a story that has never taken place.
What, then, do the evolutionists propose as the basis for this story?
This basis is the existence of plenty of fossils on which the evolutionists are able to build up imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 ape species have lived and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 ape species live on the earth. These approximately 6,000 ape species, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists.
The evolutionists wrote the scenario of human evolution by arranging some of the skulls that suited their purpose in an order from the smallest to the biggest and scattering the skulls of some extinct human races among them. According to this scenario, men and today's apes have common ancestors. These creatures evolved in time and some of them became the apes of today while another group that followed another branch of evolution became the men of today.
However, all the paleontological, anatomical and biological findings have demonstrated that this claim of evolution is as fictitious and invalid as all the others. No sound or real evidence has been put forward to prove that there is a relationship between man and ape, except forgeries, distortions, and misleading drawings and comments.
The fossil record indicates to us that throughout history, men have been men and apes have been apes. Some of the fossils the evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of man, belong to human races that lived until very recently-about 10,000 years ago-and then disappeared. Moreover, many human communities currently living have the same physical appearance and characteristics as these extinct human races, which the evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of men. All these are clear proof that man has never gone through an evolutionary process at any period in history.
The most important of all is that there are numerous anatomical differences between apes and men and none of them are of the kind to come into existence through an evolutionary process. "Bipedality" is one of them. As we will describe later on in detail, bipedality is peculiar to man and it is one of the most important traits that distinguishes man from other animals.
The Imaginary Family Tree of Man
The Darwinist claim holds that today’s man evolved from some kind of ape-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started from 4 to 5 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some "transitional forms" between today’s man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, the following four basic "categories" are listed:
1. Australopithecines (any of the various forms belonging to the genus Australopithecus)
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 much different from today’s man. The 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", "Pekin 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.70
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 recent times. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia", it was reported in the journal Science 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"71
 A. afarensis can be seen in the two illustrations to the left. The picture below depicts A. boisei. These conjectures are entirely imaginary. Australopithecines are in fact an extinct species of ape. |
Furthermore, Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (today’s man) also clearly co-existed. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other.
Intrinsically, all 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: An Ape Species
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 astralopithecines. 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.
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. They are short (maximum 130 cm. (51 in.)) and just like today's chimpanzees, male Australopithecus is larger than the female. 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 ape genus and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.72 Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of australopithecines to that of today’s orang-utans.73
Briefly, Australopithecines have no link with humans and they are merely an extinct ape species.
Homo Habilis: The Ape that was Presented as Human
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 evolutionist 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 today’s 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.
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.
Australopithecus Aferensis: An Extinct Ape
|
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 australopithecine 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.
For a long time, evolutionists argued that the creatures they called Homo habilis could walk upright. They thought that they had found a link stretching from ape to man. Yet, the new Homo habilis fossils Tim White unearthed in 1986 and named as OH 62 disproved this assertion. These fossil fragments showed that Homo habilis had long arms and short legs just like contemporary apes. This fossil put an end to the assertion proposing that Homo habilis was a bipedal being able to walk upright. In truth, Homo habilis was nothing but another ape species.
|
"OH
7 Homo habilis" seen to the right has been the fossil which best
defined the mandibular features of the Homo habilis species. This
mandible fossil has big incisory teeth. Its molar teeth are small. The
shape of the mandible is square. All these qualities make this mandible
look very similar to that of today's apes. In other words, Homo habilis'
mandible once more confirms that this being is actually an ape.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 apes of our day 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.74
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 semi-circular canals in the inner ear of humans and apes which provided for sustaining 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. 75
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."
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.
Homo Rudolfensis: The Face Wrongly Joined
A comparative analysis of the semi-circular canals in the inner ear in both humans and apes shows that the fossils long portrayed as the forerunners of human beings were all in fact ordinary apes. The species Australopithecus and Homo habilis had the inner ear canals of an ape, while Homo erectus had human ones. |
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 of the 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 realised 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.76
The evolutionist 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.77
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".78
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.79
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 ape.
This fact has been further established by two evolutionist anthropologists, Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, whose research was published in 1999 in Science magazine. 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.80
The conclusion of Wood and Collard corroborates the conclusion 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 and Thereafter: Human Beings
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.
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 today’s 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 today’s 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).
Homo Erectus: A Real Human Race
The cranial capacities of all these diverse Homo erectus fossils surge between 900-1100 cc. These figures are within the limits of the contemporary human cranial capacity. KNM-WT 15000 or Turkana Child skeleton on the right, is probably the oldest and the most complete human fossil ever found. Research made on this fossil which is said to be 1.6 million year old shows that this belongs to a 12 year old child who would become around 1.80 m. tall if he reached adolescence. This fossil which very much resembled to the Neanderthal race, is one of the most remarkable evidence invalidating the story of human's evolution. The evolutionist
Donald Johnson describes this fossil as follows: "He was tall and
skinny. His body shape and the proportion of his limbs were the same as
the current Equator Africans. The sizes of his limbs totally matched
with that of the current white North American adults." |
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 organisation of the brain, rather than on its volume.81
 FALSE MASKS: Although no different from today’s man, Neanderthals are still depicted as ape-like by evolutionists. |
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 realised 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 metres 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 contemporary 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."82 Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal."83 As we will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a human race.
Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and contemporary 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.84
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 (today’s man).
When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong to the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen] belongs within this same diverse species.85
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 summarised 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.86
Neanderthals: A Robust People
To the left is seen Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis, Amud 1 skull found in Israel. Neanderthal man is generally known to be robust yet short. However it is estimated that the owner of this fossil had been 1.80 m. high. His cranial capacity is the largest ever seen: 1740cc. Because of all these, this fossil is among the important pieces of evidence definitely destroying the claims that Neanderthals were a primitive species. |
The conclusion reached by the scientists defending the abovementioned thesis can be summarised 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. This is a most clear indication of their being created.
Yet, admitting this fact is totally against the dogmatic philosophy and ideology of evolutionists. As a result, they try to portray Homo erectus, a truly human race, as a half-ape creature. In their Homo erectus reconstructions, they tenaciously draw simian features. On the other hand, with similar drawing methods, they humanise apes like Australopithecus or Homo Habilis. With this method, they seek to "approximate" apes and human beings and close the gap between these two distinct living classes.
Neanderthals
Neanderthals 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 man of our day 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.87
Many contemporary researchers define Neanderthal man as a sub-species of contemporary man and call him "Homo sapiens neandertalensis". The findings testify that Neanderthals buried their dead, fashioned musical instruments, and had cultural affinities with the Homo sapiens sapiens living during the same period. To put it precisely, Neanderthals are a "robust" human race that simply disappeared in time.
Homo Sapiens Archaic, Homo Heilderbergensis 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 today’s 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 characterised as Homo heilderbergensis 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 today’s Europeans lived 500,000 and even 740,000 years ago, first in England and then in Spain.
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.
Species Living in the Same Age as Their Ancestors
 26,000 YEAR OLD NEEDLE: An interesting fossil showing that the Neanderthals had knowledge of clothing: A needle 26,000 years old. (D. Johanson, B. Edgar, From Lucy to Language, p. 99) |
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 research done in 1994 on the inner ear, Australopithecus and Homo habilis were reclassified as apes, while Homo erectus was reclassified as a human being.)
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."88 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.89
There is definitely no such family tree. Stephen Jay Gould, who was a paleontologist from Harvard University, explained this deadlock faced by evolution, although he was 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.90
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.91
The Secret History of Homo Sapiens
 One of the most popular periodicals of the evolutionist literature, Discover, put the 800 thousand-year-old human face on its cover with the evolutionists' question "Is this the face of our past?" |
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 contemporary man. Paleoanthropological findings reveal that Homo sapiens people who looked exactly like us were living as long as 1 million years ago.
It was Louis Leakey, the famous evolutionist 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 today’s man. However, the Middle Pleistocene was a million years ago.92 Since these discoveries turned the evolutionary family tree upside down, they were dismissed by some evolutionist paleoanthropologists. Yet Leakey always contended that his estimates were correct.
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 contemporary 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.93
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.
A Hut 1.7 Million Years Old
 Findings of a 1.7 million-year-old hut shocked the scientific community. It looked like the huts used by some Africans today. |
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 today’s man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago.94 This discovery must surely invalidate the evolutionary theory that claims that contemporary men evolved from ape-like species such as Australopithecus.
Footprints of Today’s Man, 3.6 Million Years Old!
Indeed, some other discoveries trace the origins of man living today 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.
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.95
 The Laetoli footprints belonged to today's humans, however they were millions of years old. |
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.96
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 human living today (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.97
Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners. In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilised footprints of a 10-year-old human of our day and 27 footprints of an even younger one. They were certainly people just like us.
 A Human Mandible Aged 2.3 Million Years Another example showing the invalidity of the imaginary family tree devised by evolutionists: a human (Homo sapiens) mandible aged 2.3 million years. This mandible coded A.L. 666-1 was unearthed in Hadar, Ethiopia. Evolutionist publications seek to gloss it over by referring to it as "a very startling discovery"... (D. Johanson, Blake Edgar, From Lucy to Language, p.169) |
This situation put the Laetoli footprints at the centre of discussions for years. Evolutionist paleoanthropologists desperately tried to come up with an explanation, as it was hard for them to accept the fact that a contemporary 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.98
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 Impasse of Evolution
 Recent researches reveal that it is impossible for the bent ape skeleton fit for quadrupedal stride to evolve into upright human skeleton fit for bipedal stride. |
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?
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 monkeys 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 the theory of evolution, monkeys should not have evolved to adopt a bipedal stride; humans should instead have evolved to become quadrupedal.
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 computerised research he conducted in 1996, the English paleoanthropologist Robin Crompton, 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.99 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 evolutionist 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.100
Evolution: An Unscientific Faith
 The myth of human evolution is based on no scientific findings whatsoever. Representations such as this have no other significance than reflecting evolutionists' imaginative wishful thinking. |
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 can not 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 in 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, depending 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.101
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 evolutionist paleoantropologist Tim White:
We're all frustrated by "all the questions we haven't been able to answer."102
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.103
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 bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.104
What, then, is the reason that makes so many scientists so tenacious about this dogma? Why have they been trying so hard to keep their theory alive, at the cost of having to admit countless conflicts and discarding the evidence they have found?
The only answer is their being afraid of the fact they will have to face in case of abandoning the theory of evolution. The fact they will have to face when they abandon evolution is that God has created man. However, considering the presuppositions they have and the materialistic philosophy they believe in, creation is an unacceptable concept for evolutionists.
For this reason, they deceive themselves, as well as the world, by using the media with which they co-operate. If they cannot find the necessary fossils, they "fabricate" them either in the form of imaginary pictures or fictitious models and try to give the impression that there indeed exist fossils verifying evolution. A part of mass media who share their materialistic point of view also try to deceive the public and instil the story of evolution in people's subconscious.
No matter how hard they try, the truth is evident: Man has come into existence not through an evolutionary process but by God's creation. Therefore, he is responsible to Him.
70 David Pilbeam, "Humans Lose an Early Ancestor", Science, April 1982, pp. 6-7.
71 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.
72 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York: Toplinger
Publications, 1970, pp. 75-94.
73 Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines in
Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt", Nature, Vol 258, p. 389.
74 Holly Smith, American Journal of Physical Antropology, Vol 94, 1994, pp. 307-325.
75 Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, Frans Zonneveld, "Implication of Early Hominid Labryntine
Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion", Nature, vol 369, June 23,
1994, p. 645-648.
76 Tim Bromage, New Scientist, vol 133, 1992, p. 38-41.
77 J. E. Cronin, N. T. Boaz, C. B. Stringer, Y. Rak, "Tempo and Mode in Hominid Evolution",
Nature, Vol 292, 1981, p. 113-122.
78C. L. Brace, H. Nelson, N. Korn, M. L. Brace, Atlas of Human Evolution, 2.b. New York: Rinehart and Wilson, 1979.
79 Alan Walker, Scientific American, vol 239 (2), 1978, p. 54.
80 Bernard Wood, Mark Collard, "The Human Genus", Science, vol 284, No
5411, 2 April 1999, pp. 65-71.
81 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1992, p. 83.
82 Boyce Rensberger, The Washington Post, 19 November 1984.
83 Ibid.
84 Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind, London: Sphere Books, 1981, p. 62.
85 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1992. p. 136.
86 Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi", American Scientist, November- December 2000, p. 491
87 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.
88 Alan Walker, Science, vol 207, 1980, p. 1103.
89 A. J. Kelso, Physical Antropology, 1st ed., New York: J. B. Lipincott Co., 1970,
p. 221; M. D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, Vol 3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1971, p. 272.
90 S. J. Gould, Natural History, Vol 85, 1976, p. 30.
91 Time, November 1996.
92 L. S. B. Leakey, The Origin of Homo Sapiens, éd. F. Borde, Paris: UNESCO, 1972,
p. 25-29; L. S. B. Leakey, By the Evidence, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1974.
93 "Is This The Face of Our Past", Discover, December 1997, pp. 97-100.
94
A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1.b., 1970, pp. 221; M. D. Leakey, Olduvai
Gorge, Vol 3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971, p. 272.
95 Donald C. Johanson & M. A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 250.
96 Science News, Vol 115, 1979, pp. 196-197.
97 Ian Anderson, New Scientist, Vol 98, 1983, p. 373.
98 Russell H. Tuttle, Natural History, March 1990, pp. 61-64.
99 Ruth Henke, "Aufrecht aus den Baumen", Focus, Vol 39, 1996, p. 178.
100 Elaine Morgan, The Scars of Evolution, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994,
p. 5.
101 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970,
p. 19.
102 Robert Locke, "Family Fights" Discovering Archaeology, July/August 1999, pp. 36-39.
103 Ibid.
104 Henry Gee, In Search of Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life,
New York, The Free Press, 1999, pp. 126-127.
CHAPTER 8 EVOLUTION FORGERIES
CHAPTER 8
EVOLUTION FORGERIES
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.
Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull!
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.64 While visiting the British Museum in 1921, leading American paleoanthropologist 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".65
The Story of a Hoax
|
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 the Piltdown man. The result was astonishing. During the test, it was realised 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 not older than 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.66 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?"67 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.
Nebraska Man: A Pig's Tooth
 The picture above was drawn on the basis of a single tooth and it was published in the Illustrated London News magazine on July 24, 1922. However, the evolutionists were extremely disappointed when it was revealed that this tooth belonged neither to an ape-like creature nor to a man, but rather to an extinct pig species. |
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 the 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 criticised.
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 realised 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".68 Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.
Ota Benga: The African in the Cage
 |
After Darwin advanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed that "half-man half-ape" creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record, but also alive in various parts of the world. In the early 20th century, these pursuits for "living transitional links" led to unfortunate incidents, one of the cruellest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga.
Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher in the Congo. In his own tongue, his name meant "friend". He had a wife and two children. Chained and caged like an animal, he was taken to the USA where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him as "the closest transitional link to man". Two years later, they took him to the Bronx Zoo in New York and there they exhibited him under the denomination of "ancient ancestors of man" along with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, and an orang-utan called Dohung. Dr William T. Hornaday, the zoo's evolutionist director gave long speeches on how proud he was to have this exceptional "transitional form" in his zoo and treated caged Ota Benga as if he were an ordinary animal. Unable to bear the treatment he was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually committed suicide.69
Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga... These scandals demonstrate that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of unscientific method to prove their theory. Bearing this point in mind, when we look at the other so-called evidence of the "human evolution" myth, we confront a similar situation. Here there are a fictional story and an army of volunteers ready to try everything to verify this story.
64 Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59
65 Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly", New Scientist,
February 5, 1979, p. 44.
66 Kenneth Oakley, William Le Gros Clark & J. S, "Piltdown",
Meydan Larousse, Vol 10, p. 133.
67 Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly", New Scientist,
April 5, 1979, p. 44.
68 W. K. Gregory, "Hesperopithecus Apparently Not An Ape Nor A Man", Science, Vol. 66, December 1927, p. 579.
69 Philips Verner Bradford, Harvey Blume, Ota Benga: The Pygmy in The Zoo, New York : Delta Books, 1992
CHAPTER 7 EVOLUTIONISTS’ BIASED, DECEPTIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF F
CHAPTER 7
EVOLUTIONISTS’ BIASED,
DECEPTIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF FOSSILS
 |
Before going into the details of the myth of human evolution, we need to mention the propaganda method that has convinced the general public of the idea that half-man half-ape creatures once lived in the past. This propaganda method makes use of "reconstructions" made in reference to fossils. 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, or films are all reconstructions.
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. From top to bottom: Maurice Wilson's illustration; an
illustration in the 5 April, 1964, edition of the Sunday Times; N.
Parker's illustration in the September, 1960, edition of National
Geographic. |
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 the 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".62 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.
 Left: Maurice Wilson's drawing (From Ape to Adam: The Search for the Ancestry of Man, Herbert Wendth) Right: Steven Stanley's drawing (Human Origins) |
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.63
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.
62 David R. Pilbeam, "Rearranging Our Family Tree", Nature, June 1978, p. 40.
63
Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape, New York : McMillan, 1931, p. 332.
CHAPTER 6 THE IMAGINARY EVOLUTION OF BIRDS AND MAMMALS
CHAPTER 6
THE IMAGINARY EVOLUTION OF BIRDS AND MAMMALS
According to the theory of evolution, life originated and evolved in the sea and then was transported onto land by amphibians. This evolutionary scenario also suggests that amphibians evolved into reptiles, creatures living only on land. This scenario is again implausible, due to the enormous structural differences between these two classes of animals. For instance, the amphibian egg is designed for developing in water whereas the amniotic egg is designed for developing on land. A "step by step" evolution of an amphibian is out of the question, because without a perfect and fully-designed egg, it is not possible for a species to survive. Moreover, as usual, there is no evidence of transitional forms that were supposed to link amphibians with reptiles. Evolutionist paleontologist and an authority on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to accept that "the early reptiles were very different from amphibians and that their ancestors could not be found yet."44
Yet the hopelessly doomed scenarios of the evolutionists are not over yet. There still remains the problem of making these creatures fly! Since evolutionists believe that birds must somehow have been evolved, they assert that they were transformed from reptiles. However, none of the distinct mechanisms of birds, which have a completely different structure from land-dwelling animals, can be explained by gradual evolution. First of all, the wings, which are the exceptional traits of birds, are a great impasse for the evolutionists. One of the Turkish evolutionists, Engin Korur, confesses the impossibility of the evolution of wings:
The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be enlightened.45
The question of how the perfect structure of wings came into being as a result of consecutive haphazard mutations remains completely unanswered. There is no way to explain how the front arms of a reptile could have changed into perfectly functioning wings as a result of a distortion in its genes (mutation).
Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural mechanisms that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds are much lighter than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs function in a very different way. They have a different muscular and skeletal system and a very specialised heart-circulatory system. These features are pre-requisites of flying needed at least as much as wings. All these mechanisms had to exist at the same time and altogether; they could not have formed gradually by being "accumulated". This is why the theory asserting that land organisms evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious.
All of these bring another question to the mind: even if we suppose this impossible story to be true, then why are the evolutionists unable to find any "half-winged" or "single-winged" fossils to back up their story?
 Special Lungs for Birds The anatomy of birds is very different from that of reptiles, their supposed ancestors. Bird lungs function in a totally different way from those of land-dwelling animals. Land-dwelling animals breathe in and out from the same air vessel. In birds, while the air enters into the lung from the front, it goes out from the back. God created this distinct system specially for birds, which need great amounts of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for such a structure to evolve from the reptile lung. |
Bird Feathers: The Design That Evolution Fails to Explain The theory of evolution, which claims that birds evolved from reptiles, is unable to explain the huge differences between these two different living classes. In terms of such features as their skeleton structure, lung systems, and warm-blooded metabolism, birds are very different from reptiles. Another trait that poses an insurmountable gap between birds and reptiles is the feathers of birds which have a form entirely peculiar to them. The bodies of reptiles are covered with scales, whereas the bodies of birds are covered with feathers. Since evolutionists consider reptiles the ancestor of birds, they are obliged to claim that bird feathers have evolved from reptile scales. However, there is no similarity between scales and feathers. A professor of physiology and neurobiology from the University of Connecticut, A.H. Brush, accepts this reality although he is an evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different (in feathers and scales)."1 oreover, Prof. Brush examines the protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among vertebrates".2 There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, "feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, as an'undeniably unique' character distinguishing birds" as Prof. Brush states.3 Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal structure has yet been detected that provides an origin for bird feathers.4 In 1996, paleontologists made abuzz about fossils of a so-called feathered dinosaur, called Sinosauropteryx. However, in 1997, it was revealed that these fossils had nothing to do with birds and that they were not feathers of today’s birds.5 On the other hand, when we examine bird feathers closely, we come across a very complex design that cannot be explained by any evolutionary process. The famous ornithologist Alan Feduccia states that "every feature of them has aerodynamic functions. They are extremely light, have the ability to lift up which increases in lower speeds, and may return to their previous position very easily". Then he continues, "I cannot really understand how an organ perfectly designed for flight may have emerged for another need at the beginning".6 The design of feathers also compelled Charles Darwin ponder them. Moreover, the perfect aesthetics of the peafowl'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!" 7 1- A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers". Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 9, 1996, p.132 |
Another Alleged Transitional Form: Archæopteryx
Evolutionists pronounce the name of one single creature in response. This is the fossil of a bird called Archæopteryx, one of the most widely-known so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still defend. Archæopteryx, the so-called ancestor of present-day birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archæopteryx 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 Archæopteryx fossils indicate that this creature is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from today's birds.
The thesis that Archæopteryx 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.)
 According to evolutionists, some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archæopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time. This imaginary tale appears in almost all evolutionist publications. |
However, the seventh Archæopteryx fossil, which was found in 1992, caused great astonishment among evolutionists. 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 Nature magazine as follows:
The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archæopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles.46
This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the claims that Archæopteryx was a half-bird that could not fly properly.
Moreover, the structure of the bird's feathers became one of the most important pieces of evidence confirming that Archæopteryx was a flying bird in the real sense. The asymmetric feather structure of Archæopteryx is indistinguishable from that of birds living today, and indicates that it could fly perfectly well. As the eminent paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states, "because of its feathers [Archæopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird."47
Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archæopteryx'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 Archæopteryx had feathers showed that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to regulate its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs.
Speculations of Evolutionists: The Teeth and Claws of Archæopteryx
Two important points evolutionist biologists rely on when claiming Archæopteryx was a transitional form, are the claws on its wings and its teeth.
It is true that Archæopteryx 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, Taouraco and 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 Archæopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on its wings.
Neither do the teeth in Archæopteryx's beak imply that it is a transitional form. Evolutionists make a purposeful trickery by saying that these teeth are reptile characteristics, since teeth are not a typical feature of reptiles. Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not. Moreover, Archæopteryx 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 Archæopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct bird genus existed that could be categorised as "birds with teeth".
 The bird named Confuciusornis is the same age as Archæopteryx |
The most important point is that the tooth structure of Archæopteryx 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. Steward, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archæopteryx and other similar birds have teeth with flat-topped surfaces and large roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, are protuberant like saws and have narrow roots.48
These researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archæopteryx and their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them.49
Studies by anatomists like S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, and A.D. Walker have revealed that some of the similarities that John Ostrom and other have seen between Archæopteryx and dinosaurs were in reality misinterpretations.50
1. Its feathers show that it was a warm-blooded creature able to fly.
|
All these findings indicate that Archæopteryx was not a transitional link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called "toothed birds".
Archæopteryx and Other Bird Fossils
While evolutionists have for decades been proclaiming Archæopteryx to be the greatest evidence for their scenario concerning the evolution of birds, some recently-found fossils invalidate that scenario 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 Archæopteryx (around 140 million years), but has no teeth in its mouth. In addition, its beak and feathers shared the same features as today's birds. Confuciusornis has the same skeletal structure as present-day birds, but also has claws on its wings, just like Archæopteryx. Another structure peculiar to birds called the "pygostyle", which supports the tail feathers, was also found in Confuciusornis. In short, this fossil-which is the same age as Archæopteryx, which was previously thought to be the earliest bird and was accepted as a semi-reptile-looks very much like a bird living today. This fact has invalidated all the evolutionist theses claiming Archæopteryx to be the primitive ancestor of all birds.51
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 today's birds. This bird was indistinguishable from contemporary birds also 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.52 This was stated in an article in Discover "Whence came the birds? This fossil suggests that it was not from dinosaur stock".53
Another fossil that refuted the evolutionist claims regarding Archæopteryx was Eoalulavis. The wing structure of Eoalulavis, which was said to be some 25 to 30 million years younger than Archæopteryx, was also observed in today's slow-flying birds. This proved that 120 million years ago, there were birds indistinguishable from birds of today in many respects flying in the skies. 54
These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archæopteryx nor other earlier 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 birds and some archaic birds such as Archæopteryx actually lived together at the same time. Some of these bird species, such as Archæopteryx and Confuciusornis, have become extinct, and only some of the species that once existed have been able to survive down to the present day.
In brief, several features of Archæopteryx indicate that this creature was not a transitional form. The overall anatomy of Archæopteryx imply stasis, not evolution. Paleontologist Robert Carroll has to admit that:
The geometry of the flight feathers of Archæopteryx 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 Archæopteryx 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…55
On the other hand, the "temporal paradox" is one of the facts that deal the fatal blow to the evolutionist allegations about Archæopteryx. In his book Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells remarks that Archæopteryx 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 Archæopteryx—are actually younger than Archæopteryx:
Two-legged reptiles that ran along the ground, and had other features one might expect in an ancestor of Archæopteryx, appear later.56
The Imaginary Bird-Dinosaur Link
 Prof. Alan Feduccia |
The claim of evolutionists trying to present Archæopteryx as a transitional form is that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. However, one of the most famous 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.57
Larry Martin, a specialist on earlier 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.58
To sum up, the scenario of the "evolution of birds" erected solely on the basis of Archæopteryx, is nothing more than a product of the prejudices and wishful thinking of evolutionists.
Claiming that dinosaurs transformed into birds, evolutionists support their assertion by saying that some dinosaurs who flapped their front legs to hunt flies "took wing and flew" as seen in the picture. Having no scientific basis whatsoever and being nothing but a figment of the imagination, this theory also entails a very simple logical contradiction: the example given by evolutionists to explain the origin of flying, that is, the fly, already has a perfect ability to fly. Whereas a human cannot open and close his eyes 10 times a second, an average fly flutters its wings 500 times a second. Moreover, it moves both its wings simultaneously. The slightest dissonance in the vibration of wings would cause the fly lose its balance but this never happens. Evolutionists should first come up with an explanation as to how the fly acquired this perfect ability to fly. Instead, they fabricate imaginary scenarios about how much more clumsy creatures like reptiles came to fly. Even the perfect creation of the housefly invalidates the claim of evolution. English biologist Robin Wootton wrote in an article titled "The Mechanical Design of Fly Wings": 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.1 On the other hand, there is not a single fossil that can be evidence for the imaginary evolution of flies. This is what the distinguished French zoologist Pierre Grassé meant when he said "We are in the dark concerning the origin of insects." 2 1 Robin J. Wootton, "The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings", Scientific American, v. 263, November 1990, p.120 |
BATS
Evolutionists propose that all mammal species evolved from a common ancestor. However, there are great differences between various mammal species such as bears, whales, mice, and bats. Each of these living beings possesses specific systems. For example, bats are created with a very sensitive sonar system that helps them find their way in darkness. These complex systems, which modern technology can only imitate, could not possibly have emerged as a result of chance coincidence. The fossil record also demonstrates that bats came into being in their present perfect state all of a sudden and that they have not undergone any "evolutionary process". |
The Origin of Mammals
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.
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 evolutionist science writer Roger Lewin was forced to say, "The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma".59
The Myth of Horse Evolution
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 gradualistic evolutionary theory. In addressing the 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 proccess 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.1 Dr. Niles Eldredge said the following about the "evolution of the horse" diagrams: 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.2 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", which lived in the Eocene Period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse (Equus). But, the supposed evolutionary lines from Eohippus to Equus are totally inconsistent. 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.3 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 tales. 1- Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p.15 2- Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Santee, CA, Master Books, 1988, p. 78 3- Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 230 |
George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most popular 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.60
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.61
All of these demonstrate that all living beings appeared on earth suddenly and fully formed, without any evolutionary process. This is concrete evidence of the fact that they were created. Evolutionists, however, try to interpret the fact that living species came into existence in a particular order as an indication of evolution. Yet the sequence by which living things emerged is the "order of creation", since it is not possible to speak of an evolutionary process. With a superior and flawless creation, oceans and then lands were filled with living things and finally man was created.
Contrary to the "ape man" story that is imposed on the masses with intense media propaganda, man also emerged on earth suddenly and fully formed.
44 Robert L. Carroll,
Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1988,
p. 198.
45 Engin Korur, "Gozlerin ve Kanatlarin Sirri" (The Mystery
of the Eyes and the Wings), Bilim ve Teknik, No. 203, October 1984, p. 25.
46 Nature, Vol. 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401.
47 Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, New York : John Wiley and Sons, 1961, p. 310.
48 L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone, The Auk, Vol. 98, 1980, p. 86.
49 Ibid, p. 86; L. D. Martin "Origins of Higher Groups of
Tetrapods", Ithaca, New York: Comstock Publising Association, 1991, pp. 485, 540.
50 S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, Zoological Journal of the
Linnaean Society, Vol 69, 1985, p. 178; A. D. Walker, Geological Magazine, Vol
177, 1980, p. 595.
51 Pat Shipman, "Birds do it... Did Dinosaurs?", New Scientist, February 1, 1997, p. 31.
52 "Old Bird", Discover, March 21, 1997.
53 Ibid.
54 Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?", p. 28.
55 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 280-81.
56 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 117.
57 Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?", p. 28.
58 Ibid.
59 Roger Lewin, "Bones of Mammals, Ancestors Fleshed Out",
Science, vol 212, June 26, 1981, p. 1492.
60 George Gaylord Simpson, Life Before Man, New York: Time-Life
Books, 1972, p. 42.
61 R. Eric Lombard, "Review of Evolutionary Principles of the Mammalian Middle Ear, Gerald Fleischer", Evolution, Vol. 33, December 1979, p. 1230.
CHAPTER 5 TALE OF TRANSITION FROM WATER TO LAND
CHAPTER 5
TALE OF TRANSITION FROM WATER TO LAND
 According to the hypothetical scenario of "from sea to land", some fish felt the need to pass from sea to land because of feeding problems. This claim is "supported" by such speculative drawings. |
Evolutionists assume that the sea invertebrates that appear in the Cambrian stratum somehow evolved into fish in tens of million years. However, just as Cambrian invertebrates have no ancestors, there are no transitional links indicating that an evolution occurred between these invertebrates and fish. It should be noted that invertebrates and fish have enormous structural differences. Invertebrates have their hard tissues outside their bodies, whereas fish are vertebrates that have theirs on the inside. Such an enormous "evolution" would have taken billions of steps to be completed and there should be billions of transitional forms displaying them.
Evolutionists have been digging fossil strata for about 140 years looking for these hypothetical forms. They have found millions of invertebrate fossils and millions of fish fossils; yet nobody has ever found even one that is midway between them.
An evolutionist 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 armour? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?38
The evolutionary scenario goes one step further and argues that fish, who evolved from invertebrates then transformed into amphibians. But this scenario also lacks evidence. There is not even a single fossil verifying that a half-fish/half-amphibian creature has ever existed. Robert L. Carroll, an evolutionary palaeontologist and authority on vertebrate palaeontology, is obliged to accept this. He has written in his classic work, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, that "The early reptiles were very different from amphibians and their ancestors have not been found yet." In his newer book, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, published in 1997, he admits that "We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians."39
 410-million-year-old coelacanth fossil. Evolutionists claimed that it was the transitional form representing the transition from water to land. Living examples of this fish have been caught many times since 1938, providing a good example of the extent of the speculations that evolutionists engage in. |
Two evolutionist paleontologists, Colbert and Morales, comment on the three basic classes of amphibians-frogs, salamanders, and caecilians:
There is no evidence of any Paleozoic amphibians combining the characteristics that would be expected in a single common ancestor. The oldest known frogs, salamanders, and caecilians are very similar to their living descendants.40
An Example Invalidating Evolution
There is no difference between the fossils of earlier turtles and the living members of this species today. Simply put, turtles have not "evolved"; they have always been turtles since they were created that way. Turtle fossil aged 100 million years: No different from its counterpart living today. (The Dawn of Life, Orbis Pub., London 1972) To the side can be seen a 45-million-year-old freshwater turtle fossil found in Germany. To the left are the remains of the oldest known sea turtle, found in Brazil: This 110-million-year-old fossil is identical to specimens living today. To the side can be seen a 45-million-year-old freshwater turtle fossil found in Germany. To the left are the remains of the oldest known sea turtle, found in Brazil: This 110-million-year-old fossil is identical to specimens living today. |
Until about fifty years ago, evolutionists thought that such a creature indeed existed. This fish, called a coelacanth, which was estimated to be 410 million years of age, was put forward as a transitional form with a primitive lung, a developed brain, a digestive and a circulatory system ready to function on land, and even a primitive walking mechanism. These anatomical interpretations were accepted as undisputed truth among scientific circles until the end of the 1930's. The coelacanth was presented as a genuine transitional form that proved the evolutionary transition from water to land.
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 seventy million years ago, was caught! The discovery of a "living" prototype of the coelacanth undoubtedly gave evolutionists a severe shock. The evolutionist paleontologist J.L.B. Smith said that "If I'd met a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished".41 In the years to come, 200 coelacanths were caught many times in different parts of the world.
Why Transition from Water to Land Is Impossible ? Evolutionists claim that one day, a species dwelling in water somehow stepped onto land and was transformed into a land-dwelling species. There are a number of obvious facts that render such a transition impossible: 1. Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea. However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40% of their energy just in carrying their bodies around. Creatures making the transition from water to land would at the same time have had to develop new muscular and skeletal systems (!) to meet this energy need, and this could not have come about by chance mutations. 2. Heat Retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land. 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 the 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. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once. 5. Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They canot 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. |
Living coelacanths revealed how far the evolutionists could go in making up their imaginary scenarios. 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 lipid pouch.42 Furthermore, the coelacanth, which was introduced as "a reptile candidate getting prepared 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 metres from the surface.43
38 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.
39 R. L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and
Evolution, New York : W. H. Freeman and Co. 1988, p. 4 ; Robert L.
Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge
University Press, 1997, pp. 296-97
40
Edwin H. Colbert, M. Morales, Evolution of the Vertebrates, New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1991, p. 99.
41 Jean-Jacques Hublin, The Hamlyn Encyclopædia of Prehistoric
Animals, New York: The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., 1984, p. 120.
42 Jacques Millot, "The Coelacanth", Scientific American,
Vol 193, December 1955, p. 39.
43 Bilim ve Teknik Magazine, November 1998, No: 372, p.
21.
CHAPTER 4 THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTES EVOLUTION
CHAPTER 4
THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTES EVOLUTION
According to the theory of evolution, every living 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.23
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 realised 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 on Theory":
…Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly 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?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. 24
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.
Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the 19th 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. Trying to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.
A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.25
Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.26
These gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained by saying that sufficient fossils have not yet been found, but that they one day will be. 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:
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.27
Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms
 The fossils unearthed in Cambrian rocks belonged to complex invertebrate species like snails, trilobites, sponges, worms, jelly fish, starfish, marine crustaceans and sea lilies. Most interestingly, all of these distinct species emerged all of a sudden. For that reason, this miraculous phenomenon is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature. |
When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.
The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.
Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in present-day specimens. For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of creation. David Raup, a professor of geology in 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".28
These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.
Richard Monastersky, a science journalist at Science News, one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, 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 earth's first complex creatures. ...the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian ...and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.29
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 Science magazine 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".30 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.31
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.32
As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact: "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." 33 Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."34 The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swedish evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengtson, who confesses the lack of transitional links while describing the Cambrian Age, makes the following comment: "Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us".35
The Miracle of Creation That Confounds Evolution
THE EYE OF THE TRILOBITE The trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a sudden have an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology. This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. No doubt, the sudden appearance of such a wondrous design cannot be explained by evolution and it proves the actuality of creation. Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to our own day without a single change. Some insects such as bees and dragon flies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite.* This situation disproves the evolutionary thesis that living things evolved progressively from the primitive to the complex.
(*) R.L.Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Physiology of Seeing, Oxford University Press, 1995, p.31 |
Obviously, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created.
Molecular Comparisons Deepen Evolution's Cambrian Impasse
Another fact that puts evolutionists into a deep quandary about the Cambrian Explosion is the 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 genetically very different, which puts the "intermediate form" hypothesis, that only exists theoretically, into an even greater quandary. An article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2000 reports that DNA analyses have displaced 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...36
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 new genetic findings, and 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.37
INTERESTING SPINES : One of the creatures that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age is Hallucigenia (above, left). This and many other Cambrian fossils have hard, sharp spines to protect them from attack. One thing that evolutionists cannot account for is how these creatures should have such an effective defense system when there were no predators around. The lack of predators makes it impossible to explain these spines in terms of natural selection.
23 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 179.
24 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998, pp. 140, 141, 227.
25 Derek V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record",
Proceedings of the British Geological Association, vol. 87, 1976, p. 133.
26 Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade",
MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56.
27 R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA, 1991, p. 45.
28 David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology",
Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, January 1979, p. 24.
29 Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient",
Discover, April 1993, p. 40.
30 Richard Fortey, "The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?",
Science, vol. 293, no. 5529, July 20, 2001, pp. 438-439.
31 Ibid.
32 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton
1986, p. 229.
33 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, New York: Pantheon Books,
1983, p. 197.
34 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the
First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302.
35 Stefan Bengston, Nature, vol. 345, 1990, p. 765.
36 The New Animal Phylogeny: Reliability And Implications, Proc.
of Nat. Aca. of Sci., 25 April, 2000, vol. 97, no. 9, pp. 4453-4456.
37 Ibid.
CHAPTER 3 IMAGINARY MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION
CHAPTER 3
IMAGINARY MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION
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.
When we look further into this theory, we find that there is no such evolutionary mechanism. Neither natural selection nor mutations make any contribution at all to the transformation of different species into one another, and the claim that they do is completely unfounded.
Natural Selection
As process of nature, natural selection was familiar to biologists before Darwin, who defined it as a "mechanism that keeps species unchanging without being corrupted". Darwin was the first person to put forward the assertion that this process had evolutionary power and he then erected his entire theory on the foundation of this assertion. The name he gave to his book indicates that natural selection was the basis of Darwin's theory: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection...
However 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 of 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 mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.13
Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive. That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer.
When we look at the few incidents the evolutionists have put forth as observed examples of natural selection, we see that these are nothing but a simple attempt to hoodwink.
"Industrial Melanism"
In 1986 Douglas Futuyma published a book, The Biology of Evolution, which is accepted as one of the sources explaining the theory of evolution by natural selection in the most explicit way. The most famous of his examples on this subject is about the colour of the moth population, which appeared to darken during the Industrial Revolution in England. It is possible to find the story of the Industrial Melanism in almost all evolutionist biology books, not just in Futuyma's book. The story is based on a series of experiments conducted by the British physicist and biologist Bernard Kettlewell in the 1950s, and can be summarised as follows:
 Industrial Melanism is certainly not an evidence for evolution because the process did not produce any new species of moths. The selection was only among already existing varieties. Moreover, the classical story of melanism is deceptive. The textbook pictures to the side (portrayed as genuine photos) are in fact of dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks by evolutionists. |
According to the account, around the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the colour of the tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-coloured (melanic) 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 barks 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-coloured moths to dark-coloured 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-coloured moths "evolved" into dark-coloured ones.
However, even if we assume these 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". 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 evolutionist 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".
• 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.14
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.15
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. It 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.
Why Cannot Natural Selection Explain Complexity?
 Natural selection serves as a mechanism of eliminating weak individuals within a species. It is a conservative force which preserves the existing species from degeneration. Beyond that, it has no capability of transforming one species to another. |
There is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender 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.16
Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as conscious. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things. As a result, one cannot explain biological systems and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity" by natural selection. 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."17
Through natural selection, only the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species are selected out. New species, new genetic information, or new organs cannot be produced. That is, living things cannot evolve through natural selection. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur".18 This is why neo-Darwinism has had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as the "cause of beneficial changes". However as we shall see, mutations can only be "the cause for harmful changes".
Mutations
Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: As a result of mutations, 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. |
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 sickness…
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage the organism. 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 - results 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:
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 around 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
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
 Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionary biologists have sought examples of beneficial mutations by creating mutant flies. But these efforts have always resulted in sick and deformed creatures. The top left picture shows the head of a normal fruit fly, and the picture below right shows the head of a fruit fly with legs coming out of it. The top right picture shows a fruit fly with deformed wings, all the result of mutation. |
The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have had deleterious results. On this issue, evolutionists throw up a smokescreen and try to enlist examples of even such deleterious mutations as "evidence for evolution". All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. These mutations are presented in evolutionist textbooks as examples of "the evolutionary mechanism at work". 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.
To summarise, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot be pressed into the service of supporting evolutionists' assertions:
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: As a result of mutations, 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.
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.
13 Colin Patterson, "Cladistics",
Interview avec Brian Leek, Peter Franz, March 4, 1982, BBC.
14 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why
Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, 2000, pp.
141-151.
15 Jerry Coyne, "Not Black and White", a review of
Michael Majerus's Melanism: Evolution in Action, Nature, 396 (1988), pp. 35-36.
16 Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters",
Natural History, vol. 86, July-August 1977, p. 28.
17 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the
First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.
18 Ibid, p. 177.
19 B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth
Trust, 1988.
20 Warren Weaver, "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation",
Science, vol. 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1159.
21 Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper
& Row, 1983, p. 48.
22 Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing,
1984, p. 70.