TALES OF TRANSFORMATION FROM NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TELEVISION

TALES OF TRANSFORMATION FROM NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TELEVISION

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

A Whale Story for the Very Young

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acanthostega and What it Brings to Mind

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

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

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

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

Obstacles to the Transition from Water to Land

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A half-billion years ago, . . . the remarkably complex forms of animals that we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Geographic TV's DNA Error

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

DNA: The Molecule Which Refutes Evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Same Old Scenarios from National Geographic TV

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: There is no Transformation Between Species

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

 

TALL TALES FROM THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CHANNEL

TALL TALES FROM THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CHANNEL

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

The NGC's Contradictions and the Larmarckian View of Evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australopithecus was a Species of Ape, and was not Bipedal

Right: Donald Johanson Left: Richard Leakey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NGC Fairy Tales Appropriate for Bedtime Programs

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

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

The NGC's Visual Evolutionist Propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TV'S UNDERSEA FAIRY TALES

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TV'S UNDERSEA FAIRY TALES

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whitlow Au

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

THE SMUGGLING INCIDENT NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TV DECLINED TO COVER

THE SMUGGLING INCIDENT
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TV DECLINED TO COVER

Two documentaries called Dinosaur Dealers have been broadcast on National Geographic TV. These dealt with the trade in fossils and fossil smuggling, and described the adventures of a paleontologist who followed in the tracks of a number of stolen fossils, or fossils smuggled out of Australia. The trail was followed detective-style, and the program showed the negotiations carried out in order to trap the smugglers. In this way, the impression wasgiven that National Geographic is an idealistic body, chasing hot on the heels of smugglers and striving with all its might to destroy this illegal trade. However, the TV channel failed to mention that just a few years ago it too was involved in smuggling an Archaeoraptor fossil (and the fraud that accompanied it). In fact, it said not a word about it.

Let us recall the details of that smuggling operation.

Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was a forged dino-bird fossil. The remains of the creature, alleged to be an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds, had apparently been unearthed in the Liaoning area of China and were published in the November 1999 edition of National Geographic magazine.

Thus, the Archaeoraptor fossil is similar to the earlier Piltdown Man fraud committed by evolutionists. Archaeoraptor was even described under the headline "Piltdown Bird" in the well-known magazine New Scientist. The report states that Archaeoraptor was formed by adding the tail of a dromaeosaurus, a genuine dinosaur, to a bird fossil, and that this was a fraud perpetrated in the name of science. 1) Mix and match: Archaeoraptor seems to consist of the tail of a dromaeosaur, glued to a fossil bird's body (above).

Stephen Czerkas, an American museum administrator, had bought the fossil from the Chinese for $80,000, and then showed it to two scientists he had made contact with. Once the expected confirmation had been received, he wrote a report about the fossil. Yet Czerkas was no scientific researcher, nor did he hold a doctorate of any sort. He submitted his report to two famous scientific journals, Nature and Science, but they both declined to publish it unless it was first vetted by an independent commission of paleontologists.

Czerkas was determined to have this fantastical discovery published, and he next knocked at the door of National Geographic, known for its support of the theory of evolution.

Under Chinese law it was definitely forbidden to remove fossils unearthed within its borders from the country, and fossil-smuggling could be severely punished, even by death. Despite being well aware of this, National Geographic accepted this fossil which had been smuggled out of China. The fossil was presented to the media at a press conference staged in the National Geographic headquarters in October 1999. An illustrated seven-page article describing the dino-bird fairy tale formed the cover story in the November edition of National Geographic magazine. Moreover, the fossil was exhibited in the National Geographic museum, where it was presented to millions of people as definitive proof of the theory of evolution.

The truth emerged in March 2001: no such intermediate species as Achaeoraptor had ever existed. Computer tomography analyses of the fossil revealed that it consisted of parts of at least two different species. Archaeoraptor was thus dethroned, and took its place alongside all the other evolutionist frauds in history. Darwinism-whose claims have never been empirically verified in the past 150 years-was once more associated with specially manufactured fossil forgeries.

As we have seen, National Geographic was once party to that very fossil-smuggling which it now purports to oppose. Naturally, the fact that in its latest documentaries it devotes space to bringing fossil smuggling out into the open may be regarded as a positive sign that it will not tolerate similar abuses in the future. However, if the TV channel does oppose fossil-smuggling, then it must also deal with such well-known smuggling incidents as Archaeoraptor in its programs. No matter how much of a violation of its Darwinist broadcasting policy it might be, admitting its past mistakes and taking the side of the truth would be commendable behavior in the sight of all its viewers.

A SERIES OF BLUNDERS REGARDING MONKEY INTELLIGENCE

A SERIES OF BLUNDERS REGARDING MONKEY INTELLIGENCE

National Geographic TV broadcast two documentaries in April 2003 in its Europe edition. Called A Tale of Three Chimps and My Favorite Monkey, these documentaries bore clear similarities in terms of the message they sought to give. The consecutive broadcasting of these documentaries by National Geographic TV, their subject matter, and their timing indicated that deliberate evolutionist propaganda was going on. This channel, which in March 2003 brought us the fairy tales of "the dog that entered the sea and became a whale" and "the fish that left the sea and grew legs" in its Great Transformations, this time offered us another story and tried to inculcate the suggestion of the alleged evolution of man.

The documentary "A Tale of Three Chimps" dealt with chimpanzees working in a circus, and "My Favorite Monkey" was about the tailed macaque. Throughout both of these films frequent examples were given of what appeared to be intelligent behavior in monkeys, and the impression was given that since monkeys are so-called close relatives of man, their intelligence is correspondingly high. The aim of this article is to reveal the twisted Darwinist interpretations given in both documentaries.

Claims That Chimpanzees and Man are Brothers or Genetic Relatives are Untrue

Right at the beginning of the film there is talk of chimpanzees' being a "brother species" to man and it was said that scientists realized the similarities between the two species before their genetic proximity was confirmed.

National Geographic TV's view of monkeys as a "brother species" to man is nothing more than Darwinist prejudice and rests on no scientific findings. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. In the face of the picture presented by the fossil record, evolutionist paleontologists admit that they have abandoned hope of finding a missing link between man and the chimpanzee.

The claim that a "genetic proximity" between man and ape has been confirmed is a deception, pure and simple. Genetic proximity is a scenario produced as the result of a distortion of data regarding human and chimpanzee DNA with the aim of supporting Darwinism. However, this scenario is rotten to the core, because it claims that DNA emerged by means of so-called random evolutionary mutations. The fact is, however, that the effects of mutations on organisms are inevitably harmful, and may even have fatal results. DNA contains meaningful information recorded in a special encoding system. Random mutations in genes cannot possibly add new information to the DNA of the organism and turn it into a new species. All experiments and observations on mutations demonstrate this.

Moreover, the invalidity of the figures put forward in this genetic proximity propaganda has also emerged in new scientific discoveries in recent months. The findings of a California Institute of Technology geneticist have revealed that the genetic difference between man and chimpanzee was three times greater than had been claimed.1 It was revealed that there is absolutely no scientific proof of a point that is so frequently stressed in evolutionist propaganda. (For more details about the scientific discoveries which have undermined the scenario of human evolution, see Darwinism Refuted, by Harun Yahya at www.harunyahya.com under the subtopic "Refutation of Darwinism.")

The National Geographic TV documentary, "My Favorite Monkey," states that man and apes possess a similar physiology, and this is portrayed as evidence of evolution. Space is devoted to the comments of a veterinarian regarding a monkey which was brought to him for treatment. The veterinarian states that some of the medicines he used for the monkey were actually human medicines, and cites this as evidence that the two species are related.

The fact, however, that medicines can prove to be effective in both species provides no evidence for the theory of evolution whatsoever. The comparison is merely one made in line with Darwinist prejudices. It is quite natural that similar chemicals should benefit both man and apes. Both species share the same biosphere and the same carbon-based organic molecules. This common structure applies not just to man and apes, but to the whole of nature. For instance, human beings produce medicine from the blood of the horseshoe crab. Yet this does not mean that man and the horseshoe crab are related. On the other hand, kidney transplants carried out from chimpanzees to human beings represent a serious blow to the claims of similar physiology. Dr. Keith Reemtsma of Tulane University carried out more than a dozen such transplants from chimpanzees to human beings in 1963, but all the patients died.2 That is because the chimpanzee metabolism worked faster, for which reason the cells in the tissue of the chimpanzee kidney rapidly consumed the water in the bodies of the human recipients.

National Geographic TV's Propaganda Tactics

The assumptions which evolutionists accept without really thinking about them are actually based on very weak foundations. Evolutionists feel enormous excitement at ape behavior which is similar to that of humans, yet ignore other creatures which display even more intelligent behavior than apes.

The propaganda tactic so often resorted to in documentaries on National Geographic TV consists of showing examples of intelligent behavior by apes and then drawing comparisons between them and human beings. This tactic can be seen in expressions like "they are intelligent animals," "their needs closely resemble those of human beings," and "like us, they feel the need for personal bonds and interpersonal relationships."

The commentary in My Favorite Monkey mentions that apes produce creative solutions in the face of problems in nature and that they are intelligent problem-solvers. It says the line between human and ape behavior may be very unclear.

In another narration, it is stated that they resemble us physically; we use them in space and medical research. Also, they resemble us socially, but we keep that to ourselves. Family life is very important among members of the macaque species and we are so closely related that …

According to evolutionists' own logic, it is possible to draw a comparison between bees, which build combs that are architectural marvels, or beavers, which construct dams, with civil engineers and say that they are our ancestors. That claim is as nonsensical as saying we are descended from apes.

Yet the inconsistency of constructing an evolutionary link between man and ape in respect of intelligence and interpersonal relationships is quite evident. There are other animals far superior to apes when it comes to intelligence and relationships. Bees, for instance, are able to employ the kind of architecture in building their combs that only a mathematician's calculations could match.3 A geometrical plan can be seen in the comb, one that allows the least possible material to be used in the construction but the greatest possible amount of area for storage. (In the identification of such an "optimal" design the area and circumferences of different geometrical shapes need to be calculated, and the geometric shape with the highest area/circumference ratio should be selected.)

In the same way, beavers are able to build their nests against the current in the middle of rivers, employing the kind of engineering abilities used by man in constructing dams.4 Termites build magnificent towers capable of comparison with our own skyscrapers, and set up air-conditioning systems, special storage chambers and agricultural areas inside them. The fact, of course, that they display a visibly sensitive mathematical and geometrical knowledge in their buildings and use engineering techniques does not imply that we are related to bees, beavers, or termites.

Neither is the fact that monkeys feel the need for interpersonal bonds and relationships evidence for evolution. Creatures that have no possible relation to human beings also enjoy similar bonds and relationships. Penguins, for example, raise families full of love and loyalty. Dogs are much more faithful and friendly in the relationships they establish with human beings. Doves enjoy close relations with their mates. Budgerigars exhibit enormous interest and devotion to one another, and also to human beings. Yet these features do not make penguins, doves, budgerigars, and dogs our relatives.

On the other hand, these animals do reveal the invalidity of the theory of evolution's claims regarding the origin of their intelligence and behavior. Despite the fact that the creatures we have just listed are located on branches of the imaginary evolutionary tree far more distant from man than are chimpanzees, they are still able to display behavior much closer to human intelligence than that of chimpanzees.

Honeybees reveal yet another contradiction which the theory of evolution is quite incapable of accounting for. The theory seeks to account for level of intelligence by the development of the nervous system. For instance, it links the fact that man is the most highly developed living thing to his having the highest brain/body ratio. According to this logic, chimpanzees, with a much more complex nervous system than that of bees, should be far superior to them. Yet the truth is actually the exact opposite. The fact that a creature much further away from man on the imaginary evolutionary tree than the chimpanzee is able to display the kind of complex behavior seen in man, despite its being a simple organism, - the way it calculates the surface area and circumference of the hexagon and measures internal angles, for instance - definitively invalidates the evolutionist claims with regard to ape intelligence.

Beware the Monkey Culture Distortion

In the documentary My Favorite Monkey it is suggested that the tailed monkey known as the macaque possesses the ability to develop complex behaviors, and to teach them to individuals and so hand them on to subsequent generations. This is described as a kind of "monkey culture," on the grounds that such learned behavior falls within the meaning of culture.

Due to the symbiosis of leaf cutter ants and fungi, the ants obtain the protein they need for nutrition from the mushroom buds they grow on leaves. Here we see a mushroom garden tended by ants. 1) Inside the nest, slightly smaller workers chop leaves into bits. 2)The next caste chews these bits into pulp and fertilizes them with deposits of enzyme-rich fecal fluid. 3) Other ants apply the fertile leaf paste over a base of dried leaves in new chambers. 4) Another caste hauls in bits of fungus from older chambers and plants them in the leaf paste. Bits of fungus spread on the leaf paste like frost. 5) A teeming caste of dwarfs cleans and weeds the garden, then harvests the fungus for others to eat.

It may be suggested that the behavior models peculiar to one living species are an indication of "culture." However, as we have stated above, "human-type" behavior or the demonstration of a "human-type" culture in certain aspects by a living being is again no evidence for the theory of evolution.

National Geographic TV engages in two major distortions here. First, the example is given of a macaque washing the sand off a potato in the sea before eating it. Second, an adult macaque is shown forcibly taking the stones a younger monkey is playing with out of its hand.

It is stated that the washing of the potato in water is behavior that was first developed by one macaque in the group and then taught to the others. This is taken to be a sign of culture. The taking away by the adult of the stone the younger macaques are playing with is compared to the way that children playing in a nursery take each other's toys. It is suggested here that the way the adult engages in a display of strength by taking it away from the younger animal shows that macaques imbue the stone with a kind of social significance.

The fact that a monkey engages in "humane" cleaning and displays a "toy" culture cannot be put forward as evidence for evolution. Evolutionists persistently fixate on monkey culture, and are accustomed to portray this as a whole entity, based on particular communication between monkeys. The aim here is to install the idea in people's minds that human culture is a phenomenon which emerged with evolution, and that among animals the nearest level to human culture is that exhibited by monkeys.

Yet the wild bee known as schwarzula or the leafcutter ant exhibit an even more complex culture - that of agriculture. Schwarzula engages in "livestock rearing" by making use of secretions from a species of larva it gathers up and collects in its nest. Leafcutter ants engage in "agriculture" by growing fungus.5 Another species of ant collects resin from trees and uses this as an antiseptic to purify its nest from germs. This is a sign of a "culture of medicine." The way that creatures which (according to evolutionists) are "simpler" than apes and much further removed from man than apes, are able to display such complex examples of culture is enough to invalidate the evolutionists' claims of a link between "monkey culture" and man.

As we have seen, National Geographic TV's distortions are insufficient to account, according to the theory of evolution, for behavior and culture among animals that are similar to those in man. Moreover, the examples we have cited of behavior and culture in bees, ants, beavers, dogs, and doves raise certain questions that can never be answered in terms of the theory of evolution: How did these creatures come by the necessary information to accomplish such complex behavior? How are they able to interpret such information? How is it that tiny insects are able to display more complex behavior than apes, alleged to be man's closest relatives?

You can ask these questions to the evolutionist of your choice. It is absolutely certain that the reply will demonstrate the total quandary they find themselves in. Those with rather more experience will try to gloss over the matter by saying such behavior depends on "instinct." Yet that fails to save the theory that is deadlocked. "Instinct" is nothing more than a name generated for this evolutionary quandary.

It is obvious that instinct does not stem from the living thing itself, but is inspired by a superior intelligence. It is God Who inspires the behavior in bees, beavers, dogs, doves, and chimpanzees. Every living thing displays the characteristics God set out for it. The fact that the chimpanzee is an animal, which man finds amusing and which is able to obey his commands, stems from the inspiration God places in it. The truth of this can be seen in the verse of the Qur'an; "Your Lord revealed to the bees…" (Qur'an, 16:68)

Monkey Blunders from National Geographic TV

The claims put forward in the comparisons between the tailed macaques and man in the documentary "My Favorite Monkey" are so utterly inconsistent that the film gives the impression of having been prepared as an entertainment for children. For instance:

The experimental monkeys sent into space are referred to as heroes, and we are told, had it not been for them man could never have taken the giant leap into space that he did. This is a totally baseless comment: The monkeys sent into space did not "succeed" in doing anything. The rockets they were placed into were controlled from earth, and the monkeys were just tightly strapped into the cabins and used as experimental subjects. Furthermore, even if we do allow a measure of heroism in the experimental animals used in space research, then rats and dogs must also be included, since these too were used in craft sent up into space.

It is also stated in My Favorite Monkey that apes have been of major use to man in the medical field. We are told how, as a result of research on rhesus monkeys, the Rh tests were developed. Obviously, though, the use of an animal in medical research does not make it a relative of man, in the same way that the use of bacteria in the development of antibiotics does not make them relatives of man.

In that same documentary, a comparison is made between the way that monkeys groom each other to remove fleas and parasites and the way that human beings go to the hairdresser, and it is suggested that going to the hairdresser is parallel social behavior to being groomed for fleas.

This claim must represent a "shining example" of the way in which National Geographic TV's Darwinist fantasies know no limits. Maybe in future programs this creative imagination could be used to engage in speculation regarding the origin of the human habit of going to the theatre by showing two groups of apes, the one watching the other group playing. That is, of course, if termites are not rediscovered with their construction abilities and put forward as man's nearest ancestors!

Macaques' jumping onto jet skis, skiing, or sitting and eating in restaurants with their owners does not make them relatives of man. It is clear that such behavior does not have its roots in ape etiquette or culture. Such behavior is the result of punishment and reward training, and has no more significance than a circus show. Indeed, dogs, birds, and dolphins are also used in such shows and demonstrate impressive abilities. National Geographic TV is using and distorting such images of monkeys to implant in people's minds the idea set out in evolution that the monkeys are man's closest relatives.

Conclusion

These documentaries broadcast on National Geographic TV once again show that the channel is a blind and dogmatic supporter of Darwinism. The claims put forward about animal behavior and intelligence make no scientific statement at all. This channel, which declares the apes sent into space to be heroes and tries to establish an evolutionary link between monkeys grooming each other and human beings going to the hairdresser, is trying to cover claims that even children would find laughable with a scientific veneer. We recommend that if the channel is to defend the theory of evolution, it should try to find more rational and logical arguments with which to do so.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Between early 2001 and the present day there have been a number of very interesting and important developments in the world of science. The advances made in such different scientific fields as palaeontology, molecular biology, anatomy and genetics have once again revealed the terrible scientific dilemma the theory of evolution finds itself in. The theory of evolution was proposed in its present form in the mid-19^th century by Charles Darwin and at that time provided enormous support for materialism. Such was that support that the present collapse of the theory is also resulting in the collapse of materialism itself.

Materialism is a most dangerous philosophy, which denies the existence of God, religion and the spiritual life and which regards matter as the only absolute and supports a selfish world view. The selfish, self-interested, combative and ruthless moral view which is still widespread in the world is the product of a materialist-Darwinist viewpoint.

It is therefore essential to inflict an intellectual defeat on the materialist world view, and to this end it is essential to reveal the scientific invalidity of Darwinism, which constitutes the basis of that view. This is an easy task, because Darwinism lacks any scientific foundation. Not one scientific proof to back up the theory of evolution has so far been found in any relevant branch of science. The findings which have been made all show that evolution never happened. All that evolutionists do is to distort certain biological phenomena, observations or the fossil record, none of which actually constitute any evidence for the theory of evolution, in a prejudiced manner, and sometimes even wage their propaganda campaign by engaging in scientific fraud.

In order for the true face of Darwinism to be revealed it is therefore essential that the effect of this propaganda be nullified and that the scientific facts be made available to as many people as possible. The subsequent chapters of this book therefore examine the new scientific findings which unmask the evolution deception as well as the invalidity of the one-sided reports which have appeared in evolutionist publications and media outlets in recent months.

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION As we stated at the beginning, these examples of miracles from the world of living beings are only a few links of an infinite chain of miracles. Whichever creations of God we regard, we are always examining a great miracle. But what's really important is that we notice and comprehend these miracles, because regardless of how clear and great a miracle is, only believers will see God's existence and infinite greatness therein. Unbelievers will never acknowledge even a clear-cut miracle and will deny it because of their prejudices, pride, and worldly ambitions. Also, they make irrational and nonsensical comments, trying to bury miracles or portray them as common and normal, or even irrelevant. In reality, even just one of the miracles related in this book is enough to persuade any conscientious person of normal intelligence. But since deniers are devoid of logic and awareness, they cannot comprehend God's miracles all around them. These verses of the Qur'an describe the deniers' attitude towards miracles: If they see a Sign they turn away, saying "There is no end to this witchcraft!" They have denied the truth and followed their whims and desires, but everything has its time. (Qur'an, 54:2-3) As these verses show, deniers' disinterest of towards miracles is caused by their egotism and desire to satisfy selfish ambitions. Acknowledging miracles would mean that they would also have to accept the existence of God and Judgment Day, which in turn would mean they must accept that they must submit to His will, and will account to Him for their actions. This is unacceptable to unbelievers, however, which is why they do not believe. But whether or not they choose to believe the truth, everything bides its time and meets its fate. Their denying miracles will not alter the truth, nor what they will receive in the Hereafter for what they have done. In reality, for unbelievers of all eras, it is God's eternally valid law that they cannot see the undisputable miracles in His creation. The verses say: They have sworn by God with their most earnest oaths that if a Sign comes to them they will believe in it. Say: "The Signs are in God's control alone." What will make you realize that even if a Sign did come, they would still not believe? We will overturn their hearts and sight, just as when they did not believe in it at first, and We will abandon them to wander blindly in their excessive insolence. Even if We sent down angels to them, and the dead spoke to them, and We gathered together everything in front of them right before their eyes, they would still not believe unless God willed. The truth is that most of them are ignorant. (Qur'an, 6:109-111)

CHAPTER 3 THE MIRACLES IN THE CREATION OF LIVING BEINGS

CHAPTER 3

THE MIRACLES IN THE CREATION OF LIVING BEINGS

NOT EVEN THE SIMPLEST LIVING THINGS ARE COINCIDENTAL

Living things may appear so simple at first sight, but possess structures and systems so complex that could never have arisen by chance.

Thus far, we have explored that the harmony and balances in the universe, the solar system, and our Earth could not be products of coincidence. Each of these balances, we have seen, is a miracle of choice among countless alternative possibilities. And not even the simplest living organisms can form coincidentally. Robert Shapiro is a Professor of chemistry and DNA expert at New York University. A Darwinist, Shapiro calculated the probability of the 2,000 different proteins found in simple bacteria having formed coincidentally He obtained the following result: 1 in 10^40,000 (a number formed by 4,000 zeros following the number 1; which does not correspond to anything in the universe). And there are 200,000 different proteins in the human body!

The chance of the 2,000 proteins in simple bacteria to form coincidentally is 1 in 10^40,000. Since the number of different proteins in the human body is 200,000, nothing can put this improbability into perspective.

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, has this to say about Shapiro's calculation:

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 10^40,000 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. 53

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR LIFE'S BUILDING BLOCKS TO FORM BY THEMSELVES

Proteins, the fundamental building blocks of living cells, are exceedingly complex molecules. Not even the simplest of them could have come into existence by chance.

Protein molecules are the building blocks of life, and even the simplest one is so complex that it could never form accidentally. An average protein consists of 288 amino acids of twelve different types with 10³⁰⁰ (an astronomical number with 300 zeros) possible different sequencing combinations. But only one of these combinations can produce the relevant protein. All the other combinations are dysfunctional, or even harmful, chains of amino acids.

The probability of any such proteins to form by chance is 1 in 10³⁰⁰ . And in mathematics, any probability smaller than 10⁵⁰ is considered an impossibility.

One of the complex protein molecules that plays a role in one of the countless complex process in the body.

Yet a protein consisting of 288 amino acids is a simple affair when compared to the hugely complex proteins consisting of thousands of amino acids, in living beings. Applying the same probability calculation to these protein molecules makes the word impossible inadequate to describe their forming by chance.

But examining at the next stage of life formation reveals that proteins, by themselves, mean nothing much. Mycoplasma Hominis H39 is one of the most primitive bacteria known to man, but consists of 600 different proteins. In its case, we would have to apply probability calculations to 600 different proteins, and the results they would yield would be simply beyond impossible. Regardless of how much time we granted for amino acids to form proteins, they never could form by chance. The American geologist William Stokes concedes this reality in his book, Essentials of Earth History where he states that were the surface of the universe's billions of planets covered with a watery concentrate for a duration of billions of years, still proteins could never have formed.54 About the probability of the Cytochrome-C protein, necessary for life, to form by chance, he says:

No one would ever think that a seashore sandcastle had been produced by waves and natural conditions. A protein's structure is trillions of times more complex than a sandcastle's. Therefore, it's that many times more impossible for proteins to have been produced by chance natural conditions.

The likely probability of the formation of a cytochrome-C sequence is zero… To accept the alternative-that some metaphysical powers beyond our definition must have effected its formation-isn't appropriate to the goals of science. Therefore, we have to look into the first hypothesis. 55

This statement reveals clearly that evolutionist scientists consider the scientifically proven belief in "zero probability" as a scientific approach. In reality, principles of both logic and science demand that if a particular event has two possible explanations, where one has zero chance of being correct, then, the other explanation must be true. When principles of logic are applied to the zero probability of the Cytochrome-C protein's forming by chance, it's certain that it has been consciously made-in other words, created. This is the scientific, logical, and rational conclusion.

The materialist ideology forbids the acknowledgment of a Creator therefore compelling materialist scientists to reject scientific facts that contradict their philosophy. As a result, such scientists have no qualms in forsaking scientific facts that go against their grain. Instead, they try to impose their philosophies on the masses, which is why the of materialist scientists' integrity and trustworthiness are questionable.

ALL PROTEINS IN LIVING BEINGS ARE LEFT-HANDED; A FACT THAT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY CHANCE

For amino acids to form a functional protein, combining in the right number, in the right sequence and in their right three dimensional design is not enough. All the amino acids, without exceptions, must also combine to form a protein that is "left-handed."

Chemically, all amino acids exist in either right-handed or left-handed form, their three-dimensional structures being symmetrical opposites, like human hands.

Although the chances of an amino-acid being right- or left-handed are 50-50, the amino-acids in every living thing is left-handed, indicating a planned creation.

Amino acids from both camps can easily form bonds between them. But research has revealed one surprising fact: All proteins in all life forms, from the most primitive organisms to the most complex, are formed by left-handed amino acids. Even one right-handed amino acid within the structure renders it dysfunctional. Some experimenters introduced, right-handed amino acids into bacteria, and the bacteria immediately destroyed them. In some cases, the bacteria reconstructed left-handed amino acids from parts of the original right-handed ones.

For one moment, let's assume that, as evolutionists claim, amino acids formed themselves according to the laws of chance. There should be equal numbers of left and right-handed amino acids in nature and, consequently, in all living beings as well. This should be quite possible: Chemically, amino acids from both groups can easily bond with one another. In reality, though, all proteins in living beings are exclusively left-handed.

If a coin thrown into the air millions of times always turns up heads, is it more logical to account for this in terms of chance, or in terms of someone's conscious intervention?

For evolutionists, it is still a mystery why proteins select only left-handed amino acids, completely ignoring all right-handed versions. They cannot find any explanation for such a conscious, deliberate selectiveness.

Furthermore, this attribute of proteins makes the evolutionist's "coincidence" proposition untenable. The Britannica Science Encyclopedia, an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all living organisms on Earth-and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins-share the same left-handed asymmetry. The Encyclopedia adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin one million times and having it always come up heads. It also states that it's impossible to understand why molecules should have become left-handed or right-handed; that, fascinatingly, this choice is related to the origin of life on Earth. 56

If a coin is flicked into the air millions of times, but always lands heads up, which is more rational; to ascribe it to coincidence, or to acknowledge someone's conscious intervention? The self-evident answer is, it's not possible for such a thing to be coincidental. And actually, the situation is even more complex than a coin's coming up heads every time. In spite of this, evolutionists seek refuge in chance rather than acknowledge conscious intervention. They believe the nonsensical claims that in order to form proteins, amino acids agreed to admit no right-handed amino acids as part of their game plan. In the face of all the facts revealed thus far, every rational human will realize that life has been designed and created in perfection by God.

LIFE ON EARTH EMERGED SUDDENLY, MIRACULOUSLY

Complex living things that suddenly emerged on Earth in the Cambrian Period, with no so-called evolutionary ancestors behind them, totally refute the claims of the theory of evolution. Such a miraculous emergence can only signify Creation.

Never mind the biological impossibility of life emerging by chance: The fossil record shows that life on Earth emerged suddenly-and miraculously.

When we investigate the fossil record in layers of sedimentary rocks, it becomes apparent that life emerged suddenly. The deepest (oldest) layers of rock containing fossils, belong to the Cambrian era of around 520-530 million years ago.

Trilobites, which appeared on Earth some 500 million years ago, possessed exceedingly complex organs. To the side can be seen a fossil trilobite's compound eye, with the same complex structure as the eyes of modern-day bees and flies.

Fossils from sedimentary rocks of the Cambrian era are of complex invertebrates like snails, trilobites, sponges, worms, jelly fish, star fish, and other crustaceans. Interestingly, all these different species emerged at the same time, which is why paleontologists call this miraculous event the "Cambrian explosion."

Life forms discovered in this layer had physiologically complex eyes, respiratory systems and metabolisms similar to those found in modern life forms. For instance, the trilobites' double-lens eye design is wholly miraculous. David Raup, geology professor at Harvard, Rochester and Chicago Universities says, "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today." 57

These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely, without any links to one-celled organisms or transitory life forms before them.

Richard Monestarsky, a staff writer of the popular evolutionist magazine, Science News, comments on the Cambrian explosion that astounds evolutionists:

A half-billion years ago,… the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today. 58

How did the Cambrian seas suddenly fill with such a diversity of invertebrate species, with no common ancestry? Evolutionists have never been able to answer the question. English biologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost names in evolutionist thought, has the following to say about on this fact that negates the thesis he espouses:

For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. 59

As Dawkins inadvertently concedes, the Cambrian explosion is clear proof for Creation: In the absence of any evolutionary ancestors, the only explanation for the sudden appearance of these living beings is Creation. Evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma states that, "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification."60 Since scientific data proves that life emerged suddenly, evolution is left with no leg to stand on, and now evolutionists openly or secretly concede now this reality.

DNA'S MIRACULOUS DESIGN

All the information about the bodies of living beings is encoded in the huge DNA molecules found within the nucleus of each cell. Living beings' DNA is formed by hundred of thousands of small molecules called nucleotides, of which there are four types. Their sequence is specific to each species. Each species' DNA contains the codes of that species' characteristics. The same is true for humans. It's thanks to our DNA sequence that man as a species is different from all other life forms; and each man's DNA makes him slightly different from every other man. We can compare nucleotides to letters in the alphabet. Since there are four different nucleotides, we can liken the DNA to a huge encyclopedia composed with an alphabet of four letters.

The sequence of the "letters" in the DNA molecule determines every detail of the human body. Besides details like height and the color of eyes, hair and skin, the blueprint for all 206 bones, 600 muscles, network of 10,000 hearing nerves, two million optic nerves, 100 million nerve cells and more than 100 trillion other cells is contained in every cell's DNA. If all the genetic information stored in the DNA were committed to printed pages, they would fill 900 volumes of 500 pages each. But this huge quantity of DNA information is encoded within the microscopic cell's nucleus.

The data contained in one DNA molecule would fill one million pages. In other words, a million encyclopedia pages' worth of information are stored in the nucleus of each human cell, controlling all bodily functions. In comparison, one of the greatest encyclopedias of the world, the Britannica consists of 23 volumes with a total of 25,000 pages. An incredible picture emerges. Inside a microscopic cell's nucleus is a molecule that serves as a databank, 40 times larger than the world's greatest encyclopedia, with millions of different entries. This represents an encyclopedia of huge proportions, 920 volumes strong, unlike anything currently existing in the world. Research suggests that this huge "encyclopedia" contains five billion different bits of data.

This huge databank has existed in each of the 100 trillion cells of the billions of people who have ever existed since the first human. No doubt this reality is a clear demonstration of God's infinite might, as the Lord of the heavens and the Earth.

UNDER NATURAL CONDITIONS, DNA CANNOT POSSIBLY FORM BY CHANCE

A single human DNA molecule contains enough information to fill millions of encyclopedia pages.

Considering that there are 200,000 genes in the human body, it is just impossible that the millions of nucleotides forming these genes, should line up accidentally, in the right sequence. Evolutionist biologist Frank Salisbury points out these impossibilities:

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4^1,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 4^1,000 =10⁶⁰⁰ . Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension. 61

A "small algorithmic" calculation of 1 in 4^1,000 means 10⁶²⁰. This is a number with 620 zeros after the 1. When eleven zeros after ten express one trillion, it is hardly comprehensible what a number with 620 zeroes means. Paul Auger, the French evolutionist and scientist expresses the impossibility of any coincidental accumulation of nucleotides to create the RNA and DNA:

We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of complex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one-which is possible-and the combination of these within very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible. 62

Dr. Leslie Orgel, the famous evolutionist and colleague of Stanley Miller and Francis Crick from California University, comments on this impossibility:

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. 63

Other well-known evolutionist scientists acknowledge the same fact:

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. 64

"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. 65

THE SECRET BEHIND THE DIVERSIFICATION OF CELLS

Stem cells are the source of all the 200 different kinds of cell in the human body. (1) Stem cells are identical copies of one another, yet shortly afterwards, they begin to diversify into other cells, developing into soft tissues, of which energy-providing fat cells (2), wound-healing cells (3), and vein cells (4) are just a few.

For multiplication by cell division to become possible, first one cell must make a copy of itself-which in turn, in time, must produce further copies of themselves and so on, into millions of identical cells. But this process is far more complicated and mysterious than it appears. At some point during the process of cell division, and by an unknown trigger, certain cells begin to diversify into altogether different cells. In this way, cells originating from a common stem cell diversify, by cell division, to create different tissues and organs. Some become light-sensitive retinal cells, others liver cells. Still others become nerve cells sensitive to heat, cold or pain, or receptive to vibrations caused by sound.

How can such diversification come about? Since a cell cannot decide on its own to specialize, who makes this decision?

All cells contain the same DNA data, yet produce different proteins. Two cells producing different proteins become different from one another. But how is it that two cells of common origin, and containing the same genetic information, suddenly begin producing different types of proteins and displaying different characteristics and behavior? Even though they are identical copies of each other, who directs them to produce different types of proteins?

Hoimar von Ditfurth, a fervent advocate of evolution, comments on the mysterious developments taking place in the womb:

How a single egg cell divides to form so numerous differentiated cells, and the perfect natural communication and the cooperation between these cells top the events that amaze scientists. 66

Likewise, other advocates of evolution fail to explain how one single cell can set in motion a development that leads to the formation of different organs and tissues, culminating in the creation of a human being with 100 trillion cells. This miracle they call a dark corner of evolution.

He is God-the Creator, the Maker, the Giver of Form. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Everything in the heavens and Earth glorifies Him. He is the Almighty, the All-Wise. (Qur'an, 59:24)

INTELLIGENCE IN BACTERIA

In recent years, observations of bacteria have shown that these single-celled creatures make decisions, based on their analysis of their environment. Such behavior, requiring intelligence, reason and consciousness, and performed by a micro-organism with no brain or nervous system, shows that the creature itself cannot be the source of this behavior. This reveals an obvious miracle: Another intelligence governs it-God, Who creates these creatures and inspires their behavior. This is true not only of bacteria, but for all living things.

In recent years, research into bacteria has revealed that these one-cell organisms behave extremely intelligently, by responding to the situation in their environment. According to the renowned molecular biologist Michael Denton:

The amoeba, although the size of a small speck of dust, exhibits behavioral strategies which seem objectively indistinguishable from those of animals far higher up the scale. If an amoeba were the size of a cat, we would probably impute to it the same level of intelligence as we do to a mammal. Just how do such minute organisms integrate all the information necessary to make such apparently calculated intelligent decisions? …the way it [the amoeba] integrates all the information necessary to pursue its prey, its decision to change direction, its persistence in the pursuit when its prey escapes, the sudden breakout of the smaller amoeba from its imprisonment in the interior of its captor at the moment when the wall of protoplasm was at its thinnest-all this remains to be fully explained in molecular terms. 67

In the above excerpt, the final sentence is most noteworthy. Amoebas' behavior cannot be explained on a molecular level-by chemical reactions or physical triggers. These monocellular organisms consciously make decisions and carry them out. But interestingly, they have neither brain nor nervous system. Each one is a simple cell made of proteins, fats and water.

Other examples of intelligent behavior are displayed by bacteria. According to the July 1999 issue of the famous French science magazine, Science et Vie, bacteria communicate with one another and make collective decisions, based on the information they receive.

According to the Science et Vie article, this communication is the result of a highly complex system. The bacteria's surface area is able to send and receive electrical signals. Bacteria send signals containing data on the conditions of their environment, including nutritional information. Based on such information, they decide how often to divide and when to cease reproductive activities.

In short, living beings that are invisible to the naked eye gather information on their surroundings, interpret them, and communicate them to one another. They then decide on a joint action plan.

The fact that micro-organisms, devoid of brain and nervous system, can display behavior requiring intelligence, reason and consciousness, demonstrates that the source of such rational, planned, calculated and decisive action lies not within them. This situation reveals a clear miracle: Someone else directs them in a rational way. This being is God Who creates them and then directs each of their actions. This reality is not just true for bacteria but also for all other beings. As the Qur'an reveals: "…There is no creature He does not hold by the forelock…" (Qur'an, 11:56)

THE EXTRAORDINARY HARMONY BETWEEN SUNLIGHT AND THE EYE

THE EXTRAORDINARY HARMONY BETWEEN SUNLIGHT AND THE EYE

Light emitted by the Sun is at an ideal wavelength that permits living things on Earth to be able to see.

Only the "visible light" wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum can enable biological vision. The largest part of the radiation emitted by the Sun falls within this parameter.

For vision to occur, the cells of the retina must be photosensitive, in other words, able to register photons. This requires that photons fall within the visible spectrum, because photons of different wavelength are either too weak or too strong to be registered by retina cells. Altering the size of the eye would make no difference, because what matters is the size of the cells, the harmony between them, and the wavelength at which the photons occur.

As we all know, organic molecules-the building blocks of living cell structures-are produced by a diversity of different combinations of carbon atoms. The "seeing" cells they form register only visible light.

Consequently, eyes of living beings register only the visible light emitted by the Sun. These factors combine to create vision. God specifically created both the eye and the Sun that emits light at the proper wavelength for it to perceive.

Professor Michael Denton investigated this subject in great detail in his book Nature's Destiny, concluding that an organic eye could produce vision only within the limits of visible light. No other theoretically conceivable eye design can register different wavelength:

UV, X-ray, and gamma rays are too energetic and are highly destructive, while infrared and radio waves are too weak to be detected because they impart so little energy interacting with matter... And so it would appear that for several different reasons, the visual region of the electromagnetic spectrum is the one region supremely fit for biological vision and particularly for the high-resolution vertebrate camera eye of a design and dimension very close to that of the human eye. 42

Taken all together, this all leads to the conclusion that the Sun is carefully designed to emit radiation at a certain bandwidth (1 in 10²⁵), providing heat, supporting the biological functions of complex life forms, enabling photosynthesis and making possible vision for living beings on Earth. This critical balance is certainly not driven by erratic, coincidental processes. All this has been created by God, the Lord and Governor of the heavens, the Earth, and everything in between. Every detail He creates confronts us with a chain of miracles, demonstrating the infinite might of our Creator Who created everything.

THE EXTRAORDINARY SELECTIVENESS OF THE ATMOSPHERE

The atmosphere admits rays that are beneficial to us and prevents harmful ones from passing, which requires an extraordinary selectivity. So ideal for life, such selectivity is the work of a flawless Creation.

If the Sun's radiation has been designed to support life on Earth, the atmosphere plays an important role in letting through it wavelengths in the right combination and at the right ratio.

In order to reach the Earth's surface, radiation coming from space must pass through the atmosphere first.

If the atmosphere were not of a composition allowing it to filter through, it could be of no benefit. However, the atmosphere has a special filtering property that lets beneficial radiation penetrate.

The atmosphere's truly miraculous aspect is not that it lets radiation penetrate, but that it lets through only beneficial radiation-visible light and infrared radiation, while shielding us from other deadly types of radiation. Thus, the atmosphere is a crucial filter against cosmic radiation reaching the Earth from sources other than the Sun. Professor Denton explains:

Atmospheric gases themselves absorb electromagnetic radiation immediately on either side of the visible and near infrared... The only region of the spectrum allowed to pass through the atmosphere over the entire range of electromagnetic radiation from radio to gamma rays is the exceedingly narrow band including the visible and near infrared. Virtually no gamma, X, ultraviolet, far infrared, and microwave radiation reaches the surface of the earth. 43

It is impossible not to see the detail in this design. Out of a possible range of 10²⁵ different wavelengths, the Sun emits the type of radiation that is beneficial for us; and the atmosphere allows only it to pass through. (All but a fraction of the little ultraviolet radiation the Sun emits is prevented from passing the ozone layer.)

Interestingly, like the atmosphere, water is selective in its penetrability. Only visible light can penetrate it. Infrared radiation (heat energy) can penetrate miles of air, but only a few millimeters of water. Therefore, only the top few millimeters on the surface of the world's seas are heated by the Sun's radiation. Heat absorbed by this layer is then gradually diffused downward, with the result that beneath a certain depth, the water temperature of all the seas is roughly similar, creating an environment conducive to aquamarine life.

Every other type of harmful or deadly cosmic radiation gets caught by this flawless filtering system, letting only beneficial radiations pass through.

These facts are very important. Whichever physical law of light we examine, we see that it is just as needed to enable life. The Encyclopedia Britannica expresses this extraordinary system as follows:

Considering the importance of visible sunlight for all aspects of terrestrial life, one can not help being awed by the dramatically narrow window in the atmosphere absorption and in the absorption spectrum of water. 44

The transparency of both air and water are miraculous phenomena, both designed to support life. Surprisingly, though, it must be said that some people attribute with this flawless design to coincidences, believing that the atmosphere and the seas regulate their own levels of transparency. But neither water nor atmosphere-nor, for that matter, any other senseless thing in the universe-can create such systems. Erratic, coincidental events or unchecked developments cannot make the refined calculations needed to combine living things into a cohesive, harmonious whole.

Flawless design, balance, and order are apparent in the universe, in the world we live in, as well as every physical law. Mankind has existed for hundred thousands of years unaware of this miraculous system and has scarcely begun to learn the details of the universe's magnificence. Man's abilities of comprehension, as the only intelligent being on Earth, is exceeded by these miracles, which clearly prove the existence of the Creator.

It is truly surprising that some people cannot recognize God's existence in all this magnificence. They do not appreciate God's infinite wisdom and knowledge, and do not comprehend that God governs everything and can create and recreate everything. God reveals:

Does not man see that We created him from a drop yet there he is, an open antagonist! He makes likenesses of Us and forgets his own creation, saying, "Who will give life to bones when they are decayed?" Say "He Who made them in the first place will bring them back to life. He has total knowledge of each created thing; He Who produces fire for you from green trees so that you use them to light your fires." Does He Who created the heavens and Earth not have the power to create the same again? Yes indeed! He is the Creator, the All-Knowing. His command when He desires a thing is just to say to it, "Be!" and it is. Glory be to Him Who has the Dominion of all things in His Hand. To Him you will be returned. (Qur'an, 36:77-83)

If you are surprised at their blindness, what could be more surprising than their words: "What, when we are turned to dust, shall we then be created all anew?" These are the people who reject their Lord. Such people have iron collars round their necks. Such people are the Companions of the Fire, remaining in it timelessly, for ever. (Qur'an, 13:5)

THE FINE-TUNING IN THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF WATER

Water freezes from the surface down, so that ice always floats and never sinks. If, like all other liquids, water became more dense as it grows colder-in other words, if ice sank-then ice in oceans, seas and lakes would sink to the bottom. The surface would continue to freeze and sink, since there would be no surface ice layer to block out the cold. A large part of the Earth's oceans, seas and lakes would turn into huge masses of ice. No life could exist in the seas of such a world. In an ecological system where the seas were dead, life on land would not be possible either. In short, the Earth would be a dead planet-if water behaved "normally."

In his book The Uniqueness of Biological Materials, renowned biochemist Professor A. E. Needham states that liquid substances are necessary for life to form. If the laws of physics permitted only two of the three states of matter (i.e., solids and gases), life could have never existed because in solids, atoms are too closely linked and static. They do not permit the dynamic molecular reactions that living organisms need to perform. In gases, on the other hand, atoms become too unstable and erratic to enable the complex mechanisms of living organisms to function.

In short, a necessary condition for the functions of life is a liquid environment. Water is an ideal or, perhaps, the ideal liquid. Its properties, extraordinarily conducive for life, have long attracted the attention of scientists. Water has thermal properties that appear to contradict some laws of nature but prove that it has been specifically created for life.

All known substances, including liquids, contract as their temperature decreases bar one. Decreasing volume means increased density and increased mass by volume which is why the solid state of liquids has greater mass. Water on the other hand, contracts until its temperature has fallen to 4^o C (39.2^o F) where it begins to expand again unlike any other liquid. It expands further when it freezes which explains why the solid state of water has less mass than its liquid state. In other words, whereas ice should sink in water according to "normal" laws of physics, it floats.

With no pumps or muscular systems, plants raise water several meters from their roots in the Earth. The reason behind this is surface tension. Channels in plants' roots and stems have been designed in such a way as to take advantage of surface tension. These veins narrow as they rise, causing water to "climb" upwards. If the surface tension in water were as weak as in other liquids, plants would then be unable to obtain water and would desiccate. On a planet with no plant cover, human life would be impossible.

This property of water is really crucial for the seas of the world. If it did not have this property, a great part of the water on the planet would freeze and life in lakes and oceans would cease. This fact needs to be looked at in greater detail. In many parts of the world, in cold winter days, temperatures fall below 0oC. This coldness affects naturally seas and lakes alike and their temperature decreases accordingly. The cooler layers of water sink and the warmer layers rise to the surface where they are cooled by the cold air and begin to sink again. At 4^o C (39.2^o F) this cycle is broken, because water begins to expand again and becomes "lighter." So, the water at 4o C (39.2^o F) becomes the bottom layer and as we move up, the temperature decreases to 3^oC (37.4^o F) and then 2^oC (35.6^o F) and so on. At the surface the temperature falls to 0^oC (32^o F) and freezes but only at the surface. The water below at 4^o C (39.2^o F) is sufficient to guarantee the survival of fish and other aquamarine life.

What would happen if this were not so? What would happen if water were to behave "normally," and its density were to increase inversely with the fall in temperature-and sink as ice?

In such a scenario, oceans, seas and lakes would freeze from the bottom upwards and keep on doing so, because there would be no insulating layer of ice at the surface. The deepest portions of all lakes, seas, and oceans would become one huge mass of ice, with a layer of only a few meters of water at the top. Even if the air temperature above were to warm again, ice at the bottom would never thaw. In the seas of such a planet, life could not be sustained; and in an eco-system where the seas are "dead," neither could life on land be sustained. In short, if water were to behave "normally," we would have a dead world.

Why does water not contract, but only until its temperature has fallen to 4^oC? Then it begins to expand again! That paradox has never been answered by anyone.

Thanks to water's unique thermal properties, the temperature differences between summer and winter, day and night remain always within the levels tolerated by humans and other living things. If the world's land area were bigger than its water area, temperature differentials between day and night would increase dramatically. Most of the land mass would turn into deserts, making life impossible or at least, incredibly hard to sustain. Were water's thermal properties any different, we would have a planet extremely unfavorable to life.

Professor Lawrence Henderson, of the Biochemistry department at Harvard University, studied water's thermal properties and made the following comment:

To sum up, this property appears to possess a threefold importance. First, it operates powerfully to equalize and to moderate the temperature of the earth; secondly, it makes possible very effective regulation of the temperature of the living organism; and thirdly it favors the meteorological cycle. All of these effects are true maxima, for no other substance can in this respect compare with water. 45

THE SURFACE TENSION OF WATER HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY ADJUSTED TO SUPPORT LIFE

Water's chemical and physical properties have been ideally created for humans' life and needs.

Any liquid's surface tension is created by the forces of attraction between its molecules. Thus, the surface tension of every liquid is different. Water's surface tension is greater than most other liquids', with significant biological effects on plant life.

How can plants possibly transport water from deep underground to branches and twigs many meters high, without the use of pumps or muscles? The answer is that the channels in plant roots and veins have been designed to take advantage of water's surface tension. These channels narrow towards the top of a plant, causing water to "climb" upwards.

What makes this design functional is water's great surface tension. Were it weaker, as in most liquids, terrestrial plants of any size would not be able to exist. An environment without plant life would mean no edible crops, no forage for animals, and thus, no human existence.

High surface tension causes also the breakup of rocks. Thanks to its high surface tension, water can penetrate the smallest crevices in rock formations. When temperatures fall below zero, water freezes and expands, exerting great force against the rock and expanding the crack eventually wedging it wider. This process is crucial in extracting the minerals locked in rock formations and also plays a vital role in soil formation.

THE CHEMICAL MIRACLE IN WATER

Along with its physical properties, water's chemical characteristics are also extraordinarily conducive to life. For one thing, it's an ideal solvent, in as much as most chemical substances are water-soluble.

One important consequence is that a vast array of beneficial minerals and other substances reach the sea via river systems. It has been estimated that five billion tons of chemical substances, vital for aquamarine life, flow into the seas in just this way.

Water is a catalyst for almost all known chemical reactions, and its ideal tendency to join in chemical reactions is yet another one of its important chemical attributes.

Water is not extremely reactive nor corrosive like sulfuric acid, nor-on the other end of the scale-is it as inert like argon and other "noble" gases. As Professor Michael Denton states, "It seems that, like all other properties, the reactivity of water is ideally fit for both its biological and its geological role." 46

New research into water's chemical properties reveals ever more details and aspects of its idealness for life. In this regard, Harold Morowitz, a renowned Professor of biophysics at Yale University, states the following:

The past few years have witnessed the developing study of a newly understood property of water (i.e., proton conductance) that appears to be almost unique to that substance, is a key element in biological-energy transfer, and was almost certainly of importance to the origin of life. The more we learn the more impressed some of us become with nature's fitness in a very precise sense… 47

WATER'S VISCOSITY IS SET AT A CALCULATED RATE

The viscosity of water is of vital importance to living things. If it were slightly weaker, then it would be impossible for the capillary vessels to carry blood.

When we say "liquids," we imagine a highly fluid substance. But in reality, liquids' viscosity rate can vary greatly. For instance the viscosity rates of tar, sulfuric acid, glycerol and olive oil are very different from one another. When these substances are compared with water, this range of differences is more clearly understood: Water is ten billion times more fluid than tar, a thousand times more fluid than glycerol, 100 times more fluid than olive oil, and 25 times more fluid than sulfuric acid.

As this comparison demonstrates, water is a substance of high viscosity. We can state that it has the highest viscosity rate of any liquid, if a few substances like ether and liquid hydrogen-gases at room temperature-are discounted.

Is water's viscosity rate relevant to life? Would it make a difference to us if its viscosity were greater or smaller? Professor Denton answers these questions:

The fitness of water would in all probability be less if its viscosity were much lower. The structures of living systems would be subject to far more violent movements under shearing forces if the viscosity were as low as liquid hydrogen...If the viscosity of water was much lower, delicate structures would be easily disrupted... and water would be incapable of supporting any permanent intricate microscopic structures. The delicate molecular architecture of the cell would probably not survive.

Ninety-five percent of blood consists of water. If water's viscosity of were as high as that of honey or tar, then your heart would be unable to pump blood.

If the viscosity was higher, the controlled movement of large macromolecules and particularly structures such as mitochondria and small organelles would be impossible, as would processes like cell division. All the vital activities of the cell would be effectively frozen, and cellular life of any sort remotely resembling that with which we are familiar would be impossible. The development of higher organisms, which is critically dependent on the ability of cells to move and crawl around during embryogenesis, would certainly be impossible if the viscosity of water was even slightly greater than it is. 48

Water's high viscosity rate is vital for us humans, because were it a little less, the capillary network could not transport our blood. The complex network of blood vessels in the kidney, for instance, could never have originated.

Water's viscosity rate is vital not only to processes within cell structures, but also for metabolism as a whole.

All living beings larger than 0.25 of a millimeter have centralized body systems, because in any larger creature, nutrition and oxygen cannot be carried to cells by means of diffusion-that is, they cannot be absorbed directly by the fluids within cells.. Oxygen and nutrition from outside must be pumped by certain "channels" to the countless cells within the body, and waste material removed again. Veins and arteries are these channels, and the heart is the pump that creates the flow within them. The blood circulating around the body, as we know, is composed mostly of water. (When the cells, proteins, and hormones are removed from the blood, plasma remains-which is 95% water.)

This is why water's viscosity is so important to the circulatory system's effectiveness. Were its viscosity rate like tar's, obviously no heart could pump it. Not even a substance like olive oil, with a viscosity rate 100 million times higher than tar, could pass through the body's capillary network, even if the heart could pump it.

Let us inspect this subject more closely. The capillary network's purpose is to supply every cell in the body with oxygen, energy, nutrients and other substances, like hormones. For a cell to be able to receive these deliveries, it must not be further away than 50 microns from the blood vessel (one micron is one-thousandth of a millimeter). Cells at any greater distance could not be fed and, therefore, would die.

This is why the capillary network covers every bit of the human body. It comprises five billion blood vessels with a combined length of 950 kilometers (590 miles). In some mammals, muscle tissue has 3,000 blood vessels per square centimeter. If 10,000 blood vessels of the capillary network were to be placed side by side, their combined width wouldn't exceed the width of a pencil tip. The diameter of these blood vessels is between three and five microns which means three to five thousands of a millimeter. 49

Water's high viscosity rate lets blood pass through fine blood vessels without blockages or slowdowns. Professor Michael Denton states that were water's viscosity rate even slightly less, no circulatory system could preserve its functionality:

A capillary system will work only if the fluid being pumped through its constituent tubes has a very low viscosity. A low viscosity is essential because flow is inversely proportional to the viscosity... From this it is easy to see that if the viscosity of water had a value only a few times greater than it is, pumping blood through a capillary bed would require enormous pressure and almost any sort of circulatory system would be unworkable... If the viscosity of water had been slightly greater and the smallest functional capillaries had been 10 microns in diameter instead of 3, then the capillaries would have to occupy virtually all of the muscle tissue to provide an effective supply of oxygen and glucose. Obviously the design of macroscopic life forms would be impossible or enormously constrained... It seems, then, the viscosity of water must be very close to what it is if water is to be a fit medium for life. 50

In short, like all of water's other properties, its viscosity too is just perfect for life. The viscosity of liquids covers a vast spectrum. But among the billions of different possible rates, water has been created with perfect viscosity.

THE FORMATION OF ATOMIC BONDS NECESSARY FOR LIFE REQUIRES THE TEMPERATURES WE HAVE ON EARTH

Life has such a complex structure that not even a single protein in the millions in a single cell could have come about by chance.

The various chemical bonds keeping atoms and molecules together are called ionic, covalent or weak bonds. Covalent bonds join the atoms in amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Weak bonds keep the three-dimensional structure of the amino acid chains they form when they fold or twist together. In other words, if weak bonds did not exist, the proteins formed by chains of amino acids could not function, where there are no proteins, there is no life.

Interestingly, the temperatures needed to form covalent as well as weak bonds fall within the range existing on Earth. In reality, covalent and weak bonds are wholly different bonds and there is no natural reason why they should require the same temperatures to form.

Yet both types of chemical bonds occur only within the temperature range existing on Earth. Were they to form at different temperatures, proteins-therefore, life-could not form, because proteins require both types of bonding simultaneously. In other words, if the temperature ranges in which covalent bonds enable the formation of amino acid chains weren't also conducive to the formation of weak bonds, proteins could not develop their three-dimensional structure; and amino acids would remain as purposeless and dysfunctional chains. Likewise, if a temperature range suitable for weak bonds were not conducive to forming covalent bonds, no chains of proteins could form.

This reveals that atoms, as the building blocks necessary for life, are in great harmony with the home of life, the Earth, as Professor Michael Denton points out in his book, Nature's Destiny:

Out of the enormous range of temperatures in the cosmos, there is only one tiny temperature band in which we have (1) liquid water, (2) a great plenitude of metastable organic compounds, and (3) weak bonds for stabilizing the 3-D forms of complex molecules. 51

Denton stresses that all types of physical and chemical bonds necessary for the formation of life can exist effectively and simultaneously only within a very narrow temperature range-which exist only on Earth, among all the other planets in the solar system.

THE SOLUBILITY OF OXYGEN IS IDEAL FOR LIFE

The air we breathe, and the systems that allow us to make use of it, were created in perfect harmony.

Our bodies' ability to absorb oxygen is due, in turn, to water's ability to absorb it. When we breathe, the oxygen inhaled into our lungs enters our bloodstream almost instantly. In our blood, the protein called hemoglobin transports oxygen to the cells. Enzymes in cells, in turn, use the oxygen to burn carbon compounds called ATP to release energy.

All complex life forms produce their energy by this system, which depends on oxygen's solubility properties of. If oxygen were any harder to dissolve, less of it could enter the bloodstream, and cells would be starved of energy. On the other hand, if oxygen were more readily soluble, its content in the bloodstream would increase enough to cause oxidation poisoning.

Interestingly, the water solubility of different gases can vary a million fold. Carbon dioxide, for instance, is 20 times more soluble than oxygen. Among the vast range of solubility properties of gases, oxygen has just the right solubility properties for us.

What would happen if it were otherwise?

Were oxygen less soluble in water (and therefore, in blood), less of it could enter the bloodstream, and cells would not receive enough oxygen-making survival more difficult for air-breathing creatures. No matter how much we breathed, gradually we would be starved of oxygen because sufficient quantities of what the air contained could not be delivered to the cells.

As stated above, if oxygen were more readily absorbed into the bloodstream, oxidation poisoning would occur. Oxygen can be a highly dangerous gas and deadly if taken in higher doses. When the blood's oxygen ratio increases substantially, oxygen reacts with water to produce highly destructive byproducts. The body has highly complex enzyme systems to prevent or defuse such reactions, but were the body's oxygen content to increase further, these systems could not cope, and every breath we take would quicken death. About this, chemist Irwin Fridovich has this to say:

All respiring organisms are caught in a cruel trap. The very oxygen which supports their lives is toxic to them and they survive precariously, only by virtue of elaborate defense mechanisms. 52

The only thing that protects us from this dilemma-from oxygen poisoning or oxygen starvation-is that oxygen's solubility and our bodies' complex enzyme systems are created just as they should be. Clearly, God has created the air we breathe, as well as the systems that enable us to benefit from it, in perfect harmony.

CHAPTER -2 THE SOLAR SYSTEM AND THE MIRACULOUS ORDER IN THE CREA

CHAPTER -2
THE SOLAR SYSTEM AND THE MIRACULOUS ORDER IN THE CREATION OF THE EARTH

THE LOCATION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM IN THE GALAXY

The Solar System's location in the Milky War is the product of flawless design. Life on Earth would be impossible if it were elsewhere in the Galaxy.

The location of our solar system in the Milky Way is the product of awe-inspiring order and flawless design. Its trajectory is far from the center of the galaxy, and outside its spiraling arms.

Stars and planets in a spiral galaxy like the Milky Way are structured around the bloated core. The spiraling arms move away from the center of the galaxy at a consistent angle and plane. The spaces between these arms contain only a negligent number of solar systems-and our own solar system is one of these rare examples.

Is it somehow relevant that our solar system is located between the spiral arms of the galaxy?

First, it means that we are far removed from the gases and other debris contained in the spiraling arms, giving us a clean, clear view of the universe from where we are. Had our solar system been located inside these spiral arms, our view would have been considerably obscured. As Michael Denton writes in his book Nature's Destiny,

What is so striking is that the cosmos appears to be not just supremely fit for our own being and for our biological adaptations, but also for our understanding... Because of the position of our solar system on the edge of the galactic rim, we can gaze farther into the night to distant galaxies and gain knowledge of the overall structure of the cosmos. Were we positioned in the center of a galaxy, we would never look on the beauty of a spiral galaxy nor would we have any idea of the structure of our universe. 25

Normally, stars located between spiral arms cannot maintain their position for prolonged periods of time, since they are eventually absorbed into the spirals. Yet our solar system has maintained its orbit between the galaxy's spiral arms for the past 4.5 billion years.

Our location's stability is due to the fact that our Sun is one of very few stars positioned on the trajectory called "galactic co-rotation radius."

For a star to maintain its position between two spiral arms depends on its distance from the core of the galaxy. In other words, it needs to be on the co-rotation radius, so that it travels around the center at the same speed as do the spiral arms.26 Among our galaxy's billions of stars, only our Sun has both this special position as well as the required velocity.

Our position, outside of the spiral arms where stars cluster, is also the safest place in the universe, since here we are removed from gravitational forces that could destabilize the orbits of planets.

Also, we are out of reach of the deadly effects of supernova explosions. In any other part of the galaxy, our Earth could not have survived the 4.5 billion years it took to make it a place suitable for human life.

Thanks to the creation of our solar system in this special position, life-and human life-can be sustained on Earth. This is the reason why we can investigate the universe we live in and observe the unequalled, supreme, spectacular artistry in God's creation.

The location of our solar system, just like the laws of physics governing the universe, is proof that it was designed for human existence.

THE PRECISE ORDER IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM

The solar system that is home to our Earth is one of the best places to observe the universe's precise order and harmony. The unequalled order that controls all planets, large or small, within the solar system has been responsible for its stability over the past 4.5 billion years.

The planet Jupiter, with its strong gravity, has been created as a protective shield, allowing for life on Earth. With its huge mass and strong magnetic field, Jupiter acts as a cosmic minesweeper for Earth. Thanks to Jupiter, thousands of meteors and comets are prevented from targeting the Earth and creating great damage.

In our solar system, there are nine planets, and orbiting them are the 54 satellites discovered so far. Beginning with the nearest to the Sun, these planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto. Out of all these planets and their satellites, Earth is the only one with a surface and atmosphere suitable for life.

The balance between the Sun's gravity and any planet's centrifugal force prevents it from being flung out into space. The Sun's massive gravitational force attracts the planets, which can only withstand this force and not fall into the Sun's nuclear furnace because of the centrifugal forces their motion creates. If the planets' speed were a little slower in their orbits, however, they would be rapidly pulled into towards the Sun, which would swallow them up.

The opposite is also possible. Were the planets to rotate any faster, the Sun's gravitational forces would not be powerful enough to keep them in their orbits and they would be cast out into space. However, a fine balance between these forces exists, and the solar system preserves it.

This balance of forces differs separately for each planet in any solar system, since their respective distances to the Sun vary. Their masses are different too, which means that they must revolve around the Sun at different velocities in order to maintain their equilibrium. The same balanced forces exist for the Earth.

The latest discoveries in astronomy reveal that the existence of other planets in our solar system is vital for the Earth's safety and orbit. The system's largest planet, Jupiter, is a good example. With its exact location within the system, it plays a crucial role in maintaining the Earth's balance. Recent astrophysical calculations reveal that Jupiter's present orbit is partly responsible for the consistency of the other planets' orbits within the solar system

Huge planets like Jupiter have been discovered in many other solar systems, but they are far from having a stabilizing influence on their systems or from protecting any other, smaller planets therein. Peter D. Ward, a Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Washington, says:

All the masses, sizes, and distances between planets in the Solar System were created in a perfect equilibrium.

All the Jupiters seen today are bad Jupiters. Ours is the only good one we know of. And it's got to be good, or you're thrown out into dark space or into your sun.27

Another reason why Jupiter is so important for us is that if it did it not exist, there would be no life on Earth, due to the high number of meteorite impacts our planet would be exposed to. The magnetic field created by Jupiter's huge mass bends the trajectory of comets and meteorites entering the solar system and prevents them from targeting the Earth. Jupiter acts as a protective gravitational shield for the Earth.

Yet another way Jupiter protects the Earth is revealed by astronomer George Wetherhill in his article entitled "How Special Jupiter Is":

Without a large planet positioned precisely where Jupiter is, the earth would have been struck a thousand times more frequently in the past by comets and meteors and other interplanetary debris. If it were not for Jupiter, we wouldn't be around to study the origin of the solar system. 28

It has been calculated that the Earth-Moon planetary system also plays a vital role in preserving balance in the solar system. In the absence of this duo, Jupiter's huge mass would cause great instability to inner planets like Mercury and Venus; with the result that their orbits would approach one another closer and closer. This in turn would force Mercury out of the solar system and alter the orbit of Venus. Scientists developed a computer model of the solar system, clearly revealing that the order and consistency preserved for billions of years was only possible only by the ideal mass and positioning of planets within the solar system. With the slightest change to the existing order within this system, our solar system, including the Earth, could not exist.

The Astronomical Journal described the extraordinary design inherent in our solar system in its November, 1998 issue:

Our basic finding is nevertheless an indication of the need for some sort of rudimentary "design" in the solar system to ensure long-term stability… 29

These examples, just a few of the sensitive balances essential for life to emerge and survive on Earth, are sufficient to reveal that the universe and the Earth could not have come into existence by chance. 30

In short, our solar system's structure has been designed specifically for human life. God reveals His miraculous Creation in many verses of the Qur'an and commands us to ponder them:

He has made night and day subservient to you, and the Sun and Moon and stars, all subject to His command. There are certainly Signs in that for people who use their intellect. (Qur'an, 16:12)

THE SIZE OF THE EARTH AND THE IDEAL PROPORTIONS IN ITS INTERIOR

Equally as important as the Earth's distance from the Sun, and rate of rotation is its size and composition, just right for forming and sustaining life.

The type, proportion, and reaction speeds of heavy elements in the Earth's core play a highly important role in forming the protective magnetic field around the Earth, which protects us from all harmful rays and particles from outer space.

When we compare the Earth to Mercury (only 8% of the Earth's mass) and Jupiter (318 times the Earth's mass), we see that planets span a wide range in terms of size. Considering this it is obvious that the Earth couldn't be of just the right mass by coincidence.

Investigating the properties of the planet we live on,

American geologists Frank Press and Raymond Siever write the following:

And Earth's size was just about right-not too small as to lose its atmosphere because its gravity was too small to prevent gasses from escaping into space, and not so large that its gravity would hold on to too much atmosphere, including harmful gases. 31

Besides the mass of the Earth, its internal composition is also designed specifically to support life. Because of its inner core of iron, Earth has a magnetic field, which is crucial for the preservation of life. Press and Siever explain:

The earth's interior is a gigantic but delicately balanced heat engine fueled by radioactivity …Were it running more slowly, geological activity would have proceeded at a slower pace. Iron might not have melted and sunk to form the liquid core, and the magnetic field would never have developed…if there had been more radioactive fuel and a faster running engine, volcanic gas and dust would have blotted out the Sun, the atmosphere would have been oppressively dense, and the surface would have been racked by daily earthquakes and volcanic explosions. 32

The angle of tilt of the Earth's axis, 23 degrees and 27 minutes, prevents extreme heat which might afflict between the poles and the equator. Were it not for that tilt, the temperature differences between the poles and the equator would rise still further, making impossible a life-supporting atmosphere.

The magnetic field that Press and Siever describe is vital for our survival. It is caused by the core of the Earth which is composed of heavy, magnetic metals like iron and nickel. The inner core is solid and the outer core, liquid. These two layers rotate around one another, and their motion creates the magnetic field, which radiates far beyond the Earth's atmosphere and protects the planet from the dangers of outer space. Deadly cosmic radiation emitted from stars including our own Sun cannot penetrate this protective shield. The Van Allan belts, tens of thousands of kilometers above the Earth, provide more protection from such deadly radiation.

The Earth is sometimes exposed to massive bursts of cosmic radiation. These plasma clouds have been calculated to have energy equivalent to 100 billion Hiroshima bombs, but only 0.1% of it gets past the Earth's magnetic field and that is absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere in any case. The electrical energy needed to produce this magnetic field is a current of 1 billion amperes, which is close to the total electrical energy produced by mankind since history began.

If not for the Earth's magnetic shield, life on Earth would be destroyed by deadly radiation or would never have formed in the first place. However, since the core of the Earth has just the right properties, as Press and Siever point out, the world we live in, is protected in this way.

THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE IS WITHIN A NARROW BUT SPECIAL SPECTRUM

Frank Press and Raymond Siever also explain the fine-tuning of the Earth's surface temperature. As they say:

Life as we know it is possible over a very narrow temperature interval. This interval is perhaps 1 or 2 percent of the range between a temperature of absolute zero and the surface temperature of the Sun. 33

Preserving this temperature range depends as much on the heat emitted by the Sun as on the distance between the Sun and the Earth. It has been calculated that only a 10% decrease in the solar energy reaching the Earth would result in the Earth's surface being covered by a layer of ice covering, many meters thick. Likewise, if a little more energy reached the Earth, all living beings would roast.

Many independent factors, such as the Earth's distance from the Sun, its speed of rotation around its own axis, its angle of tilt, and surface features all let the planet be warmed in a manner suited to life, and for heat to be spread across the planet in a balanced way.

The Earth's ideal temperature is as crucial as its balanced diffusion; and this balance is achieved by special means. For instance, the Earth's axis is tilted by 23" 27'. This prevents the buildup of extreme heat that could prevent the formation of the atmosphere between the poles and the equator. If the axis was not tilted by this degree, the temperature difference between the equator and the poles would increase dramatically thus making the Earth an uninhabitable place.

The Earth's rotation around its own axis aids in the balanced distribution of heat. Each rotation takes only 24 hours, which factor is responsible for short days and nights. This is why the temperature difference between day and night is relatively small in comparison to Mercury's, where a single day is longer than one year. In other words, one rotation of Mercury around its axis takes longer than one rotation around the Sun. Temperature can fluctuate by as much as 1,000^o C (1,832 ^o F) between Mercurial day and night.

The Earth's shape, too, has been created to aid the heat distribution. The temperature difference between the poles and the equator is approximately 100^o C (212^o F). If such a difference were to occur on a smooth sphere, storms at speeds of up to 1,000 km/h (621 miles/hour) would wreak havoc across the Earth. However, the world has been provided with obstacles such as mountain chains and oceans to break up the path of such potential strong air currents. These are, from east to west, the Himalayas beginning in China, the Taurus Mountains in Anatolia, and the Alps in Western Europe; the Atlantic Ocean in the West, and the Pacific in the East. Excess heat produced around the equator is modified toward the north and south as the ocean waters balance temperature fluctuations in a gradual, controlled manner.

There are also self-regulating climate control mechanisms. For instance, if any particular area is exposed to excessive heat, water evaporation increases accordingly. Clouds condense in the sky, reflecting some of the Sun's radiation and thus preventing any further increase of surface temperatures.

Many independent factors such as the Earth's distance to the Sun, its speed of rotation, angle of axis, and surface structures all play their part in keeping surface temperature at levels necessary to sustain life as well as even out heat distribution.

Those who reject the notion that the distance between the Sun and the Earth is intentional argue that many stars in the universe, both larger and smaller than our own Sun, have their own planetary systems. If a star is much more massive than our Sun, than any planet ideal for life would need to be at a greater distance than is the Sun from the Earth. For instance, a planet orbiting a red giant at a distance of our Pluto could have a mild climate suitable for life, like the one we enjoy here on Earth.

But this proposition is invalid for one very important reason: It does not take into account that stars of different mass emit different radiation. A star's mass, correlated to its surface temperature, determines the wavelength of its emitted radiation. For instance, our Sun's surface temperature of around 6,000oC is responsible for the emission of ultraviolet, visible light and infrared radiation. Had its mass had been greater, its surface temperature should have been greater too.

This, in turn, would increase the energy value of the Sun's radiation resulting in higher emission of deadly ultraviolet waves. This reality demonstrates that stars emitting the kind of radiation able to support life as we know it must have a mass very similar to our Sun's. Also, if one of their planets is to support life, it must be at a distance equivalent as the Earth from our Sun. To put it differently, a planet orbiting a red or blue giant, or any other star of noticeably different mass, cannot provide a life-supporting environment. The only source of energy suitable for life is a star like ours, and the only ideal distance is that between us and the Sun.

From what we have related here thus far, you can gather that both Earth and Sun have been created by God, right down to the smallest detail, to support human life in the best possible way. The distance between Sun and Earth is perfect, which in itself is a miracle beside the hundreds, even thousands of other details that are exactly as they need to be. This magnificent life-supporting system exceeds human comprehension. It is impossible to have been the product of coincidences, that all the stars and planets formed by "senseless atoms" could be placed by chance exactly where they have to be, that they could accidentally, all by themselves, establish laws governing their behavior and, accordingly develop the appropriate systems. These flawless systems are all proof of God's unique creation and supreme might.

The Qur'an reveals God's supremacy, his total control over the universe and the Earth, and that mankind should be thankful to him for all this:

Your Lord is God, Who created the heavens and the Earth in six days and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne. He covers the day with the night, each pursuing the other urgently; and the Sun and Moon and stars are subservient to His command. Both creation and command belong to Him. Blessed be God, the Lord of all the worlds. (Qur'an, 7:54)

And He has made the Sun and Moon subservient to you holding steady to their courses, and He has made the night and day subservient to you. He has given you everything you have asked Him for. If you tried to number God's blessings, you could never count them. Man is indeed wrongdoing, ungrateful. (Qur'an, 14:33-34)

IDEAL RATIOS IN THE ATMOSPHERE

The Earth's atmosphere is a cocktail of different gases in the proper ratio (78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% carbon dioxide and other gases like argon), formed by a combination of extraordinary conditions and designed to support life.

Were the level of oxygen in the atmosphere only a little higher, the Earth would soon turn into an uninhabitable planet. The first tiny spark would give rise to giant conflagrations, and the dry land would soon be reduced to dead, ashen waste.

Let us begin with oxygen, the most important gas because life forms from simple one-called bacteria up to complex human beings depend on oxygen for the many chemical reactions that produce their energy. This is why we need to breathe continuously. Interestingly, the percentage of oxygen in the air we breathe is very carefully arranged. As Michael Denton says:

Could your atmosphere contain more oxygen and still support life? No! Oxygen is a very reactive element. Even the current percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere, 21 percent, is close to the upper limit of safety for life at ambient temperatures. The probability of a forest fire being ignited increases by as much as 70 percent for every 1 percent increase in the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere. 34

Were the level of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere any lower, the Earth could not maintain its surface temperature. The surface would lose heat constantly, all the oceans would freeze, and life on Earth would become impossible.

British biochemist James Lovelock further explores this critical ratio:

Above 25% very little of our present land vegetation could survive the raging conflagrations which would destroy tropical rain forests and arctic tundra alike... The present oxygen level is at a point where risk and benefit nicely balance. 35

The percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere is preserved by a perfect cycle. Animals continuously inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants, on the other hand, absorb carbon dioxide and give out life-sustaining oxygen. Every day, plants release billions of tons of oxygen into the atmosphere, even though they re-absorb some of it at night, when they are not photosynthesizing.

If these two life forms, plant and animal, were to use the same process, they'd turn the Earth into a lifeless planet. If both produced oxygen, for instance, in a very short time the atmosphere would acquire highly flammable properties, and the tiniest spark would cause fires on a massive scale. Most of the dry land would burn. If, on the other hand, both life forms produced carbon dioxide, oxygen in the atmosphere would quickly be used up and all life forms that continued to respire would suffocate.

However, God has balanced life forms so perfectly that the oxygen in the air remains constant, at the ideal ratio crucial to life. According to Lovelock, this ratio is "at a point where risk and benefit nicely balance."

The mix of atmospheric gases is balanced, with each occurring at its ideal quantity. Even carbon dioxide, useless to us, is a very important substance because it prevents some of the inf rared sunlight reflected by the Earth from escaping back into space, and thus assists heat retention. Biological and tectonic processes on the Earth preserve the balance of atmospheric gases vital for life, and have done so for millions of years. Yet another fact that proves the existence of God, Who has created this flawless order.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been calculated to increase the average surface temperature by 35^o C (95^o F). This means that if there was no atmospheric CO₂, the Earth's average temperature would be -21^o C (-5.8 ^o F) instead of 14^o C (57.2^o F). All oceans would freeze over. Most larger life forms would cease to exist.

THE DENSITY OF AIR

The density of air, ideal for respiration, is yet another exactly perfect aspect of the atmosphere.

Air pressure is 760 mm Hg, and its density works out to be 1 gram per liter at sea level, where its viscosity is 50 times greater than water's. These values might appear irrelevant, but are actually vital for human life because, as Michael Denton puts it, "The overall composition and general character of the atmosphere-its density, viscosity, and pressure, etc.-must be very similar to what it is, particularly for air-breathing organisms." 36

If the atmosphere's density and viscosity were slightly different, we would find breathing air as difficult for our lungs as sucking honey up through a syringe.

When we breathe, our lungs use up energy in order to pump the air in and out. Like all forms of matter, air is resistant to movement. But thanks to the properties of the gaseous atmosphere, this resistance is very weak, making it easy for our lungs to inhale and exhale. If that resistance were stronger, our lungs would begin to struggle. You can easily grasp this with an experiment: It's easy to draw water into a syringe, but harder to draw honey, because honey has a higher density and lesser fluidity.

If the atmosphere's values of density, fluidity, and pressure were altered by even a fraction, inhaling would become as hard as drawing honey into a syringe. One could argue that the syringe's needle could be made wider, in other words, the lung's airways could be enlarged. But if we did that in the case of the capillaries in the lungs, the result would be to reduce the size of the area in contact with air, with the result that less oxygen and carbon dioxide would be exchanged in the same amount of time and the respiratory needs of the body would not be satisfied. The air we breathe in has the absolutely right density, fluidity and pressure and fits the bill just fine.

On this subject, Professor Michael Denton states the following:

It is clear that if either the viscosity or the density of air were much greater, the airway resistance would be prohibitive and no conceivable redesign of the respiratory system would be capable of delivering sufficient oxygen to a metabolically active air-breathing organism... By plotting all possible atmospheric pressures against all possible oxygen contents, it becomes clear that there is only one unique tiny area... where all the various conditions for life are satisfied... It is surely of enormous significance that several essential conditions are satisfied in this one tiny region in the space of all possible atmospheres. 37

Our atmosphere's properties must be right not only for respiration purposes, but also to keep our "blue planet" blue. If the pressure were to be decreased by as little as a fifth, water evaporation over the land and oceans would increase dramatically. Higher water vapor content in the atmosphere would create a global greenhouse effect, dramatically increasing the planet's average temperature. On the other hand, if the atmospheric pressure doubled, water vapor in the atmosphere would be greatly reduced, with most of the world's land area becoming desert.

None of these possibilities occur, however, because God has created the world, the solar system, and the whole universe flawlessly. He has created the whole of the Earth in order to provide us with suitable living conditions. God reveals this perfect creation in the Qur'an and demands that we reflect on these examples to appreciate his creation:

God is He Who raised up the heavens without any support-you can see that-and then established Himself firmly on the Throne. He made the Sun and Moon subservient, each running for a specified term. He directs the whole affair. He makes the Signs clear so that hopefully you will be certain about the meeting with your Lord. It is He Who stretched out the Earth and placed firmly embedded mountains and rivers in it and made two types of every kind of fruit. He covers over day with night. There are Signs in that for people who reflect. In the Earth there are diverse regions side by side and gardens of grapes and cultivated fields, and palm-trees sharing one root and others with individual roots, all watered with the same water. And We make some things better to eat than others. There are Signs in that for people who use their intellect. (Qur'an, 13:3-4)

THE MIRACLE OF VISIBLE LIGHT

Not all the stars and other sources of light in the universe emit the same type of radiation. Different types of radiation are classified according to their respective wavelengths. They fall along a huge spectrum, with gamma rays being the shortest and radio waves the longest. The difference between these shortest and longest waves is 10²⁵ (ten times billion times billion times billion). Miraculously, most of the Sun's radiation lies in the same bundle of wavelengths within this vast spectrum, because only that narrow band contains the radiation necessary to support life.

Visible light emitted by the Sun occupies just one single sector in the 1025 different wavelengths in the universe. Most interestingly, the rays that support life on Earth fall within that range of one in 1025. That rays emitted by the Sun are squeezed into such a narrow range, capable of supporting life on Earth, reveals an intelligent design that cannot be explained in terms of chance. The ideal type of rays emitted by the Sun were selected from among trillions of trillions of possible wavelengths.

The vastness of this spectrum becomes clearer when you realize that the shortest wavelength is 10²⁵ times shorter than the longest. 10²⁵ is written out as a 1 with 25 zeros following it, like this: 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. To fully comprehend the magnitude of this number, it helps to make some comparisons. For instance, the 4.5 billion years that have passed since the Earth's creation can be converted to 10¹⁷ seconds. If you wanted to count to 10²⁵, you would have to count day and night for a period 100 million times longer than the age of the Earth. If we were to pile 10²⁵ playing cards on top of one another, we would leave the Milky Way behind and cover about half the distance of the known universe! 38

The different wavelengths in the universe are spread across that wide a spectrum, but within it, interestingly, our Sun covers only the narrowest bandwidth. 70% of the Sun's radiation has wavelengths between 0.3 and 1.5 microns. Within this narrow bandwidth are three different types of light; visible light, infrared, and some ultraviolet.

All three types of light combined make up an almost ,nsignificant section of the total spectrum. In other words, they would be represented by one of the 10²⁵ cards.

But why does the Sun's radiation lie within this narrow bandwidth?

The answer to that question is extremely important: It's the only type of radiation that can support life on Earth.

Addressing this question in Energy and the Atmosphere, British physicist Ian Campbell says that "the radiation from the sun (and from many sequence stars) should be concentrated into a minuscule band of the electromagnetic spectrum which provides precisely the radiation required to maintain life on earth is very remarkable." According to Campbell, this situation is "staggering."39

THE EXTRAORDINARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUN LIGHT AND PHOTOSYNTHESIS

Plants have been doing something for hundreds of millions of years that no high-tech lab, run by scientific specialists, has yet been able to do: They produce their own nutrition by a process called photosynthesis, using sunlight. A precondition of this process, however, is that suitable light reach the plants in the first place.

As a result of photosynthesis, the cells in plant leaves store solar energy as food. All life obtains its energy from sunlight, either directly or indirectly. But only within a very specific range of light can any plant make photosynthesis. This range corresponds exactly to the spectrum emitted by the Sun.

Photosynthesis is made possible by the light-sensitive chlorophyll molecules in the plants' cells. But chlorophyll however can make use of light at a certain wavelengths only, and the ones emitted by the Sun are just right. (Interestingly, the one required for photosynthesis is one in the 10²⁵ different wavelengths.)

That sunlight identical to the light necessary for photosynthesis shows its perfect design. In The Symbiotic Universe, American astronomer George Greenstein writes as follows:

Chlorophyll is the molecule that accomplishes photosynthesis... The mechanism of photosynthesis is initiated by the absorption of sunlight by a chlorophyll molecule. But in order for this to occur, the light must be of the right color. Light of the wrong color won't do the trick.

A good analogy is that of a television set. In order for the set to receive a given channel it must be tuned to that channel; tune it differently and the reception will not occur. It is the same with photosynthesis, the Sun functioning as the transmitter in the analogy and the chlorophyll molecule as the receiving TV set. If the molecule and the Sun are not tuned to each other-tuned in the sense of color-photosynthesis will not occur. As it turns out, the sun's color is just right. 40

Those who examine this subject of plants and photosynthesis superficially could argue that if sunlight had different properties, plants would have adapted accordingly. But this is most certainly impossible. George Greenstein admits that this is, even though he is an evolutionist:

With regard to visible light, another interesting point is that its different colors can travel varying distances through water. Red light, for example, comes to an end below 18 meters (59 feet). Yellow light can travel up to 100 meters (328 feet). Green and blue light descend to 240 meters (787 feet). This design is most important, because the light necessary for photosynthesis is primarily blue and green. Since water can transmit light of these colors further than other wavelengths, plants that make photosynthesis can live at depths of up to 240 meters (787 feet).

One might think that a certain adaptation has been at work here: the adaptation of plant life to the properties of sunlight. After all, if the Sun were a different temperature could not some other molecule, tuned to absorb light of a different color, take the place of chlorophyll? Remarkably enough the answer is no, for within broad limits all molecules absorb light of similar colors. The absorption of light is accomplished by the excitation of electrons in molecules to higher energy states, and the same no matter what molecule you are discussing. Furthermore, light is composed of photons, packets of energy and photons of the wrong energy simply can not be absorbed… As things stand in reality, there is a good fit between the physics of stars and that of molecules. Failing this fit, however, life would have been impossible.41

Essentially, Greenstein says that for a plant to photosynthesize, it requires a definite bandwidth of light, which sunlight perfectly fulfills.

Greenstein states that the harmonies between the physical properties of stars and of molecules is so extraordinary that they cannot possibly be explained by coincidences. The fact that the Sun emits light at a certain wavelength from a possible range of 10²⁵ others, and that complex molecules on Earth can absorb this light, most certainly proves that this harmony was created consciously, by God.

When sunlight falls on a leaf, it is transmitted along the layers in the leaf. In the leaf cells, chlorophylls in the chloroplast organelles turn this light into chemical energy. The plant securing this chemical energy immediately uses it to create sugar as food. It took scientists until the mid-20th century to discover this process, which we have summarized in a few words. Pages of chemical reactions have been written in order to understand the process of photosynthesis, yet still there are missing links in the chain. Plants have been carrying out this process for hundreds of millions of years, thus providing the Earth with oxygen and food. Out of the 1025 different rays in the universe, only solar rays are suitable for photosynthesis in plant chlorophylls.