The Evolution Deceit
The theory of evolution is an illogical and inconsistent hypothesis. The illogicality of the theory lies in its suggesting that the world of living things that contains countless interconnected biological systems emerged as the result of completely blind coincidences. This theory, which maintains that the world of living things, in which millions of species live together in harmony and which possess highly complex organs and structures, appeared together with human beings who establish hospitals, libraries, universities, theatres and states also emerged "spontaneously" by way of chance and with no purpose, is actually an expression of Darwinist hopelessness.
Since the theory is itself illogical, the accounts developed by Darwinists to support it also go no further than being utterly ridiculous. In these terms, evolutionary propaganda consists of logical nonsense devoid of any scientific value.
One such example can be seen in a recent report published by the Turkish daily Radikal on 14 July, 2007. The article, titled "The world"s most rapid evolution," was actually possibly the world"s most ridiculous claim of evolution.
The evolutionary claim in question concerned observations of butterflies living on two islands in the South Pacific. What was ridiculous was the way it described a rise in the male population as "evolution."
Scientists had recorded the course exhibited by male butterflies of the species "Hypolimnas bolina" on the two islands over the years. The level of males in the population had risen from 1% to 39% in just one year.
Sylvain Charlat, a biologist at California University in the USA whose views were cited in the article, joined in this inconsistent claim and illogical evolutionary propaganda that has persisted for so long by saying, "To the best of my knowledge, this is the fastest evolution seen to date."
It is ridiculous to describe the rise in the number of male butterflies as evolution
A deadly disease assumed to last for years and to impact on a country"s male children may lead to a large rise in that country"s female population. But that human society undergoing a rise in the level of females compared to that of males has not acquired any biological characteristic that can be described as new. Whatever the ratio of females to males, human beings will still remain human beings and will not turn into any other life form.
Radikal"s unscientific claim
Radikal proposed the following scientific justification on the subject:
It is being claimed here that "a new gene" evolved during the process observed by scientists. The fact is though that this claim, which is nothing more than a Darwinist fantasy, has no counterpart anywhere in the scientific literature.
Genes are molecular chains organized in a very complex manner and containing high levels of information. Calculations in the field of biomathematics have revealed that there is absolutely no chance of the proteins and enzymes that encode the genes on the basis of their highly sensitive arrangement and sequence emerging by coincidence.
Frank Salisbury, an evolutionary biologist, has said with regard to this impossibility:
"A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension." (Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336)
Gordon Rattray Taylor, former scientific editor at the BBC, has made this admission concerning the fact that not a single new enzyme has ever been observed to appear:
"It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all around the world-flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme." (Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York, Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48)
Conclusion: Evolutionists should try to bring out the objective facts rather than enslaving themselves to outdated Darwinist fantasies
In investigating the reasons for the rise in the number of male butterflies, scientists must do so in a realistic manner. If they are to declare that this is evolution, then they have to indicate the molecular mechanism involved, show the evidence they have obtained to the public, and make their evaluations accordingly. Yet these reasons and proofs have very definitely not been put forward in the study in question. That being the case, it is entirely unscientific to ascribe this to Darwinist myths and suggest that a new gene has evolved. Detailed molecular investigation will show that such a gene already existed, albeit in a non-dominant state in the butterfly chromosome, and did not suddenly come into existence from nothing.