The Evolution Deceit
"Food For Thought"
We have already responded to this article which contained speculation concerning the alleged role of nutrition in evolution. You can read that response here.
This article put forward a number of claims concerning the so-called evolution of human skin. Throughout the article the authors deal with the benefits of pigments in the skin and the distribution of the various colors according to geographical latitudes. In the final part of the article they then go on to say:
Our current knowledge of the evolution of human skin indicates that variations in skin color, like most of our physical attributes, can be explained by adaptation to the environment through natural selection.
It is clear that the phenomenon described by the authors, Nina G. Jablonski and George Chaplin, has nothing to do with the common ancestor thesis of the theory of evolution. The observation of changes in skin color according to geographical regions stems from variations being selected by being subjected to natural selection. This example, of course, concerns already existing genetic information, for which reason there is no question of an increase in complexity here. This is the "micro-evolution" accepted by biologists within species. Nothing about micro-evolution provides any evidence for "macro-evolution," the claim that species turn into other species. Even evolutionists admit this, and it is for these reasons that "the origin of species," dealt with in Darwin"s book, still poses a major dilemma for evolutionists.
The authors offer not a single piece of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. All they do is indicate which skin color provides an "advantage" in the conditions of which latitudes, and then make an enormous leap in dragging the myth that this is a characteristic which emerged through evolution into the equation. The sentence which sums up the authors" story reads, "After losing their hair as an adaptation for keeping cool, early hominids gained pigmented skins."
In fact, however, there is no scientific evidence of a loss of fur at all. The authors, devoted to materialist dogma, accept right from the start that that the origin of man can only be explained in terms of the theory of evolution, and they then attempt to account for man in the light of these preconceptions. The expression "they gained pigmented skins" shows the extent to which they are caught up in these preconceptions. Even a crude examination of the characteristics of the skin immediately reveals that this organ is not a simple structure the origin of which can be glossed over with such frivolous tales.
The special cells in the skin known as melanocytes function just like chemical factories, as they send the pigment called melanin which they produce in packets to the other cells. Evolutions cannot explain how these and the other cells in the skin came into being and then combined to create our skin.
Our skin regulates the temperature of our bodies, protects them from germs, plays a role in the sense of touch and also carries out a great many other complex functions. It is absolutely impossible for such a complex organ to have emerged solely by random mutations in the information concealed in DNA. Our skin, with its many cells and ordered activities, is a marvel of design. Our skin demonstrates intelligent design and the superior nature of God"s creation.
"The Evolution of Human Birth"
This article, penned jointly by Karen R. Rosenberg and Wenda R. Trevathan, attempted to explain the way that human beings seek help during the birth process in evolutionary terms. The authors noted that among primates it is only human beings who seek assistance during labor and delivery, and claimed that this took place over time as we grew away from our so-called evolutionary ancestors.
This article, which was full of imaginary scenarios, repeated an evolutionist misconception and suggested that the size of the human brain represents an obstacle in giving birth.
This situation in fact provides no support for the scenario of human evolution. Researchers develop imaginary speculation concerning the differences between human beings and apes because they have adopted the dogma of human of evolution. If they would stop looking at everything through evolutionist eyes for a moment they would easily be able to see the design in human birth: when the design in the baby"s skull is examined we encounter a most intelligent structure.
Portraying the Size of the Brain as Problem in Labor is an Evolutionist Error
Obstetrics shows that the baby"s skull a special design which actually facilitates labor: since the bones in the baby"s skull have not yet fused together they are able to slide over one another. In this way, the skull assumes the long shape of the birth canal. This harmony poses no problem for the brain since it is a soft tissue. Sometimes however, albeit rarely, the labor process is unable to continue and the baby becomes caught in the birth canal. The origin of the problem is either the unproductive contraction of the muscles in the womb or the pelvis being too narrow to permit the baby to pass through. Brain volume has nothing to do with difficulties during labor.
As we have seen, the structure of the mother"s womb and that of the baby"s skull, together with the behavior it exhibits during labor, are all in complete harmony. This harmony, which can clearly be seen to have been specially designed, shows that human birth is a miracle in the hands of God. Indeed, our attention is drawn to this fact in a verse from the Qur"an:
Mankind! If you are in any doubt about the Rising, know that We created you from dust then from a drop of sperm then from a clot of blood then from a lump of flesh, formed yet unformed, so We may make things clear to you. We make whatever We want stay in the womb until a specified time and then We bring you out as children (Qur"an, 22: 5)
"If Humans Were Built to Last"
This article was the last of Scientific American"s propaganda collection. Scientific American magazine, which denies that human was created, revealed the full dimension of its illogicality in this caption: "We would look a lot different if evolution had designed the human body to function smoothly for a century or more."
The authors, S. Jay Olshansky, Bruce A. Carnes and Robert N. Butler, attempt throughout their article to find alleged defects in the design of human beings, and suggest structures which in their view might be more productive.
This article contained "theses" regarding how the design of the human body might allegedly be improved. In fact, with a little attention it was immediately apparent that all these theses were quite nonsensical. For instance, the evolutionists expounding the theses thought along the lines that since the human windpipe opens into the mouth and that water sometimes gets into it, they might suggest a so-called better design: The trachea should open not into the mouth but directly into the nose above it ... Yet there was a problem with that design: were that to be the case, human beings could neither speak nor breathe through their mouths!
Scientific American, basically admitted the nonsensical nature of this in the words, "the design would need refining, though, because it would disrupt breathing through the mouth and the ability to speak."
Aging is a Specially Created Process
The basic logic in the article can be seen from the statement in it that "people were not designed by evolution for extended survival". In other words, the evolutionist claim here is that the human body does not possess a design for a long life and, as again stated in the article, the "flaws" that emerge with aging represent evidence for evolution.
The fact is, however, that this claim has no scientific or rational basis. The fact that flaws and diseases emerge as the human body grows old is not evidence for evolution and against creation, as the Scientific American authors would have us believe. A created body, again in line with the purpose of creation, purposely begins to produce aging, flaws and diseases.
In fact, according to the Qur"an, there is important wisdom in human beings" deficiencies. One verse reveals that "God desires to make things lighter for you. Man was created weak." (Qur"an, 4: 28) and recalls human weaknesses. In another verse, we are told that human aging takes place within a plan established by God:
God created you and then will take you back again. And some of you revert to the lowest form of life so that after having knowledge, you know nothing at all. God is All-Knowing, All-Powerful. (Qur"an, 16: 70)
Creation does not mean that a person is created with a body that will not become ill, will never grow old, and will never have any flaws or deficiencies, for such aging, sickness and flaws to represent evidence for evolution. Quite the contrary, these are specially created processes.
If evolutionists wish to make a claim in favor of evolution, then what they need to do is to find evidence for the claim that living things came into being by chance. For instance, they need to explain how the human respiratory system, digestive system, senses, bone structure, joints and excretory system came about by means of "evolutionary mechanisms" (mutation and natural selection. This, of course, they cannot do, and these systems are structures with "irreducible complexity" and cannot have developed stage by stage by means of evolutionary mechanisms.
This truth has demolished the foundations of evolution, as Darwin feared when he said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 179.)
Evolutionists resort to propaganda techniques in order to conceal this collapse. The child-like drawings in Scientific American, are an example of these propaganda techniques. In each one of these a part of the human body is considered and claims based on nothing more than speculation and ignorance to the effect that "it would have been better if this had been like that" proffered.
One of these claims, all of which are quite nonsensical, is the thesis of the trachea emerging at the nose, which we looked at in the introduction. Others can be listed as:
"Shorter stature, cage with added ribs, thicker bones, extra muscles and fat."
The article in Scientific American suggests that such a human being would be healthier. The fact is however, that such a human being would be unable to move even, let alone get out of bed. To propose that such a body, with such a cumbersome structure, would have a better design is an example of an astonishing lack of logic.
"Knee Able to Bend Backward":
Another of Scientific American"s evolutionist stupidities is the "knee able to bend backward" from which the knee-cap has been removed. There is absolutely nothing in this drawing, described as "knee able to bend backward," which can be taken seriously from the anatomical point of view. A knee without a knee-cap would not be functional. Since the muscles at the front of the leg have only one place to attach to, the existence of the knee-cap, a mobile bone, is essential. Otherwise, it would be impossible for a human being to walk, stand up, or even lift his leg out of bed. The only significance of this "thesis" is to demonstrate the medical ignorance of the evolutionists who prepared and published the article.
The Design of the Retina
Another thesis proposed in the Scientific American article concerns the design of the human eye. In the article the way the neurons in the eye come together as the optic nerve and leave the retina is described as "poor design," and it is claimed that it would be much better were the neurons to pass to the back from every point within the retina.
This view is another example of thorough ignorance and superficial thought.
In order to understand this, we need to have a thorough knowledge of the retina. In the retina, the photoreceptor cells which perceive light and turn it into an electrical signal point backwards, in other words towards the retinal epithelium and choroidal blood sinuses. This requires the neural cell layer which relays the image to the brain from the retina to remain between the light and the photoreceptors.
Evolutionists have been making reference to this design for some time, and suggesting that it is "inefficient." The fact is, however, that it has emerged that the only source of these claims is scientific ignorance. The first person to raise this matter was the British zoologist Richard Dawkins, known as the world"s most prominent representative of Darwinism and atheism. Dawkins suggests that it would be more efficient for the retina cells to point to the front, in other words towards the light, claims that the structure of the eye is "badly designed," and portrays this as evidence against creation. The truth is, though, that a more thorough examination of the eye reveals that Dawkins" claim is totally deceptive. The reason why the photoreceptor cells in the eye point not towards the light but to the retinal layer behind is for these cells to meet their heavy need for oxygen.
These cells, which constantly turn light into chemical energy, are those which use the most oxygen in the body. (Their oxygen consumption is three times that of the cells in the muscles of the heart.) In order to meet this considerable need for oxygen, there is a dense vein layer immediately behind the photoreceptor cells, and this nourishes those cells. Research has revealed that if these cells were pointed "toward the light," as Dawkins suggests, then they would be starved of oxygen and unable to function. (Michael J. Denton, "The Inverted Retina: Maladaptation or Pre-adaptation?", Origins & Design, 19:2; George Ayoub, "On the Design of the Vertebrate Retina" Origins & Design 17:1)
The claim put forward in the Scientific American magazine article about the design of the eye is a new version of Dawkins" invalidated claim. This time evolutionists claim that it would be a better design if the cell nerves left the retina layer not through a single point (the blind spot), but separately. This is also a most mistaken assumption.
If this design were to be accomplished, then the neurons trying to pass behind the photoreceptors would totally diminish sharpness of vision. The visual ability of each neuron would be reduced and as a result the human capacity for sight would be reduced. In the existing design in the human eye, however, the nerves obstruct vision at one sole point (the blind spot) and this is in any compensated for by the brain filling in the remaining part of the image.
In short, when the human retina is examined to this depth it can be seen that the existing design is the best one possible. The way that evolutionists set about criticising the design of the eye, according to their own lights, even though they are unable to offer any account of the origin of the eye, and make themselves look ridiculous in the process, is an expression of the collapse of the theory of evolution.
The Excretory System: An Astonishing Design
Another organ portrayed as an example of flawed design in the Scientific American article is the bladder, the most important component of the excretory system.
The excretory system truly is a marvel of design. The waste water which is created drop by drop all the time by the kidney is collected in the bladder, which serves as a kind of reservoir. Thus it is that we do not have to spend our lives in the bathroom and can continue with our daily without having to take a break the whole time. Thanks to the walls of the bladder, composed of stretchable muscle, we are only warned when it reaches full capacity. It is then sufficient for the muscle known as the sphincter to be relaxed as we choose for evacuation to take place. It is clear that this design has been created with our comfort in mind.
In the alternative body drawings in Scientific American, nothing has been added to our excretory system, but the already existing connections or muscles have been made thicker. The excretory system is so perfect that evolutionists have been unable to come up with an imaginary improvement to it.
The thesis regarding changing the location of the prostate gland is also illogical. If this gland were located elsewhere, its function would be weakened. The millions of secretory gland cells contained in the prostate are responsible for producing testosterone and the fluid in which the sperm swim and also for moisturizing the entire urethra. They fulfill this function by constantly depositing the secretions they produce into the urethra. Combining the sperm which reach it by canals from the testes with the appropriate fluid and releasing them into the urethra is an essential function for the survival of the human race. That is why the prostate must be in constant close contact with the urethra.
If one were to list all the claims made by evolutionists regarding the design in the human body over the last 100 years, the result would be an enormous tome of "scientific nonsense." On every occasion the claims they have made have proved to be the product of ignorance. In the early 20th century they described a great many organs in the body as "functionless vestigial organs." The fact is, however, that it has been discovered that all these organs serve important purposes. They declared that most DNA was "Junk DNA," a claim that has been disproved by the latest genetic discoveries. The article published in Scientific American represents a new link in this chain of nonsense.
One cannot imagine the problems the imaginary human being depicted in the article would face if such a person really existed, nor what kinds of diseases and flaws that person would be afflicted by.
The people who put forward this idiotic theory know this full well, but do not care. All they have done is to exercise their imaginations and come up with fantasies. Instead of the human ear, for instance, they have imagined large and pointed ears to provide better hearing. Someone else might imagine "elephant ears to provide better hearing." Someone else again could even suggest "wings to allow us to fly." When the objective is imagination rather than science, there is no theory that cannot be proposed.
On careful inspection, however, all these actually document the extent of the collapse being experienced by the theory of evolution. No evolutionist ever attempts to explain how human organs came into being. All they do consists of works of the imagination in the name of evolution. That is because evolution itself is a work of the imagination.
""Creation is the truth. Humanity and all living things were created by God, "the Best of Creators."" (Qur"an, 23: 14)