The Evolution Deceit

The Evolution Of Multi-Cellular Organisms Myth In Science Daily

Enlarge video
 
The news portal Science Daily carried a report of a study published in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Science titled “New Evidence That Ancient Choanoflagellates" Form Evolutionary Link Between Single-celled and Multi-celled Organisms”).

The news portal Science Daily carried a report of a study published in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Science titled “New Evidence That Ancient Choanoflagellates" Form Evolutionary Link Between Single-celled and Multi-celled Organisms”). Researchers from the University of California in San Francisco and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in the German city of Heidelberg analysed the recently described choanaflagellate genome and established the existence of certain proteins (phospho-tyrosine signalling proteins) used in cellular communication in both single-cell and multi-celled organisms.

The Science Daily Report expressed the importance of the molecules in question in our own bodies in these terms:  

Without these three molecules to help our cells "write," "read" and "erase" chemical messages between them, our bodies would never be able to conduct the complex tasks needed to survive such as reproduction, digesting food or even breathing.
The article went on to summarise the characteristics that make choanoflagellates so significant:  
Other genome analysis showed that some microorganisms contain some of these molecules in small levels, but never all three. . . What makes choanoflagellates unique.

The Darwinist mindset based on manufacturing evolutionary fantasies around similarities among different life forms was clearly visible in Science Daily’s comments regarding this study. The researchers had obviously adopted the theory of evolution as a dogma right from the outset, interpreted the data accordingly and suggested that the presence of the molecules in question meant that choanoflagellates are the ancestors of multi-celled organisms, even including human beings.

However, the fact that single-celled and multi-celled organisms share certain molecules makes no contribution to the theory of evolution, but actually raises further questions that the theory is unable to answer.

The molecules the study identified as being shared are exceedingly complex structures. The chances of these proteins emerging by chance is a mathematical quandary, expressed by the figure “0”. This can be seen in the simplest probability calculations accessible to anyone.

For example, the amino acids contained in an average size protein molecule consisting of a total of 288 amino acids of 12 different types can be laid out 10300 ways. (This is an astronomical figure, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) However, only one of all these possible sequences is actually the correct one, in other words, only that one sequence can give rise to the protein in question. All the remaining combinations are meaningless amino acid chains serving no purpose, or that might sometimes even be harmful to living things.

That means that the odds of just one protein molecule of the kind described above emerging by chance are 1 in "10300. In practical terms, such a thing is totally impossible. (In mathematics probabilities smaller than 1 in 1050 are regarded as “zero probability.”)
 

The True Origin of Multi-celled Organisms: Creation

The theory of evolution is unable to account for the origins of the complex structures, molecules, cells and even amino acids. For instance, the origin of the cell represents the greatest quandaries facing the theory of evolution. Each of the cells in living things contributes to the body’s activities within a flawless blueprint. The specialisation inherent in cell activities is truly astonishing. Although all the cells in a human being’s body have the same DNA the eye cell, for example, only uses that part of the information in DNA regarding the eyes. Similarly, a skin cell only activates the information in DNA pertinent to skin.

Although this process is exceptionally complex, no confusion ever arises. No eye cells are ever produced in skin tissue for instance, and no skin cells in eye tissue.

One important criterion concerning intelligence is worthy of note here: “selectivity.” For example, the cells we have been looking at behave just like a human being flicking through an encyclopaedia for the desired pieces of information.

The data in DNA are encoded in sequence in the form of nucleotides referred to by the letters A, T, G and C. When the information they contain is not being sought, both the letters in an encyclopaedia and the nucleotides in DNA are nothing more than the repetition of the same thing. There is thus an obvious “intelligence” in the way that an eye cell distinguishes the As, Ts, Gs and Cs necessary for ocular activities from among the vast numbers of As, Ts, Gs and Cs in DNA, and in the way that skin cells select those necessary for skin activities.

The theory of evolution hypothesises that such an intelligent selectivity caused molecules to combine together and form cells and that these then combined to give rise to multi-cellular organisms. It is illogical to imagine that such organised and specialised activities emerged, in such a way as to manifest intelligence, as the result of a chance-based process.

The evident truth of the matter is that single-cell and multi-cellular organisms were separately created. Indeed, the fossil record shows that multi-cellular organisms with very different structures appeared all at once and in the same geological period (the Cambrian). This cannot be explained in terms of the theory of evolution, and in fact completely demolishes it, and once again shows that creation represents the origin of life on Earth.

Conclusion

The research in the Science Daily report provides nothing in favour of the theory of evolution. The evolutionist comments added between the lines are intended to give the impression that a discovery supporting the theory of evolution has been made. In fact, both choanoflagellates and the proteins they share with multi-celled organisms reveal a sublime design and complexity that utterly refutes any possibility of chance but proves the fact of creation. We advise the Science Daily portal to abandon its blind adherence to Darwinism and to stop supporting a materialist world view by distorting the proofs of creation with fantasies about “evolution.”  
2008-08-01 00:00:00

Harun Yahya's Influences | Presentations | Audio Books | Interactive CDs | Conferences| About this site | Make your homepage | Add to favorites | RSS Feed
All materials can be copied, printed and distributed by referring to this site.
(c) All publication rights of the personal photos of Mr. Adnan Oktar that are present in our website and in all other Harun Yahya works belong to Global Publication Ltd. Co. They cannot be used or published without prior consent even if used partially.
© 1994 Harun Yahya. www.harunyahya.com - info@harunyahya.com
page_top