The Evolution Deceit

The Evolution Impasse II

< <
6 / total: 13

P

Evolution Impasse

Paleontology

Paleontology is a branch of science that investigates fossils of organisms that lived in various geological periods and helps provide information about species living in those eras.166 Another definition of paleontology is the branch of science that studies the fossils and biology of extinct organisms. The first paleontological research began in the 19th century, studying plant and animal fossils to determine the life forms that existed in the geological past, as well as their morphology, structure, taxonomic relations with present-day species, geographical distribution and environmental relationships. Information obtained from paleontology is used to determine the age of geological strata.

The theory of evolution most commonly manifests itself in paleontological research, because fossil findings have been highly prone to evolutionists’ distortions and biased interpretations. History is full of forgeries perpetrated in the search for supposed evidence for the theory of evolution. (See The Piltdown Man Fraud, The Nebraska Man Fraud, and The Neanderthal Man Fraud.)

paleontology

One of the most important branches of science to shed light on the origin of life is paleontology, the study of fossils. The fossil beds studied with enormous dedication over the last 100 years reveal a picture in stark contrast to Darwin's theory. Species did not emerge by evolving, but appeared suddenly on Earth, with all their various structures fully formed.

The false impression that paleontology supports the theory of evolution is described in an article in Science magazine:

A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks. 167

The leading evolutionists N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall make an important comment:

That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, . . . prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search . . . One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. 168

The observation that species remain amazingly stable, and for very long periods of time, contains all the features of the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Everyone saw the truth, but all chose to ignore it. Paleontologists were faced by a fossil record that definitively refutes the picture that Darwin imagined, but openly turned their backs on the truth.

The American paleontologist S.M. Stanley describes how this fact, revealed by the fossil record, is completely ignored by the Darwinist dogma that dominates the world of science:

The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured… “The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.” . . . [but] their story has been suppressed. 169

Paleoanthropology

Paleoanthropology is a branch of science that studies the origin and developmental process of man. Studies in this field are backed up by many other branches of science, but the greatest use is made of information obtained from fossils.

However, as in many other branches of science, fossils are interpreted in the light of the assumptions of the theory of evolution. Findings obtained from the fields of archaeology and ethnology are interpreted in a biased manner so as to demonstrate the physical and mental development of man’s supposed forerunners, who must have existed according to the claims of the theory of evolution.

Despite being an evolutionist, the Arizona State University anthropologist Geoffrey Clark admitted as much in a text published in 1997:

We select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions—a process that is, at once, both political and subjective.… paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science.170

Niles Eldredge of Harvard University and Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History, two of the USA’s leading paleontologists, comment on paleontological findings:

It is a myth that the evolutionary histories of living things are essentially a matter of discovery.If this were true, one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas if anything, the opposite has occurred.171

Many other evolutionist experts on the subject also harbor pessimistic ideas about the very theory they support. Henry Gee, Nature magazine’s best-known writer, says that “between about 10 and 5 million years ago—several thousand generations of living creatures—can be fitted into a small box.” The conclusion Gee draws from this is very interesting:

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.172

Why is this branch of science, offering no evidence for the theory of evolution, regarded as so important by evolutionists? Why is every fossil discovery interpreted in such a biased, exaggerated manner? At a meeting held at the Biology Teachers’ Association, the evolutionist Greg Kirby described this mentality:

If you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there is a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments.173

No scientific paleoanthropological findings provide any support for evolution. All the “proofs” that evolutionists offer are fossils one-sidedly interpreted in order to deny the existence of Allah, the supreme Creator.

“Panda’s Thumb” Error, The

Panda’s Thumb Error

As can be seen here, the bone that protrudes from the panda's wrist is not really a bone at all, but a support making it easier for the animal to cling onto bamboo stalks.

One of the classic evolutionist arguments is that of the Panda’s thumb, made famous by Stephen Jay Gould. Along with its five fingers, the panda also has a bony protrusion on its wrist known as the radial sesamoid bone.

In evolutionists’ view, the panda—originally a carnivore like dogs and cats—began feeding on bamboo. According to the evolutionist scenario, the sixth finger emerged so that the panda could grasp bamboo more easily. A different evolutionist claim is that though this sixth finger is not perfect, it’s as good as natural selection could make it. But in fact, these are claims made entirely in line with evolutionist preconceptions, devoid of proof and explain nothing.

Of pandas being descended from carnivorous ancestors:

Evolutionists include the panda among the carnivores because it has wide jaws, teeth and strong claws. They claim that the panda’s alleged ancestors used these features against other animals. Yet the panda’s only enemy is man; among other animals, it has no enemies. Its powerful teeth and jaws are for breaking off and chewing bamboo stems. Its strong claws serve for climbing up bamboo stems. Therefore, there is not the slightest evidence that pandas—which generally eat bamboo and fruit and other plants from time to time—evolved from carnivorous forerunners.

Evolutionists have been unable to agree on which animal the panda might have evolved from. Some evolutionists place the panda in the same category as bears; others in the same category as raccoons, because no findings suggest that these animals have evolved from any other class. Evolutionists speculate on the basis of similarities alone, and disagree with one another because their conjectures are sheer fantasy.

Of the panda’s thumb not being perfect, being the work of chance:

Evolutionists say that the panda’s thumb is not perfect, but still serves a purpose.

In fact, this sixth finger is a kind of bone known as the radial sesamoid bone, which generally facilitates movement at the joints and prevents the tendons from tearing. This structure, emerging from the wrist, is actually no finger at all, but a support that helps the other fingers grip onto bamboo stalks.174

Panda’s Thumb error

Evolutionists look for disharmony or flaws in nature, in their efforts to find evidence for denying Allah's flawless creation. As with the subject of the panda's "thumb," however, these efforts have always been in vain.

Evolutionists maintain that this bone developed in place of a finger, but does not serve as one—saying, for example, that it cannot strip shoots. However, they also say that it is sufficiently developed for grasping. That is in any case the job of this sixth finger, and the panda has enough other fingers to perform other tasks perfectly.175 The idea that this structure’s ideal shape would be that of a complete finger is a groundless, based on evolutionist prejudices. The bone is perfectly suitable in its present state.

One study published in Nature magazine in 1999 shows that in the panda’s natural habitat, its thumb is highly efficient. The study, carried out by four Japanese researchers and performed using computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, concluded that the panda’s thumb is “one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalia.” 176

Evolutionists look for incompatibility or flaws in nature only to find evidence for denying Allah’s immaculate creation. Yet these efforts have always proved fruitless. The panda’s thumb is yet another instance of this.

Pangenesis Theory, The

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle maintained that one part of all the cells in the body came together to form the egg and sperm. He also suggested that all the changes taking place in the body throughout an organism’s life could be passed along to later generations.

This idea was taken up by Lamarck and Darwin in the 19th century, although it was eventually shown to be false. Reproductive cells are not a product of the body’s cells, and changes in them do not affect the ovum and spermatazoa. (See Lamarck’s Evolution Scenario.)

Panspermia Theory, The

The Panspermia Theory

It is impossible for meteors falling to Earth to carry living organisms with them because of the high temperatures created as they enter the atmosphere and the severity of their impacts. Above you can see a crater left by a meteorite in Arizona. Even if one postulates the existence of life beyond Earth, there can still be no other explanation for its origin than creation.

Faced by the fact that amino acids cannot form by chance, evolutionists looked for a new explanation of how life might have arisen spontaneously under the conditions of the primeval world. According to their new claims, amino acids in meteors falling to Earth reacted with organic substances and thus gave rise to life.

According to this view, the first organic substance originated beyond the Earth, on another planet. The spores or seeds of these organisms were then carried to Earth by meteors, and life thus began. In the light of our current knowledge, however, it doesn’t appear possible for spores or seeds to withstand such outer-space conditions as cold, utter vacuum, and harmful radiation on their way to Earth—not to mention the intense heat and impact of passing through the atmosphere.177

Conditions in space make it impossible for life to survive. The well-known Russian scientist George Gamow says:

. . . there is a still more serious threat awaiting spores traveling through space than freezing to death. The Sun is well known to emit a significant level of ultraviolet rays. These rays, only a small proportion of which are permitted to pass through the atmospheric layer surrounding the Earth, represent the most serious danger to these micro-organism spores with no defensive mechanisms with which to protect themselves, and are sufficiently powerful to kill them instantaneously. For that reason, even a fictitious journey by these bacteria to the nearest planet will still result in death. Another study conducted in 1966 led to the “out of space” hypothesis being totally abandoned. The most highly resistant micro-organisms were installed on the outer surface of the spacecraft Gemini-9 and this was then launched into space. Examinations revealed that these micro-organisms all died within seven hours. Yet according to this hypothesis, the bacteria that supposedly gave rise to life must have traveled for many years. 178

The crystal-clear fact that emerges is that it is impossible for micro-organisms to reach Earth from outer space. However, even if large quantities of amino acids had come from space, and even if the entire surface of the primitive Earth world was covered with them, this would still not account for the origin of life. It would be impossible for amino acids to combine randomly and haphazardly and form an exceedingly complex, three-dimensional protein; for proteins to form the organelles in cells; and then for these organelles to produce the miraculous structure of the cell itself.

Parallel Evolution Impasse, The

One of the subjects that pose the worst dilemmas for evolutionists is those organs with exceedingly complex structures. Evolutionists claim that living things with very complex organs in common but with no common ancestor must have undergone evolution independently of one another.

According to evolutionists, these living things developed in parallel to one another and came to possess similar organs; however this might have come about. To cite one example, the structure of the eye in squid and vertebrates is identical, though no attempt is made to construct an evolutionary relationship among these creatures. Evolutionists claimed parallel evolution to account for the origin of these organs. However hard it is to explain how such developed organs came into existence once, it’s quite impossible to account for how they might have come into being twice, and independently.

Briefly, the only difference between parallel evolution and other forms of evolution is that the former needs even more chances to come about. The more flawless structures appear in living things, the less scientific appear evolutionists’ scenarios.

Pasteur, Louis

As a result of lengthy research and experiments, the famous French biologist Louis Pasteur concluded that: “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.” 179

With his view that life comes only from life, also known as biogenesis, Pasteur totally invalidated the belief in spontaneous generation that constituted the essence of Darwin’s evolution. (See Abiogenesis and Biogenesis.)

Proponents of the theory of evolution long resisted Pasteur’s findings. However, as scientific advances revealed the complex structure of the living cell, their claim that life could form spontaneously found itself in an ever- deeper impasse.

Louis Pasteur

Louis Pasteur's discoveries buried the idea that inanimate substances could give rise to life.

Peking Man Fraud, The

In 1921, Dr. Davidson Black discovered two molar teeth in a depression near the village of Choukoutien, attached to the Chinese city of Pekin (Beijing). These two teeth were given the name Sinanthropus pekinensis and were suggested to belong to a hominid, or human-like creature. Dr. W.C. Pei found a third tooth in 1927, and several skull fragments and two pieces from the jaw in 1928. Black claimed that these belonged to S. pekinensis and announced that its skull volume was 900 cubic centimeters. Its age was estimated at 500,000 years.

In 1936 three skulls were discovered in the same place by Pei and the American Professor Franz Weidenreich. These skulls, too, were declared to belong to S. pekinensis, and the skull volume was enlarged to 1,200 cubic centimeters. Apart from the two molars, all the materials found as evidence disappeared between 1941 and 1945. All that remains is Weindenreich’s plaster models of them.

Professor Duane Gish, known for his many years of research into the invalidity of the theory of evolution, says this:

Of most critical importance to an evaluation of this material is . . . that all of this material except two teeth disappeared sometime during the period 1941-1945, and none of it has ever been recovered. Many stories concerning the disappearance of this material have circulated, the most popular being that it was either lost or seized by the Japanese during an attempt to move it from Peking to a U.S. Marine detachment that was evacuating China. None of these stories has been verified. No living person apparently knows what happened to the material.

As a result, we are totally dependent on models and descriptions of this material left by a few investigators, all of whom were totally committed to the idea that man had evolved from animal ancestors. Even is a scientist is a completely objective as humanly possible, the model of description he fashions on the basis of scanty and incomplete material with reflect to a critical degree what he thinks the evidence ought to show. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that objectivity was seriously lacking in the treatment and evaluation of the material recovered at Choukoutien.

All we have available are the models fashioned by Weidenreich. How reliable are these models? Are they accurate casts of the originals, or do they reflect what Weidenreich thought they should look like? 180

Peking Man fossil

Peking Man fossil

Increasing discoveries in the years that followed, and particularly after the 1990s, made it clear that no such evolutionary process as the tree of descent, proposed by evolutionists, ever took place. In terms of their age, geographical regions and anatomical features, the fossils discovered could not be placed in any evolutionary sequence. Increasingly, therefore, the idea that Peking Man was to the missing link lost support, and evolutionists abandoned hope of having found any missing link.

In the present day, there are no longer frequent claims of intermediate forms imputed to Homo erectus, under which Peking Man had been classified. Many anthropologists emphasise that H. erectus (and therefore Peking Man) was no different from modern humans. H. erectus is not an intermediate form, but an extinct human race.

This view was generally accepted at a conference attended by well-known palaeontologists and anthropologists in Germany. American Scientist magazine reported the developments at the conference:

. . . most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether.

The latest developments with regard to H. erectus, under which Peking Man is classified, forced the National Geographic’s TV channel to make an important admission. The program quoted the physical anthropologist Gary Sawyer of the American Museum of Natural History as saying that Peking Man, in terms of his physical characteristics, was a genuine human being. This retreat once again shows that the scenario of the human line of descent has collapsed. The crystal reality is that humans and apes are life forms created separately by Allah.

Pentadactyl Homology

- see Five-Digit Homology.

Peptide Bond

It’s not enough for the varieties of amino acid necessary to form a protein to be in the appropriate number and sequence and to have the needed three-dimensional structure. They must also bond to one another by specific amino acid molecules with more than one arm. The bond formed in this way is known as a peptide bond.

Amino acids may attach to one another by a variety of different bonds, but proteins can emerge only from amino acids attached to one another by peptide bonds.

car

No matter how powerful or how technologically advanced that car’s engine may be, that car will still be unable to cover any distance. In the same way, if just a single amino acidin a protein molecule is attached by some other bond than a peptide bond, the entire molecule will be useless.

To use analogy, imagine that all the components of an automobile are present, and in just the right place. However, let one of the wheels be attached by a coil of wire rather than by bolts. No matter how powerful or how technologically advanced that car’s engine may be, that car will still be unable to cover any distance. Everything else appears to be in order, yet one of the wheels being attached in a wrong way makes the whole car functionless. In the same way, if just a single amino acid in a protein molecule is attached by some other bond than a peptide bond, the entire molecule will be useless.

Research has revealed that random bonding of amino acids results in 50% peptide bonds at most, the rest being attached by bonds that are not found in proteins. Therefore, in calculating the probability of a protein coming into being by chance, we must include the requirement that all amino acids be left-handed, and the fact that every amino acid can only be attached to the others by a peptide bond. If we consider a 400-amino acid protein, the chances of all the amino acids being attached to one another by peptide bonds alone is 1 in 2399 —a figure that cannot possibly be achieved by random factors.

amino acid, protein

I. Amino acid  II. Water   III. Peptide bond   IV. Dipeptide molecule

 

Amino acids are attached to one another by peptide bonds. The main diffence betweens peptide and other types of bonds is that the forner are insoluble, which makes proteins very strong and resistant.

Phylogeny

Phylogeny is the term used to describe the supposed evolutionary history of any group of living things. Phylogeny is evolutionists’ attempts to ascribe degrees of relatedness among living things, to reveal all the possible similarities and differences of a species or group and set out the stages they underwent from their supposed ancestors. (See Phylum, and Taxonomy.)

By such means, evolutionists hope to indicate the lines of descent they assume occurred among living things. In addition, based on various similarities in species, they try to place all living things on certain branches of the evolutionary family tree. But this is all based on their preconceptions. These are all fictitious studies, devoid of any scientific evidence.

Phylum

Almost all of the phyla live bands, known as the Cambrian geological period, without any so-called evolutionary ancestors suddenly appeared. This invalidates the theory of evolution in favor of creation is an important evidence.

Phylum (Plural: Phyla)

Biologists classify living things into various separate groups. This classification, known as taxonomy or systematic biology, consists of hierarchical categories.

Living things are first divided into kingdoms, such as the plant and animal kingdoms, which are then subdivided into phyla.

In determining these phyla, each of all the different basic body types has been considered. For instance, arthropods (jointed legs) are one separate phylum, and all the species in it have a similar body plan. The phylum known as Chordata contains all those species with a central nervous system. All the animals familiar to us, such as fish, birds, reptiles and mammals represent a subdivision—vertebrates—of the phylum Chordata.

Among the different animal phyla there are very different categories, such as Mollusca, which include soft-bodied creatures such as octopus, and the phylum Nematode, which includes roundworms. The categories beneath phyla have basically similar body plans, but phyla are altogether different from one another.

Piltdown Man Fraud, The

Piltdown Man

 

AN ORANGUTAN JAW TO A HUMAN SKULL:

The Piltdown Man fossil that deceived the world of science for some 40 years was actually a fraud concocted by evolutionists putting together bones of a man and an ape.

 

 

In 1912, Charles Dawson, a famous doctor and also an amateur paleontologist, claimed to have discovered a jawbone and part of a skull in a gravel pit near the village of Piltdown in England. Although the jawbone resembled that of an ape, the teeth and skull resembled those of human beings. These specimens were given the name of Piltdown Man, an age of 500,000 was estimated for them, and they were exhibited in various museums as incontrovertible proof of evolution. For some 40 years, they were the subject of many scientific papers, analyses and reconstructions. Some 500 academics from various universities all over the world prepared doctoral theses on the subject of Piltdown Man.181

On a visit to the British Museum in 1935, the famous American paleoanthropologist H.F. Osborn proclaimed Piltdown “a discovery of transcendent importance to the prehistory of man,”and added, “We have to be reminded over and over again that nature is full of paradoxes …”182

A depiction of Piltdown Man, based on the fraudulent fossil

A depiction of Piltdown Man, based on the fraudulent fossil

In 1949, Kenneth Oakley of the British Museum’s Paleoanthropology Department sought permission to perform a new dating technique, the fluoride test, on some old fossils. When it was carried out on the Piltdown Man fossil, it was revealed that the jawbone contained no fluoride. This showed that it had been underground for no more than a few years. The skull contained a low level of fluoride, making it only a few thousand years old.

Subsequent chronological investigations based on the fluoride method confirmed that the skull was only a few thousand years old. It was also realized that the teeth had been artificially abraded, and that the primitive artifacts found alongside the fossils were mere reproductions, made with modern steel implements.183

With the detailed analyses performed by Weiner, this fraud was definitively revealed in 1953. The skull was 500 years old and human, and the jaw belonged to a newly dead orangutan! The teeth had been added later, and their joints abraded to give the impression they were human. Later, all the parts had been stained with potassium dichromate to give them an aged appearance. When the bones were placed in acid, the stains disappeared.

Le Gros Clark, a member of the team that uncovered the fraud, was unable to mask his astonishment: “the evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked—- how was it that they had escaped notice before?” 184

Piltdown Man, which had been exhibited for the previous 40 years or so, was then hurriedly removed from the British Museum.

Pithecanthropus Erectus

see Nebraska Man Fraud, The.

Plasmid Transfer

Bacteria contain a small DNA molecule known as a plasmid in addition to the main DNA strands, or chromosomes. A plasmid is a small DNA ring found outside the chromosomes in many species of bacteria. A rounded DNA molecule of no fundamental importance to the bacterium, a plasmid—according to evolutionists—provides selective benefits. This plasmid DNA’s round shape enables it to enter or leave the bacterium with ease. This feature of plasmids led to DNA combination research.

Plasmid transfer is one of the techniques that scientists discovered for the purpose of combining DNA. Research into newly combined (recombinant) DNA is performed by combining the DNAs of different organisms to obtain large enough quantities of specific genes to be able to study them. Many biologists regard this method as one of the most valuable means of biological research yet discovered.185

One of the discoveries revealed by this technique is bacteria’s antibiotic resistance. The genes of bacteria that have proved resistant in the past are transmitted to other bacteria by way of plasmids. Resistant genes are generally found in plasmids. In this way, a resistant gene acquired by a non-resistant bacterium can easily be added onto its own DNA. This means that from a single resistant bacterium, a resistant bacterial colony can emerge in a very short time.

However, nothing about this mechanism provides evidence for evolution, because the genes that endow resistance in bacteria are not formed as the result of mutations. All that occurs is the transmission of genes already existing among bacteria.

Platypus

The platypus, a member of the marsupial family that lives in Australia, is an excellent example that invalidates evolutionist claims. Despite being a mammal, covered in fur and possessing milk glands, the platypus also lays eggs. More interestingly, it has a bill like a duck.

Since this creature has mammalian, avian and reptilian features, evolutionists point to it as a simple animal and as an intermediate form. Yet the truth is very different.

So highly developed is the platypus that it possesses a literal sixth sense. Since it lives in muddy waters, it has been equipped with a mechanism that allows it to move by use of electrical signals. This electroreceptor system bears no similarity to the systems found in certain fish, but is far more complex. With its own unique movements, the platypus sets up an electrical current in the river waters and uses this to determine the river surface.

The platypus is a mosaic animal. However, if it became extinct and if traces of it were later found in the fossil record, evolutionists would not hesitate to suggest that it was an intermediate form between reptiles and mammals. All the supposed intermediate forms cited today are in fact the result of such distortions.

Pleiotropic Effect, The

One of the proofs that mutations inflict only harm on living things is the coding of the genetic code. In developed animals, almost all the known genes contain more than one piece of information about that organism. For example, a single gene may control both height and eye color.

    NORMAL DEVELOPMENT   /   PLEIOTROPIC EFFECT

Pleiotropic Effect

 

 

 

 

1- Wings do not energe.
2-The feet are of normal size, but their ends fail to develop fully
3- The is no softfeather tissue.
4,5- The is no lung, de spite the presence of a respiatory tract.
6,7- There is no urnary tract and no way for the kidneys to develop.

 

 

 

 

 

On the left can be seen normal development in a domestic chicken, and on the right, the harmful effects caused by a pleiotropic gene mutation. Close inspection shows that a mutation in a single gene can damage several organs at the same time. Even if we were to admit that mutations did have a positive effect, the pleiotropic effect would eliminate this advantage by damaging several different organs at once.

The molecular biologist Michael Denton describes this feature, known as genes’ pleiotropic effect:

The effects of genes on development are often surprisingly diverse. In the house mouse, nearly every coat-colour gene has some effect on body size. Out of seventeen X-ray-induced eye colour mutations in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, fourteen affected the shape of the sex organs of the female, a characteristic that one would have thought was quite unrelated to eye colour. Almost every gene that has been studied in higher organisms has been found to effect more than one organ system, a multiple effect which is known as pleiotropy. As Mayr argues in Population, Species and Evolution: “It is doubtful whether any genes that are not pleiotropic exist in higher organisms.” 186

Due to this characteristic in living things’ genes, any defect occurring in any gene in the DNA as a result of a chance mutation will affect more than one organ. Thus the mutation will have more than one destructive effect. Even if one of these effects is hypothesized to be beneficial, as the result of an extremely rare coincidence, the other effects’ inevitable damage will cancel out any advantage. (See Mutation: An Imaginary Mechanism.)

Therefore, it is impossible for living things to have undergone evolution, because no mechanism exists that can cause them to evolve.

Population

Populations are aggregations of a single species whose members often display considerable genetic variety. The individuals in any population determine that population’s genetic structure. In ecological terms, a population is defined as a society consisting of members of the same species, spread over a specific area.

The realization that hereditary features affected populations more than individuals—and that individuals within that population were nothing more than gene-carrying vehicles—brought population genetics to the fore.

Pre-Adaptation Myth, The

Evolutionists’ efforts to account for the origin of species in terms of transition from water to land, and from land to the air, require wide-ranging changes. Consider, for instance, how a fish emerging from water might adapt to dry land. Unless it undergoes rapid changes in its respiratory system, excretory mechanism and skeletal structure, it will inevitably die. A series of mutations must immediately endow the fish with lungs, elongate its fins into feet, bestow kidneys on it, and give its skin a water-retaining property. It is essential that this entire string of mutations takes place within the lifespan of only a single animal.

No evolutionist biologist proposes such a chain of mutations, since the idea is too nonsensical and illogical. Instead, they refer to the concept of pre-adaptation. By this, they mean is that fish underwent changes necessary for them to live on land while they were still living in water. According to this theory, a fish acquired features that would permit it to live on land while it had no need of them. Then when it was ready, it emerged onto dry land to begin living there.

Yet even within the theory of evolution’s own hypotheses, there is no logic to such a scenario. A sea creature acquiring features suitable for dry land gives it no advantage. Therefore, there is no logic for claiming that these “just in case” features emerged by means of natural selection. On the contrary, a living thing undergoing pre-adaptation should be eliminated by means of natural selection, since as it acquires features appropriate to the land, it will be progressively disadvantaged.

Primeval Atmosphere, The

The term “primeval atmosphere” is used to describe the atmosphere when the Earth was first formed. For a long time, adherents of the theory of evolution maintained that the primitive atmosphere consisted of a mixture of gasses that permitted the spontaneous appearance of organic compounds that would form the building blocks of life. Evolutionists hypothesized that these primeval gasses consisted of ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water vapor. On that assumption, they carried out a large number of experiments aimed at synthesizing amino acid molecules, the building blocks of life. These experiments’ objective was to simulate those primeval atmospheric conditions in a laboratory environment.

Nothing about these experiments (apart from the fact they pulled the wool over people’s eyes) provided any backing for evolution. First of all, the laboratory environment was controlled in every way. Such an environment bore no resemblance to the spontaneous, uncontrolled, disordered and destructive atmosphere of the primeval world.

The best-known of this series of primitive atmosphere experiments was the Miller Experiment. In that experiment, Stanley Miller prepared an artificial environment similar to the primeval atmosphere in order to show that amino acids could have been synthesized by chance. To that end, he reacted ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water vapor—gasses he assumed were present in the primeval atmosphere, but which subsequently,were realized to not be present at all. As a result, he did indeed synthesize a few amino acid forms. Yet research in later years revealed that the mixture of gasses that Miller has assumed to have constituted the primeval atmosphere did not reflect the actual state of affairs. It was realized that carbon dioxide and nitrogen, present in the primitive atmosphere, were not chemically suited to forming amino acids and other organic compounds.An article titled “Life’s Crucible” in the February 1998 edition of the well-known evolutionist publicationEarth admitted this:

Geologists now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller’s atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. “It's a problem,” he sighs with exasperation. “How do you make polymers? That's not so easy.” 187

Miller was now aware that his experiment was meaningless in terms of accounting for the origin of life. Another article, titled “The Rise of Life on Earth,” in the March 1998 edition of National Geographic, contained the following lines:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.

That’s bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules—the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food coloring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup. 188

primitive atmosphere

In short, neither the Miller experiment nor any other evolutionist endeavors have answered the question of the origin of life on Earth. All the research reveals the impossibility of life’s coming into being by chance, and thus shows that life was created.

Primeval Earth, The

Evolutionists claim that the amino acids, the building blocks of life, came into being spontaneously in the environment of the primeval Earth. However, apart from a few chemical syntheses carried out consciously in regulated, controlled laboratory conditions, there is no scientific proof that amino acids can form spontaneously.

Evolutionists then face an even greater problem than amino acids in the form of proteins—hundreds of different amino acids, the building blocks of life, being added onto one another in a specific sequence.

It’s even more illogical to claim that proteins form spontaneously under natural conditions than to suggest that amino acids can do so. It is mathematically impossible for amino acids to spontaneously assume the necessary sequences to form proteins. In addition, protein formation is chemically impossible under the conditions of the primeval Earth. (See The Primeval Atmosphere and The Chemical Evolution Deception)

Primeval Soup, The

See The Chemical Evolution Deception and The Primordial Soup Fantasy.

Theory of Favored Races, The

See Darwinism and Racism.

Primordial Soup Fantasy, The

According to the theory of evolution, life emerged in the oceans between 3.5 and 4 billion years ago in an environment known as the “primordial soup.” According to the myth of evolution, primitive life began with proteins and subsequently with single-celled organisms, and continued in the oceans for some 2 billion years, reaching its final point with the evolution of fish with backbones.

After that point, according to the tale, some of the fish felt the need to progress to a dry land environment. And thus it was that life on dry land began.

This entirely fictional tale, based on no evidence, actually faces a separate dilemma at every different stage. First of all, how did the first protein come into being? And how, even before that, did the amino acids that comprise proteins come into being and manage to add on to one another in an ordered manner? These questions completely undermine the theory of evolution from the outset. Because as even evolutionists admit, the structure of proteins is so complex that the chances of their forming by chance is practically zero.

One of the most important figures in this area, the geochemist Jeffrey Bada from the San Diego Scripps Institute, wrote in the February 1998 edition of Earth magazine:

Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on earth? 189

Professor Klaus Dose, head of the Johannes Gutenberg University Biochemistry Department in Germany, stated in the Journal Interdisciplinary Science Reviews:

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. 190

The claim put forward by Darwinism, the result of the primitive level of science in the 19th century, that a cell will spontaneously occur if organic substances combine together, is totally unscientific. Science manifests the fact that Allah has flawlessly created living things.

Protein

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of specific numbers and types of smaller molecules, known as amino acids, set out in particular sequences. The simplest proteins consist of around 50 amino acids, while others may contain thousands.

The absence of even a single amino acid in the protein structure or one amino acid changing place, or the addition of one amino acid too many to the chain will make that protein a useless collection of molecules. For that reason, every amino acid must be in exactly the right place and in exactly the right order. The theory of evolution, however, suggests that life came into being by chance. In the face of this regularity, it’s in a hopeless position. So extraordinary is this regularity that it cannot possibly be explained in terms of chance. Simple probability calculations easily show that proteins’ functional structure can never come into being as the result of coincidences.

myoglobin

The illustration shows the three-dimensional structure of the myoglobin protein and the peptide groups among the atoms. Such a flawless structure cannot be explained in terms of chance.

For instance, the 288 amino acids of 12 different kinds contained in an average-sized protein molecule, may be set out in 10300 ways. (This is the astronomical figure of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) However, only one of all these sequences can gives rise to the protein. All the remaining sequences are meaningless strings of amino acids that are either useless, or may even be harmful.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of specific numbers and types of smaller molecules, known as aminoacids, set out in particular sequences. This structure of the protein is a big dead lock for evolutionists.

Therefore, the chances of just the “right” protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10300. In practical terms, this cannot happen. (In mathematics, any probability smaller than 1050 is regarded as zeroprobability.)

Moreover, a protein consisting of 288 amino acids can be regarded as a rather humble structure, compared with giant proteins consisting of thousands of amino acids found in many living things. When the same probability calculations are applied to these giant molecules, even the word impossible fails to do justice to the situation.

Moving up one rung in the development of living things, we see that a protein on its own means nothing. Mycoplasma hominis H39, one of the smallest known bacteria, has been observed to possess 600 kinds of proteins. Therefore, we need to square the probability calculation we carried out on just one protein by 600. The figure that emerges goes way beyond the concept of merely impossible.

Nor can evolutionists object to these figures. They also accept that the chances of a single protein coming into being by chance are as slim as those of “a monkey writing the history of mankind by randomly striking the keys of a typewriter.” 191 Yet rather than accept the true explanation—creation—they prefer this utter impossibility.

protein

The three-dimensional structure of a protein

Many evolutionists admit this. The evolutionist scientist Harold Bloom, for instance, says, “The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability.” 192

Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took a very long time and that this time frame made the impossible possible. But no matter how much time is allowed, it is still impossible for amino acids to randomly give rise to proteins. In his book Essentials of Earth History, the American geologist William Stokes admits that “it would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids.” 193

Professor of Chemistry Perry Reeves describes what all this actually means:

When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task.194

Prokaryotic Cells

See Origin of the Bacteria.

Protoavis

In pointing to Archaeopteryx as an intermediate form, evolutionists began with the assumption that it was the earliest bird-like creature on Earth. However, the discovery of certain far older bird fossils displaced Archaeopteryx from its perch as the ancestor of birds. In addition, these creatures were flawless birds with none of the supposed reptilian features attributed to Archaeopteryx.

Protoavis fossil

The Protoavis fossil, estimated to be 225 million years old, demolished the theory that Archaeopteryx, a bird 75 million years younger than it, was the ancestor of birds.

The most significant of them was Protoavis, estimated at 225 million years old. The fossil, whose existence was announced in a paper in the August 1986 edition of the magazine Nature, demolished the idea that Archaeopteryx, 75 million years younger was the forerunner of all birds. Its bodily structure, with hollow bones as in all other birds, long wings and traces of feathers on those wings showed that Protoavis was capable of perfect flight.

N. Hotton of the Smithsonian institute describes the fossil thus: “Protoavis has a well-developed furcula bone and chest bone, assisting flight, hollow bones and extended wing bones . . . Their ears indicate that they communicate with sound, while dinosaurs are silent.” 195

The German biologists Reinhard Junker and Siefried Scherer describe the blow dealt to evolutionist theses:“Because Archaeopteryx is 75 million years younger than Protoavis, it emerged that this was a dead end for evolution. Therefore, the idea put forward by the proponents of creation that there are no intermediate forms, only mosaic forms, has been strengthened. The fact that Protoavis resembles modern birds in many ways makes the gap between bird and reptile even more apparent.” 196

Furthermore, the age calculated for Protoavis is so great that this bird—again according to dating provided by evolutionist sources—is even older than the first dinosaurs on Earth. This means the absolute collapse of the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs!

Punctuated Equilibrium

See Punctuated Model of Evolution Myth, The below.

Punctuated Model of Evolution Myth, The

When the theory of evolution is mentioned, the neo-Darwinist model is still the first theory that comes to mind. (See The Neo-Darwinist Comedy.) However, in the last few decades, a different model was born: punctuated evolution.

This model began with great fanfare by two American paleontologists, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, in the 1970s. These two evolutionist scientists were aware that the claims of neo-Darwinian theory were totally refuted by the fossil record. Fossils proved that living things had not appeared on Earth through gradual evolution, but had appeared suddenly and perfectly formed. Neo-Darwinists were living with the hope that the fossils they sought would one day be found—which indeed is still the case today. But Eldredge and Gould realized that this hope was unfounded. Since they were unwilling to abandon the dogma of evolution, they therefore proposed a new model; punctuated evolution, the claim that evolution occurred not with small, gradual changes, but in very large sudden ones.

This was actually a fantasy model. For example, Otto Schindewolf who had preceded Eldredge and Gould, had given a conjectural example of punctuated evolution, claiming that the first bird in history emerged from a reptile egg through a gross mutation—some giant, random mutation in its genetic structure.197 (See The Macro-Mutation Deception.) According to the theory, certain terrestrial animals might have turned into giant whales as a result of sudden and comprehensive changes, within a single generation. These claims conflict with all known genetic, biophysical and biochemical laws, and were about as scientific as tales of princes turning into frogs. But some evolutionist paleontologists, troubled by the crisis facing the claims of neo-Darwinism, clung to this theory even though it was even more nonsensical than neo-Darwinism itself.

This theory’s sole aim of was to account for the fossil gaps that the neo-Darwinist model was unable to explain. However, it is completely irrational to explain away the fossil gaps by claims along the lines that “Birds suddenly emerged from reptile eggs.” For any species to evolve into another, there must be a very large and beneficial change in its genetic data. Yet no mutation can develop genetic information or add any new data to it. Mutations lead solely to a loss of, or damage to, existing data. The wholesale mutations imagined by the adherents of punctuated evolution would actually represent reductions and defects in genetic information.

Like the neo-Darwinist model, the punctuated evolution model collapses at the outset when faced with the question of how the first living thing came into existence. Since a single protein cannot come into being by chance, organisms composed of trillions of proteins cannot emerge in a punctuated or gradual manner.

At present, the punctuated evolution theory maintains that living populations exhibit no changes for long periods of time, remaining in a kind of equilibrium. According to the claim, evolutionary changes take place in very brief spaces of time among very narrow populations. (Equilibrium is thus interrupted, or “punctuated.”) Since the population is so very small, mutations are quickly chosen by way of natural selection, and the emergence of new species is thus made possible.

According to this theory, a reptile species can survive for millions of years without undergoing any changes. However, one small group of reptiles that somehow separates away from the others is subjected, in a manner that is not explained, to a series of intense mutations. The group evolves rapidly and soon turns into a new reptile species, or maybe even into mammals. Since this process takes place very quickly within a narrow population, very few fossil traces, if any, are left behind.

Close inspection shows that this theory was proposed to answer the question, of “How can evolution progress so fast as to leave no fossil trace behind?” In developing an answer, two fundamental assumptions are made:

  1. That macro-mutations, wide-raging mutations that cause major changes in genetic data, provided advantages for living things and produced new genetic information. (See The Macro-Evolution Deceit.)
  2. That narrow animal populations are genetically advantaged. (See Narrow Population.)

Yet both assumptions conflict with the scientific facts.

 

NOTES

166.Prof. Dr. Eşref Deniz, Tıbbi Biyoloji, 4th Edition, Ankara, 1992, p. 354.

167.Science, July 17, 1981, p. 289.

168.N. Eldredge, and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, Columbia University Press, 1982, pp. 45-46.

169.S. M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, New York: Basic Books Inc. Publishers, 1981, p. 71.

170. G. A. Clark, C. M. Willermet, Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 76

171. Niles Eldredge, Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, pp. 126-127.

172.Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time, New York: The Free Press, 1999, pp. 116-117.

173.http://www.catholicintl.com/noncatholicissues/devolution.htm

174.Paul J. Morris, and Susan F. Morris, “The Panda's Thumb,” Jan 2000 http://www.athro.com/evo/pthumb.html

175.“The Panda’s Thumb . . . No Evidence For Evolution” http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/panda.html

176.Endo, H., Yamagiwa, D., Hayashi, Y. H., Koie, H., Yamaya, Y., and Kimura, J., “Role of the giant panda’s ‘pseudo-thumb’”, Nature, Vol. 397, 1999, p. 309.

177.Özer Bulut, Davut Sağdıç, Selim Korkmaz, Biyoloji Lise 3, MEB Basımevi, Istanbul, 2000, p. 182.

178.Musa Özet, Osman Arpacı, Ali Uslu, Biyoloji 3, Sürat Yayınları, August 1999, p. 254.

179.Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose, Molecular Evolution and The Origin of Life, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1972, p. 4.

180.Gish, D. T., Evolution: The Fossils Say “No,” San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1979.

181.Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59.

182.Stephen Jay Gould, “Piltdown Revisited,” Natural History, March 1979, p. 98.

183.Kenneth Oakley, William Le Gros Clark & J. S, “Piltdown,” Meydan Larousse, Vol. 10, p. 133.

184.Stephen Jay Gould, “Smith Woodward's Folly,” New Scientist, p. 444.

185.Mahlon B. Hoagland, Hayatın Kökleri (“The Roots of Life”), pp.78-79.

186.Ibid, p. 149.

187.Peter Radetsky, “Life's Crucible,” Earth, February 1998, p. 34.

188.“The Rise of Life on Earth,” National Geographic, March 1998.

189.Jeffrey Bada, Earth, February 1998, p. 40.

190.Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348.

191.Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalıtım ve Evrim (Heredity and Evolution”), p. 61.

192. W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 304.

193.Ibid., p.305.

194.J. D. Thomas, Evolution and Faith, Abilene, TX: ACU Press, , 1988, pp. 81-82.

195.Reinhard Junker, Siefried Scherer, Enstehung und Geschichte der Lebewesen, Wegel Biologie, Brühlsche Universitatsdruckerei, Giessen, 1986, p.175.

196.Ibid

197.Stephen M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1979, pp. 35, 159.

 

6 / total 13
You can read Harun Yahya's book The Evolution Impasse II online, share it on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, download it to your computer, use it in your homework and theses, and publish, copy or reproduce it on your own web sites or blogs without paying any copyright fee, so long as you acknowledge this site as the reference.
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