Part 2 - Darwinists have Deceived the Whole World with Frauds 2/5
1. The Claim That "The First Cell Emerged from Muddy Water" Is a Fraud
According to Darwin's theory of evolution, there was a mythical first cell that formed when various inanimate substances came together by chance. According to Darwinism, everything began with that "first cell." And according to Darwinism, that fictitious "first cell" represents the origin of all life, butterflies, birds, lions, whales, eagles, rabbits, deer and eventually human beings who produce professors and technologies, found civilizations, journey into space and examine their own cells in laboratories.
According to Darwinism, the source of this mythical first cell is supposedly a bit of muddy water, time and chance! According to the religion of Darwinism, these three "magic" and "intelligent" things somehow came together to produce the cell, with all its organelles and irreducible complexity, with its exceptionally complex and flawless mechanisms, that not even Nobel prize-winning scientists have been able to manufacture in laboratories equipped with 21st-century technology, and whose details human beings have been striving to understand for around half a century! Moreover, these three "wondrous" forces also combined to give rise to all the glorious life we see on Earth today. The religion of Darwinism seeks to convince people of this nonsense.
But the fact is that this is a terrible fraud and falsehood.
In fact, the fantasy of this first cell emerging from muddy water invented by Darwinists is entirely compatible with the very backward level of science and technology in Darwin's time. Bearing in mind that Darwin thought the cell was just a sack of jelly, this childish account is just what one might expect from the knowledge and scientific understanding of that era. It was easier to deceive people at that time since they had no idea what the cell was like. But the findings that emerged from the science of genetics once again proved that Darwinism is a total deception. In the light of our present-day knowledge, just one of all the countless proteins possessed by the cell is enough to refute the theory of evolution. Proteins are highly complex structures, and it is impossible for them to come into being by chance. So much so that it is impossible to reproduce them even with 21st-century technology under conscious and controlled laboratory conditions. To maintain that such a structure came into being by chance in a puddle of muddy water is scientifically ludicrous and even a violation of reason and logic. The American philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer expresses the impossibility of a single protein forming by chance in these words:
Consider the probabilistic hurdles that must be overcome to construct even one short protein molecule of about 100 amino acids in length. First, all amino acids must form a chemical bond known as a peptide bond so as to join with other amino acids in the protein chain. Yet in nature many other types of chemical bonds are possible between amino acids. The probability of building a chain of 100 amino acids in which all linkages involve peptide bonds is roughly 1 chance in 1030.
Second, in nature every amino acid has a distinct mirror image of itself, one left-handed version (or L-form) and one right-handed version (or D-form). These mirror-image forms are called optical isomers. Functioning proteins tolerate only left-handed amino acids, yet the right-handed and left-handed isomers occur in nature with roughly equal frequency. Taking this into consideration compounds the improbability of attaining a biologically functioning protein. The probability of attaining at random only L-amino acids in a hypothetical peptide chain 100 amino acids long is (1/2)100 or again roughly 1 chance in 1030.
Third and most important of all, functioning proteins must have amino acids that link up in a specific sequential arrangement, just like the letters in a meaningful sentence. Because there are 20 biologically occurring amino acids, the probability of getting a specific amino acid at a given site is one in twenty, or five percent. Even if we assume that some sites along the chain will tolerate several amino acids (using the variances determined by biochemist Robert Sauer of MIT), we find that the probability of achieving a functional sequence of amino acids in several functioning proteins at random is still "vanishingly small," roughly 1 chance in 1065—an astronomically large number—for a protein only one hundred amino acids in length. (Actually the probability is even lower because there are many nonproteinous amino acids in nature that we have not accounted for in this calculation.)
If one also factors in the probability of attaining proper bonding and optical isomers, the probability of constructing a rather short, functional protein at random becomes so small as to be effectively zero (no more than 1 chance in 10125), even given our multi-billion-year-old universe. Consider further that equally severe probability difficulties attending the random assembly of functional DNA. Moreover, a minimally complex cell requires not one, but at least 100 complex proteins (and many other biomolecular components such as DNA and RNA) all functioning in close coordination. For this reason, quantitative assessments of cellular complexity have simply reinforced an opinion that has prevailed since the mid-1960s within origin-of-life biology: chance is not an adequate explanation for the origin of biological complexity and specificity.33
Above and beyond all this, the really important point to be concentrated on is that proteins must already exist in order for other proteins to form. Up to 100 proteins have to be at work in order for a single protein to form. All these proteins have to be present inside a fully formed cell at the same time and the same place and with all their organelles. Therefore, proteins, DNA and the cell have to exist before the protein does. This fact by itself demolishes Darwinists' claims. Darwinists are unable to explain how even a single protein came into being.
Even if we were to assume that all these complex structures did come into being in an impossible way (i. e., by chance), Darwinists still have to explain how data enough to fill a million encyclopedia pages inside such a glorious molecule as DNA could come into existence by pure happenstance. But as with all issues regarding the cell and the origin of life, Darwinists have no explanation for this either. According to the perverse Darwinist mindset, the extraordinary information inside a cell that formed by chance in muddy water must also have come about by chance due to external factors. The wondrous information inside DNA was actually created together with it.
Darwinists claim that "the cell formed by chance in muddy water" is an outdated belief from the time of Darwin, who imagined that the cell was a simple sack of jelly. But this nonsense dating back to the 19th century has been totally invalidated today, when science and technology have made such great progress. While there are countless structures that all have to be accounted for in a living body, Darwinism cannot even account for how a single protein came into being. But Darwinists behave as if they were unaware of all these impossibilities. This impossible formation in muddy water is still described in evolutionist publications, much in the same way that people tell each other fairy tales. The aim is to be able to deceive the public with this unscientific, illogical and also unproven account. According to the adherents of this superstitious religion, the more people who believe in this nonsense, the more people will fall under the spell of Darwinism.
But people no longer believe in Darwinists' false tales. Everything in creation, the universe and all within it, exhibit the sublime might and power of our Almighty Lord. In the Qur'an, our Almighty Lord speaks of the sublime creation of the cell and man:
We created man from the purest kind of clay; then made him a drop in a secure receptacle; then formed the drop into a clot and formed the clot into a lump and formed the lump into bones and clothed the bones in flesh; and then brought him into being as another creature. Blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators! (Surat al-Muminun, 12-14)
No matter how much people who look for explanations outside the Qur'an try to provide facile accounts for the glory on Earth, it is still an absolute and certain fact that these works created by Allah are magnificent and glorious. There is no room for the theory of evolution in the face of this sublime creation. Almighty Allah describes the greatness of the works He creates in this verse:
The creation of the heavens and earth is far greater than the creation of mankind. But most of mankind do not know it. (Surah Ghafir, 57)
2. The Claim That "Natural Selection Causes Evolution" Is a Fraudulent One
Darwin proposed the concept of natural selection as a supposed "evolutionary mechanism" in the 1800s.
The idea of natural selection is based on the idea that the strongest or most powerful life forms, well adapted to their natural surroundings will survive. For example, in a herd of zebra menaced by lions, the zebras that run the fastest will survive.
Natural selection is certainly a mechanism observed among living things in nature. But it does not possess the ability, as imagined by evolutionists, to bestow new features on life forms and thus create new species.
We can clarify this with an example: Let us imagine that in a certain geographical region there are two similar kinds of dogs, one of which has significantly longer fur than the other. If the temperature in this region falls significantly for some ecological reason, then the longer haired dogs will be more resistant than the shorter haired ones. As a result, the longer haired dogs will gradually come to have an advantage, meaning that they will live longer, find food more easily and reproduce more successfully. After a while, the number of shorter haired dogs will decrease considerably, and they will either migrate to warmer climates or else become extinct. In other words, the longer haired dogs will be favored by natural selection and be advantaged over the other kind.
But please note that no new breed of dog emerges during this process. One of the two breeds that were already in existence acquired an advantage through natural selection. It is not the case that as a result of natural selection long haired dogs appeared where there had not been any before. It is in any case absolutely impossible for these dogs to turn into another species.
In short, new species and new characteristics do not appear by way of natural selection, only the probability of survival of an already existing species changes. Since no new species or characteristics form, it is impossible to speak of "evolution" taking place as evolutionists claim. To put it another way, no "evolution" can come about through natural selection. Indeed, Darwin himself admitted as much:
... natural selection is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures.34
No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.35
Natural selection is not a mechanism that produces anything new and thus causes species to change, nor does it work miracles such as causing a reptile to gradually turn into a bird. In the words of the well-known biologist D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson, "... we are entitled ... to see in natural selection an inexorable force, whose function is not to create but to destroy—to weed, to prune, to cut down and to cast into the fire."36
Darwinists are therefore lying when they describe natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. Even though they know full well that natural selection does not bring about evolution, they still try to openly impose this deception. Desiring to adopt the legacy inherited from Darwin, and not having been able to invent a new mechanism for their imaginary scenario, makes them intensely devoted to this outdated claim and terrible falsehood. There are still Darwinist scientists today who adhere to this terrible lie. Those who have seen that this lie cannot be maintained have come up with another lie: the idea that "mutations cause evolution."
3. The Idea That "Mutations Cause Evolution" Is a Falsehood
Mutations are dislocations, breaks and impairments as a result of radiation or chemical effects in the DNA molecule in the nucleus of the living cell which carries all the information about a human being. The information in DNA is set out by 4 separate nucleotides, symbolized by the letters A, T, C and G, laid out in a special and significant sequence. But an error in a single letter in that sequence will damage the entire structure. For example, the leukemia observed in children appears because one of the nucleotide sequences in the DNA is incorrect. The reason for diseases such as cancer appearing or subsequent generations being deformed as a result of the radiation leakage at Chernobyl, or the atom bomb dropped over Hiroshima, is again because of the harmful effects of mutations occurring in people's bodies.
Almost all mutations are harmful, and they are generally lethal to living things. Examples of mutations that are not harmful generally do the organism no good, and are at best neutral. Scientists have concluded that not a single mutation, out of all those that have been studied, has ever had a positive effect on the life of an organism.37
But the theory of evolution is based on these fictitious mutations that supposedly produce "new" living things and work miracles. Darwinists maintain that species emerge from one another through structures and organs appearing as a result of countless fictitious and beneficial mutations. This claim, which is a source of terrible shame for Darwinists, is put forward by Darwinist scientists who know that mutations always harm an organism. Furthermore, Darwinists are well aware of these harmful effects of mutations yet they still point to a mutant, four-winged fruit fly. The four-winged fruit fly emerged as a result of being subjected to radiation in the laboratory. Darwinists use this example in support of their claims. Darwinists portrayed the extra pair of wings produced in a fruit fly as a result of laboratory-engineered mutations as the greatest evidence that mutations could lead to evolution. But the two wings in question actually damage the creature rather than benefiting it, leading to its losing the ability to fly. The University of California at Berkeley molecular biologist Jonathan Wells summarizes the position as follows:
In the 1970s, Cal Tech geneticist Edward B. Lewis discovered that by carefully breeding three mutant strains he was able to produce a fruit fly in which the balancers were transformed into a second pair of normal-looking wings.
At first glance, this might seem to provide evidence for Carroll's claim that small developmental changes in regulatory DNA can produce large evolutionary changes in form. But the fruit fly is still a fruit fly. Furthermore, although the second pair of wings looks normal, it has no flight muscles. A four-winged fruit fly is like an airplane with a second pair of wings dangling uselessly from its tail. It has great difficulty flying or mating, so it can survive only in the laboratory. As evidence for evolution, a four-winged fruit fly is no better than a two-headed calf in a circus sideshow.38
Disabled fruit flies with extra wings or missing legs have taught us something about developmental genetics, but nothing about evolution. All of the evidence points to one conclusion: no matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes – a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even a horsefly, much less a horse.39
As we have seen, the four-winged mutant fruit fly that is the only evidence that Darwinists point to in support of their warped claims is in fact nothing more than a disabled fruit fly. No matter what effect mutations may have on a life form, they do not possess the miraculous property of bestowing a characteristic belonging to another life form onto it. But Darwinists want people to believe the lie that miracles occur in living things by way of mutations.
The interesting thing is that although Darwinist scientists know that the fruit fly in question is defective, attempts are still made to depict it as the greatest evidence for evolution by mutation in school textbooks. Jonathan Wells writes:
According to Peter Raven and George Johnson's 1999 textbook, Biology, "all evolution begins with alterations in the genetic message… Genetic change through mutation and recombination [the re-arrangement of existing genes] provides the raw materials for evolution." The same page features a photo of a four-winged fruit fly, which is described as "a mutant because of changes in Ultrabithorax, a gene regulating a critical stage of development; it possesses two thoracic segments and thus two sets of wings."
Adding to the confusion, textbook accounts typically leave the reader with the impression that the extra wings represent a gain of structures. But four-winged fruit flies have actually lost structures which they need for flying. Their balancers are gone, and instead of being replaced with something new have been replaced with copies of structures already present in another segment. Although pictures of four-winged fruit flies give the impression that mutations have added something new, the exact opposite is closer to the truth.40
Even if we assume that the "fictitious first cell" that Darwinists claim represents the beginning of life and that cannot possibly have come into being by chance did actually emerge spontaneously, even the smallest stage of the imaginary evolutionary process that would have to take place to give rise to a human with his complex structure would require an astounding amount of information to be produced and countless mutations to take place. "All" of these many mutations have to be beneficial to the life form or else bring about the appearance of something "new." A single error in this fictitious developing life form will cause the entire system to go wrong and collapse. Ninety-nine percent of mutations are harmful while only one percent are neutral. It flies in the face of both reason and science, therefore, to suggest that every single one of these mutations that would have to take place according to the theory of evolution can be beneficial.
It is therefore impossible for a brand new organ or characteristic that did not exist before to appear by chance as the result of mutations. Mutations have no power to bestow new information on a life form that does not belong to it, or to turn it into a different organism. The idea of mutation represents the greatest manifestation of the falsehood and illogicality of Darwinism because the idea of evolution is based on these illusory "beneficial mutations" that do not in fact exist.
The Infinite Amount of Time Needed for Hypothetical Beneficial Mutations
Even if we hypothesize that beneficial mutations could take place, the idea of mutation is still incompatible with the theory of evolution. In a paper titled "The Inadequacy of Neo-Darwinian Evolution As a Scientific Theory," Professor Murray Eden from the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Faculty of Electrical Engineering showed that if it required a mere six mutations to bring about an adaptive change, this would occur by chance only once in a billion years - while, if two dozen genes were involved, it would require 10,000,000,000 years, which is much longer than the age of the Earth.41 Even if we assume that mutations were effective and beneficial in complex organs, and structures requiring more than one mutation to occur at the same time, mathematicians still say the problem of time is an acute dilemma for Darwinists. Even Professor of Paleontology George G. Simpson, one of the most unrepentant Darwinists, clearly states that it would take an infinite length of time for five mutations to happen at the same time.42 An infinite amount of time means zero probability. And that is a probability which applies to all the structures and organs possessed by living things. Thus, there is no possibility of the glorious variety of life we see in our daily lives coming about through mutations.
The evolutionist George G. Simpson has performed another calculation regarding the mutation claim in question. He admitted that in a community of 100 million individuals, which could hypothetically produce a new generation every day, a positive outcome from mutations would only take place once every 274 billion years. That number is many times greater than the age of the Earth, estimated to be at 4.5 billion years old.43 These, of course, are all calculations assuming that mutations have a positive effect on the generations which gave rise to them, and on subsequent generations; but no such assumption applies in the real world.
Why Is the Body That Is Supposedly Evolving Protected against Mutations?
All evolutionist scientists know that the probability of a replication error occurring in a living organism's DNA for no reason is very low. Research has revealed that there are protective elements in the cell that prevent genetic errors from arising. The information in DNA cannot be copied in the absence of particular enzymes that control one another against errors. These include double-filter enzymes for ensuring that the right amino acid binds to the right tRNA. One filter rejects amino acids that are too large, and the other those that are too small. This is a very sensitive and rational system. There are also enzymes that do final checks against the possibility of any error arising in this intelligent system. Scientists have concluded that they could not imagine a better cellular control and protection system aimed at maintaining the integrity of DNA.44
Pierre Paul Grassé, who spent 30 years as professor of evolution at the Sorbonne, wrote this on the subject:
The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer's "Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecules leading to the formation of the eye.45
Darwinists ignore this miraculous system present in DNA and avoid going deeply into the subject and coming up with any explanation of it; yet they construct a scenario of the history of life built on replication errors with an almost zero possibility of happening. This once again reveals the nonsensical nature of Darwinist logic.
Following the realization that Darwin's idea of natural selection most definitely did not constitute an account of evolution and the emergence of the laws of genetics becoming a lethal blow to Darwinism, the claim of the "evolutionary effect of mutations," which had been the main weapon of neo-Darwinism, was seen to be no more than a deception. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that a mechanism such as a mutation, which damages, destroys and kills the living organism, as well as sometimes harming all subsequent generations, can give rise to entirely new living things. But masses of people were taken in by this lie for years. Darwinist scientists of course know that mutations have no such miraculous power. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the present day's most fervid Darwinists, admits that "most mutations are deleterious, so some undesirable side effect is pretty likely."46 The reason why Darwinists still propose this discredited claim as a mechanism for evolution is their devotion to the superstitious religion of Darwinism.