Evolution Hoax

< <
4 / total: 8

Dr. Anjeanette AJ Roberts's Presentation:
"Un-Equivocating Evolution"

I too would like to thank the organization of Technics & Science Research for inviting us to Turkey. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed my visit to Turkey and it is obvious to me that Turkey’s greatest resource is her people. And so we pray often for your peace and for your welfare especially in light of recent events.

So, perhaps you’ve heard this statement, I was once asked if I believe this statement is true. ‘There is more evidence for evolution than there is that the Earth revolves around the Sun’. Well, it might be true. It depends on what you mean by the word evolution. And that’s what the rest of my talk is about.


Evolution is a word that is often equivocated. Equivocation is a process that depends on the word having more than one meaning. It involves using a word in a context where the meaning is glossed over in order to make a faulty assertion and to make it more defensible. In equivocating you're assuming one meaning but actually using the word in a different context. This is often what happens with the word evolution. Someone makes a statement like this. Is it true? Well, it can be. But it may also be false. It is critical by what you mean by evolution. The word evolution, we're going to spend the next several minutes un-equivocating this word. Trying to bring some clarity to whether or not this statement might be true. The word is used in different contexts. Actually in reference to five different categories of different types of naturalistic processes that are dependent on different underlying mechanisms to work.

These are the five categories that we will be looking at: Chemical evolution, microevolution, microbial evolution, speciation, and macro-evolution. My colleague Fazale Rana just spoke to you in some detail within 30 minutes about chemical evolution. So I will not spend too much time on this topic and I will only highlight a couple of hurdles that chemical evolution faces.

But chemical evolution as Fazale Rana said refers to the process of generating life from non-life. It is sometimes called abiogenesis. And it is synthesizing biogenic molecules from inorganic compounds. And these are the building blocks for cells. It is, at the basis of the naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. But the hurdles it faces are many. One of them are the chemistries required for the syntheses of many of the biogenic molecules. These chemistries are not compatible with one another. So if you’re trying to generate a sugar, you’ll have a different chemistry than if you’re trying to generate a fatty acid or a nucleic acid which is at the heart of the DNA and RNA. But not only are the chemistries not compatible with one another, the chemistries are not compatible with early earth conditions.

A second hurdle which I will spend a little more time on is the homo-chirality of the sugars in RNA and DNA. And also the homo-chirality of amino acids that are found in proteins. Chirality refers to the orientation of a molecule, and is sometimes referred to as the "handedness" of a molecule. If you think about your left hand and your right hand you can see that they are mirror opposites of one another. Although both have a palm, and thumbs, and four fingers you cannot superimpose one upon the other because they’re mirror opposites. This is the problem of chirality. It is true that the sugars in DNA and RNA, and the amino acids in all proteins share only one orientation. Either a right-handedness for sugars or a left-handedness for amino acids. But if you try to generate sugars or amino acids through naturalistic processes in the laboratory, you don’t get a single type of left handed molecule for amino acids or a single type of right handed molecule for sugars. You get a mixture. That’s called a racemic mixture. And a ratio is about %50 left handed and %50 right handed sugars, %50 left handed and %50 right handed amino acids. This makes it very difficult to synthesize RNA or DNA because of steric inhibition and chain termination. Yet biological processes those that occur inside the cell in stark contrast, produce only left-handed amino acids and only right-handed sugars for RNA and DNA syntheses. This is a challenge for the naturalistic explanations of the origin of life. And I think it points to a Mind behind the molecules that we find in cellular processes. So all life in summary has only right handed sugars and only left handed amino acids. And yet there is no known naturally occurring mechanism for generating, or selecting, or stably maintaining a solution of only one or other molecule.

A third hurdle is the naturalistic account, for the origin of life, is one of information, which again my colleague Fazale Rana has spoken to you at length in his thirty minutes. The DNA as he described is the molecular blueprint for all genes and all gene regulations, and by RNA intermediance for all proteins that are produced inside the cell. The information that is stored in the DNA molecule is one that is often appealed to as indicating an Intelligent Designer. And many argue that it requires an Intelligent Designer or God to produce this type of information. But it is not the information that is most difficult to explain within the cell. There is also information at the system level, which Doctor Rana also referred to. How do the cells orient different proteins in different cellular subsystems that accomplish different molecular processes? Or where does the information come for structuring these things in the right orientation and also for making them work in concert together, in a way that is highly complex integrated and almost orchestrated like a symphony. It’s not enough to just account for the information in DNA but it’s necessary to account for this higher level subsystem metabolic process information as well.

Maybe it would help if I gave you an analogy. So if you think about trying to build a car from the ground up, you need all of the parts of the car. And each one whether it’s the plastic parts or the rubber parts or the metal parts or the gasoline, requires information on how to produce those parts. But it also requires mechanisms to produce those parts not just the information. Okay so, now you need information for the mechanisms, you need information for the production of parts but that’s still not enough. You’re left now with just parts of the car. You still need information on how the car systems interact in order to generate locomotion, in order to generate combustion. And so you have to have system level information in order to put the parts together in the right way, in order to get an automobile that you can drive. But even this, I think is a poor analogy for trying to express the complexity within a human cell, within a living cell. A better analogy would be, if someone was able to account for all of the functional inner actions all of the pieces, all of the mechanisms that are involved as something complex as the city of Istanbul.

The forth hurdle which I will not spend any time on since I have four more topics to talk about is that life on earth occurred very early. And the life that occurred on earth, occurred almost as soon as life could be sustained on earth. And it occurred in a highly complex and diversified manner. This challenges, as Fazale addressed in his talk, and I have mentioned so far in my talk, leads many scientists who are committed to a naturalistic paradigm, to appeal to something called panspermia. Panspermia is a hypothesis that the biogenic molecules are perhaps even life itself did not originate on earth. But it originated somewhere else in the universe. And then it was transmitted to earth either through natural things like comets or meteorites or perhaps through advanced species. But Panspermia does not actually account for the naturalistic origin of life. It just displaces the problem to some unknown place in the universe where the biochemical and physical and chemical laws would be the same, and where the challenges are producing life from non-life have not changed. They’ve just been moved to a different location. So panspermia is not a solution to the problem of the origin of life and in conclusion we must reach this: the chemical evolution is not a logical conclusion based on scientific evidence for the origin of life on earth. It is only a naturalistic appeal to account for what we see.

So the second category is microevolution. Microevolution is the process of accruing unguided changes or mutations in the DNA sequence. The mechanism and the characteristics of microevolution are two-fold: they are unguided or random and they occur through natural selection. These two elements, unguided and natural selection are the hallmarks of Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolution. The mutations themselves occur due to different types of stress that are encountered by the organism. Such as UV radiation, hormone responses to stress or heat. And as a result the DNA can become damaged, it can break. But repair mechanisms exist within the cell, they can repair and rejoin the double stranded DNA ends. Mutations can then occur either through damage done to the DNA or through the repair mechanism itself. Unguided mutations in the nucleic acid sequence can also occur when the DNA is replicated by the polymerase protein. As it copies the nucleic acid sequence sometimes it makes mistakes. And it has the ability to actually correct mistakes but it is not 100% accurate in correcting mistakes. So it still makes a mistake about one in every ten million base pairs. So mutations can result from damaged or broken DNA, repair of DNA, or replication of DNA.

The main point is that according to evolutionist claims: mutations create variability and when there is variability, selection can occur through natural processes. This means when a mutation occurs that allows an organism to survive and thrive in a given environment then that organism will survive and thrive. If on the other hand it is a deleterious mutation, then the organism will not survive nor thrive.

It should be apparent and Dr. Rana also pointed this out, that natural selection is non teleological. It’s his blind watchmaker reference. It’s not goal-oriented, it’s not being driven towards a specific goal or a specific purpose. It is simply natural selection done through the blind process that cannot foresee which mutations might one day provide the ability to thrive in a different environment or in a more complex organism. This is a very important element in the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory: that evolution including microevolution is non teleological.

I find this to be one of the biggest and most confusing problems that people face when they talk about evolution and specifically about cellular and molecular biological processes. It actually leads them to endow the organism with the teleology of the organism’s own design. The organism becomes self directing towards some explicit goal, present or future. And others endow molecules or segments of DNA with an intention to survive and propagate. Perhaps you’ve heard of “selfish genes”. At heart, this is imaginative story telling effect to captivate an audience. At worst it is utterly nonsensical and ridiculous. Either way it is not scientific. In fact, it's counterintuitive to what we know is true about scientific mechanisms and processes. But cells and organisms are so richly endowed with complexity and adaptive capacities and variations that it is hard to describe such layers of complexity without resorting to language like this which is often wrongly employed.

So the third category of evolution is microbial evolution. Microbial evolution refers to the process of unicellular organisms such as bacteria, archaea, simple eukaryotes, yeast, etc. as they rapidly reproduce and adapt to changing environments via selection of beneficial micro evolutionary mutations and promiscuous gene swapping. So bacteria and other single cell organisms can actually gain genetic information through three different mechanisms. The first is one called conjugation. Conjugation occurs when bacteria come and contact with one another, and one bacteria transmits genetic information to a different bacteria. The second type of horizontal gene transfer or exchange of genetic information is transduction. Transduction is vector-mediated. Viruses that infect bacteria can carry genetic information into the bacteria and if it’s a temperate virus it remains in the bacteria without killing the bacteria and the bacteria can replicate having gained new genetic information from the virus. A third mechanism the bacteria or single cell organisms can use to exchange genetic information is one called transduction or sometimes transformation. And this occurs when a bacteria dies or it is lysed, it releases genetic information into the environment. At such a time it’s possible for other bacteria to come and contact with the genetic information and take it up into itself, acquiring new genetic information from the bacteria that had just lysed.

So whether it’s through horizontal gene transfer or micro-evolutionary mutations transfer of genetic material again is unguided and non teleological, and can be deleterious or beneficial or neutral. But it should be obvious that once the genetic information is taken up into a bacteria, then it can quickly spread throughout the population of subsequent progeny. Because it’s a single cell organism. So all the mutations that occur in a single cell are then reproduced in all of the progeny that result from that cell. So this mechanism is a very powerful mechanism that allows bacteria and single cell organisms to survive and thrive in changing environments.

This brings us now to our forth category which is speciation. And much like the word evolution which we’re in the process of trying to un-equivocate, species is an other world that is often equivocated, used in many different terms and meanings under different conditions. It actually has a name. It’s called the species problem. And the species problem results from a wide range of approaches in defining how species are identified and in how species function in nature. And each approach for trying to identify how species function and how they’re identified within themselves is known as a species concept. And currently, there are at least twenty six different recognized species concepts. That’s phenomenal. But the important point is that you must be very careful to know what the other person is talking about when they are going to use the word species, especially in the context of this topic of speciation.

So speciation refers to the process in which a given species becomes genetically, phenotypically, and by appearance, behaviorally distinct species, typically do to geographical isolation, that results in reproductively independent groups. During speciation, radiation events occur when a single starting species is split into various ecological niches where they encounter variable environmental pressures.

In relative isolation, organisms undergo different types of environmental stresses and pressures that effect the organism at a micro-evolutionary level and also at a genetic-drift level because now we’re talking about multicellular organisms that sexually reproduce. These variables stresses and environmental pressures can also result in epigenetic changes that can affect a species’ phenotype and behavior.

And over time, each niche will mold and support a species that will be specific to that ecological niche. So Darwin actually described a speciation event in the observation of the different types of finches on the Galapagos Islands. He identified fifteen or sixteen different types of finch that were primarily one of the homework of the different species was the size and width and thickness of the beak of the finch. But recent studies have indicated that beak morphology or the shape of the beak changes in an oscillating fashion not in a progressive fashion towards some new and novel structure. So in wet environments the beak will be thin and narrow. In dry environments the beaks will tend to be thicker and wider. So this suggests at least one level speciation results from a type of phenotypic plasticity that is adaptive to varying environmental changes. In other words, it's not unidirectional change or a progression to something utterly new. It's an oscillating change. And it’s also not allowing an organism to make giant leaps from one taxonomical level to another. All of Darwin's finches remained finches.

Evolutionists erroneously maintain that living things on different continents or in different environments develop into different species. However, the different characteristics arising in different regions are nothing more than population differences. The genetic combination of those life forms obliged to reproduce in any one region is restricted, and specific characteristics in their genes come to the fore. Yet there is no question of any new species emerging.

It’s also true for evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould’s research in snails, also on an island environment, where the snails were isolated into different geographical regions. But again, what Stephen Jay Gould described was biodiversity within snails that were well suited to particular ecological niches. But they were all snails. It wasn’t adaptive diversification within snails. More recently, red and eastern wolves, which are geographically, phenotypically, and behaviorally distinct canids have been examined at a genomic level. These canids are actually protected as endangered species in the US and in Canada. But at the genomic level, what they’ve discovered is that these different species are really just genetic hybrids of coyotes and grey wolves.

This new data is actually threatening their protected classification and status as endangered species and it highlights the species problem in regard to evolution. Much like selective breeding in dogs, wolves, coyotes seem to be the result of variations over time within an ongoing species-radiation event. No doubt populations are now isolated certainly by behavioral and geographic constraints, but the various "species" may not actually be isolated in the sense that they can no longer cross breed. So recent research also shows a connection of species within an ecological web. But yet even these examples, contrary to what papers claim, has no significance to macroevolution the change in a particular species into a different kind or different taxonomical classification.

And even if we, like the North American wolf study shows choose to call species something entirely different like wolves, coyotes or dogs it doesn’t mean that one kind, a canid is giving rise to something other than a canid. Finches remained finches, snails remained snails, plants, flies and wasps although they’re changing and co-adapting together, remained plants, flies and wasps.

Finally, if we consider the speciation in the context of humanity and what we believe as Christians, that there was a primordial human pair Adam and Eve, that were created in God’s image according to Torah: In His image, He created them male and female. If you believe the scientific data that dates mitochondrial Eve, and Y-chromosomal Adam to one hundred and fifty thousand years ago, then all of the diversity that we see in the human population today, results from an ongoing speciation event in humanity. Consider the differences of the major races and ethnicities. Compare some of the island groups of Australia to Asia or Middle Eastern or European or Native American people. Or consider a dwarf and compare it to an extremely tall human being. Nevertheless, no matter our diversity is, we are all human. We are all homo sapien sapiens.

The last category is that of macro-evolution. And be very careful here because this is where equivocation takes place most often. Macroevolution refers to a series of naturalistic processes. It’s occurring over long stretches of time, that account for all of life’s history, forms, and complexity resulting from descent with modification under pressures of natural selection, acting upon unguided changes in population genetics, in a contingent and non-teleological fashion. It is supposed that macroevolution involves multiple different mechanisms for achieving its end goals.

One mechanism is that of genome duplication. But genome duplication is simply replicating a genome that you already have, you now have twice as much that genome. And it provides no new information, just greater amounts of DNA. In current observation, genome duplication in human cells is most frequently associated with cancer. And so this type of genetic increase in information is actually deleterious. Similarly with translocation or jumping genes for some segments of DNA can be transferred and copied into new positions in the chromosome or different positions in the genome, this type of mechanism can shuffle DNA, information within a genome and replicate some portions of the DNA, it’s not providing new DNA. And in current observations these two is associated with human diseases.

Horizontal gene transfer, although it occurs by viral mediated mechanisms, it is not the same as that occurs in single cellular organisms. For horizontal gene transfer, to even take a hold in a human population, it absolutely must occur in the germ line, in the egg of the female or the sperm of the male. Two other mechanisms, co-option or symbiogenesis are often appealed to as well, to account for some of the diversity. But each of these has its own hurdle.

Generation of new organisms by these mechanisms is not evident today. It is rather an appeal to a sketchy, if not well-imagined, extrapolation of observed complex interdependence of symbiotic organisms to account for large-scale naturalistic changes in life's history. Although many mechanisms are appealed to for macroevolution, no plausible account has yet rationally and reasonably described the “muddy middle layer of mechanism”.

No credible mechanism or explanation has been offered for generating true novelty. No account can be given for the rapid appearance of most known phyla and fossils that occurred 540 million years ago in the Cambrian explosion. No true transitional species has ever been identified in the fossil record or through phylogenetic analysis. And no genetic map exists showing a clear Darwinian pathway from one order, kingdom, phyla, class or order to another.

So what do we do with the evidence? I believe the evidence concludes that we must reject chemical evolution and macroevolution as not being well evidenced in scientific data. Each of us knowingly or unknowingly interprets the data in a way that fits into our view of reality. Molecular adaptation I think is a better phrase or perhaps even molecular variation to take the place of the word evolution in our opening statement. I think it’s better to rephrase “There is more evidence for a molecular based adaptation or variation of highly complex and wildly diverse organisms than there is that the Earth revolves around the Sun”.

But I think that this view supports the view of progressive creationism: that God created life over long apex of time, according to specific kinds. And God endowed his creatures with the ability to adapt to challenging and changing environments for their continued survival. So progressive creationism is a reasonable and rational conclusion, concordant with the data, accounting for the diversity and early appearance of complex life. And it also accounts for the fine-tuning and intelligibility of the universe, which my colleague Dr. Zweerink will talk about this afternoon.

As a first century follower of Jesus puts it, "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the Earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see His invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.” (Romans, 1:20)

Or as the Psalm of David puts it:

“The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display His craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make Him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world.” (Psalms, 19:1-4)

Former atheist and philosopher, Anthony Flew actually converted to theism before his death. Even though he was a major proponent of atheism prior to this. And he puts it this way near the end of his life:

"We have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and only a deliberate refusal to 'look' is responsible for atheism of any kind.” (A. Flew, There is A God, Harper Collins, 2008, p. 163)

Francis Crick says that, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” (F. Crick, What Mad Pursuit, New York, Basic Books, 1998, p. 138) Francis Crick, co-discover of the structure of DNA was a naturalist. And the only basis for his comment is an undying dedication to a naturalistic paradigm, not a clear and open-minded examination of the evidence.

So, in conclusion I would say that a Christian paradigm or theistic paradigm is far better for science than a Darwinian, naturalistic paradigm. Because according to the Christian paradigm, theistic paradigm, natural laws allow reproducible regularities that we can examine. We must observe the world in order to know what it is like. As my colleague said in introduction, nature is a reliable revelation of God. The Scriptures tell us that God reveals Himself in nature. And He has created for us for inquiry and discovery. He wants to be known. The Scriptures also tell us that truth can be sought and obtained in the words of Jesus when we seek with all of our hearts, we will find the truth. In conclusion, God wants to be known and He has revealed himself clearly to those who have an open mind and a humble heart in nature and in scriptures and in the person of Jesus Christ. So those who seek will find that there is a Creator of all that we see.

Thanks be to God!

Protein Cannot Form Unless the Cell Exists as an Integral Whole

Darwinists can write as many deceptive books jam packed with formulae, produce as many false fossils as they like, make as many demagogic assaults on the scientific evidence for Creation as they choose or stick posters up full of fantastical illustrations and present these as exhibitions of evolution all over the place, but none of this will ever change the fact of their fundamental defeat. Because the worst nightmare for Darwinists is the very beginning of life. Darwinists HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE A SINGLE EXPLANATION of how just one protein came into being. This is an expression of the despairing situation into which, Dawkins, Futuyma, Tim White and all other Darwinists now find themselves. None of this demagoguery can resolve this great and stupendous rout in the face of a single protein. A SINGLE PROTEIN HAS TOTALLY DEMOLISHED DARWINISM.

One important feature of Darwinist demagoguery is that Darwinists always tended to reduce the question of the origin of life to the very simple, despite all the complexity of life, by portraying everything within it as very simple. That is the reason for such myths as “the cell emerged from muddy water” and “DNA spontaneously began replicating itself.” Darwinists imagined it would be easier to deceive people in this way. But they have now seen that the time for such deception has passed. Not only do people now know that a single protein is far too complex ever to come into being spontaneously, they are also aware that neither a protein, DNA, RNA or any other minute component of the cell WILL SERVE ANY PURPOSE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CELL AS A WHOLE.

This fact is of great importance in terms of the defeat of Darwinism:

  • ◉ DNA is essential for a single protein to form
  • ◉ DNA cannot form without protein
  • ◉ Protein cannot form without DNA
  • ◉ Protein cannot form in the absence of protein
  • ◉ Sixty separate proteins are needed for a single protein to form
  • ◉ Protein cannot form in the absence of any one of these
  • ◉ Protein cannot form with no ribosome
  • ◉ Protein cannot form with no RNA
  • ◉ Protein cannot form without ATP
  • ◉ Protein cannot form without the mitochondria to manufacture ATP
  • ◉ Protein cannot form without the cell nucleus
  • ◉ Protein cannot form without the cytoplasm
  • ◉ Protein cannot form in the absence of a single organelle in the cell
  • ◉ And proteins are necessary for all the organelles in the cell to exist and function
  • ◉ There can be no protein without these organelles.

This is an interconnected system that has to function simultaneously. You cannot have one part without the other.

Even if one component exists, it will still not function in the absence of the others.

In short,

THE WHOLE CELL IS NECESSARY FOR A PROTEIN TO FORM. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A SINGLE PROTEIN TO FORM IN THE ABSENCE OF THE WHOLE CELL, with its perfect complex structure we see today, but of which we understand only a very small part.

Even if this protein did form spontaneously (which is in any case impossible), it will still serve no purpose. It will just wander around alone and die.


The Cambridge University Professor of Philosophy Stephen C. Meyer describes this in his book The Signature in the Cell:

Following the elucidation of the structure and function of DNA during the 1950s and early 1960s, a radically new conception of life began to emerge. Not only did molecular biologists discover that DNA carried information; they soon began to suspect that living organisms must contain systems for processing genetic information. Just as the digital information stored on a disc is useless without a device for reading the disc, so too is the information on DNA useless without the cell’s information-processing system. As Richard Lewontin notes, “No living molecule (i.e., biomolecule) is self-producing. Only whole cells may contain all the necessary machinery for self-reproduction... Not only is DNA incapable of making copies of itself, aided or unaided, but it is incapable of ‘making’ anything else... The proteins of the cell are made from other proteins, and without that protein-forming machinery nothing can be made.”8



Intracellular Molecular Machines That Perform Protein Care and Cleanup

In a typical mammal cell, there are approximately ten to twenty thousand functioning protein varieties. For a cell to be healthy, these proteins need to be healthy first. For this reason, the existence of intracellular quality control mechanisms is crucial.

The latest studies revealed a quality control system made up from proteins:

A protein leaves the ribosome as a chain formed by thousands of amino acids, however it can't fulfill its functions without transforming into the three-dimensional state folded onto itself. Proteins called chaperons transform these amino acid chains into their designed final state and turn them into functional nano-machines. However, during this folding phase, which requires sensitive connections at molecular level, errors can be made and broken amino acid aggregates can be formed.

Accumulation of this waste material poses a health risk for the cell and the entire body. Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, various heart diseases, diabetes and certain cancers arise due to improper handling of the intracellular protein balance. Faulty proteins cause "accumulation" by sticking to each other and other proteins and therefore a cytotoxic effect, in other words, intracellular intoxication ensues.9

For a cell to fulfill its functions in a healthy way, a broad and effective quality control network has to be in process at any given time. For this, faulty proteins should be collected and immediately removed from the cell. For this purpose, chaperon molecules and protein breakdown mechanisms that work in combination with each other have to be on continuous duty.

While chaperons enable folding, they also play a role in repair and maintenance tasks. They inspect other proteins for errors in quality. When they identify a misfolded broken protein, they engage the protein-breakdown mechanism. This is the ubiquitin-proteasome (protein degradation) system.

Protein breakdown is an annihilation process kept under tight control through consecutive steps. In addition to chaperons, Doa10 ligase enzyme was discovered to also detect faulty proteins.2 When a Doa10 enzyme detects a faulty protein, it marks that protein with the ubiquitin molecule. However, when generating the degradation signal, Ubc6 enzyme first has to attach the ubiquitin molecule to the faulty protein. Following this initial step, another enzyme, Ubc7 steps in and forms a homogeneous chain consisting of many ubiquitin molecules. Once the chain is completed, the annihilation process begins. As it is seen, two separate enzymes are needed for the breakdown signal to be triggered.10

At this phase, proteasome, which consists of 33 subunits and two sub-complexes, detects the ubiquitin and breaks the marked protein's peptide bonds. The faulty protein has now been separated into its amino acids.

When we consider the fact that 30% of the proteins produced within the cell are defected, we can understand how vital a role this garbage disposal system plays. Faulty production aside, in time, all properly functioning proteins wear down and are replaced by new ones and that means proteins, which have reached the end of their lifespan, are likewise marked and annihilated.

Each Detail in our Body is an İndication of a Magnificent Creation

If it were not for this precise control system, we could never speak of cellular health at all. This vital balance system has to function with the same perfection inside each one of the almost 100 trillion cells that constitute human body, which can only be explained by a superior management and coordination.

Proteins overseeing other proteins, molecules acting systematically in a specific order as well as the degradation system being activated only when and where it is needed, can be explained neither with coincidences nor other idle reasoning.

It is obvious that the absence of even one step in this process would lead to the cell’s death. There should be no deficiency in the entire system and all should be working in coordination at the same time. This evidently guides us to the truth that there is only a single “Power” Who has knowledge of all things and created life and all living things. The Owner of this marvelous and breathtaking Power is Almighty God, Who knows and has dominion over all things in the heavens and the earth.



Neo-Darwinism and Mutation Impasse

All mutations have always proved to be harmful for human beings as well as all other living things. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionary biologists have sought examples of beneficial mutations by creating mutant flies. But these efforts have always resulted in sick and deformed creatures. This fact is a great impasse in terms of Darwinist claims.

In order to find a solution, Darwinists advanced the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or as it is more commonly known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural mutation.

Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful.

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only harm it. The American geneticist B. G. Ranganathan explains this as follows:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement. (B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988, p. 7)

Not surprisingly, no mutation example, which is useful, that is, which is observed to develop the genetic code, has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. It was understood that mutation, which is presented as an "evolutionary mechanism," is actually a genetic occurrence that harms living things, and leaves them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on human beings is cancer.) Of course, a destructive mechanism cannot be an "evolutionary mechanism." Natural selection, on the other hand, "can do nothing by itself," as Darwin also accepted. This fact shows us that there is no "evolutionary mechanism" in nature. Since no evolutionary mechanism exists, no such imaginary process called "evolution" could have taken place.


All mutations observed on living beings have proved to be harmful. The reason is that the DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects on this molecule will only harm the organism. The result of any change due to mutations will only result in genetic disorders, fatality or disability. On the side, there are examples of deformed living beings that were subjected to mutations.

A. DNA Damage
2. Debilitated organisms due to mutations


The Speciation Deception

Evolutionists maintain that the first single-celled organism emerged billions of years ago from inorganic substances, and that the glorious diversity of life on Earth, emerged over the course of hundreds of millions of years. Note that according to the Darwinist claim, millions of species formed from one single species under the influence of natural processes and coincidence. As this irrational and unscientific claim shows, the formation of species—that is, speciation—represents the basis of the theory of evolution. It is particularly clear that a claim not based on concrete evidence, observations and scientific research is of no value at all. Darwinism's claim that one species turned into millions of other species is a huge one that requires countless amounts of evidence and findings. In fact, though, there is not a single piece of scientific evidence for evolutionists' claims regarding speciation ever since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have produced a conceptual confusion and depict variations as evidence for speciation.

First let's consider the concept of species to get a better understanding of the evolutionist deception. Descriptions have been produced by various experts from different biological fields. As put by Troy Wood and Loren Rieseberg of Indiana University, "Evolutionary biologists have proposed a diverse, almost innumerable list of species concepts…"11

Biologist John Endler explains the complication as follows:

Species are "tools that are fashioned for characterizing organic diversity" (Lewin,1979). Just as there are a variety of chisels made for different purposes, different species concepts are best for different purposes; and just as it is inadvisable to use a carving chisel to cut a mortise, problems arise when one species concept is used when it is inappropriate. Confusion and controversy have often resulted because different people working with different groups of organisms mean different things by "species."12

Ali Demirsoy, one of Turkey's most prominent exponents of Darwinism, expresses the truth of the matter this way:

The question of by what bounds the species, the basic unit in the classification of plants and animals, should be separated from other species—in other words, "Species Definition"— is one of the most difficult for biology to answer. It appears impossible in the present state of our knowledge to give a definition of the species that applies to all plant and animal groups.13

Mention the word species, and most people will think of life forms such as dogs, horses, spiders, dolphins, wheat or apples. However, biologists define the concept of species in a rather different way. In modern-day biology, a living species in the most general sense consists of a population of individuals able to mate and reproduce with one another. This definition divides life forms that we generally speak of as if they were one single species into a number of different ones. For example, some 34,000 species of spiders have been described.14

To better understand the evolution deception regarding speciation, we first need to define geographic isolation. Within any living species, there will be differences stemming from genetic variation. If geographical obstacles such as a mountain chain or river arise between individuals of a species, and if they become isolated from one another, then in all likelihood, within these two separated groups, different variations will begin to dominate.15 Assume that in one group (variation A), darker skin and longer fur begin to predominate; and that another group (variation B) has shorter fur and lighter color. The longer the two populations remain separated from one another, the sharper variations A and B will become.16 Variations like these, with clear morphological differences despite their belonging to the same species, are known as subspecies.

At this point, the speciation claim enters the picture. Sometimes, after variations A and B have split away from one another due to geographic isolation and are brought back together again, their members are unable to interbreed with one another. Since they cannot mate, they cease being subspecies, according to the biological definition, and become separate species. This is known as speciation.

Evolutionists take this concept and extrapolate it "Look! There is speciation in nature. In other words, new species emerge through natural mechanisms. So all species must have come into being in this same way."

In fact, however, a serious deception is being perpetrated here, because important points are being overlooked or ignored:

1) Variations A and B, after being isolated from one another, may be unable to mate when reunited again. Yet this phenomenon generally stems from mating behavior. In other words, individuals belonging to variations A and B regard each other as foreigners by the other, and thus feel no inclination to mate with others that they perceive as different—even though there is no genetic incompatibility to prevent it. In terms of genetic information, they all remain members of the same species. (For this very reason, the concept of species remains a subject of debate in biology.)

2) The really important factor is that this speciation means a loss of genetic information, rather than an increase. The two variations have separated, but the reason for their division is not that either one has acquired any new genetic data. Neither variation has acquired any proteins or new enzymes, much less a new organ. There is no development here. On the contrary, instead of a previous population that contains different, possibly recessive, pieces of genetic information (using our example, a population with both long and short fur, and dark and light coloration), there are now two populations that is each relatively impoverished in terms of genetic data.

Therefore, nothing about speciation provides any support for the theory of evolution. Because it claims that all living species developed by chance, from the simple to the more complex, therefore, in order for the theory of evolution to be taken seriously, it needs to demonstrate mechanisms that can increase genetic information. The bifurcation of an existing species because of a loss of genetic variation, obviously, a different phenomenon entirely.

Evolutionists actually admit this lack of relevance. For that reason, evolutionists describe examples of variations within a species, and speciation by division into two populations (as you saw in the previous section) in their own way as micro-evolution—in the sense of variation within a species that already exists. However, the use of the word "evolution" in the term is deliberately misleading, because no evolutionary process is happening at all. The situation consists of only various combinations and distributions of genetic information already existing in that species' gene pool.

Then how did living types first emerge? How did the five kingdoms—monera, protista, fungus, plant and animal—emerge on Earth? How did the higher categories—the phyla, classes, orders, families; and for that matter, such basic categories as mammals, birds, vertebrates and crustaceans—first appear? These are the questions that evolutionists need to address.

As already stated, evolutionists refer to these subjects as macro-evolution, which is actually what they mean by the theory of evolution, because the genetic variations that Darwinists insist on calling "micro-evolution" are biological phenomena that everyone can observe and agree on. And no matter how much evolutionists employ the term evolution in describing such phenomena, they actually have nothing to do with evolution at all. On the other hand, the macro-evolution claim, has no supporting evidence, either in biological observations or in the fossil record.

People lacking sufficient information on the subject may well fall into the error of thinking with the assumption that "Since micro-evolution takes place in a very short space of time, macro-evolution could take place over tens of millions of years." Some evolutionists fall into the exact same error or seek to make use of it to convince others of the truth of their theory. All the so-called proofs of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species are of that kind, as are the examples put forward by later evolutionists. In their examples, they seek to use as evidence for their theory the genetic variety that they describe as micro-evolution but which actually has nothing at all to do with what they describe as macro-evolution.

Despite all this discussion of micro- and macro-evolution and speciation, living things appeared on Earth as types with their own different structures (as is confirmed by the fossil record). Different variations and subspecies may appear within them, thanks to the richness of their gene pools. For example, there are rabbits that exhibit variations such as white fur, grey fur, longer or shorter ears, and these variations become more pronounced in a given environment, depending on which natural conditions support them most appropriately. But species never turn into other species. There is no natural mechanism that can effect this, that can design new types and develop the new organs, systems and body plans they require. Every species has been created with its own unique structures. And since God has created every one of them with a potential for variety, a wide but finite variation often emerges within each type.


The Micro and Macro Evolution Errors of Darwinists

Variation does not constitute evidence for evolution because variations are but the outcomes of different combinations of already existing genetic information and they do not add any new characteristic to the genetic information. The science of genetics has revealed that the variations that Darwin imagined accounted for the origin of species in fact bear no such significance.

Therefore, evolutionist biologists have been forced to distinguish between variation within species and the formation of new species, and to advance two separate concepts regarding them. Up to their claims, they gave the name micro-evolution to variation within species, and defined the formation of entirely new species as macro-evolution.

The concept of macro-evolution was first used in 1927 by the Russian biologist Juri'i Filipchenko.17 The idea that micro-evolution could be used as evidence for macro-evolution was proposed by a student of Filipchenko's, Theodosius Dobzhansky, in the 1930s. In his book Genetics and The Origin of Species, one of the basic texts of Darwinism, Dobzhansky suggested that the mechanisms of micro- and macro-evolution were the one and the same.18 This view received wide acceptance from evolutionist circles and has survived down to the present day. Richard Goldschmidt, a Berkeley University geneticist during those years, expressed the erroneous nature of this view:

"The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."19

In fact, what Goldschmidt referred to as micro-evolution was nothing more than variations within species.

These two concepts have long appeared in biology textbooks, where a deceptive style is often used. The examples of variation that evolutionist biologists describe as micro-evolution actually have nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution. That's because the theory of evolution maintains that living things can acquire new genetic information through the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. But as we have already seen, variations can never give rise to any new genetic information and therefore, cannot lead to evolution. Referring to variations as micro-evolution reflects an ideological preference on the part of evolutionist biologists.

The variations that Darwinists deliberately refer to as micro-evolution are a simple biological phenomenon, examples of which we encounter frequently in daily life. Think of all the varieties of cats, dogs, apples, tomatoes, plants and animals you have ever seen. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, refers to major changes such as that of a dinosaur into a bird, or a bear into a whale. In other words, there is no difference between the claims of macro-evolution and fairy tales in which a frog transforms into a prince.

By using the concept of macro-evolution, evolutionist biologists seek to give the impression that is variations can give rise to brand new living species—and even genera—over the course of time. Indeed, many people who lack a sound knowledge of the subject are taken in by the superficial idea that micro-evolution can become macro-evolution in the long term. One can see many examples of this thinking. Some amateur evolutionists suggest that since the average height of human beings has increased by 2 centimeters (0.78 of an inch) over just the last century, that means that all kinds of evolution can occur over millions of years. But the fact is, as we have already seen, all variations such as increases in stature take place within specific genetic bounds and have nothing to do with evolution.

We frequently see examples of biological variations in our daily lives. All such instances of variations are simply fluctuations that occur within specific genetic bounds and that have nothing at all to do with evolution.

In fact, even contemporary evolutionist authorities accept that the variations described as micro-evolution cannot give rise to new living classes, or lead to macro-evolution. In a 1996 paper published in the journal Developmental Biology, the evolutionist biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz and Rudolf Raff stated that:

The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but micro-evolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out 20, "the origin of species—Darwin's problem—remains unsolved.21

Varyasyonlar günlük hayatta sık sık örneklerini gördüğümüz biyolojik bir olgudur. Tüm varyasyon örnekleri belirli genetik sınırlar içinde gerçekleşen ve evrimle ilgisi olmayan aynı türde gerçekleşen dalgalanmalardır.

That the variations falsely alleged as micro-evolution cannot account for the claim of macro-evolution, and cannot explain the origin of species, is also admitted by other evolutionist biologists. The well-known evolutionist paleontologist Roger Lewin set out his conclusion at a four-day symposium attended by 150 evolutionists at the Chicago Museum of Natural History in November 1980:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution ... The answer can be given as a clear, No.22

The evolutionist biologists Fagerstrom, Schuster and Szathmary stated the same thing in an article published in Science magazine in 1996:

Major transitions in evolution—such as the origin of life, the emergence of eukaryotic cells, and the origin of the human capacity for language, to name but a few—could not be farther away from an equilibrium. Also, they cannot be described satisfactorily by established models of microevolution.23

Other scientists, however, are aware that such a claim totally conflicts with the picture revealed by scientific findings and the fossil record. Douglas Erwin, from the American Museum of Natural History emphasized this in a paper that appeared in the journal Evolution and Development in 2000.24 According to the American biologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine, to account for the origin of new physical characteristics with micro-evolutionary changes that are in fact nothing more than variations within species is incompatible with the available evidence.25

The fact is, macro-evolution has never been observed. There is no explanation compatible with reason, logic and science as to how this might take place. Professor of Microbiology Carl Woese expresses his view on the subject: "[T]he term ‘macroevolution' serves more to hide our ignorance than symbolize our understanding."26

Consider the subjects depicted by evolutionists as concrete and observed instances of Darwinism, which they put forward at every opportunity as fundamental proofs of evolution. The Galapagos finches, the Industrial Revolution moths, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and insects' resistance to DDT immediately come to mind, but it is absolutely misleading to portray these as evidence of evolution. These cases are cases of variations that present no evidence for evolution.


The Whale Tale from Evolutionists

One of the curious evolutionary fables is the one about the "evolution of whale" that was published in National Geographic, widely respected as one of the most scientific and serious publications in the world:

The Whale's ascendancy to sovereign size apparently began sixty million years ago when hairy, four-legged mammals, in search of food or sanctuary, ventured into water. As eons passed, changes slowly occurred. Hind legs disappeared, front legs changed into flippers, hair gave way to a thick smooth blanket of blubber, nostrils moved to the top of the head, the tail broadened into flukes, and in the buoyant water world the body became enormous.27

Besides the fact that there is not a single scientific basis for any of this, such an occurrence is also contrary to the principles of nature. This fable published in National Geographic is noteworthy for being indicative of the extent of the fallacies of seemingly serious evolutionist publications.




1- Haskins, Caryl P., "Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970", American Scientist, vol. 59 (May/June 1971), p. 305

2- Orgel, Leslie E, "Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life", New Scientist, vol.94 (April 15, 1982), p.151

3- Paul Auger, De La Physique Theorique a la Biologie, 1970, p. 118

4- Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gidel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York: Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548

5- Francis Crick, Life Itself: It's Origin and Nature, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88

6- http://www.icr.org/headlines/darwinvindicated.html; Was Darwin Really "Vindicated"?, Frank Sherwin, Institute for Creation Research, April 30, 2001

7- Pierre P. Grassé, The Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p. 168

8- Stephen C. Meyer, The Signature in the Cell, Harper One, 2009, p. 132-133

9. In vivo aspects of protein folding and quality control, David Balchin, Manajit Hayer-Hartl and F. Ulrich Hartl (June 30, 2016)
Science 353 (6294), [doi: 10.1126/science.aac4354]

10. Sequential Poly-ubiquitylation by Specialized Conjugating Enzymes Expands the Versatility of a Quality Control Ubiquitin Ligase. Annika Weber et al, Molecular Cell 63. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.07.020

11- Troy E. Wood, Loren H. Rieseberg, “Speciation: Introduction”, Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, 1999.

12- J.A. Endler, “Conceptual and Other Problems in Speciation”, p. 625, D. Otte, J.A. Endler (editors), Speciation and Its Consequences, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 1989.

13- Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Yaşamın Temel Kuralları, vol. 1, November 1, 11th issue, Meteksan Yayınları, Ankara, 1998, p. 624.

14- M. Encarta Encyclopedia 2001 Deluxe Edition CD, “Spider (arthropod)”.

15- Timothy A. Mousseau, Alexander E. Olvido, “Geographical Variation”, Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, 2000.

16- D.H. Erwin, “Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution”, Evolution & Development, Vol. 2, 2000, p. 78-84.

17- Hilary p. CGodan, “Microevolution and Macroevolution: Introduction”, Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, 2001, ğ.els.net.

18- Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, Columbia University Press, New York, 1937.

19- Richard B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, New Haven Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1940, p. 8.

20- Brian Goodwin, “Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory”, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 19 May 1995.

21- Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, Rudolf Raff, “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology”, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0032, 1996, p. 361.

22- R. Lewin, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire”, Science, vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.

23- T. Fagerstrom, P. Jagers, P. Schuster, E. Szathmary, “Biologists put on mathematical glasses”, Science, vol. 274, 20 Aralık 1996, p. 2039-2040.

24- D.H. Erwin, “Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution”, Evolution & Development, Vol. 2, 2000, p. 78-84.

25- J.W. Valentine, D.H. Erwin, “Interpreting Great Developmental Experiments: The Fossil Record”, p. 95, R.A. Raff, E.C. Raff (editors), Development as an Evolutionary Process, Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, 1987.

26- C.R. Woese, “Macroevolution in the microscopic world”, C. Patterson (editor), Molecules and Morphology in Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

27- Victor B. Scheffer, "Exploring the Lives of Whales", National Geographic, vol. 50, December 1976, p. 752

4 / total 8
You can read Harun Yahya's book The Origin of Life and the Universe - 1st International Conference 2016 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 author “Mr. Adnan Oktar”.
(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
iddialaracevap.blogspot.com ahirzamanfelaketleri.blogspot.com ingilizderindevleti.net