Refutation of theory of evolution of Darwin in light of science and reality: How Darwinism ideology breaks down in light of Modern Science and reality.

 Refutation of theory of evolution of Darwin in light of science and reality:

Anyone who seeks an answer to the question of how living things, including himself, came into existence, will encounter two distinct explanations. The first is the fact that all living things were created by the All-Wise and Almighty Allah. The second explanation is the theory of "evolution," which claims that living things are the products of coincidental causes and natural processes. For a century and a half now, the theory of evolution has received extensive support from the scientific community. The science of biology is defined in terms of evolutionist concepts. That is why, between the two explanations of creation and evolution, the majority of people assume the evolutionist explanation to be scientific. Accordingly, they believe evolution to be a theory supported by the observational findings of science, while creation is thought to be a belief based on faith. As a matter of fact, however, scientific findings do not support the theory of evolution. Findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, molecular biology, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects cannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes, and that all life forms were created flawlessly. In this book, we will analyze this scientific crisis faced by the theory of evolution. This work rests solely upon scientific findings. Those advocating the theory of evolution on behalf of scientific truth should confront these findings and question the presumptions they have so far held. Refusal to do this would mean openly accepting that their adherence to the theory of evolution is dogmatic rather than scientific. 

Despite having its roots in ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was first brought to the attention of the scientific world in the nineteenth century. The most thoroughly considered view of evolution was expressed by the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, in his Zoological Philosophy (1809). Lamarck thought that all living things were endowed with a vital force that drove them to evolve toward greater complexity. He also thought that organisms could pass on to their offspring traits acquired during their lifetimes. As an example of this line of reasoning, Lamarck suggested that the long neck of the giraffe evolved when a short-necked ancestor took to browsing on the leaves of trees instead of on grass. This evolutionary model of Lamarck's was invalidated by the discovery of the laws of genetic inheritance. In the middle of the twentieth century, the discovery of the structure of DNA revealed that the nuclei of the cells of living organisms possess very special genetic information, and that this information could not be altered by "acquired traits." In other words, during its lifetime, even though a giraffe managed to make its neck a few centimeters longer by extending its neck to upper branches, this trait would not pass to its offspring. In brief, the Lamarckian view was simply refuted by scientific findings, and went down in history as a flawed assumption. However, the evolutionary theory formulated by another natural scientist who lived a couple of generations after Lamarck proved to be more influential. This natural scientist was Charles Robert Darwin, and the theory he formulated is known as "Darwinism." 

A SHORT HISTORY:  D Jean-B. Lamarck The Birth of Darwinism Charles Darwin volunteered to sail on the H.M.S Beagle, which sailed in late 1831 on a five-year official voyage around the world. Young Darwin was heavily influenced by the diversity of species he observed, especially of the different Galapagos Island finches. The differences in the beaks of these birds, Darwin thought, were a result of their adaptation to their different environments. After this voyage, Darwin started to visit animal markets in England. He observed that breeders produced new breeds of cow by mating animals with different characteristics. This experience, together with the different finch species he observed in the Galapagos Islands, contributed to the formulation of his theory. In 1859, he published his views in his book The Origin of Species. In this book, he postulated that all species had descended from a single ancestor, evolving from one another over time by slight variations. What made Darwin's theory different from Lamarck's was his emphasis on "natural selection." Darwin theorized that there is a struggle for survival in nature, and that natural selection is the survival of strong species or those that better adapt to their environment. Darwin adopted the following line of reasoning: Within a particular species, there are natural and coincidental variations. For instance some cows are bigger than others, while some have darker colors. Natural selection selects the favorable traits. The process of natural selection thus causes an increase of favorable genes within a population, which results in the features of that population being better adapted to local conditions. Over time these changes may be significant enough to cause a new species to arise. 

Charles Darwin developed his theory when science was still in a primitive state. Under primitive microscopes like these, life appeared to have a very simple structure. This error formed the basis of Darwinism. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) However, this "theory of evolution by natural selection" gave rise to doubts from the very first: 

1- What were the "natural and coincidental variations" referred to by Darwin? It was true that some cows were bigger than others, while some had darker colors, yet how could these variations provide an explanation for the diversity in animal and plant species?

 2- Darwin asserted that "Living beings evolved gradually." In this case, there should have lived millions of "transitional forms." Yet there was no trace of these theoretical creatures in the fossil record. Darwin gave considerable thought to this problem, and eventually arrived at the conclusion that "further research would provide these fossils." 

3- How could natural selection explain complex organs, such as eyes, ears or wings? How can it be advocated that these organs evolved gradually, bearing in mind that they would fail to function if they had even a single part missing?

 4- Before considering these questions, consider the following: How did the first organism, the so-called ancestor of all species according to Darwin, come into existence? Given that natural processes cannot give life to something which was originally inanimate, how would Darwin explain the formation of the first life form? Darwin was, at least, aware of some these questions, as can be seen from the chapter "Difficulties on Theory." However, the answers he provided had no scientific validity. H.S. Lipson, a British physicist, makes the following comments about these "difficulties" of Darwin's: On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled "Difficulties of the Theory" for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen.1 Darwin invested all his hopes in advanced scientific research, which he expected to dispel the "difficulties of the theory." However, contrary to his expectations, more recent scientific findings have merely increased these difficulties. The Problem of the Origin of Life In his book, Darwin never mentioned the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living things had very simple structures. Since mediaeval times, spontaneous generation, the theory that nonliving matter could come together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was believed that insects came into existence from leftover bits of food. It was further imagined that mice came into being from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would emerge in due course. Similarly, the fact that maggots appeared in meat was believed to be evidence for spontaneous generation. 

However, it was only realized some time later that maggots did not appear in meat spontaneously, but were carried by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye. Even in the period when Darwin's Origin of Species was written, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from inanimate matter was widespread. However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, which disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."2 Advocates of the theory of evolution refused to accept Pasteur's findings for a long time. However, as scientific progress revealed the complex structure of the cell, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse. We shall consider this subject in some detail in this book. The Problem of Genetics Another subject that posed a quandary for Darwin's theory was inheritance. At the time when Darwin developed his theory, the question of how living beings transmitted their traits to other generations—that is, how inheritance took place—was not completely understood. That is why 17 Louis Pasteur destroyed the belief that life could be created from inanimate substances. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) the naive belief that inheritance was transmitted through blood was commonly accepted. Vague beliefs about inheritance led Darwin to base his theory on completely false grounds. Darwin assumed that natural selection was the "mechanism of evolution." Yet one question remained unanswered: How would these "useful traits" be selected and transmitted from one generation to the next? 

At this point, Darwin embraced the Lamarckian theory, that is, "the inheritance of acquired traits." In his book The Great Evolution Mystery, Gordon R. Taylor, a researcher advocating the theory of evolution, expresses the view that Darwin was heavily influenced by Lamarck: Lamarckism... is known as the inheritance of acquired characteristics... Darwin himself, as a matter of fact, was inclined to believe that such inheritance occurred and cited the reported case of a man who had lost his fingers and bred sons without fingers... [Darwin] had not, he said, gained a single idea from Lamarck. This was doubly ironical, for Darwin repeatedly toyed with the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics and, if it is so dreadful, it is Darwin who should be denigrated rather than Lamarck... In the 1859 edition of his work, Darwin refers to 'changes of external conditions' causing variation but subsequently these conditions are described as directing variation and cooperating with natural selection in directing it... Every year he attributed more and more to the agency of use or disuse... By 1868 when he published Varieties of Animals and Plants under Domestication he gave a whole series of examples of supposed Lamarckian inheritance: such as a man losing part of his little finger and all his sons being born with deformed little fingers, and boys born with foreskins much reduced in length as a result of generations of circumcision.3 However, Lamarck's thesis, as we have seen above, was disproved by the laws of genetic inheritance discovered by the Austrian monk and botanist, Gregor Mendel. The concept of "useful traits" was therefore left unsupported. Genetic laws showed that acquired traits are not passed on, and that genetic inheritance takes place according to certain unchanging laws. These laws supported the view that species remain unchanged. No matter how much the cows that Darwin saw in England's animal fairs bred, the species itself would never change: cows would always remain cows. Gregor Mendel announced the laws of genetic inheritance that he discovered as a result of long experiment and observation in a scientific paper published in 1865. But this paper only attracted the attention of the  scientific world towards the end of the century. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the truth of these laws had been accepted by the whole scientific community. This was a serious dead-end for Darwin's theory, which tried to base the concept of "useful traits" on Lamarck. Here we must correct a general misapprehension: Mendel opposed not only Lamarck's model of evolution, but also Darwin's. As the article "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin," published in the Journal of Heredity, makes clear, "he [Mendel] was familiar with The Origin of Species ...and he was opposed to Darwin's theory; Darwin was arguing for descent with modification through natural selection, Mendel was in favor of the orthodox doctrine of special creation."4 The laws discovered by Mendel put Darwinism in a very difficult position. For these reasons, scientists who supported Darwinism tried to develop a different model of evolution in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Thus was born "neo-Darwinism." The Efforts of Neo-Darwinism A group of scientists who were determined to reconcile Darwinism with the science of genetics, in one way or another, came together at a meeting organized by the Geological Society of America in 1941. After long discussion, they agreed on ways to create a new interpretation of Darwinism and over the next few years, specialists produced a synthesis of their fields into a revised theory of evolution. The scientists who participated in establishing the new theory included the geneticists G. Ledyard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky, the zoologists Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, the paleontologists George Gaylord Simpson and Glenn L. Jepsen, and the mathematical geneticists Sir Ronald A. Fisher and Sewall Wright.5 To counter the fact of "genetic stability" (genetic homeostasis), this group of scientists employed the concept of "mutation," which had been proposed by the Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries at the beginning of the 20th century. Mutations were defects that occurred, for unknown reasons, in The genetic laws discovered by Mendel proved very damaging to the theory of evolution. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) the inheritance mechanism of living things. Organisms undergoing mutation developed some unusual structures, which deviated from the genetic information they inherited from their parents. The concept of "random mutation" was supposed to provide the answer to the question of the origin of the advantageous variations which caused living organisms to evolve according to Darwin's theory—a phenomenon that Darwin himself was unable to explain, but simply tried to side-step by referring to Lamarck. The Geological Society of America group named this new theory, which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin's natural selection thesis, the "synthetic theory of evolution" or the "modern synthesis." In a short time, this theory came to be known as "neo-Darwinism" and its supporters as "neo-Darwinists." Yet there was a serious problem: It was true that mutations changed the genetic data of living organisms, yet this change always occurred to the detriment of the living thing concerned. All observed mutations ended up with disfigured, weak, or diseased individuals and, sometimes, led to the death of the organism. Hence, in an attempt to find examples of "beneficial mutations" which improve the genetic data in living organisms, neo-Darwinists conducted many experiments and observations. For decades, they conducted mutation experiments on fruit flies and various other species. However, in none of these experiments could a mutation which improved the genetic data in a living being be seen. Today the issue of mutation is still a great impasse for Darwinism. Despite the fact that the theory of natural selection considers mutations to be the unique source of "beneficial changes," no mutations of any kind have been observed that are actually beneficial (that is, that improve the genetic information). In the following chapter, we will consider this issue in detail. 20 The architects of Neo-Darwinism: Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Julian Huxley. Another impasse for neo-Darwinists came from the fossil record. Even in Darwin's time, fossils were already posing an important obstacle to the theory. While Darwin himself accepted the lack of fossils of "intermediate species," he also predicted that further research would provide evidence of these lost transitional forms. However, despite all the paleontologists' efforts, the fossil record continued to remain a serious obstacle to the theory. One by one, concepts such as "vestigial organs," "embryological recapitulation" and "homology" lost all significance in the light of new scientific findings. All these issues are dealt with more fully in the remaining chapters of this book. A Theory in Crisis We have just reviewed in summary form the impasse Darwinism found itself in from the day it was first proposed. We will now start to analyze the enormous dimensions of this deadlock. In this book, our intention is to show that the theory of evolution is not indisputable scientific truth, as many people assume or try to impose on others. On the contrary, there are glaring contradictions when the theory of evolution is compared to scientific findings in such diverse fields as population genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology, molecular biology, and biochemistry. In a word, evolution is a theory in "crisis." That is a description by Prof. Michael Denton, an Australian biochemist and a renowned critic of Darwinism. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), Denton examined the theory in the light of different branches of science, and concluded that the theory of natural selection is very far from providing an explanation for life on earth.6 Denton's intention in offering his criticism was not to show the correctness of another view, but only to compare Darwinism with the scientific facts. During the last two decades, many other scientists have published significant works questioning the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution. In this book, we will examine this crisis. No matter how much concrete evidence is provided, some readers may be unwilling to abandon their positions, and will continue to adhere to the theory of evolution. However, reading this book will still be of use to them, since it will help them to see the real situation of the theory they believe in, in the light of scientific findings. 21 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) ccording to the theory of evolution, living things came into existence by means of coincidences, and developed further as a consequence of coincidental effects. Approximately 3.8 billion years ago, when no living organisms existed on earth, the first simple single-celled organisms (prokaryotes) emerged. Over time, more complex cells (eukaryotes) and multicellular organisms came into being. In other words, according to Darwinism, the forces of nature built simple inanimate elements into highly complex and flawless beings. In evaluating this claim, one should first consider whether such forces in fact exist in nature. More explicitly, are there really natural mechanisms which can accomplish evolution according to the Darwinian scenario? The neo-Darwinist model, which we shall take as the mainstream theory of evolution today, argues that life has evolved through two natural mechanisms: natural selection and mutation. The theory basically asserts that natural selection and mutation are two complementary mechanisms. The origin of evolutionary modifications lies in random mutations that take place in the genetic structures of living things. The traits brought about by mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural selection, and by this means living things evolve. However, when we look further into this theory, we find that there is no such evolutionary mechanism. Neither natural selection nor mutations can cause different species to evolve into one another, and the claim that they can is completely unfounded. 22 THE MECHANISMS OF DARWINISM A Natural Selection The concept of natural selection was the basis of Darwinism. This assertion is stressed even in the title of the book in which Darwin proposed his theory: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection… Natural selection is based on the assumption that in nature there is a constant struggle for survival and that the strongest ones, the ones most suited to natural conditions, survive. For example, in a herd of deer under threat from predators, generally those individuals that can run fastest will survive. The herd of deer will eventually consist of only fast-running individuals. However, no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another species. The weak deer are eliminated, the strong survive, but, since no alteration in their genetic data takes place, no transformation of a species occurs. Despite the continuous processes of selection, deer continue to exist as deer. The deer example is true for all species. In any population, by means of natural selection, only those weak, or unsuited individuals who are unable to adapt to the natural conditions in their habitat are eliminated. No new species, new genetic information, or new organs can be produced. That is, species cannot evolve. Darwin, too, accepted this fact, stating that "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur."7 That is why neo-Darwinism had to add the mutation mechanism as a factor altering genetic information to the concept of natural selection. We will deal with mutations next. But before proceeding, we need to further examine the concept of natural selection in order to see the contradictions inherent in it. A Struggle for Survival The essential assumption of the theory of natural selection holds that there is a fierce struggle for survival in nature, and every living thing cares only for itself. At the time Darwin proposed this theory, the ideas of Thomas Malthus, the British classical economist, were an important influence on him. Malthus maintained that human beings were inevitably in a constant struggle for survival, basing his views on the fact that Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 23 population, and hence the need for food resources, increases geometrically, while food resources themselves increase only arithmetically. The result is that population size is inevitably checked by factors in the environment, such as hunger and disease. Darwin adapted Malthus's vision of a fierce struggle for survival among human beings to nature at large, and claimed that "natural selection" is a consequence of this struggle. Further research, however, revealed that there was no struggle for life in nature as Darwin had postulated. As a result of extensive research into animal groups in the 1960s and 1970s, V. C. Wynne-Edwards, a British zoologist, concluded that living things balance their population in an interesting way, which prevents competition for food. Animal groups were simply managing their population on the basis of their food resources. Population was regulated not by elimination of the weak through factors like epidemics or starvation, but by instinctive control mechanisms. In other words, animals controlled their numbers not by fierce competition, as Darwin suggested, but by limiting reproduction.8 Even plants exhibited examples of population control, which invalidated Darwin's suggestion of selection by means of competition. The botanist A. D. Bradshaw's observations indicated that during reproduction, plants behaved according to the "density" of the planting, and limited their reproduction if the area was highly populated with plants.9 On the other hand, examples of sacrifice observed in animals such as ants and bees display a model completely opposed to the Darwinist struggle for survival. In recent years, research has revealed findings regarding selfsacrifice even in bacteria. These living things without brains or nervous systems, totally devoid of any capacity for thought, kill themselves to save other bacteria when they are invaded by viruses.10 These examples surely invalidate the basic assumption of natural selection—the absolute struggle for survival. It is true that there is competition in nature; however, there are clear models of self-sacrifice and solidarity, as well. DARWINISM REFUTED 24 Darwin had been influenced by Thomas Malthus when he developed his thesis of the struggle for life. But observations and experiments proved Malthus wrong. Observation and Experiments Apart from the theoretical weaknesses mentioned above, the theory of evolution by natural selection comes up against a fundamental impasse when faced with concrete scientific findings. The scientific value of a theory must be assessed according to its success or failure in experiment and observation. Evolution by natural selection fails on both counts. Since Darwin's time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that living things evolve through natural selection. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London and a prominent evolutionist, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the ability to cause things to evolve: No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.11 Pierre-Paul Grassé, a well-known French zoologist and critic of Darwinism, has these words to say in "Evolution and Natural Selection," a chapter of his book The Evolution of Living Organisms. The "evolution in action" of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species [i.e. living fossils that remain unchanged for millions of years].12 A close look at a few "observed examples of natural selection" presented by biologists who advocate the theory of evolution, would reveal that, in reality, they do not provide any evidence for the theory of evolution. The True Story of Industrial Melanism When evolutionist sources are examined, one inevitably sees that the example of moths in England during the Industrial Revolution is cited as an example of evolution by natural selection. This is put forward as the most concrete example of evolution observed, in textbooks, magazines, Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) and even academic sources. In actuality, though, that example has nothing to do with evolution at all. Let us first recall what is actually said: According to this account, around the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the color of tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-colored moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them, and therefore they had very little possibility of survival. Fifty years later, in woodlands where industrial pollution has killed the lightcolored lichens, the bark of the trees had darkened, and now the lightcolored moths became the most hunted, since they were the most easily noticed. 

As a result, the proportion of light-colored to dark-colored moths decreased. Evolutionists believe this to be a great piece of evidence for their theory. They take refuge and solace in window-dressing, showing how light-colored moths "evolved" into dark-colored ones. However, even if we believe these to be correct, it should be quite clear that they can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, since no new form arose that had not existed before. Dark colored moths had existed in the moth population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties in the population changed. The moths had not acquired a new trait or organ, which would cause "speciation."13 In order for one moth species to turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to its genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program The top picture shows trees with moths on them before the Industrial Revolution, and the bottom picture shows them at a later date. Because the trees had grown darker, birds were able to catch light-colored moths more easily and their numbers decreased. However, this is not an example of "evolution," because no new species emerged; all that happened was that the ratio of the two already existing types in an already existing species changed. would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the physical traits of the bird. This is the answer to be given to the evolutionist story of Industrial Melanism. However, there is a more interesting side to the story: Not just its interpretation, but the story itself is flawed. As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells explains in his book Icons of Evolution, the story of the peppered moths, which is included in virtually every evolutionary biology book and has therefore, become an "icon" in this sense, does not reflect the truth. Wells discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell's experiment, which is known as the "experimental proof" of the story, is actually a scientific scandal. Some basic elements of this scandal are: • Many experiments conducted after Kettlewell's revealed that only one type of these moths rested on tree trunks, and all other types preferred to rest beneath horizontal branches. Since 1980s it has been widely accepted that moths only very rarely rest on tree trunks. In 25 years of fieldwork, many scientists such as Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield concluded that in Kettlewell's experiment, moths were forced to act atypically, therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scientific.14 • Scientists who tested Kettlewell's conclusions came up with an even more interesting result: Although the number of light moths would be expected to be larger in the less polluted regions of England, the dark moths there numbered four times as many as the light ones. This meant that there was no correlation between the ratio in the moth population and the tree trunks as claimed by Kettlewell and repeated by almost all evolutionist sources. • As the research deepened, the scandal changed dimension: "The moths on tree trunks" photographed by Kettlewell, were actually dead moths. Kettlewell used dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks and then photographed them. In truth, there was little possibility of taking such a picture as the moths rested not on tree trunks but underneath the branches.15 These facts were uncovered by the scientific community only in the late 1990s. The collapse of the myth of Industrial Melanism, which had been one of the most treasured subjects in "Introduction to Evolution" courses in universities for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists. One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked: Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 27 My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.16 Thus, "the most famous example of natural selection" was relegated to the trash-heap of history as a scientific scandal—which was inevitable, because natural selection is not an "evolutionary mechanism," contrary to what evolutionists claim. In short, natural selection is capable neither of adding a new organ to a living organism, nor of removing one, nor of changing an organism of one species into that of another. The "greatest" evidence put forward since Darwin has been able to go no further than the "industrial melanism" of moths in England. Why Natural Selection Cannot Explain Complexity As we showed at the beginning, the greatest problem for the theory of evolution by natural selection, is that new organs or traits cannot emerge in living things through natural selection. A species' genetic data does not develop by means of natural selection; therefore, it cannot be used to account for the emergence of new species. The greatest defender of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refer to this impasse of natural selection as follows; The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.17 Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as intelligent. However, natural selection has no intelligence. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things. As a result, natural selection cannot explain how biological systems and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity" came into being. These systems and organs are composed of a great number of parts cooperating together, and are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, the human eye does not function unless it exists with all its components intact). 

Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to foresee the future and aim directly at the advantage that is to be acquired at the final stage. Since natural selection has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact, which demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin, who wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."18 Mutations Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them. Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, does not transform living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death and disability… The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: 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 highy 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. 19 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 29 A deformed foot, the product of mutation. Not surprisingly, no beneficial mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20 Every effort put into "generating a beneficial mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no beneficial mutation was ever observed. The evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus: It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world— flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.

 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. The top left picture shows the head of a normal fruit fly, and the picture on the right shows the head of fruit fly with legs coming out of it, the result of mutation. antennae eye mouth leg Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies: Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type. 22 The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have had deleterious results. All mutations that take place in humans result in physical Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 31 A mutant fly with deformed wings. Mutant frogs born with crippled legs. deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"— evolution is supposed to produce forms that are better fitted to survive. The American pathologist David A. Demick notes the following in a scientific article about mutations: Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations... With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent. 23 The only instance evolutionary biologists give of "beneficial mutation" is the disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin molecule, which serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result of mutation, and undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the hemoglobin molecule's ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People with sickle cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for this reason. This example of mutation, which is discussed under blood disorders in medical textbooks, is strangely evaluated by some evolutionary biologists as a "beneficial mutation." They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those 

 The shape and functions of red corpuscles are compromised in sickle-cell anemia. For this reason, their oxygen-carrying capacities are weakened. with the illness is a "gift" of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a "beneficial genetic feature." This logic is clearly totally unfounded. It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way: Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.24 So for that reason, as Grassé puts it, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."25 The Pleiotropic Effect The most important proof that mutations lead only to damage, is the process of genetic coding. Almost all of the genes in a living thing carry more than one piece of information. For instance, one gene may control both the height and the eye color of that organism. Microbiologist Michael Denton explains this characteristic of genes in higher organisms such as human beings, in this way: 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 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 33 is doubtful whether any genes that are not pleiotropic exist in higher organisms."26 Because of this characteristic of the genetic structure of living things, any coincidental change because of a mutation, in any gene in the DNA, will affect more than one organ. Consequently, this mutation will not be restricted to one part of the body, but will reveal more of its destructive impact. Even if one of these impacts turns out to be beneficial, as a result DARWINISM REFUTED 34 NORMAL DEVELOPMENT PLEIOTROPIC EFFECT 1. The wings do not develop. 2. The hind limbs reach full length, but the digits do not fully develop. 3. There is no soft fur covering 4. Although there is a respiratory passage, lungs and air sacs are absent. 5. The urinary tract does not grow, and does not induce the development of the kidney. On the left we can see the normal development of a domesticated fowl, and on the right the harmful effects of a mutation in the pleiotropic gene. Careful examination shows that a mutation in just one gene damages many different organs. Even if we hypothesize that mutation could have a beneficial effect, this "pleiotropic effect" would remove the advantage by damaging many more organs. of a very rare coincidence, the unavoidable effects of the other damage it causes will more than outweigh those benefits. To summarize, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot make evolution possible: l- The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure, but will rather impair it. Indeed, no "beneficial mutation" has ever been observed. 2- Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen. 3- In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation, or by other causes, will not be passed on to subsequent generations. All the explanations provided above indicate that natural selection and mutation have no evolutionary effect at all. So far, no observable example of "evolution" has been obtained by this method. Sometimes, evolutionary biologists claim that "they cannot observe the evolutionary effect of natural selection and mutation mechanisms since these mechanisms take place only over an extended period of time." However, this argument, which is just a way of making themselves feel better, is baseless, in the sense that it lacks any scientific foundation. During his lifetime, a scientist can observe thousands of generations of living things with short life spans such as fruit flies or bacteria, and still observe no Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 35 The picture above shows an albino kangaroo with its young. A mutation occurring in its genes led to this kangaroo lacking color-giving pigment. "evolution." Pierre-Paul Grassé states the following about the unchanging nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution: Bacteria ...are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. [B]acteria ...exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living insect groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect.27 Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause evolution. Furthermore, this conclusion agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which does not demonstrate the existence of a process of evolution, but rather just the contrary. D

ARWINISM REFUTED 36: The Escherichia coli bacterium is no different from specimens a billion years old. Countless mutations over this long period have not led to any structural changes. hen Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859, it was believed that he had put forward a theory that could account for the extraordinary variety of living things. He had observed that there were different variations within the same species. For instance, while wandering through England's animal fairs, he noticed that there were many different breeds of cow, and that stockbreeders selectively mated them and produced new breeds. Taking that as his starting point, he continued with the logic that "living things can naturally diversify within themselves," which means that over a long period of time all living things could have descended from a common ancestor. However, this assumption of Darwin's about "the origin of species" was not actually able to explain their origin at all. As a result of developments in genetic science, it is now understood that increases in variety within one species can never lead to the emergence of another new species. What Darwin believed to be "evolution," was actually "variation." The Meaning of Variations Variation, a term used in genetics, refers to a genetic event that causes the individuals or groups of a certain type or species to possess different characteristics from one another. For example, all the people on earth carry basically the same genetic information, yet some have slanted eyes, some have red hair, some have long noses, and others are short of stature, all depending on the extent of the variation potential of this genetic information. 

37 THE TRUE ORIGIN OF SPECIES W 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 important thing for the theory of evolution, however, is the question of how brand-new information to make a brandnew species could come about. Variation always takes place within the limits of genetic information. In the science of genetics, this limit is called the "gene pool." All of the characteristics present in the gene pool of a species may come to light in various ways due to variation. For example, as a result of variation, varieties that have relatively longer tails or shorter legs may appear in a certain species of reptile, since information for both long-legged and shortlegged forms may exist in the gene pool of that species. However, variations do not transform reptiles into birds by adding wings or feathers to them, or by changing their metabolism. Such a change requires an increase in the genetic information of the living thing, which is certainly not possible through variations. Darwin was not aware of this fact when he formulated his theory. He thought that there was no limit to variations. In an article he wrote in 1844 he stated: "That a limit to variation does exist in nature is assumed by most authors, though I am unable to discover a single fact on which this belief is grounded."28 In The Origin of Species he cited different examples of variations as the most important evidence for his theory. For instance, according to Darwin, animal breeders who mated different varieties of cattle in order to bring about new varieties that produced more milk, were ultimately going to transform them into a different species. Darwin's notion of "unlimited variation" is best seen in the following sentence from The Origin of Species: I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.29 The reason Darwin cited such a far-fetched example was the primitive understanding of science in his day. Since then, in the 20th century, science has posited the principle of "genetic stability" (genetic homeostasis), based on the results of experiments conducted on living things. 

This principle holds that, since all mating attempts carried out to  transform a species into another have been inconclusive, there are strict barriers among different species of living things. This meant that it was absolutely impossible for animal breeders to convert cattle into a different species by mating different variations of them, as Darwin had postulated. Norman Macbeth, who disproved Darwinism in his book Darwin Retried, states: The heart of the problem is whether living things do indeed vary to an unlimited extent... The species look stable. We have all heard of disappointed breeders who carried their work to a certain point only to see the animals or plants revert to where they had started. Despite strenuous efforts for two or three centuries, it has never been possible to produce a blue rose or a black tulip.30 Luther Burbank, considered the most competent breeder of all time, expressed this fact when he said, "there are limits to the development possible, and these limits follow a law."31 In his article titled "Some Biological Problems With the Natural Selection Theory," Jerry Bergman comments by quoting from biologist Edward Deevey who explains that variations always take place within strict genetic boundaries: Deevey concludes, "Remarkable things have been done by cross-breeding ... but wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit. We can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can make cylindrical eggs." A more contemporary example is the average increase in male height that has occurred the past century. Through better health care (and perhaps also some sexual selection, as some women prefer taller men as mates) males have reached a record adult height during the last century, but the increase is rapidly disappearing, indicating that we have reached our limit.32 In short, variations only bring about changes which remain within the boundaries of the genetic information of species; they can never add new genetic data to them. For this reason, no variation can be considered an example of evolution. No matter how often you mate different breeds of dogs or horses, the end result will still be dogs or horses, with no new species emerging. The Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen sums the matter up this way: The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace placed their emphasis cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of 'indefinite departure'.33 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 39 Confessions About "Microevolution" As we have seen, genetic science has discovered that variations, which Darwin thought could account for "the origin of species," actually do no such thing. For this reason, evolutionary biologists were forced to distinguish between variation within species and the formation of new ones, and to propose two different concepts for these different phenomena. Diversity within a species—that is, variation—they called "microevolution," and the hypothesis of the development of new species was termed "macroevolution." These two concepts have appeared in biology books for quite some time. But there is actually a deception going on here, because the examples of variation that evolutionary biologists have called "microevolution" actually have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution proposes that living things can develop and take on new genetic data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. However, as we have just seen, variations can never create new genetic information, and are thus unable to bring about "evolution." Giving variations the name of "microevolution" is actually an ideological preference on the part of evolutionary biologists. The impression that evolutionary biologists have given by using the term "microevolution" is the false logic that over time variations can form brand new classes of living things. And many people who are not already well-informed on the subject come away with the superficial idea that "as it spreads, microevolution can turn into macroevolution." One can often see examples of that kind of thinking. Some "amateur" evolutionists put forward such examples of logic as the following: since human beings' average height has risen by two centimeters in just a century, this means that over millions of years any kind of evolution is possible. However, as has been shown above, all variations such as changes in average height happen within specific genetic bounds, and are trends that have nothing to do with evolution. In fact, nowadays even evolutionist experts accept that the variations they call "microevolution" cannot lead to new classes of living things—in other words, to "macroevolution." In a 1996 article in the leading journal Developmental Biology, the evolutionary biologists S.F. Gilbert, J.M. Opitz, and R.A. Raff explained the matter this way: DARWINISM REFUTED 40 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 microevolutionary 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, "the origin of species— Darwin's problem—remains unsolved. 34 The fact that "microevolution" cannot lead to "macroevolution," in other words that variations offer no explanation of the origin of species, has been accepted by other evolutionary biologists, as well. The noted science writer Roger Lewin describes the result of a four-day symposium held in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of Natural History, in which 150 evolutionists participated: 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.35 We can sum up the situation like this: Variations, which Darwinism has seen as "evidence of evolution" for some hundred years, actually have nothing to do with "the origin of species." Cows can be mated together for millions of years, and different breeds of cows may well emerge. But cows can never turn into a different species—giraffes or elephants for instance. In the same way, the different finches that Darwin saw on the Galapagos Islands are another example of variation that is no evidence for "evolution." Recent observations have revealed that the finches did not undergo an unlimited variation as Darwin's theory presupposed. 41 Finch beaks, which Darwin saw in the Galapagos Islands and thought were evidence for his theory, are actually an example of genetic variation, and not evidence for macroevolution. Moreover, most of the different types of finches which Darwin thought represented 14 distinct species actually mated with one another, which means that they were variations that belonged to the same species. Scientific observation shows that the finch beaks, which have been mythicized in almost all evolutionist sources, are in fact an example of "variation"; therefore, they do not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. For example, the studies of Peter and Rosemary Grant, who spent years observing the finch varieties in the Galapagos Islands looking for evidence for Darwinistic evolution, revealed nothing but that no "evolution" ever takes place there.36 So for these reasons, evolutionists are still unable to resolve Darwin's problem of the "origin of species." The Origin of Species in the Fossil Record The evolutionist assertion is that each species on earth came from a single common ancestor through minor changes. In other words, the theory considers life as a continuous phenomenon, without any preordained or fixed categories. However, the observation of nature clearly does not reveal such a continuous picture. What emerges from the living world is that life forms are strictly separated in very distinct categories. Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and an evolutionist authority, admits this fact in his Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution: Although an almost incomprehensible number of species inhabit Earth today, they do not form a continuous spectrum of barely distinguishable intermediates. Instead, nearly all species can be recognized as belonging to a relatively limited number of clearly distinct major groups…37 Evolution is alleged to be a process that took place in the past, and the only scientific source that can provide us with information on the history of life is fossil discoveries. P. Grassé has this to say on the subject: Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms... only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms.38 In order for the fossil record to shed any light on the subject, we shall DARWINISM REFUTED 42 have to compare the hypotheses of the theory of evolution with fossil discoveries. According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time, and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years. If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Darwinizm'in Mekanizmaları 43 The most important branch of science for shedding light on the origin of life on earth is paleontology, the study of fossils. Fossil beds, studied with great intensity for the last two hundred years, reveal a picture totally at odds with Darwin's theory. Species did not emerge through small cumulative changes, they appeared quite suddenly, and fully-formed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms." If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained: If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.39 Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realized that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties on Theory": …Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.40 The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found. The Question of Transitional Forms and Stasis Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionary paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the nineteenth century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in DARWINISM REFUTED 44 excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Robert Carroll, a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries: Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.41 Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record: When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly…42 Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states: If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.43 The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s: The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 45 DARWINISM REFUTED 46 does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.44 Further research only strengthened the facts of stasis and sudden appearance. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge write in 1993 that "most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction."45 Robert Carroll is forced to agree in 1997 that "Most major groups appear to originate and diversify over geologically very short durations, and to persist for much longer periods without major morphological or trophic change."46 At this point, it is necessary to clarify just what the concept of "transitional form" means. The intermediate forms predicted by the theory of evolution are living things falling between two species, but which possess deficient or semi-developed organs. But sometimes the concept of intermediate form is misunderstood, and living structures which do not possess the features of transitional forms are seen as actually doing so. For instance, if one group of living things possesses features which belong to another, this is not an intermediate form feature. The platypus, a mammal living in Australia, reproduces by laying eggs just like reptiles. In addition, it has a bill similar to that of a duck. Scientists describe such creatures as the platypus as "mosaic creatures." That mosaic creatures do not count as intermediate forms is also accepted by such foremost paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.47 There is no gradual development in the fossil record such as Darwin had predicted. Different species emerged all at once, with their own peculiar bodily structures. The Adequacy of the Fossil Record Some 150 years ago Darwin put forward the following argument: "Right now there are no transitional forms, yet further research will uncover them." Is this argument still valid today? In other words, considering the conclusions from the entire fossil record, should we accept that transitional forms never existed, or should we wait for the results of new research? The wealth of the existing fossil record will surely answer this question. When we look at the paleontological findings, we come across an abundance of fossils. Billions of fossils have been uncovered all around the world.48 Based on these fossils, 250,000 distinct species have been identified, and these bear striking similarities to the 1.5 million identified species currently living on earth.49 (Of these 1.5 million species, 1 million are insects.) Despite the abundance of fossil sources, not a single transitional form has been uncovered, and it is unlikely that any transitional forms will be found as a result of new excavations. A professor of paleontology from Glasgow University, T. Neville George, admitted this fact years ago: There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration… The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps. 50 And Niles Eldredge, the well-known paleontologist and curator of the American Museum of Natural History, expresses as follows the invalidity of Darwin's claim that the insufficiency of the fossil record is the reason why no transitional forms have been found: The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history – not the artifact of a poor fossil record.51 Robert Wesson states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and phenomenal." He elaborates this claim in this way: The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 47 Ammonites emerged some 350 million years ago, and became extinct 65 million years ago. The structure seen in the fossil above never changed during the intervening 300 million years. A 100-150 million-year-old starfish fossil Horseshoe crab" fossil from the Ordovician Age. This 450-millionyear-old fossil is no different from specimens living today. 1.9-million-year-old fossil bacteria from Western Ontario in the United States. They have the same structures as bacteria living today. STASIS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD Oyster fossils from the Ordovician Age, no different from modern oysters. If evolution had really happened, then living things should have emerged by gradual changes, and have continued to change over time, whereas the fossil record shows the exact opposite. Different groups of living things suddenly emerged with no similar ancestors behind them, and remained static for millions of years, undergoing no changes at all. 140-million-yearold dragonfly fossil found in Bavaria in Germany. It is identical to living dragonflies. The oldest known fossil scorpion, found in East Kirkton in Scotland. This species, known as Pulmonoscorpius kirktoniensis, is 320 million years old, and no different from today's scorpions. An insect fossil in amber, some 170 million years old, found on the Baltic Sea coast. It is no different from its modern counterparts. 35-million-year-old flies. They have the same bodily structure as flies today. 170-million-year-old fossil shrimp from the Jurassic Age. It is no different from living shrimps. nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.52 This situation invalidates the above argument, which has been stated by Darwinism for 140 years. The fossil record is rich enough for us to understand the origins of life, and explicitly reveals that distinct species came into existence on earth all of a sudden, with all their distinct forms. The Truth Revealed by the Fossil Record But where does the "evolution-paleontology" relationship, which has taken subconscious root in society over many decades, actually stem from? Why do most people have the impression that there is a positive connection between Darwin's theory and the fossil record whenever the latter is mentioned? The answer to these questions is supplied in an article in the leading journal Science: 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. 53 N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall also 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. The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced DARWINISM REFUTED 50 with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way. 54 Likewise, the American paleontologist Steven M. Stanley describes how the Darwinist dogma, which dominates the world of science, has ignored this reality demonstrated by the fossil record: 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.' ... their story has been suppressed. 55 Let us now examine the facts of the fossil record, which have been silenced for so long, in a bit more detail. In order to do this, we shall have to consider natural history from the most remote ages to the present, stage by stage. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 51 25-million-year-old termite fossils in amber. They are identical to termites living today. or some people, the very concept of natural history implies the theory of evolution. The reason for this is the heavy propaganda that has been carried out. Natural history museums in most countries are under the control of materialist evolutionary biologists, and it is they who describe the exhibits in them. They invariably describe creatures that lived in prehistory and their fossil remains in terms of Darwinian concepts. One result of this is that most people think that natural history is equivalent to the concept of evolution. However, the facts are very different. Natural history reveals that different classes of life emerged on the earth not through any evolutionary process, but all at once, and with all their complex structures fully developed right from the start. Different living species appeared completely independently of one another, and with no "transitional forms" between them. In this chapter, we shall examine real natural history, taking the fossil record as our basis. The Classification of Living Things Biologists place living things into different classes. This classification, known as "taxonomy," or "systematics," goes back as far as the eighteenthcentury Swedish scientist Carl von Linné, known as Linnaeus. The system of classification established by Linnaeus has continued and been developed right up to the present day. There are hierarchical categories in this classificatory system. Living 52 TRUE NATURAL HISTORY-I (FROM INVERTEBRATES TO REPTILES) F things are first divided into kingdoms, such as the plant and animal kingdoms. Then these kingdoms are sub-divided into phyla, or categories. Phyla are further divided into subgroups. From top to bottom, the classification is as follows: Kingdom Phylum (plural Phyla) Class Order Family Genus (plural Genera) Species Today, the great majority of biologists accept that there are five (or six) separate kingdoms. As well as plants and animals, they consider fungi, protista (single-celled creatures with a cell nucleus, such as amoebae and some algae), and monera (single-celled creatures with no cell nucleus, such as bacteria), as separate kingdoms. Sometimes the bacteria are subdivided into eubacteria and archaebacteria, for six kingdoms, or, on some accounts, three "superkingdoms" (eubacteria, archaebacteria and eukarya). The most important of all these kingdoms is without doubt the animal kingdom. And the largest division within the animal kingdom, as we saw earlier, are the different phyla. When designating these phyla, the fact that each one possesses completely different physical structures should always be borne in mind. Arthropoda (insects, spiders, and other creatures with jointed limbs), for instance, are a phylum by themselves, and all the animals in the phylum have the same fundamental physical structure. The phylum called Chordata includes those creatures with the notochord, or, most commonly, a spinal column. All the animals with the spinal column such as fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals that we are familiar with in daily life are in a subphylum of Chordata known as vertebrates. There are around 35 different phyla of animals, including the Mollusca, which include soft-bodied creatures such as snails and octopuses, or the Nematoda, which include diminutive worms. The most important feature of these categories is, as we touched on earlier, that they possess totally different physical characteristics. The categories below the phyla possess basically similar body plans, but the phyla are very different from one another. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 53 After this general information about biological classification, let us now consider the question of how and when these phyla emerged on earth. Fossils Reject the "Tree of Life" Let us first consider the Darwinist hypothesis. As we know, Darwinism proposes that life developed from one single common ancestor, and took on all its varieties by a series of tiny changes. In that case, life should first have emerged in very similar and simple forms. And according to the same theory, the differentiation between, and growing complexity in, living things must have happened in parallel over time. In short, according to Darwinism, life must be like a tree, with a common root, subsequently splitting up into different branches. And this hypothesis is constantly emphasized in Darwinist sources, where the concept of the "tree of life" is frequently employed. According to this tree concept, phyla -the fundamental units of classification between living things- came about by stages, as in the diagram to the left. According to Darwinism, one phylum must first emerge, and then the other phyla must slowly come about with minute changes over very long periods of time. The Darwinist hypothesis is that the number of animal phyla must have gradually increased in number. The diagram to the side shows the gradual increase in the number of animal phyla according to the Darwinian view. According to Darwinism, life must have developed in this way. But is this really how it happened? Definitely not. Quite the contrary: animals have been very different and complex since the moment they first emerged. All the animal phyla known today emerged at the same time, in the middle of the geological period known as the Cambrian Age. The Cambrian Age is a geological DARWINISM REFUTED 54 The so-called "tree of life" drawn by the evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel in 1866. THE FOSSIL RECORD DENIES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION The theory of evolution maintains that different groups of living things (phyla) developed from a common ancestor and grew apart with the passing of time. The diagram above states this claim: According to Darwinism, living things grew apart from one another like the branches on a tree. But the fossil record shows just the opposite. As can be seen from the diagram below, different groups of living things emerged suddenly with their different structures. Some 100 phyla suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. Subsequently, the number of these fell rather than rose (because some phyla became extinct). (From www.arn.org) MORPHOLOGICAL DISTANCE Present Cambrian Pre-cambrian Present TIME TIME NATURAL HISTORY ACCORDING TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION TRUE NATURAL HISTORY AS REVEALED BY THE FOSSIL RECORD MORPHOLOGICAL DISTANCE period estimated to have lasted some 65 million years, approximately between 570 to 505 million years ago. But the period of the abrupt appearance of major animal groups fit in an even shorter phase of the Cambrian, often referred to as the "Cambrian explosion." Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, in a 2001 article based on a detailed literature survey, dated 2001, note that the "Cambrian explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years."56 Before then, there is no trace in the fossil record of anything apart from single-celled creatures and a few very primitive multicellular ones. All animal phyla emerged completely formed and all at once, in the very short period of time represented by the Cambrian explosion. (Five million years is a very short time in geological terms!) The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belong to very different creatures, such as snails, trilobites, sponges, jellyfish, starfish, shellfish, etc. Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in living specimens. These structures are at one and the same time very advanced, and very different. Richard Monastersky, a staff writer at Science News magazine states the following about the "Cambrian explosion," which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory: DARWINISM REFUTED This illustration portrays living things with complex structures from the Cambrian Age. The emergence of such different creatures with no preceding ancestors completely invalidates Darwinist theory. A half-billion years ago, ...the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures.57 The same article also quotes Jan Bergström, a paleontologist who studied the early Cambrian deposits in Chengjiang, China, as saying, "The Chengjiang fauna demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today."58 How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden, and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged, is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that undermines the very foundation of all the arguments he has been defending: For example the Cambrian strata of rocks… are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. 59 Phillip Johnson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) who is also one of the world's foremost critics of Darwinism, describes the contradiction between this paleontological truth and Darwinism: Darwinian theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first living organism, or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified to create the higher levels of taxonomic order. The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing. 60 As Phillip Johnson has revealed, far from its being the case that phyla came about by stages, in reality they all came into being at once, and some of them even became extinct in later periods. The diagrams on page 53 reveal the truth that the fossil record has revealed concerning the origin of phyla. As we can see, in the Precambrian Age there were three different phyla consisting of single-cell creatures. But in the Cambrian Age, some 60 to 100 different animal phyla emerged all of a sudden. In the age that followed, some of these phyla became extinct, and only a few have come down to our day. Roger Lewin discusses this extraordinary fact, which totally demolishes all the Darwinist assumptions about the history of life: Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms — Baupläne or phyla — that would exist thereafter, including many that were "weeded out" and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. 61 58 A fossil from the Cambrian Age The Burgess Shale Fossil Bed Lewin continues to call this extraordinary phenomenon from the Cambrian Age an "evolutionary event," because of the loyalty he feels to Darwinism, but it is clear that the discoveries so far cannot be explained by any evolutionary approach. What is interesting is that the new fossil findings make the Cambrian Age problem all the more complicated. In its February 1999 issue, Trends in Genetics (TIG), a leading science journal, dealt with this issue. In an article about a fossil bed in the Burgess Shale region of British Colombia, Canada, it confessed that fossil findings in the area offer no support for the theory of evolution. The Burgess Shale fossil bed is accepted as one of the most important paleontological discoveries of our time. The fossils of many different species uncovered in the Burgess Shale appeared on earth all of a sudden, without having been developed from any pre-existing species found in preceding layers. TIG expresses this important problem as follows: It might seem odd that fossils from one small locality, no matter how exciting, should lie at the center of a fierce debate about such broad issues in evolutionary biology. The reason is that animals burst into the fossil record in astonishing profusion during the Cambrian, seemingly from nowhere. Increasingly precise radiometric dating and new fossil discoveries have only 59 INTERESTING SPINES: One of the creatures which suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age was Hallucigenia, seen at top left. And as with many other Cambrian fossils, it has spines or a hard shell to protect it from attack by enemies. The question that evolutionists cannot answer is, "How could they have come by such an effective defense system at a time when there were no predators around?" The lack of predators at the time makes it impossible to explain the matter in terms of natural selection. sharpened the suddenness and scope of this biological revolution. The magnitude of this change in Earth's biota demands an explanation. Although many hypotheses have been proposed, the general consensus is that none is wholly convincing.62 These "not wholly convincing" hypotheses belong to evolutionary paleontologists. TIG mentions two important authorities in this context, Stephen Jay Gould and Simon Conway Morris. Both have written books to explain the "sudden appearance of living beings" from the evolutionist standpoint. However, as also stressed by TIG, neither Wonderful Life by Gould nor The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals by Simon Conway Morris has provided an explanation for the Burgess Shale fossils, or for the fossil record of the Cambrian Age in general. Simultaneous Emergence of All Phyla Deeper investigation into the Cambrian Explosion shows what a great dilemma it creates for the theory of evolution. Recent findings indicate that almost all phyla, the most basic animal divisions, emerged abruptly in the Cambrian period. An article published in the journal Science in 2001 says: "The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today."63 The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has not yet proved possible: This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record.64 60 Marrella: One of the interesting fossil creatures found in the Burgess Shale fossil bed. The picture presented by the Cambrian fossils clearly refutes the assumptions of the theory of evolution, and provides strong evidence for the involvement of a "supernatural" being in their creation. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionary biologist, admits this fact: Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.65 The fossil record clearly indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden in a fully formed state. This provides evidence for saying that life did not come into existence through random natural processes, but through an act of intelligent creation. In an article called "the Big Bang of Animal Evolution" in the leading journal Scientific American, Jeffrey S. Levinton, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the State University of New York, accepts this reality, albeit unwillingly, saying "Therefore, something special and very mysterious -some highly creative "force"- existed then."66 Molecular Comparisons Deepen Evolution's Cambrian Impasse Another fact that puts the theory of evolution into a deep quandary about the Cambrian Explosion is genetic comparisons between different living taxa. The results of these comparisons reveal that animal taxa considered to be "close relatives" by evolutionists until quite recently, are in fact genetically very different, which totally refutes the "intermediate form" hypothesis—which only exists theoretically. An article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, in 2000 reports that recent DNA analyses have rearranged taxa that used to be considered "intermediate forms" in the past: DNA sequence analysis dictates new interpretation of phylogenic trees. Taxa that were once thought to represent successive grades of complexity at the base of the metazoan tree are being displaced to much higher positions inside the tree. This leaves no evolutionary ''intermediates'' and forces us to rethink the genesis of bilaterian complexity.67 In the same article, evolutionist writers note that some taxa which Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 61 Another illustration showing living things from the Cambrian Age. were considered "intermediate" between groups such as sponges, cnidarians and ctenophores, can no longer be considered as such because of these new genetic findings. These writers say that they have "lost hope" of constructing such evolutionary family trees: The new molecular based phylogeny has several important implications. Foremost among them is the disappearance of "intermediate" taxa between sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor of bilaterians or "Urbilateria."...A corollary is that we have a major gap in the stem leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomate ancestor" through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages.68 Trilobites vs. Darwin One of the most interesting of the many different species that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age is the now-extinct trilobites. Trilobites belonged to the Arthropoda phylum, and were very complicated creatures with hard shells, articulated bodies, and complex organs. The fossil record has made it possible to carry out very detailed studies of trilobites' eyes. The trilobite eye is made up of hundreds of tiny facets, and each one of these contains two lens layers. This eye structure is a real DARWINISM REFUTED 62 wonder of creation. David Raup, a professor of geology at Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says, "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today."69 The extraordinarily complex structure even in trilobites is enough to invalidate Darwinism on its own, because no complex creatures with similar structures lived in previous geological periods, which goes to show that trilobites emerged with no evolutionary process behind them. A 2001 Science article says: Cladistic analyses of arthropod phylogeny revealed that trilobites, like eucrustaceans, are fairly advanced "twigs" on the arthropod tree. But fossils of these alleged ancestral arthropods are lacking. ...Even if evidence for an earlier origin is discovered, it remains a challenge to explain why so many animals should have increased in size and acquired shells within so short a time at the base of the Cambrian.70 Very little was known about this extraordinary situation in the Cambrian Age when Charles Darwin was writing The Origin of Species. Only since Darwin's time has the fossil record revealed that life suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age, and that trilobites and other invertebrates came into being all at once. For this reason, Darwin was unable to treat the subject fully in the book. But he did touch on the subject under the heading "On the sudden appearance of groups of allied species in the Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 63 64 lowest known fossiliferous strata," where he wrote the following about the Silurian Age (a name which at that time encompassed what we now call the Cambrian): Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.71 Darwin said "If my theory be true, [the Cambrian] Age must have been full of living creatures." As for the question of why there were no fossils of these creatures, he tried to supply an answer throughout his book, using the excuse that "the fossil record is very lacking." But nowadays the fossil record is quite complete, and it clearly reveals that creatures from the Cambrian Age did not have ancestors. This means that we have to reject that sentence of Darwin's which begins "If my theory be true." Darwin's hypotheses were invalid, and for that reason, his theory is mistaken. The record from the Cambrian Age demolishes Darwinism, both with the complex bodies of trilobites, and with the emergence of very different living bodies at the same time. Darwin wrote "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow Trilobite eyes, with their doublet structure and hundreds of tiny lensed units, were a wonder of creation. DARWINISM REFUTED modification through natural selection."72 -that is, the theory at the heart of in his book. But as we saw earlier, 60 to 100 different animal phyla started into life in the Cambrian Age, all together and at the same time, let alone small categories such as species. This proves that the picture which Darwin had described as "fatal to the theory" is in fact the case. This is why the Swiss evolutionary paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengtson, who confesses the lack of transitional links while describing the Cambrian Age, makes the following comment: "Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us."73 Another matter that needs to be dealt with regarding trilobites is that the 530- million-year-old compound structure in these creatures' eyes has come down to the present day completely unchanged. Some insects today, such as bees and dragonflies, possess exactly the same eye structure.74 This discovery deals yet another "fatal blow" to the theory of evolution's claim that living things develop from the primitive to the complex. The Origin of Vertebrates As we said at the beginning, one of the phyla that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age is the Chordata, those creatures with a central nervous system contained within a braincase and a notochord or spinal column. Vertebrates are a subgroup of chordates. Vertebrates, divided into such fundamental classes as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, are probably the most dominant creatures in the animal kingdom. Because evolutionary paleontologists try to view every phylum as the evolutionary continuation of another phylum, they claim that the Chordata phylum evolved from another, invertebrate one. But the fact that, as with all phyla, the members of the Chordata emerged in the Cambrian Age invalidates this claim right from the very start. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 65 Darwin said that if his theory was correct, the long periods before the trilobites should have been full of their ancestors. But not one of these creatures predicted by Darwin has ever been found. As stated earlier, 530-million-year-old Cambrian fish fossils were discovered in 1999, and this striking discovery was sufficient to demolish all the claims of the theory of evolution on this subject. The oldest member of the Chordata phylum identified from the Cambrian Age is a sea-creature called Pikaia, which with its long body reminds one at first sight of a worm.75 Pikaia emerged at the same time as all the other species in the phylum which could be proposed as its ancestor, and with no intermediate forms between them. Professor Mustafa Kuru, a Turkish evolutionary biologist, says in his book Vertebrates: There is no doubt that chordates evolved from invertebrates. However, the lack of transitional forms between invertebrates and chordates causes people to put forward many assumptions.76 If there is no transitional form between chordates and invertebrates, then how can one say "there is no doubt that chordates evolved from invertebrates?" Accepting an assumption which lacks supporting evidence, without entertaining any doubts, is surely not a scientific approach, but a dogmatic one. After this statement, Professor Kuru discusses the evolutionist assumptions regarding the origins of vertebrates, and once again confesses that the fossil record of chordates consists only of gaps: 66 The two distinct fish species of the Cambrian, Haikouichthys ercaicunensis and Myllokunmingia fengjiaoa. THE FISH OF THE CAMBRIAN Until 1999, the question of whether any vertebrates were present in the Cambrian was limited to the discussion about Pikaia. But that year a stunning discovery deepened the evolutionary impasse regarding the Cambrian explosion: Chinese paleontologists at Chengjiang fauna discovered the fossils of two fish species that were about 530 million years old, a period known as the Lower Cambrian. Thus, it became crystal clear that along with all other phyla, the subphylum Vertebrata (Vertebrates) was also present in the Cambrian, without any evolutionary ancestors. The views stated above about the origins of chordates and evolution are always met with suspicion, since they are not based on any fossil records.77 Evolutionary biologists sometimes claim that the reason why there exist no fossil records regarding the origin of vertebrates is because invertebrates have soft tissues and consequently leave no fossil traces. However this explanation is entirely unrealistic, since there is an abundance of fossil remains of invertebrates in the fossil record. Nearly all organisms in the Cambrian period were invertebrates, and tens of thousands of fossil examples of these species have been collected. For example, there are many fossils of soft-tissued creatures in Canada's Burgess Shale beds. (Scientists think that invertebrates were fossilized, and their soft tissues kept intact in regions such as Burgess Shale, by being suddenly covered in mud with a very low oxygen content.78) The theory of evolution assumes that the first Chordata, such as Pikaia, evolved into fish. However, just as with the case of the supposed evolution of Chordata, the theory of the evolution of fish also lacks fossil evidence to support it. On the contrary, all distinct classes of fish emerged in the fossil record all of a sudden and fully-formed. There are millions of invertebrate fossils and millions of fish fossils; yet there is not even one fossil that is midway between them. Robert Carroll admits the evolutionist impasse on the origin of several taxa among the early vertebrates: We still have no evidence of the nature of the transition between cephalochordates and craniates. The earliest adequately known vertebrates already exhibit all the definitive features of craniates that we can expect to have preserved in fossils. No fossils are known that document the origin of jawed vertebrates.79 Another evolutionary paleontologist, Gerald T. Todd, admits a similar fact in an article titled "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes": All three subdivisions of bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?80 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 67 68 THE ORIGIN OF FISH The fossil record shows that fish, like other kinds of living things, also emerged suddenly and already in possession of all their unique structures. In other words, fish were created, not evolved. Fossil shark of the Stethacanthus genus, some 330 million years old. Fossil fish called Birkenia from Scotland. This creature, estimated to be some 420 million years old, is about 4 cm. long. 69 Fossil fish approximately 360 million years old from the Devonian Age. Called Osteolepis panderi, it is about 20 cm. long and closely resembles present-day fish. 110-million-year-old fossil fish from the Santana fossil bed in Brazil. Group of fossil fish from the Mesozoic Age. The Origin of Tetrapods Quadrupeds (or Tetrapoda) is the general name given to vertebrate animals dwelling on land. Amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are included in this class. The assumption of the theory of evolution regarding quadrupeds holds that these living things evolved from fish living in the sea. However, this claim poses contradictions, in terms of both physiology and anatomy. Furthermore, it lacks any basis in the fossil record. A fish would have to undergo great modifications to adapt to land. Basically, its respiratory, excretory and skeletal systems would all have to change. Gills would have to change into lungs, fins would have to acquire the features of feet so that they could carry the weight of the body, kidneys and the whole excretory system would have to be transformed to work in a terrestrial environment, and the skin would need to acquire a new texture to prevent water loss. Unless all these things happened, a fish could only survive on land for a few minutes. So, how does the evolutionist view explain the origin of landdwelling animals? Some shallow comments in evolutionist literature are mainly based on a Lamarckian rationale. For instance, regarding the transformation of fins into feet, they say, "Just when fish started to creep on land, fins gradually became feet." Ali Demirsoy, one of the foremost evolutionist scientists in Turkey, writes the following: "Maybe the fins of lunged fish changed into amphibian feet as they crept through muddy water."81 As mentioned earlier, these comments are based on a Lamarckian rationale, since the comment is essentially based on the improvement of an organ through use and the passing on of this trait to subsequent generations. It seems that the theory postulated by Lamarck, which collapsed a century ago, still has a strong influence on the subconscious minds of evolutionary biologists today. If we set aside these Lamarckist, and therefore unscientific, scenarios, we have to turn our attention to scenarios based on mutation and natural selection. However, when these mechanisms are examined, it can be seen that the transition from water to land is at a complete impasse. Let us imagine how a fish might emerge from the sea and adapt itself to the land: If the fish does not undergo a rapid modification in terms of its respiratory, excretory and skeletal systems, it will inevitably die. The DARWINISM REFUTED 70 chain of mutations that needs to come about has to provide the fish with a lung and terrestrial kidneys, immediately. Similarly, this mechanism should transform the fins into feet and provide the sort of skin texture that will hold water inside the body. What is more, this chain of mutations has to take place during the lifespan of one single animal. No evolutionary biologist would ever advocate such a chain of mutations. The implausible and nonsensical nature of the very idea is obvious. Despite this fact, evolutionists put forward the concept of "preadaptation," which means that fish acquire the traits they will need while they are still in the water. Put briefly, the theory says that fish acquire the traits of land-dwelling animals before they even feel the need for these traits, while they are still living in the sea. Nevertheless, such a scenario is illogical even when viewed from the standpoint of the theory of evolution. Surely, acquiring the traits of a landdwelling living animal would not be advantageous for a marine animal. Consequently, the proposition that these traits occurred by means of natural selection rests on no rational grounds. On the contrary, natural selection should eliminate any creature which underwent "preadaptation," since acquiring traits which would enable it to survive on land would surely place it at a disadvantage in the sea. In brief, the scenario of "transition from sea to land" is at a complete impasse. This is why Henry Gee, the editor of Nature, considers this scenario as an unscientific story: Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 71 The "transition from water to land" scenario, often maintained in evolutionist publications in imaginary diagrams like the one above, is often presented with a Lamarckian rationale, which is clearly pseudoscience. Conventional stories about evolution, about 'missing links', are not in themselves testable, because there is only one possible course of events — the one implied by the story. If your story is about how a group of fishes crawled onto land and evolved legs, you are forced to see this as a once-only event, because that's the way the story goes. You can either subscribe to the story or not — there are no alternatives.82 The impasse does not only come from the alleged mechanisms of evolution, but also from the fossil record or the study of living tetrapods. Robert Carroll has to admit that "neither the fossil record nor study of development in modern genera yet provides a complete picture of how the paired limbs in tetrapods evolved…"83 The beings claimed to represent the transition from fish to tetrapods have been several fish and amphibian genera, none of which bears transitional form characteristics. Evolutionist natural historians traditionally refer to coelacanths (and the closely-related, extinct Rhipidistians) as the most probably ancestors of quadrupeds. These fish come under the Crossopterygian subclass. DARWINISM REFUTED 72 There was no "evolutionary" process in the origin of frogs. The oldest known frogs were completely different from fish, and emerged with all their own peculiar features. Frogs in our time possess the same features. There is no difference between the frog found preserved in amber in the Dominican Republic and specimens living today. Evolutionists invest all their hopes in them simply because their fins have a relatively "fleshy" structure. Yet these fish are not transitional forms; there are huge anatomical and physiological differences between this class and amphibians. It is because of the huge anatomical differences between them that fish cannot be considered the evolutionary ancestors of amphibians. Two examples are Eusthenopteron (an extinct fish) and Acanthostega (an extinct amphibian), the two favorite subjects for most of the contemporary evolutionary scenarios regarding tetrapod origins. Robert Carroll, in his Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, makes the following comment about these allegedly related forms: Eusthenopteron and Acanthostega may be taken as the end points in the transition between fish and amphibians. Of 145 anatomical features that could be compared between these two genera, 91 showed changes associated with adaptation to life on land… This is far more than the number of changes that occurred in any one of the transitions involving the origin of the fifteen major groups of Paleozoic tetrapods.84 Ninety-one differences over 145 anatomical features… And evolutionists believe that all these were redesigned through a process of random mutations in about 15 million years.85 To believe in such a scenario may be necessary for the sake of evolutionary theory, but it is not scientifically and rationally sound. This is true for all other versions of the fish-amphibian scenario, which differ according to the candidates that are chosen to be the transitional forms. Henry Gee, the editor of Nature, makes a similar comment on the scenario based on Ichthyostega, another extinct amphibian with very similar characteristics to Acanthostega: A statement that Ichthyostega is a missing link between fishes and later tetrapods reveals far more about our prejudices than about the creature we are supposed to be studying. It shows how much we are imposing a restricted view on reality based on our own limited experience, when reality may be larger, stranger, and more different than we can imagine.86 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 73 An Eusthenopteron foordi fossil from the Later Devonian Age found in Canada. Another remarkable feature of amphibian origins is the abrupt appearance of the three basic amphibian categories. Carroll notes that "The earliest fossils of frogs, caecilians, and salamanders all appear in the Early to Middle Jurassic. All show most of the important attributes of their living descendants."87 In other words, these animals appeared abruptly and did not undergo any "evolution" since then. Speculations About Coelacanths Fish that come under the coelacanth family were once accepted as strong evidence for transitional forms. Basing their argument on coelacanth fossils, evolutionary biologists proposed that this fish had a primitive (not completely functioning) lung. Many scientific publications stated the fact, together with drawings showing how coelacanths passed to land from water. All these rested on the assumption that the coelacanth was an extinct species. DARWINISM REFUTED When they only had fossils of coelacanths, evolutionary paleontologists put forward a number of Darwinist assumptions regarding them; however, when living examples were found, all these assumptions were shattered. Below, examples of living coelacanths. The picture on the right shows the latest specimen of coelacanth, found in Indonesia in 1998. However on December 22, 1938, a very interesting discovery was made in the Indian Ocean. A living member of the coelacanth family, previously presented as a transitional form that had become extinct 70 million years ago, was caught! The discovery of a "living" prototype of the coelacanth undoubtedly gave evolutionists a severe shock. The evolutionary paleontologist J. L. B. Smith said, "If I'd meet a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished."88 In the years to come, 200 coelacanths were caught many times in different parts of the world. Living coelacanths revealed how groundless the speculation regarding them was. Contrary to what had been claimed, coelacanths had neither a primitive lung nor a large brain. The organ that evolutionist researchers had proposed as a primitive lung turned out to be nothing but a fat-filled swimbladder.89 Furthermore, the coelacanth, which was introduced as "a reptile candidate preparing to pass from sea to land," was in reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans and never approached nearer than 180 meters from the surface.90 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) The fundamental reason why evolutionists imagine coelacanths and similar fish to be "the ancestor of land animals" is that they have bony fins. They imagine that these gradually turned into feet. However, there is a fundamental difference between fish bones and the feet of land animals such as Ichthyostega: As shown in Picture 1, the bones of the coelacanth are not attached to the backbone; however, those of Ichthyostega are, as shown in Picture 2. For this reason, the claim that these fins gradually developed into feet is quite unfounded. Furthermore, the structure of the bones in coelacanth fins is very different from that in the bones in Ichthyostega feet, as seen in Pictures 3 and 4. bones are not attached to the backbone bones are attached to the backbone Coelacanth Ichthyostega 1 2 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FINS AND FEET Ichthyostega's feet Coelacanth's fin 3 4 Following this, the coelacanth suddenly lost all its popularity in evolutionist publications. Peter Forey, an evolutionary paleontologist, says in an article of his in Nature: The discovery of Latimeria raised hopes of gathering direct information on the transition of fish to amphibians, for there was then a long-held belief that coelacanths were close to the ancestry of tetrapods. ...But studies of the anatomy and physiology of Latimeria have found this theory of relationship to be wanting and the living coelacanth's reputation as a missing link seems unjustified.91 This meant that the only serious claim of a transitional form between fish and amphibians had been demolished. Physiological Obstacles to Transition from Water to Land The claim that fish are the ancestors of land-dwelling creatures is invalidated by anatomical and physiological observations as much as by the fossil record. When we examine the huge anatomical and physiological differences between water- and land-dwelling creatures, we can see that these differences could not have disappeared in an evolutionary process with gradual changes based on chance. We can list the most evident of these differences as follows 1- Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea, although the structures of their bodies are not made for such a task on land. However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40 percent of their energy just in carrying their bodies around. Creatures claimed to make the transition from water to land would at the same time need new muscular and skeletal systems to meet this energy need, and this could not have come about by chance mutations. The basic reason why evolutionists imagine the coelacanth and similar fish to be the ancestors of land-dwelling creatures is that their fins contain bones. It is assumed that over time these fins turned into loadbearing feet. However, there is a fundamental difference between these fish's bones and land-dwelling creatures' feet. It is impossible for the former to take on a load-bearing function, as they are not linked to the backbone. Land-dwelling creatures' bones, in contrast, are directly DARWINISM REFUTED 76 connected to the backbone. For this reason, the claim that these fins slowly developed into feet is unfounded. 2- Heat retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly, and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land. 77 THE KIDNEY PROBLEM Fish remove harmful substances from their bodies directly into the water, but land animals need kidneys. For this reason, the scenario of transition from water to the land requires kidneys to have developed by chance. However, kidneys possess an exceedingly complex structure and, what is more, the kidney needs to be 100 percent present and in complete working order in order to function. A kidney developed 50, or 70, or even 90 percent will serve no function. Since the theory of evolution depends on the assumption that "organs that are not used disappear," a 50 percent-developed kidney will disappear from the body in the first stage of evolution. METAMORPHOSIS Frogs are born in water, live there for a while, and finally emerge onto land in a process known as "metamorphosis." Some people think that metamorphosis is evidence of evolution, whereas the two actually have nothing to do with one another. The sole innovative mechanism proposed by evolution is mutation. However, metamorphosis does not come about by coincidental effects like mutation does. On the contrary, this change is written in frogs' genetic code. In other words, it is already evident when a frog is first born that it will have a type of body that allows it to live on land. Research carried out in recent years has shown that metamorphosis is a complex process governed by different genes. For instance, just the loss of the tail during this process is governed, according to Science News magazine, by more than a dozen genes (Science News, July 17, 1999, page 43). The evolutionists' claim of transition from water to land says that fish, with a genetic code completely created to allow them to live in water, turned into land creatures as a result of chance mutations. However, for this reason metamorphosis actually tears evolution down, rather than shoring it up, because the slightest error in the process of metamorphosis means the creature will die or be deformed. It is essential that metamorphosis should happen perfectly. It is impossible for such a complex process, which allows no room for error, to have come about by chance mutations, as is claimed by evolution. 3- Water: Essential to metabolism, water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something that sea-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat. 4- Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment: In freshwater fish, most of the nitrogenous wastes (including large amounts of ammonia, NH3) leave by diffusion out of the gills. The kidney is mostly a device for maintaining water balance in the animal, rather than an organ of excretion. Marine fish have two types. Sharks, skates, and rays may carry very high levels of urea in their blood. Shark's blood may contain 2.5% urea in contrast to the 0.01-0.03% in other vertebrates. The other type, i. e., marine bony fish, are much different. They lose water continuously but replace it by drinking seawater and then desalting it. They rely on excretory systems, which are very different from those of terrestrial vertebrates, for eliminating excess or waste solutes. Therefore, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once. 5- Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden. It is most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance. The Origin of Reptiles Dinosaur, lizard, turtle, crocodile—all these fall under the class of reptiles. Some, such as dinosaurs, are extinct, but the majority of these species still live on the earth. Reptiles possess some distinctive features. For example, their bodies are covered with scales, and they are coldblooded, meaning they are unable to regulate their body temperatures physiologically (which is why they expose their bodies to sunlight in order to warm up). Most of them reproduce by laying eggs. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 79 Regarding the origin of these creatures, evolution is again at an impasse. Darwinism claims that reptiles evolved from amphibians. However, no discovery to verify such a claim has ever been made. On the contrary, comparisons between amphibians and reptiles reveal that there are huge physiological gaps between the two, and a "half reptile-half amphibian" would have no possibility of survival. One example of the physiological gaps between these two groups is the different structures of their eggs. Amphibians lay their eggs in water, and their eggs are jelly-like, with a transparent and permeable membrane. Such eggs possess an ideal structure for development in water. Reptiles, on the other hand, lay their eggs on land, and consequently their eggs are created to survive there. The hard shell of the reptile egg, also known as an "amniotic egg," allows air in, but is impermeable to water. In this way, the water needed by the developing animal is kept inside the egg. 80 DIFFERENT EGGS One of the inconsistencies in the amphibian-reptile evolution scenario is the structure of the eggs. Amphibian eggs, which develop in water, have a jelly-like structure and a porous membrane, whereas reptile eggs, as shown in the reconstruction of a dinosaur egg on the right, are hard and impermeable, in order to conform to conditions on land. In order for an amphibian to become a reptile, its eggs would have to have coincidentally turned into perfect reptile eggs, and yet the slightest error in such a process would lead to the extinction of the species. If amphibian eggs were laid on land, they would immediately dry out, killing the embryo. This cannot be explained in terms of evolution, which asserts that reptiles evolved gradually from amphibians. That is because, for life to have begun on land, the amphibian egg must have changed into an amniotic one within the lifespan of a single generation. How such a process could have occurred by means of natural selection and mutation— the mechanisms of evolution—is inexplicable. Biologist Michael Denton explains the details of the evolutionist impasse on this matter: Every textbook of evolution asserts that reptiles evolved from amphibia but none explains how the major distinguishing adaptation of the reptiles, the amniotic egg, came about gradually as a result of a successive accumulation of small changes. The amniotic egg of the reptile is vastly more complex and utterly different to that of an amphibian. There are hardly two eggs in the whole animal kingdom which differ more fundamentally… The origin of the amniotic egg and the amphibian – reptile transition is just another of the major vertebrate divisions for which clearly worked out evolutionary schemes have never been provided. Trying to work out, for example, how the heart and aortic arches of an amphibian could have been gradually converted to the reptilian and mammalian condition raises absolutely horrendous problems.92 Nor does the fossil record provide any evidence to confirm the evolutionist hypothesis regarding the origin of reptiles. Robert L. Carroll is obliged to accept this. He has written in his classic work, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, that "The early amniotes are sufficiently distinct from all Paleozoic amphibians that their specific ancestry has not been established."93 In his newer book, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, published in 1997, he admits that "The origin of the modern amphibian orders, (and) the transition between early tetrapods" are "still poorly known" along with the origins of many other major groups.94 The same fact is also acknowledged by Stephen Jay Gould: No fossil amphibian seems clearly ancestral to the lineage of fully terrestrial vertebrates (reptiles, birds, and mammals). 95 So far, the most important animal put forward as the "ancestor of reptiles" has been Seymouria, a species of amphibian. However, the fact that Seymouria cannot be a transitional form was revealed by the discovery Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 81 that reptiles existed on earth some 30 million years before Seymouria first appeared on it. The oldest Seymouria fossils are found in the Lower Permian layer, or 280 million years ago. Yet the oldest known reptile species, Hylonomus and Paleothyris, were found in lower Pennsylvanian layers, making them some 315-330 million years old.96 It is surely implausible, to say the least, that the "ancestor of reptiles" lived much later than the first reptiles. In brief, contrary to the evolutionist claim that living beings evolved gradually, scientific facts reveal that they appeared on earth suddenly and fully formed. Snakes and Turtles Furthermore, there are impassable boundaries between very different orders of reptiles such as snakes, crocodiles, dinosaurs, and lizards. Each one of these different orders appears all of a sudden in the fossil record, and with very different structures. Looking at the structures in these very different groups, evolutionists go on to imagine the evolutionary processes that might have happened. But these hypotheses are not reflected in the fossil record. For instance, one widespread evolutionary assumption is that snakes evolved from lizards which gradually lost their DARWINISM REFUTED THE SEYMOURIA MISTAKE Evolutionists at one time claimed that the Seymouria fossil on the left was a transitional form between amphibians and reptiles. According to this scenario, Seymouria was "the primitive ancestor of reptiles." However, subsequent fossil discoveries showed that reptiles were living on earth some 30 million years before Seymouria. In the light of this, evolutionists had to put an end to their comments regarding Seymouria. 82 legs. But evolutionists are unable to answer the question of what "advantage" could accrue to a lizard which had gradually begun to lose its legs, and how this creature could be "preferred" by natural selection. It remains to say that the oldest known snakes in the fossil record have no "intermediate form" characteristics, and are no different from snakes of our own time. The oldest known snake fossil is Dinilysia, found in Upper Cretaceous rocks in South America. Robert Carroll accepts that this creature "shows a fairly advanced stage of evolution of these features [the specialized features of the skull of snakes],"97 in other words that it already possesses all the characteristics of modern snakes. Another order of reptile is turtles, which emerge in the fossil record together with the shells which are so characteristic of them. Evolutionist sources state that "Unfortunately, the origin of this highly successful order is obscured by the lack of early fossils, although turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates. By the middle of the Triassic Period (about 200,000,000 years ago) turtles were numerous and in possession of basic turtle characteristics… Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, reptiles from which turtles [supposedly] sprang, are entirely lacking."98 Thus Robert Carroll is also forced to say that the earliest turtles are encountered in Triassic formations in Germany and that these are easily distinguished from other species by means of their hard shells, which are very similar to those of specimens living today. He then goes on to say that no trace of earlier or more primitive turtles has ever been identified, although turtles fossilize very easily and are easily recognized even if only very small parts are found.99 All these types of living things emerged suddenly and independently. This fact is a scientific proof that they were created. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 83 An approximately 50 million-year-old python fossil of the genus Palaeopython. Flying Reptiles One interesting group within the reptile class are flying reptiles. These first emerged some 200 million years ago in the Upper Triassic, but subsequently became extinct. These creatures were all reptiles, because they possessed all the fundamental characteristics of the reptile class. They were cold-blooded (i.e., they could not regulate their own internal heat) and their bodies were covered in scales. But they possessed powerful wings, and it is thought that these allowed them to fly. Flying reptiles are portrayed in some popular evolutionist publications as paleontological discoveries that support Darwinism—at least, that is the impression given. However, the origin of flying reptiles is actually a real problem for the theory of evolution. The clearest indication of this is that flying reptiles emerged suddenly and fully formed, with no intermediate form between them and terrestrial reptiles. Flying reptiles possessed perfectly created wings, which no terrestrial reptile possesses. No half-winged creature has ever been encountered in the fossil record. DARWINISM REFUTED 84 Above, a freshwater turtle, some 45 million years old, found in Germany. On the right the remains of the oldest known marine turtle. This 110-million-year-old fossil, found in Brazil, is identical to specimens living today. In any case, no half-winged creature could have lived, because if these imaginary creatures had existed, they would have been at a grave disadvantage compared to other reptiles, having lost their front legs but being still unable to fly. In that event, according to evolution's own rules, they would have been eliminated and become extinct. In fact, when flying reptiles' wings are examined, they have such a flawless structure that this could never be accounted for by evolution. Just as other reptiles have five toes on their front feet, flying reptiles have five digits on their wings. But the fourth finger is some 20 times longer than the others, and the wing stretches out under that finger. If terrestrial reptiles had evolved into flying reptiles, then this fourth finger must have grown gradually step by step, as time passed. Not just the fourth finger, but the whole structure of the wing, must have developed with chance mutations, and this whole process would have had to bring some advantage to the creature. Duane T. Gish, one of the foremost critics of the theory of evolution on the paleontological level, makes this comment: The very notion that a land reptile could have gradually been converted into a flying reptile is absurd. The incipient, part-way evolved structures, rather than conferring advantages to the intermediate stages, would have been a great disadvantage. For example, evolutionists suppose that, strange as it may seem, mutations occurred that affected only the fourth fingers a little bit at a time. Of course, other random mutations occurring concurrently, incredible as it may seem, were responsible for the gradual origin of the wing membrane, flight muscles, tendons, nerves, blood vessels, and other structures necessary to form the wings. At some stage, the developing flying reptile would have had about 25 percent wings. This strange creature would Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 85 A Eudimorphodon fossil, one of the oldest species of flying reptiles. This specimen, found in northern Italy, is some 220 million years old. never survive, however. What good are 25 percent wings? Obviously the creature could not fly, and he could no longer run…100 In short, it is impossible to account for the origin of flying reptiles with the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. And in fact the fossil record reveals that no such evolutionary process took place. Fossil layers contain only land reptiles like those we know today, and perfectly developed flying reptiles. There is no intermediate form. R. Carroll makes the following admission as an evolutionist: ...all the Triassic pterosaurs were highly specialized for flight... They provide little evidence of their specific ancestry and no evidence of earlier stages in the origin of flight. 101 Carroll, more recently, in his Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, counts the origin of pterosaurs among the important transitions about which not much is known.102 As can be seen, there is no evidence for the evolution of flying reptiles. Because the term "reptile" means only land-dwelling reptiles for most people, popular evolutionist publications try to give the impression regarding flying reptiles that reptiles grew wings and began to fly. However, the fact is that both land-dwelling and flying reptiles emerged with no evolutionary relationship between them. DARWINISM REFUTED 86 A fossil flying reptile of the species Pterodactylus kochi. This specimen, found in Bavaria, is about 240 million years old. Marine Reptiles Another interesting category in the classification of reptiles is marine reptiles. The great majority of these creatures have become extinct, although turtles are an example of one group that survives. As with flying reptiles, the origin of marine reptiles is something that cannot be explained with an evolutionary approach. The most important known marine reptile is the creature known as the ichthyosaur. In their book Evolution of the Vertebrates, Edwin H. Colbert and Michael Morales admit the fact that no evolutionary account of the origin of these creatures can be given: The ichthyosaurs, in many respects the most highly specialized of the marine reptiles, appeared in early Triassic times. Their advent into the geologic history of the reptiles was sudden and dramatic; there are no clues in preTriassic sediments as to the possible ancestors of the ichthyosaurs… The basic problem of ichthyosaur relationships is that no conclusive evidence can be found for linking these reptiles with any other reptilian order.103 Similarly, Alfred S. Romer, another expert on the natural history of vertebrates, writes: No earlier forms [of ichthyosaurs] are known. The peculiarities of ichthyosaur structure would seemingly require a long time for their development and hence a very early origin for the group, but there are no known Permian reptiles antecedent to them.104 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 87 The wings of flying reptiles extend along a "fourth finger" some 20 times longer than the other fingers. The important point is that this interesting wing structure emerges suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record. There are no examples indicating that this "fourth finger" grew gradually—in other words, that it evolved. DARWINISM REFUTED 88 Carroll again has to admit that the origin of ichthyosaurs and nothosaurs (another family of aquatic reptiles) are among the many "poorly known" cases for evolutionists.105 In short, the different creatures that fall under the classification of reptiles came into being on the earth with no evolutionary relationship between them. As we shall see in due course, the same situation applies to mammals: there are flying mammals (bats) and marine mammals (dolphins and whales). However, these different groups are far from being evidence for evolution. Rather, they represent serious difficulties that evolution cannot account for, since in all cases the different taxonomical categories appeared on earth suddenly, with no intermediate forms between them, and with all their different structures already intact. This is clear scientific proof that all these creatures were actually created. Fossil ichthyosaur of the genus Stenopterygius, about 250 million years old. 200-million-year-old ichthyosaur fossil. here are thousands of bird species on the earth. Every one of them possesses distinct features. For example, falcons have acute vision, wide wings and sharp talons, while hummingbirds, with their long beaks, suck the nectar of flowers. Others migrate over long distances to very specific places in the world. But the most important feature distinguishing birds from other animals is flight. Most birds have the ability to fly. How did birds come into existence? The theory of evolution tries to provide an answer with a long scenario. According to this story, reptiles are the ancestors of birds. Approximately 150-200 million years ago, birds evolved from their reptile ancestors. The first birds had very poor flying skills. Yet, during the evolution process, feathers replaced the thick skins of these ancient birds, which were originally covered with scales. Their front legs were also completely covered by feathers, and changed into wings. As a result of gradual evolution, some reptiles adapted themselves to flight, and thus became the birds of today. This scenario is presented in evolutionary sources as an established fact. However, an in-depth study of the details and the scientific data indicates that the scenario is based more on imagination than reality. The Origin of Flight According to Evolutionists How reptiles, as land-dwelling creatures, ever came to fly, is an issue which has stirred up considerable speculation among evolutionists. There are two main theories. The first argues that the ancestors of birds 89 TRUE NATURAL HISTORY – II (BIRDS AND MAMMALS) T descended to the ground from the trees. As a result, these ancestors are alleged to be reptiles that lived in the treetops and came to possess wings gradually as they jumped from one branch to another. This is known as the arboreal theory. The other, the cursorial (or "running") theory, suggests that birds progressed to the air from the land. Yet both of these theories rest upon speculative interpretations, and there is no evidence to support either of them. Evolutionists have devised a simple solution to the problem: they simply imagine that the evidence exists. Professor John Ostrom, head of the Geology Department at Yale University, who proposed the cursorial theory, explains this approach: No fossil evidence exists of any pro-avis. It is a purely hypothetical pre-bird, but one that must have existed.106 However, this transitional form, which the arboreal theory assumes "must have lived," has never been found. The cursorial theory is even more problematic. The basic assumption of the theory is that the front legs of some reptiles gradually developed into wings as they waved their arms around in order to catch insects. However, no explanation is provided of how the wing, a highly complex organ, came into existence as a result of this flapping. One huge problem for the theory of evolution is the irreducible complexity of wings. Only a perfect structure allows wings to function, a "half-way developed" wing cannot function. In this context, the "gradual development" model—the unique mechanism postulated by evolution— makes no sense. Thus Robert Carroll is forced to admit that, "It is difficult to account for the initial evolution of feathers as elements in the flight apparatus, since it is hard to see how they could function until they reached the large size seen in Archaeopteryx."107 Then he argues that feathers could have evolved for insulation, but this does not explain their complex structure which is specifically shaped for flying. It is essential that wings should be tightly attached to the chest, and possess a structure able to lift the bird up and enable it to move in all directions, as well as allowing it to remain in the air. It is essential that wings and feathers possess a light, flexible and well proportioned structure. At this point, evolution is again in a quandary. It fails to answer the question of how this flawless anatomy of wings came about as the result of accumulative random mutations. Similarly, it offers no DARWINISM REFUTED 90 explanation of how the foreleg of a reptile came to change into a perfect wing as a result of a defect (mutation) in the genes. A half-formed wing cannot fly. Consequently, even if we assume that mutation did lead to a slight change in the foreleg, it is still entirely unreasonable to assume that further mutations contributed coincidentally to the development of a full wing. That is because a mutation in the forelegs will not produce a new wing; on the contrary, it will just cause the animal to lose its forelegs. This would put it at a disadvantage compared to other members of its own species. According to the rules of the theory of evolution, natural selection would soon eliminate this flawed creature. According to biophysical research, mutations are changes that occur very rarely. Consequently, it is impossible that a disabled animal could wait millions of years for its wings to fully develop by means of slight mutations, especially when these mutations have damaging effects over time… Birds and Dinosaurs The theory of evolution holds that birds evolved from carnivorous and bipedal theropods. However, a comparison between birds and reptiles reveals that the two have very distinct features, making it unlikely that one evolved from the other. There are various structural differences between birds and reptiles, 91 IMAGINARY THEORIES, IMAGINARY CREATURES The first theory put forward by evolutionists to account for the origin of flight claimed that reptiles developed wings as they hunted flies (above); the second theory was that they turned into birds as they jumped from branch to branch (side). However, there are no fossils of animals which gradually developed wings, nor any discovery to show that such a thing could even be possible. one of which concerns bone structure. Due to their bulky natures, dinosaurs—the ancestors of birds according to evolutionists—had thick, solid bones. Birds, in contrast, whether living or extinct, have hollow bones that are very light, as they must be in order for flight to take place. Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic structure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal kingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolism remains a speculation.) Birds, on the other hand, are at the opposite end of the metabolic spectrum. For instance, the body temperature of a sparrow can rise to as much as 48°C due to its fast metabolism. On the other hand, reptiles lack the ability to regulate their body temperature. Instead, they expose their bodies to sunlight in order to warm up. Put simply, reptiles consume the least energy of all animals and birds the most. One of the best-known ornithologists in the world, Alan Feduccia from the University of North Carolina, opposes the theory that birds are related to dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself. Feduccia has this to say regarding the reptile-bird scenario: Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.108 Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, he states: To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.109 Yet, despite all the scientific findings, the groundless scenario of "dinosaur-bird evolution" is still insistently advocated. Popular publications are particularly fond of the scenario. Meanwhile, concepts which provide no backing for the scenario are presented as evidence for the imaginary "dinosaur-bird evolution." In some evolutionist publications, for instance, emphasis is laid on the differences among dinosaur hip bones to support the thesis that birds are descended from dinosaurs. These so-called differences exist between DARWINISM REFUTED 92 Dinosaur bones are thick and solid because of their massive structure, whereas the bones of living and extinct birds are hollow, and thus very light. 93 Unlike dinosaur and reptile bones, bird bones are hollow. This gives the body stability and lightness. Birds' skeletal structure is employed in designing airplanes, bridges and modern structures. BIRDS' UNIQUE SKELETAL SYSTEM dinosaurs classified as Saurischian (reptile-like, hip-girdled species) and Ornithischian (bird-like, hip-girdled species). This concept of dinosaurs having hip girdles similar to those of birds is now and then taken as evidence for the alleged dinosaur–bird link. However, the difference in hip girdles is no evidence at all for the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is because Ornithischian dinosaurs do not resemble birds with respect to other anatomical features. For instance, Ankylosaurus is a dinosaur classified as Ornithischian, with short legs, a giant body, and skin covered with scales resembling armor. On the other hand, Struthiomimus, which resembles birds in some of its anatomical features (long legs, short forelegs, and thin structure), is actually a Saurischian.110 In short, the structure of the hip girdle is no evidence for an evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs. The claim that dinosaurs resemble birds because their hip girdles are similar ignores other significant anatomical differences between the two species which make any evolutionary link between them untenable from the evolutionist viewpoint. The Unique Structure of Avian Lungs Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-bird evolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot be accounted for by evolution. In land-dwelling creatures, air flow is bidirectional. Upon inhaling, the air travels through the passages in the lungs (bronchial tubes), ending in tiny air sacs (alveoli). The exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place here. Then, upon exhaling, this used air makes its way back and finds its way out of the lung by the same route. In birds however, air is unidirectional. New air comes in one end, and the used air goes at the other end. By means of special air sacs all along the passages between them, air always flows in one direction through the avian lung. In this way, birds are able to take in air nonstop. This satisfies birds' high energy requirements. This highly specialized respiratory system is explained by Michael Denton in his book A Theory in Crisis: In the case of birds, the major bronchi break down into tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi eventually join up DARWINISM REFUTED 94 together again, forming a true circulatory system so that air flows in one direction through the lungs. ...[T]he structure of the lung in birds and the overall functioning of the respiratory system is quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species is known which in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, it is identical in all essential details in birds as diverse as humming birds, ostriches and hawks.111 The important thing is that the reptile lung, with its bidirectional air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its unidirectional flow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediate model between them. In order for a creature to live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its lungs would inevitably end in death. According to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years, whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few minutes. Michael Denton states that it is impossible to give an evolutionary account of the avian lung: Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 95 Bird lungs function in a way that is completely contrary to the way the lungs of land animals function. The latter inhale and exhale through the same passages. The air in bird lungs, in contrast, passes continuously through the lung in one direction. This is made possible by special air sacs throughout the lung. By means of this system, whose details can be seen overleaf, birds breathe nonstop. This is peculiar to birds, which need high levels of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for this structure to have evolved from reptile lungs, because any creature with an "intermediate" form between the two types of lung would be unable to breathe. REPTILE LUNG AVIAN LUNG alveoli bronchi parabronchi air flow air flows in air flows out BIRDS' SPECIAL RESPIRATORY SYSTEM BREATHING OUT: When a bird breathes out, the fresh air in the rear air sacs goes into the lungs. With this system, the bird is able to enjoy a constant supply of fresh air to its lungs. There are many details in this lung system, which is shown in very simplified form in these diagrams. For instance, there are special valves where the sacs join the lungs, which enable the air to flow in the right direction. All of these show that there is clearly “creation” at work here. These special systems not only deal a death blow to the theory of evolution, they are also among the innumerable proofs of the fact of creation. BREATHING IN: The air which enters birds' respiratory passages goes to the lungs, and to air sacs behind them. The air which is used is transferred to air sacs at the front. front air sacs lung rear air sacs trachea Fresh air Stale air Fresh air Fresh air does not pass through flont air sacs Trachea Rear air sacs are filled with fresh air Front air sacs are filled with the stale air coming from the lungs Lung Stale air Fresh air moves out of the rear air sacs to the lungs. Lung Stale air is expelled from the front air sacs. function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner.112 In brief, the passage from a terrestrial lung to an avian lung is impossible, because an intermediate form would serve no purpose. Another point that needs to be mentioned here is that reptiles have a diaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal air sac system instead of a diaphragm. These different structures also make any evolution between the two lung types impossible, as John Ruben, an acknowledged authority in the field of respiratory physiology, observes in the following passage: The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage.113 Another interesting structural feature of the avian lung which defies evolution is the fact that it is never empty of air, and thus never in danger of collapse. Michael Denton explains the position: Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of direction is, again, very difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of the organism. Moreover, the unique function and form of the avian lung necessitates a number of additional unique adaptations during avian development. As H. R. Dunker, one of the world's authorities in this field, explains, because first, the avian lung is fixed rigidly to the body wall and cannot therefore expand in volume and, second, because of the small diameter of the lung capillaries and the resulting high surface tension of any liquid within them, the avian lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as happens in all other vertebrates after birth. The air capillaries are never collapsed as are the alveoli of other Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 97 vertebrate species; rather, as they grow into the lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes filled with either air or fluid.114 In other words, the passages in birds' lungs are so narrow that the air sacs inside their lungs cannot fill with air and empty again, as with landdwelling creatures. If a bird lung ever completely deflated, the bird would never be able to re-inflate it, or would at the very least have great difficulty in doing so. For this reason, the air sacs situated all over the lung enable a constant passage of air to pass through, thus protecting the lungs from deflating. Of course this system, which is completely different from the lungs of reptiles and other vertebrates, and is based on the most sensitive equilibrium, cannot have come about with unconscious mutations, stage by stage, as evolution maintains. This is how Denton describes this structure of the avian lung, which again invalidates Darwinism: The avian lung brings us very close to answering Darwin's challenge: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."115 98 Parabronchial tubes, which enable air to circulate in the right direction in birds' lungs. Each of these tubes is just 0.5 mm. in diameter. Bird Feathers and Reptile Scales Another impassable gulf between birds and reptiles is feathers, which are peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, and those of birds with feathers. The hypothesis that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionary paleontologist Barbara Stahl admits: How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. 116 A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the University of Connecticut, accepts this reality, although he is himself an evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales]."117 Moreover, Professor Brush examines the protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among vertebrates."118 There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, Professor Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character distinguishing birds.119 Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers.120 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 99 REPTILE SCALES The scales that cover reptiles' bodies are totally different from bird feathers. Unlike feathers, scales do not extend under the skin, but are merely a hard layer on the surface of the animal's body. Genetically, biochemically and anatomically, scales bear no resemblance to feathers. This great difference between the two again shows that the scenario of evolution from reptiles to birds is unfounded. Many fossils have so far been the subject of "feathered dinosaur" speculation, but detailed study has always disproved it. The prominent ornithologist Alan Feduccia writes the following in an article called "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers": Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. 121 The Creation of Feathers On the other hand, bird feathers have such a complex structure that the phenomenon can never be accounted for by evolutionary processes. As we all know, there is a shaft that runs up the center of the feather. Attached to the shaft are the vanes. The vane is made up of small threadlike strands, called barbs. These barbs, of different lengths and rigidity, are what give the bird its aerodynamic nature. But what is even more interesting is that each barb has thousands of even smaller strands attached to them called barbules. The barbules are connected to barbicels, with tiny microscopic hooks, called hamuli. Each strand is hooked to an opposing strand, much like the hooks of a zipper. Just one crane feather has about 650 barbs on each of side of the shaft. About 600 barbules branch off the barbs. Each one of these barbules are locked together with 390 hooklets. The hooks latch together as do the teeth on both sides of a zip. If the hooklets come apart for any reason, the bird can easily restore the feathers to their original form by either shaking itself or by straightening its feathers out with its beak. DARWINISM REFUTED 100 The Sinosauropteryx fossil, announced by evolutionary paleontologists to be a "feathered dinosaur," but which subsequently turned out to be no such thing. 101 THE COMPLEX STRUCTURE OF BIRD FEATHERS When bird feathers are studied closely, a very delicate design emerges. There are even tinier hairs on every tiny hair, and these have special hooks, allowing them to hold onto each other. The pictures show progressively enlarged bird feathers. To claim that the complex structure of feathers could have come about by the evolution of reptile scales through chance mutations is quite simply a dogmatic belief with no scientific foundation. Even one of the doyens of Darwinism, Ernst Mayr, made this confession on the subject some years ago: It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations.122 Feathers also compelled Darwin to ponder them. Moreover, the perfect aesthetics of the peacock's feathers had made him "sick" (his own words). In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray on April 3, 1860, he said, "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint..." And then continued: "... and now trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!"123 In short, the enormous structural differences between bird feathers and reptile scales, and the extraordinarily complex structure of feathers, clearly demonstrate the baselessness of the claim that feathers evolved from scales. The Archaeopteryx Misconception In response to the question whether there is any fossil evidence for "reptile-bird evolution," evolutionists pronounce the name of one single creature. This is the fossil of a bird called Archaeopteryx, one of the most widely known so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still defend. Archaeopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time. However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that this explanation lacks any scientific foundation. This is absolutely not a DARWINISM REFUTED 102 transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds. The thesis that Archaeopteryx was a "half-bird" that could not fly perfectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago. The absence of a sternum (breastbone) in this creature was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The sternum is a bone found under the thorax to which the muscles required for flight are attached. In our day, this breastbone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats, a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.) However, the seventh Archaeopteryx fossil, which was found in 1992, disproved this argument. The reason was that in this recently discovered fossil, the breastbone that was long assumed by evolutionists to be missing was discovered to have existed after all. This fossil was described in the journal Nature as follows: The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles, but its capacity for long flights is questionable.124 This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the claims that Archaeopteryx was a half-bird that could not fly properly. Morevoer, the structure of the bird's feathers became one of the most important pieces of evidence confirming that Archaeopteryx was a flying bird in the true sense. The asymmetric feather structure of Archaeopteryx is indistinguishable from that of modern birds, and indicates that it could fly perfectly well. As the eminent paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states, "Because of its feathers, [Archaeopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird."125 Paleontologist Robert Carroll further explains the subject: The geometry of the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) One of the important pieces of evidence that Archaeopteryx was a flying bird is its asymmetric feather structure. Above, one of the creature's fossil feathers. 103 The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds… According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing of Archaeopteryx are similar to that of birds that move through restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves, woodcocks, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds… The flight feathers have been in stasis for at least 150 million years…126 Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archaeopteryx's feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. As was discussed above, reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat fluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather than being homeostatically regulated. A very important function of the feathers on birds is the maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact that Archaeopteryx had feathers shows that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to retain its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs. The Teeth and Claws of Archaeopteryx Two important points evolutionary biologists rely on when claiming Archaeopteryx was a transitional form, are the claws on its wings and its teeth. It is true that Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its mouth, but these traits do not imply that the creature bore any kind of relationship to reptiles. Besides, two bird species living today, the touraco and the hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto branches. These creatures are fully birds, with no reptilian characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless to assert that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on its wings. Neither do the teeth in Archaeopteryx's beak imply that it is a transitional form. Evolutionists are wrong to say that these teeth are reptilian characteristics, since teeth are not a typical feature of reptiles. Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not. Moreover, Archaeopteryx is not the only bird species to possess teeth. It is true that there are no toothed birds in existence today, but when we look at the fossil record, we see that both during the time of Archaeopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct group of birds existed that could be categorised as "birds with teeth." DARWINISM REFUTED 104 The most important point is that the tooth structure of Archaeopteryx and other birds with teeth is totally different from that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The well-known ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archaeopteryx and other similar birds have unserrated teeth with constricted bases and expanded roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, had serrated teeth with straight roots.127 These researchers also compared the ankle bones of Archaeopteryx with those of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them.128 Studies by anatomists such as S. Tarsitano, M.K. Hecht, and A.D. Walker have revealed that some of the similarities that John Ostrom and others have seen between the limbs of Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs were in reality misinterpretations.129 For example, A.D. Walker has analyzed the ear region of Archaeopteryx and found that it is identical to that of modern-day birds.130 Furthermore, J. Richard Hinchliffe, from the Institute of Biological Sciences of the University of Wales, studied the anatomies of birds and their alleged reptilian ancestors by using modern isotopic techniques and discovered that the three forelimb digits in dinosaurs are I-II-III, whereas bird wing digits are II-III-IV. This poses a big problem for the supporters of the Archaeopteryx-dinosaur link.131 Hinchliffe published his studies and observations in Science in 1997, where he wrote: Doubts about homology between theropods and bird digits remind us of some of the other problems in the "dinosaur-origin" hypothesis. These include the following: (i) The much smaller theropod forelimb (relative to body size) in comparison with the Archaeopteryx wing. Such small limbs are 105 Just like Archaeopteryx, there are claw-like nails on the wings of the bird Opisthocomus hoazin, which lives in our own time. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) not convincing as proto-wings for a ground-up origin of flight in the relatively heavy dinosaurs. (ii) The rarity in theropods of the semilunate wrist bone, known in only four species (including Deinonychus). Most theropods have relatively large numbers of wrist elements, difficult to homologize with those of Archaeopteryx. (iii) The temporal paradox that most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx. As Hinchliffe notes, the "temporal paradox" is one of the facts that deal the fatal blow to the evolutionist allegations about Archaeopteryx. In his book Icons of Evolution, American biologist Jonathan Wells remarks that Archaeopteryx has been turned into an "icon" of the theory of evolution, whereas evidence clearly shows that this creature is not the primitive ancestor of birds. According to Wells, one of the indications of this is that theropod dinosaurs—the alleged ancestors of Archaeopteryx— are actually younger than Archaeopteryx: "Two-legged reptiles that ran along the ground, and had other features one might expect in an ancestor of Archaeopteryx, appear later."132 All these findings indicate that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called "toothed birds." Linking this creature to theropod dinosaurs is completely invalid. In an article headed "The Demise of the 'Birds Are Dinosaurs' Theory," the American biologist Richard L. Deem writes the following about Archaeopteryx and the bird-dinosaur evolution claim: The results of the recent studies show that the hands of the theropod dinosaurs are derived from digits I, II, and III, whereas the wings of birds, although they look alike in terms of structure, are derived from digits II, III, and IV... There are other problems with the "birds are dinosaurs" theory. The theropod forelimb is much smaller (relative to body size) than that of Archaeopteryx. The small "proto-wing" of the theropod is not very convincing, especially considering the rather hefty weight of these dinosaurs. The vast majority of the theropod lack the semilunate wrist bone, and have a large number of other wrist elements which have no homology to the bones of Archaeopteryx. In addition, in almost all theropods, nerve V1 exits the braincase out the side, along with several other nerves, whereas in birds, it exits out the front of the braincase, though its own hole. There is also the minor problem that the vast majority of the theropods appeared after the appearance of Archaeopteryx.133 DARWINISM REFUTED 106 Archaeopteryx and Other Ancient Bird Fossils Some recently found fossils also invalidate the evolutionist scenario regarding Archaeopteryx in other respects. Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, two paleontologists at the Chinese Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology, discovered a new bird fossil in 1995, and named it Confuciusornis. This fossil is almost the same age as Archaeopteryx (around 140 million years), but has no teeth in its mouth. In addition, its beak and feathers share the same features as today's birds. Confuciusornis has the same skeletal structure as modern birds, but also has claws on its wings, just like Archaeopteryx. Another structure peculiar to birds called the "pygostyle," which supports the tail feathers, was also found in Confuciusornis. 134 In short, this fossil—which is the same age as Archaeopteryx, which was previously thought to be the earliest bird and was accepted as a semi-reptile—looks very much like a modern bird. This fact has invalidated all the evolutionist theses claiming Archaeopteryx to be the primitive ancestor of all birds. Another fossil unearthed in China caused even greater confusion. In November 1996, the existence of a 130-million-year-old bird named Liaoningornis was announced in Science by L. Hou, L. D. Martin, and Alan Feduccia. Liaoningornis had a breastbone to which the muscles for flight were attached, just as in modern birds.135 This bird was indistinguishable from modern birds in other respects, too. The only difference was the teeth in its mouth. This showed that birds with teeth did not possess the primitive structure alleged by evolutionists. That Liaoningornis had the features of a modern bird was stated in an article in Discover, which said, "Whence came the birds? This fossil suggests that it was not from dinosaur stock."136 Another fossil that refuted the evolutionist claims regarding Archaeopteryx was Eoalulavis. The wing structure of Eoalulavis, which was said to be some 25 to 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, was also observed in modern slow-flying birds.137 This proved that 120 million years ago, there were birds indistinguishable from modern birds in many respects, flying in the skies. These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archaeopteryx nor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The fossils do not indicate that different bird species evolved from each other. On the Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 107 contrary, the fossil record proves that today's modern birds and some archaic birds such as Archaeopteryx actually lived together at the same time. It is true that some of these bird species, such as Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis, have become extinct, but the fact that only some of the species that once existed have been able to survive down to the present day does not in itself support the theory of evolution. Archaeoraptor: The Dino-Bird Hoax Unable to find what they were looking for in Archaeopteryx, the advocates of the theory of evolution pinned their hopes on some other fossils in the 1990s and a series of reports of so-called "dino-bird" fossils appeared in the world media. Yet it was soon discovered that these claims were simply misinterpretations, or, even worse, forgeries. The first dino-bird claim was the story of "feathered dinosaur fossils unearthed in China," which was put forward in 1996 with a great media fanfare. A reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found, but some evolutionist paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had bird feathers, unlike known reptiles. Examinations conducted one year later, however, showed that the fossil actually had no structure similar to a bird's feather. A Science article titled "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur" DARWINISM REFUTED 108 Confuciusornis, which lived at the same time as Archaeopteryx, has many similarities to modern birds. stated that the structures named as "feathers" by evolutionary paleontologists definitely had nothing to do with feathers: Exactly 1 year ago, paleontologists were abuzz about photos of a so-called "feathered dinosaur," which were passed around the halls at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The Sinosauropteryx specimen from the Yixian Formation in China made the front page of The New York Times, and was viewed by some as confirming the dinosaurian origins of birds. But at this year's vertebrate paleontology meeting in Chicago late last month, the verdict was a bit different: The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens. ...Paleontologist Larry Martin of Kansas University, Lawrence, thinks the structures are frayed collagenous fibers beneath the skin—and so have nothing to do with birds.138 A yet more sensational case of dino-bird hype broke out in 1999. In its November 1999 issue, National Geographic published an article about a fossil specimen unearthed in China which was claimed to bear both bird and dinosaur features. National Geographic writer Christopher P. Sloan, the author of the article, went so far as to claim, "we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals." This species, which was said to have lived 125 million years ago, was immediately given the scientific name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. 139 However, the fossil was a fake and was skillfully constructed from five separate specimens. A group of researchers, among whom were also three paleontologists, proved the forgery one year later with the help of Xray computed tomography. The dino-bird was actually the product of a Chinese evolutionist. Chinese amateurs formed the dino-bird by using glue and cement from 88 bones and stones. Research suggests that Archaeoraptor was built from the front part of the skeleton of an ancient bird, and that its body and tail included bones from four different specimens. The interesting thing is that National Geographic published a highprofile article about such a crude forgery—and, moreover, used it as the basis for claiming that "bird evolution" scenarios had been verified— without expressing any doubts or caution in the article at all. Dr. Storrs Olson, of the famous Smithsonian Institute Natural History Museum in the USA, later said that he warned National Geographic beforehand that this fossil was a fake, but that the magazine management totally ignored him. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 109 According to Olson, "National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism."140 In a letter he wrote to Peter Raven of National Geographic, Olson describes the real story of the "feathered dinosaur" hype since its launch with a previous National Geographic article published in 1998 in a very detailed way: Prior to the publication of the article "Dinosaurs Take Wing" in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan's article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Sloan's article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that "makes" the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that "we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals" is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned. DARWINISM REFUTED 110 National Geographic's great hit, the "dinobird." Archaeoraptor soon turned out to be a hoax. More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan's article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that "hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers" is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical. The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction. Sincerely, Storrs L. Olson Curator of Birds National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution141 This revealing case demonstrates two important facts. First, there are people who have no qualms about resorting to forgery in an effort to find evidence for the theory of evolution. Second, some highly reputable popular science journals, which have assumed the mission of imposing the theory of evolution on people, are perfectly willing to disregard any facts that may be inconvenient or have alternative interpretations. That is, they have become little more than propaganda tools for propagating the theory of evolution. They take not a scientific, but a dogmatic, stance and knowingly compromise science to defend the theory of evolution to which they are so strongly devoted. Another important aspect of the matter is that there is no evidence for the thesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Because of the lack of evidence, either fake evidence is produced, or actual evidence is misinterpreted. In truth, there is no evidence that birds have evolved from another living species. On the contrary, all discoveries show that birds emerged on the earth already in full possession of their distinctive body structures. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 111 LATEST EVIDENCE: OSTRICH STUDY REFUTES THE DINO-BIRD STORY The latest blow to the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory came from a study made on the embryology of ostriches. Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied a series of live ostrich eggs and, once again, concluded that there cannot be an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. EurekAlert, a scientific portal held by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), reports the following: Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill... opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs... Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said... "Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three... Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible." 1 In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory: "There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia] said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old." If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences, Feduccia said. Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation and replacement."2 This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird" hype is just another "icon" of Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake of a dogmatic faith in the theory. 1 - David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird 'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs," EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php 2 - David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird 'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs," EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php Dr. Feduccia: His new study is enough to bury the 'dino-bird" myth The Origin of Insects While discussing the origin of birds, we mentioned the cursorial theory that evolutionary biologists propose. As we made clear then, the question of how reptiles grew wings involves speculation about "reptiles trying to catch insects with their front legs." According to this theory, these reptiles' forefeet slowly turned into wings over time as they hunted for insects. We have already stressed that this theory is based on no scientific discoveries whatsoever. But there is another interesting side to it, which we have not yet touched on. Flies can already fly. So how did they acquire wings? And generally speaking, what is the origin of insects, of which flies are just one class? In the classification of living things, insects make up a subphylum, Insecta, of the phylum Arthropoda. The oldest insect fossils belong to the Devonian Age (410 to 360 million years ago). In the Pennsylvanian Age which followed (325 to 286 million years ago), there emerged a great number of different insect species. For instance, cockroaches emerge all of a sudden, and with the same structure as they have today. Betty Faber, of the American Museum of Natural History, reports that fossil cockroaches from 350 million years ago are exactly the same as those of today.142 Creatures such as spiders, ticks, and millipedes are not insects, but rather belong to other subphyla of Arthropoda. Important fossil discoveries of these creatures were communicated to the 1983 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The interesting thing about these 380-million-year-old spider, tick, and centipede fossils is the fact that they are no different from specimens alive today. One of the Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 113 There is no difference between this 320-million-year-old fossil cockroach and specimens living today. scientists who examined the fossils remarked that, "they looked like they might have died yesterday."143 Winged insects also emerge suddenly in the fossil record, and with all the features peculiar to them. For example, a large number of dragonfly fossils from the Pennsylvanian Age have been found. And these dragonflies have exactly the same structures as their counterparts today. 114 Winged insects emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record, and from that moment they have possessed the same flawless structures as today. The 320-million-year fossil dragonfly above is the oldest known specimen and is no different from dragonflies living today. No "evolution" has taken place. This Acantherpestes major millipede, found in the state of Kansas in the United States, is some 300 million years old, and no different from millipedes today. 145-million-year-old fossil fly. This fossil, found in Liaoning in China, is the same as flies of the same species living today. DARWINISM REFUTED One interesting point here is the fact that dragonflies and flies emerge all of a sudden, together with wingless insects. This disproves the theory that wingless insects developed wings and gradually evolved into flying ones. In one of their articles in the book Biomechanics in Evolution, Robin Wootton and Charles P. Ellington have this to say on the subject: When insect fossils first appear, in the Middle and Upper Carboniferous, they are diverse and for the most part fully winged. There are a few primitively wingless forms, but no convincing intermediates are known.144 One major characteristic of flies, which emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record, is their amazing flying technique. Whereas a human being is unable to open and close his arms even 10 times a second, a fly flaps its wings 500 times on average in that space of time. Moreover, it moves both its wings simultaneously. The slightest dissonance in the vibration of its wings would cause the fly to lose balance, but this never happens. In an article titled "The Mechanical Design of Fly Wings," Wootton further observes: The better we understand the functioning of insect wings, the more subtle and beautiful their designs appear … Structures are traditionally designed to deform as little as possible; mechanisms are designed to move component parts in predictable ways. Insect wings combine both in one, using components with a wide range of elastic properties, elegantly assembled to allow appropriate deformations in response to appropriate forces and to make the best possible use of the air. They have few if any technological parallels – yet. 145 Of course the sudden emergence of living things with such a perfect structure as this cannot be explained by any evolutionist account. That is why Pierre-Paul Grassé says, "We are in the dark concerning the origin of insects."146 The origin of insects clearly proves the fact that all living things were created by Allah. The Origin of Mammals As we have stated before, the theory of evolution proposes that some imaginary creatures that came out of the sea turned into reptiles, and that birds evolved from reptiles. According to the same scenario, reptiles are the ancestors not only of birds, but also of mammals. However, there are Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 115 A fossilized fly, trapped in amber 35 million years ago. This fossil, found on the Baltic coast, is again no different from those living in our own time. great differences between these two classes. Mammals are warm-blooded animals (this means they can generate their own heat and maintain it at a steady level), they give live birth, they suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in fur or hair. Reptiles, on the other hand, are cold-blooded (i.e., they cannot generate heat, and their body temperature changes according to the external temperature), they lay eggs, they do not suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in scales. Given all these differences, then, how did a reptile start to regulate its body temperature and come by a perspiratory mechanism to allow it to maintain its body temperature? Is it possible that it replaced its scales with fur or hair and started to secrete milk? In order for the theory of evolution to explain the origin of mammals, it must first provide scientific answers to these questions. Yet, when we look at evolutionist sources, we either find completely imaginary and unscientific scenarios, or else a profound silence. One of these scenarios is as follows: Some of the reptiles in the colder regions began to develop a method of keeping their bodies warm. Their heat output increased when it was cold and their heat loss was cut down when scales became smaller and more pointed, and evolved into fur. Sweating was also an adaptation to regulate the body temperature, a device to cool the body when necessary by evaporation of water. But incidentally the young of these reptiles began to lick the sweat of the mother for nourishment. Certain sweat glands began to secrete a richer and richer secretion, which eventually became milk. Thus the young of these early mammals had a better start in life.147 The above scenario is nothing more than a figment of the imagination. Not only is such a fantastic scenario unsupported by the evidence, it is clearly impossible. It is quite irrational to claim that a living creature produces a highly complex nutrient such as milk by licking its mother's body sweat. The reason why such scenarios are put forward is the fact that there are huge differences between reptiles and mammals. One example of the structural barriers between reptiles and mammals is their jaw structure. Mammal jaws consist of only one mandibular bone containing the teeth. In reptiles, there are three little bones on both sides of the mandible. Another basic difference is that all mammals have three bones in their Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 117 middle ear (hammer, anvil, and stirrup). Reptiles have but a single bone in the middle ear. Evolutionists claim that the reptile jaw and middle ear gradually evolved into the mammal jaw and ear. The question of how an ear with a single bone evolved into one with three bones, and how the sense of hearing kept on functioning in the meantime can never be explained. Not surprisingly, not one single fossil linking reptiles and mammals has been found. This is why Roger Lewin was forced to say, "The transition to the first mammal, ... is still an enigma."148 George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most important evolutionary authorities and a founder of the neo-Darwinist theory, makes the following comment regarding this perplexing difficulty for evolutionists: The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts.149 Furthermore, when mammals suddenly made their appearance, they were already very different from each other. Such dissimilar animals as bats, horses, mice, and whales are all mammals, and they all emerged DARWINISM REFUTED 118 There is no difference between fossil mammals dozens of millions of years old in natural history museums and those living today. Furthermore, these fossils emerge suddenly, with no connection to species that had gone before. during the same geological period. Establishing an evolutionary relationship among them is impossible even by the broadest stretch of the imagination. The evolutionist zoologist R. Eric Lombard makes this point in an article that appeared in the leading journal Evolution: Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.150 In short, the origin of mammals, like that of other groups, fails to conform to the theory of evolution in any way. George Gaylord Simpson admitted that fact many years ago: This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals ... The earliest and most primitive known members of every order [of mammals] already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed ... This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate...it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.151 The Myth of Horse Evolution One important subject in the origin of mammals is the myth of the "evolution of the horse," also a topic to which evolutionist publications have devoted a considerable amount of space for a long time. This is a myth, because it is based on imagination rather than scientific findings. Until recently, an imaginary sequence supposedly showing the evolution of the horse was advanced as the principal fossil evidence for the theory of evolution. Today, however, many evolutionists themselves frankly admit that the scenario of horse evolution is bankrupt. In 1980, a four-day symposium was held at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, with 150 evolutionists in attendance, to discuss the problems with the gradualistic evolutionary theory. In addressing this meeting, evolutionist Boyce Rensberger noted that the scenario of the evolution of the horse has no foundation in the fossil record, and that no evolutionary process has been observed that would account for the gradual evolution of horses: Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 119 The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.152 While discussing this important dilemma in the scenario of the evolution of the horse in a particularly honest way, Rensberger brought the transitional form difficulty onto the agenda as the greatest difficulty of all. Dr. Niles Eldredge said the following about the “evolution of the horse” diagram: There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.153 Then what is the scenario of the evolution of the horse? This scenario was formulated by means of the deceitful charts devised by the sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastly different periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe, solely in accordance with the rich power of evolutionists' imaginations. More than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which by the way are totally different from each other, have been proposed by various researchers. Thus, it is obvious that evolutionists have reached no common agreement on these family trees. The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called Eohippus (Hyracotherium), which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. However, the fact is that Eohippus, which became extinct millions of years ago, is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has nothing whatsoever to do with the horse.154 The inconsistency of the theory of the evolution of the horse becomes increasingly apparent as more fossil findings are gathered. Fossils of modern horse species (Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis) have been DARWINISM REFUTED 120 discovered in the same layer as Eohippus. 155 This is an indication that the modern horse and its so-called ancestor lived at the same time. The evolutionist science writer Gordon R. Taylor explains this littleacknowledged truth in his book The Great Evolution Mystery: But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change... The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincinglooking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time.156 All these facts are strong evidence that the charts of horse evolution, which are presented as one of the most solid pieces of evidence for the theory of evolution, are nothing but fantastic and implausible fairy tales. Like other species, horses, too, came into existence without ancestors in the evolutionary sense. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 121 The Evolution of the Horse exhibition in London's Natural History Museum. This and other "evolution of the horse" diagrams show independent species which lived at different times and in different places, lined up one after the other in a very subjective presentation. In reality, there are no scientific discoveries regarding the evolution of the horse. The Origin of Bats One of the most interesting creatures in the mammalian class is without doubt the flying mammal, the bat. Topping the list of the characteristics of bats is the complex "sonar" system they possess. By means of this, bats can fly in the pitch dark, unable to see anything, but performing the most complicated maneuvers. They can even sense and catch a caterpillar on the floor of a dark room. Bat sonar works in the following way. The animal emits a continuous stream of high-frequency sonic signals, analyses the echoes from these, and as a result forms a detailed image of its surroundings. What is more, it manages to do all of this at an amazing speed, continually and unerringly, while it is flying through the air. Research into the bat sonar system has produced even more surprising results. The range of frequencies the animal can perceive is very narrow; in other words it can only hear sounds of certain frequencies, which raises a very important point. Since sounds which strike a body in motion change their frequency (the well-known "Doppler effect"), as a bat sends out signals to a fly, say, that is moving away from it, the sound waves reflected from the fly should be at a different frequency that the bat is unable to perceive. For this reason, the bat should have great difficulty in sensing moving bodies. But this is not the case. The bat continues to catch all kinds of small, fast-moving creatures with no difficulty at all. The reason is that the bat adjusts the frequency of the sound waves it sends out toward the moving bodies in its environment as if it knew all about the Doppler effect. For instance, it emits its highest-frequency signal toward a fly that is moving away from it, so that when the signal comes back, its frequency has not dropped below the threshold of the animal's hearing. So how does this adjustment take place? There are two groups of neurons (nerve cells) in the bat's brain which control the sonar system. One of these perceives the echoed ultrasound, and the other gives instructions to the muscles to produce echolocation calls. These regions in the brain work in tandem, in such a way that when the frequency of the echo changes, the first region perceives this, and warns the second one, enabling it to modify the frequency of the sound emitted in accordance with that of the echo. As a result, the pitch of the DARWINISM REFUTED 122 bat's ultrasound changes according to its surroundings, and sonar system as a whole is used in the most efficient manner. It is impossible to be blind to the mortal blow that the bat sonar system deals to the theory of gradual evolution through chance mutations. It is an extremely complex structure, and can in no way be accounted for by chance mutations. In order for the system to function at all, all of its components have to work together perfectly as an integrated whole. It is absurd to believe that such a highly integrated system can be explained by chance; on the contrary, it actually demonstrates that the bat is flawlessly created. In fact, the fossil record also confirms that bats emerged suddenly and with today's complex structures. In their book Bats: A Natural History, the evolutionary paleontologists John E. Hill and James D. Smith reveal this fact in the form of the following admission: The fossil record of bats extends back to the early Eocene ... and has been documented ... on five continents ... [A]ll fossil bats, even the oldest, are clearly fully developed bats and so they shed little light on the transition from their terrestrial ancestor.157 And the evolutionary paleontologist L. R. Godfrey has this to say on the same subject: There are some remarkably well preserved early Tertiary fossil bats, such as Icaronycteris index, but Icaronycteris tells us nothing about the evolution of flight in bats because it was a perfectly good flying bat.158 Evolutionist scientist Jeff Hecht confesses the same problem in a 1998 New Scientist article: [T]he origins of bats have been a puzzle. Even the earliest bat fossils, from about 50 million years ago, have wings that closely resemble those of modern bats.159 In short, bats' complex bodily systems cannot have emerged through evolution, and the fossil record demonstrates that no such thing happened. On the contrary, the first bats to have emerged in the world are exactly the same as those of today. Bats have always existed as bats. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 123 Bats' sonar system is more sensitive and efficient than any technological sonar systems so far constructed. The Origin of Marine Mammals Whales and dolphins belong to the order of marine mammals known as Cetacea. These creatures are classified as mammals because, just like landdwelling mammals, they give live birth to their young and nurse them, they have lungs to breathe with, and they regulate their body temperature. For evolutionists, the origin of marine mammals has been one of the most difficult issues to explain. In many evolutionist sources, it is asserted that the ancestors of cetaceans left the land and evolved into marine mammals over a long period of time. Accordingly, marine mammals followed a path contrary to the transition from water to land, and underwent a second evolutionary process, returning to the water. This theory both lacks paleontological evidence and is self-contradictory. Thus, evolutionists have been silenced on this issue for a long time. However, an evolutionist hype about the origin of marine mammals broke out in the 90's, argued to be based on some new fossil findings of the 80's like Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. These evidently quadrupedal and terrestrial extinct mammals were alleged to be the ancestors of whales and thus many evolutionist sources did not hesitate to call them "walking whales." (In fact the full name, Ambulocetus natans, means "walking and swimming whale.") Popular means of evolutionist indoctrination further vulgarized the story. National Geographic in its November 2001 issue, finally declared the full evolutionist scenario on the "Evolution of Whales." Nevertheless, the scenario was based on evolutionist prejudice, not scientific evidence. 124 The oldest known fossil bat, found in Wyoming in the United States. 50 million years old, there is no difference between this fossil and bats alive today. The Myth of the Walking Whale Fossil remains of the extinct mammal Pakicetus inachus, to give it its proper name, first came onto the agenda in 1983. P. D. Gingerich and his assistants, who found the fossil, had no hesitation in immediately claiming that it was a "primitive whale," even though they actually only found a skull. Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale. Its skeleton turned out to be a fourfooted structure, similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises, and crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one. So, how was a quadrupedal land dweller announced to be a "primitive whale"?Merely based on some details in its teeth and ear bones! These features, however, are not evidence on which to base a link between Pakicetus and the whale. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy. If the platypus, a billed mammal, and the duck had both been extinct for a long time, then there is no doubt that evolutionists would define them as very close relatives, based on the similiarity between their bills. However, since platypus is a mammal and duck is a bird, the theory of evolution cannot establish any link between the two, either. Pakicetus, which evolutionists declare to be a "walking whale," was a unique species harboring different features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of which Pakicetus should be a member, as "exhibiting an odd combination of characters."160 Even leading evolutionists such as Gould admit that such Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 125 Marine mammals possess systems which are entirely peculiar to themselves. These are created in the most suitable way for the environment they live in. “mosaic creatures” cannot be regarded as evolutionary intermediate forms. In his article "The Overselling of Whale Evolution," the creationist writer Ashby L. Camp reveals the total invalidity of the claim that the Mesonychid class, which should include land mammals such as Pakicetus, could have been the ancestors of Archaeocetea, or extinct whales, in these words: DARWINISM REFUTED Distortions in the Reconstructions of National Geographic Pakicetus reconstruction by National Geographic Paleontologists believe that Pakicetus was a quadrupedal mammal. The skeletal structure on the left, published in the Nature magazine (vol. 412, September 20, 2001) clearly demonstrates this. Thus the reconstruction of Pakicetus (below left) by Carl Buell, which was based on that structure, is realistic. National Geographic, however, opted to use a picture of a "swimming" Pakicetus (below) in order to portray the animal as a "walking whale" and to impose that image on its readers. The inconsistencies in the picture, intended to make Pakicetus seem "whale-like," are immediately obvious: The animal has been portrayed in a "swimming" position. Its hind legs are shown stretching out backwards, and an impression of "fins" has been given. The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales.161 Ambulocetus natans: A False Whale with “Webbed” Claws The second fossil creature after Pakicetus in the scenario on whale origins is Ambulocetus natans. It is actually a land creature that evolutionists have insisted on turning into a whale. The name Ambulocetus natans comes from the Latin words "ambulare" (to walk), "cetus" (whale) and "natans" (swimming), and means "a walking and swimming whale." It is obvious the animal used to walk because it had four legs, like all other land mammals, and even wide claws on its feet and paws on its hind legs. Apart from evolutionists' prejudice, however, there is absolutely no basis for the claim that it swam in water, or that it lived on land and in water (like an amphibian). In order to see the border between science and wishful imagination on this subject, let us have a look at National Geographic's reconstruction of Ambulocetus. This is how it is portrayed in the magazine: If you look at it carefully you can easily see the two little visual manipulations that have been employed to turn the land-dwelling Ambulocetus into a whale: • The animal's rear legs are shown not with feet that would help it to walk, but as fins that would assist it to swim. However, Carroll, who examined the animal's leg bones, says that it possessed the ability to move powerfully on land.162 • In order to present a flipper-like impression, webbing has been drawn on its front feet. Yet it is impossible to draw any such conclusion from a study of Ambulocetus fossils. In the fossil record it is next to impossible to find soft tissues such as these. So reconstructions based on features beyond those of the skeleton are always speculative. That offers evolutionists a wide-ranging empty space of speculation to use their propaganda tools. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 127 With the same kind of evolutionists touching up that has been applied to the above Ambulocetus drawing, it is possible to make any animal look like any other. You could even take a monkey skeleton, draw fins on its back and webbing between its fingers and present it as the “primate ancestor of whales.” The invalidity of the deception carried out on the basis of the Ambulocetus fossil can be seen from the drawing below, published in the same issue of National Geographic: In publishing the picture of the animal's skeleton, National Geographic had to take a step back from the retouching it had carried out to the reconstruction picture which made it seem more like a whale. As the skeleton clearly shows, the animal's foot bones were structured to carry it on land. There was no sign of the imaginary webs. 128 National Geographic's Ambulocetus: The animal's rear legs are shown not with feet that would help it to walk, but as fins that would assist it to swim. However, Carroll, who examines the animal's leg bones, says that it possessed the ability to move powerfully on land. The real Ambulocetus : The legs are real legs, not "fins," and there are no imaginary webs between its toes such as National Geographic had added. (Picture from Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, p. 335) The Invalidity of the Myth of the Walking Whale In fact, there is no evidence that Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are ancestors of whales. They are merely described as “possible ancestors,” based on some limited similarities, by evolutionists keen to find a terrestrial ancestor for marine mammals in the light of their theory. There is no evidence linking these creatures with the marine mammals that emerge in the fossil record at a very similar geological time. After Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, the evolutionist plan moves on to the sea mammals and sets out (extinct whale) species such as Procetus, Rodhocetus, and Archaeocetea. The animals in question were mammals that lived in the sea and which are now extinct. (We shall be touching on this matter later.) However, there are considerable anatomical differences between these and Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. When we look at the fossils, it is clear they are not "transitional forms" linking each other: • The backbone of the quadrupedal mammal Ambulocetus ends at the pelvis, and powerful rear legs then extend from it. This is typical landmammal anatomy. In whales, however, the backbone goes right down to the tail, and there is no pelvic bone at all. In fact, Basilosaurus, believed to have lived some 10 million years after Ambulocetus, possesses the latter anatomy. In other words, it is a typical whale. There is no transitional form between Ambulocetus, a typical land mammal, and Basilosaurus, a typical whale. • Under the backbone of Basilosaurus and the sperm whale, there are small bones independent of it. Evolutionists claim these to be vestigial legs. Yet in Basilosaurus, these bones functioned as copulary guides and in sperm whales "[act] as an anchor for the muscles of the genitalia."163 To describe these bones, which actually carry out important functions, as "vestigial organs" is nothing but Darwinistic prejudice. In conclusion, the fact that there were no transitional forms between land and sea mammals and that they both emerged with their own particular features has not changed. There is no evolutionary link. Robert Carroll accepts this, albeit unwillingly and in evolutionist language: "It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales."164 Although he is an evolutionist, the famous Russian whale expert G. A. Mchedlidze, too, does not support the description of Pakicetus, Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 129 Ambulocetus natans, and similar four-legged creatures as "possible ancestors of the whale," and describes them instead as a completely isolated group.165 Evolutionary Tales about Ears and Noses Any evolutionary scenario between land and sea mammals has to explain the different ear and nose structures between the two groups. Let us first consider the ear structure. Like us, land mammals trap sounds from the outside world in the outer ear, amplify them with the bones in the middle ear, and turn them into signals in the inner ear. Marine mammals have no ear. They hear sounds by means of vibration-sensitive receptors in their lower jaws. The crucial point is that any evolution by stages between one perfect aural system to a completely different one is impossible. The transitional phases would not be advantageous. An animal that slowly loses its ability to hear with its ears, but has still not developed the ability to hear through its jaw, is at a disadvantage. The question of how such a "development" could come about is an insoluble dilemma for evolutionists. The mechanisms evolutionists put forward are mutations and these have never been seen to add unequivocally new and meaningful information to animals' genetic information. It is unreasonable to suggest that the complex hearing system in sea mammals could have emerged as the result of mutations. In fact, fossils show that no evolution ever happened. The ear system of Pakicetus and Ambulocetus is the same as that in terrestrial mammals. Basilosaurus, which follows these two land mammals in the supposed “evolutionary tree,” on the other hand, possesses a typical whale ear. It was a creature that perceived sounds around it not through an outer ear but by vibrations reaching its jaw. And there is no “transitional form” between Basilosaurus' ear and that of Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. A similar situation applies to the “sliding nose” tale. Evolutionist sources set out three skulls from Pakicetus, Rodhocetus and a grey whale from our own time above one another and claim that these represent an “evolutionary process.” Whereas the three fossils' nasal structures, especially those of Rodhocetus and the grey whale are so different that it is impossible to accept them as transitional forms in the same series. DARWINISM REFUTED 130 Furthermore, the movement of the nostrils to the forehead would require a “change” in the anatomy of the animals in question, and believing that this could happen as the result of random mutations is nothing but fantasy. National Geographic's Lamarckian Tales Many evolutionists maintain a kind of superstition about the origin of living things. This superstition is the magical "natural force" that allows living things to acquire the organs, biochemical structures, or anatomical features that they need. Let us have a look at a few interesting passages from National Geographic's article "Evolution of Whales": … I tried to visualize some of the varieties of whale ancestors that had been found here and nearby... As the rear limbs dwindled, so did the hip bones that supported them… The neck shortened, turning the leading end of the body into more of a tubular hull to plow through the water with minimum drag, while arms assumed the shape of rudders. Having little need for outer ears any longer, some whales were receiving waterborne sounds directly through their lower jawbones and transmitting them to the inner ears via special fat pads.166 Anyone with the slightest knowledge of biology will know that our needs do not shape our organs hereditarily. Ever since Lamarck's theory of the transfer of acquired characteristics to subsequent generations was disproved, in other words for a century or so, that has been a known fact. Yet when one looks at evolutionist publications, they still seem to be thinking along Lamarckian lines. If you object, they will say: "No, we do not believe in Lamarck. What we say is that natural conditions put evolutionary pressure on living things, and that as a result of this, appropriate traits are selected, and in this way species evolve." Yet here lies the critical point: What evolutionists call "evolutionary pressure" cannot lead to living things acquiring new characteristics according to their needs. That is because the two so-called evolutionary mechanisms that supposedly respond to this pressure, natural selection and mutation, cannot provide new organs for animals: • Natural selection can only select characteristics that already exist, it cannot create new ones. • Mutations cannot add to the genetic information, they can only Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 131 destroy the existing one. No mutation that adds unequivocally new, meaningful information to the genome (and which thus forms a new organ or new biochemical structure) has ever been observed. If we look at the myth of National Geographic's awkwardly moving whales one more time in the light of this fact, we see that they are actually engaging in a rather primitive Lamarckism. On close inspection, National Geographic writer Douglas H. Chadwick "visualizes" that "the rear limbs dwindled" in each whale in the sequence. How could a morphological change happen in a species over generations in one particular direction? In order for that to happen, representatives of that species in every "sequence" would have to undergo mutations to shorten their legs, that mutation would have to cause the animals no other harm, those thus mutants would have to enjoy an advantage over normal ones, the next generations, by a great coincidence, would have to undergo the same mutation at the same point in its genes, this would have to carry on unchanged for many generations, and all of the above would have to happen by chance and quite flawlessly. If the National Geographic writers believe that, then they will also believe someone who says: "My family enjoys flying. My son underwent a mutation and a few structures like bird feathers developed under his arms. My grandson will undergo the same mutation and the feathers will increase. This will go on for generations, and eventually my descendants will have wings and be able to fly." Both stories are equally ridiculous. As we mentioned at the beginning, evolutionists display the superstition that living things' needs can be met by a magical force in nature. Ascribing consciousness to nature, a belief encountered in animist cultures, is interestingly rising up before our eyes in the 21st century under a "scientific" cloak. However, as the well-known French biologist Paul Pierre Grassé, a foremost critic of Darwinism, has once made it clear, “There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.”167 Another scenario which evolutionists are trying to impose, without too much discussion, concerns the body surface of the animals in question. Like other mammals, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, which are accepted as land mammals, are generally agreed to have had fur-covered bodies. And they are both shown as covered in thick fur in reconstructions. Yet when DARWINISM REFUTED 132 we move on to later animals (true marine mammals), all the fur disappears. The evolutionist explanation of this is no different from the fantastical Lamarckian-type scenarios we have seen above. The truth of the matter is that all the animals in question were created in the most appropriate manner for their environments. It is irrational to try to account for them by means of mutation or facile Lamarckian stories. Like all features of life, the perfect systems in these creatures manifest the fact that they were created by Allah. Impasses of the Scenario of Evolution among Marine Mammals We have so far examined the fallacy of the evolutionist scenario that marine mammals evolved from terrestrial ones. Scientific evidence shows no relationship between the two terrestrial mammals (Pakicetus and Ambulocetus), that evolutionists put at the beginning of the story, and the marine mammals. So what about the rest of the scenario? The theory of evolution is again in a great difficulty here. The theory tries to establish a phylogenetic link between Archaeocetea (archaic whales), sea mammals known to be extinct, and living whales and dolphins. However, evolutionary paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl admits that; "the serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."168 The evolutionist account of the origin of marine mammals faces a huge impasse in the form of discoveries in the field of molecular biology. The classical evolutionist scenario assumes that the two major whale groups, the toothed whales (Odontoceti) and the baleen whales (Mysticeti), evolved from a common ancestor. Yet Michel Milinkovitch of the University of Brussels has opposed this view with a new theory. He stresses that this assumption, based on anatomical similarities, is disproved by molecular discoveries: Evolutionary relationships among the major groups of cetaceans is more problematic since morphological and molecular analyses reach very different conclusions. Indeed, based on the conventional interpretation of the morphological and behavioral data set, the echolocating toothed whales Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 133 (about 67 species) and the filter-feeding baleen whales (10 species) are considered as two distinct monophyletic groups... On the other hand, phylogenetic analysis of DNA... and amino acid... sequences contradict this long-accepted taxonomic division. One group of toothed whales, the sperm whales, appear to be more closely related to the morphologically highly divergent baleen whales than to other odontocetes.169 In short, marine mammals defy the imaginary evolutionary scenarios which they are being forced to fit. Contrary to the claims of evolutionist propaganda on the origin of marine mammals, we are dealing not with an evolutionary process backed up by empirical evidence, but by evidence coerced to fit a presupposed evolutionary family tree, despite the many contradictions between the two. What emerges, if the evidence is looked at objectively, is that different living groups emerged independently of each other in the past. This is compelling empirical evidence of the fact that all of these creatures were created. Mammals are regarded as the life forms on the top rungs of the socalled evolutionary ladder. That being the case, it is hard to explain why these animals moved over to a marine environment. Another question is how these creatures adapted to the marine environment even better than fish, since animals such as the killer whale and the dolphin, which are mammals and therefore possess lungs, are even better adapted to the environment they live in than fish that breathe in water. It is perfectly obvious that the imaginary evolution of marine mammals cannot be explained in terms of mutations and natural selection. One article published in GEO magazine refers to the origin of the blue whale, a marine mammal, and states the despairing position of Darwinism on the subject thus: Like blue whales, the bodily structures and organs of other mammals living in the sea also resemble those of fish. Their skeletons also bear similarities to those of fish. In whales, the rear limbs that we can refer to as legs exhibited a reverse development and did not reach full growth. Yet there is not the slightest information about these animals' form changes. We have to assume that the return to the sea took place not through a long-term, slow transition as claimed by Darwinism, but in momentary leaps. Paleontologists today DARWINISM REFUTED 134 lack sufficient information as regards which mammal species whales are evolved from.170 It is indeed very difficult to imagine how a small mammal living on dry land turned into a whale 30 meters in length and weighing some 60 tons. All that Darwinists can do in this regard is to produce figments of the imagination, as with the following extract from an article published in National Geographic: 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.171 The scenarios of gradual evolution described above satisfy nobody, not even their own authors. But let us in any case examine the details of this tale stage by stage in order to see just how unrealistic it actually is. The Unique Structures of Marine Mammals To see the impossibility of the evolutionist scenario on the marine mammals, let us briefly examine some other unique features of these animals. When the adaptations a land-dwelling mammal has to undergo in order to evolve into a marine mammal are considered, even the word "impossible" seems inadequate. During such a transition, if even of one of the intermediary stages failed to happen, the creature would be unable to survive, which would put an end to the entire process. The adaptations that marine mammals must undergo during the transition to water are as follows: 1- Water-retention: Unlike other marine animals, marine mammals cannot use sea water to meet their water needs. They need fresh water to survive. Though we have limited information about the freshwater resources of marine mammals, it is believed that they feed on organisms containing a relatively low proportion of salt (about one third that of sea water). Thus, for marine mammals the retention of water in their bodies is crucial. That is why they have a water retention mechanism similar to that Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 135 of camels. Like camels, marine mammals do not sweat; however, their kidneys are perfectly functional, producing highly concentrated urine that enables the animal to save water. In this way, water loss is reduced to a minimum. Water retention can be seen even in minor details. For instance, the mother whale feeds her baby with a concentrated form of milk similar to cheese. This milk contains ten times more fat than human milk. There are a number of chemical reasons why this milk is so rich in fat. Water is released as the young whale digests the milk. In this way, the mother meets the young whale's water needs with minimum water loss. 2- Sight and communication: The eyes of dolphins and whales enable them to have acute eyesight in different environments. They have perfect eyesight in water as well as out. Yet most living things, including man, have poor eyesight out of their natural environments. The eyes of marine and land-dwelling mammals are astonishingly elaborate. On land, the eyes face a number of potential dangers. That is why the eyes of land-dwelling animals have lids to protect them. In the ocean, the greatest threats to the eye come from the high level of salt and the pressure from currents. To avoid direct contact with the currents, the eyes are located on the sides of the head. In addition to this, a hard layer protects the eyes of creatures which dive to great depths. The eyes of marine mammals are equipped with elaborate features enabling them to see at depths where there is little light. For example, their lenses are perfectly circular in shape, while in their retinas, rods (the cells sensitive to light) outnumber cones (the cells sensitive to colours and details). Furthermore, the eyes of cetaceans also contain a phosphorus layer, which also helps them see particularly well in the dark. Even so, however, sight is not most important sensory modality of marine mammals. They rely more on their sense of hearing than is typically the case with land-dwelling mammals. Light is essential for sight, whereas hearing requires no such assistance. Many whales and dolphins hunt at a depth where it is completely dark, by means of a sonar mechanism they possess. Toothed whales, in particular, "see" by means of sound waves. Just as happens with light waves in the visual system, sound waves are focused and then analyzed and interpreted in the brain. This DARWINISM REFUTED 136 So far, we have seen that different species emerged on earth with no evolutionary "intermediate forms" between them. They appear in the fossil record with such great differences that it is impossible to establish any evolutionary connection between them. When we compare their skeletal structures, this fact can once again clearly be seen. Animals which are alleged to be evolutionary relatives differ enormously. We shall now examine some examples of these. All the drawings have been taken from evolutionist sources by experts on vertebrates. (As also contrasted by Michael Denton in his Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986) Two different species of marine reptiles, and the land animal that evolutionists claim is their nearest ancestor. Take note of the great differences between them. Hylonomus, the oldest known marine reptile. The marine reptile Mesosaurus, alleged to have evolved from Hylonomus. The marine reptile Ichthyosaurus, alleged to have evolved from Hylonomus. THE GREAT MORPHOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ANIMALS WHICH ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE DESCENDED FROM ONE ANOTHER An early whale and what evolutionists claim to be its closest ancestor. Note that there is no resemblance between them. Even the best candidate that evolutionists have found for being the ancestor of whales has nothing to do with them. The ancestors of the whale are a subject of debate among evolutionist authorities, but some of them have decided on Ambulocetus. To the side is Ambulocetus, a typical tetrapod. A typical example of the oldest known whales, Zygorhiza kochii, from the Eocene. The oldest known Plesiosaurus skeleton Skeleton of Araeoscelis, a Lower Permian reptile. Plesiosaurus, the oldest known marine reptile, and its nearest terrestrial relative according to evolutionists. There is no resemblance between the two. The terrestrial reptile Araeocelis, regarded as the nearest ancestor of Plesiosaur by evolutionist authorities. The skeleton of the oldest bat (Icaronycteris) from the Eocene. The land reptile Euparkeria, claimed by many evolutionist authorities to be the ancestor of birds and flying reptiles. Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird. Dimorphodon, one of the oldest known flying reptiles, a typical representative of this group. The oldest known bird (Archaeopteryx), a flying reptile, and a land reptile that evolutionists claim to have been these creatures' closest ancestor. The differences between them are very great. The oldest known bat, and what evolutionists claim is its closest ancestor. Note the great difference between the bat and its so-called ancestor. A modern shrew, which closely resembles the ancient insectivores claimed to be the ancestors of bats. Skeleton of modern seal, virtually identical to the earliest known seals of the Miocene era. Halitherium, an early sea cow from the Oligocene Hyrax, which is considered to be the nearest terrestrial ancestor of the sirenian aquatic mammals which also include sea cows. Cynodictis gregarius, the land-dwelling carnivorous mammal which evolutionists believe to have been seals' closest ancestor. A typical seal skeleton, and what evolutionists believe to be its nearest land-dwelling ancestor. Again, there is a huge difference between the two. A sea cow, and what evolutionists call its nearest terrestrial ancestor. gives the cetacean accurate information regarding the shape, size, speed and position of the object in front of it. This sonic system is extremely sensitive—for instance, a dolphin can sense a person jumping into the sea. Sound waves are also used for determining direction and for communication. For example, two whales hundreds of kilometers apart can communicate via sound. The question of how these animals produce the sounds that enable them to determine direction or to communicate is still largely unresolved. As far as we know, one particular feature in the dolphin's body deserves particular attention: namely, the animal's skull is insulated against sound, a feature that protects the brain from continuous and intensive noise bombardment. Let us now consider the question: Is it possible that all these astonishing features in marine mammals came into existence by means of natural selection and mutation? What mutation could result in the dolphin's body's coming to possess a sonar system and a brain insulated from sound? What kind of mutation could enable its eye to see in dark water? What mutation could lead to the mechanism that allows the most economic use of water? There is no end to such questions, and evolution has no answer to any of them. Instead, the theory of evolution makes do with an unbelievable story. Consider all the coincidences that this story involves in the case of marine mammals. First of all, fish just happened to come into existence in the water. Next, they made the transition to land by pure chance. Following this, they evolved on the land into reptiles and mammals, also by chance alone. Finally, it just so happened that some of these creatures returned to the water where by chance they acquired all the features they would need to survive there. Can the theory of evolution prove even a single one of these stages? Certainly not. Far from being able to prove the claim as a whole, the theory of evolution is unable to demonstrate how even one of these different steps could have happened. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 141 Conclusion All the findings we have examined so far reveal that species appeared on earth suddenly and fully formed, with no evolutionary process prior to them. If this is so, then this is concrete evidence that living things are created, as evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma has acknowledged. Recall that he wrote: "If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."172 Evolutionists, on the other hand, try to interpret the sequence by which living things appeared on earth as evidence for evolution. However, since no such evolutionary process ever took place, this sequence can only be the sequence of creation. Fossils reveal that living things appeared on earth first in the sea, and then on land, followed by the appearance of man. DARWINISM REFUTED 142 n an earlier chapter, we examined how the fossil record clearly invalidates the hypotheses of the Darwinist theory. We saw that the different living groups in the fossil record emerged suddenly, and stayed fixed for millions of years without undergoing any changes. This great discovery of paleontology shows that living species exist with no evolutionary processes behind them. This fact was ignored for many years by paleontologists, who kept hoping that imaginary "intermediate forms" would one day be found. In the 1970s, some paleontologists accepted that this was an unfounded hope and that the "gaps" in the fossil record had to be accepted as a reality. However, because these paleontologists were unable to relinquish the theory of evolution, they tried to explain this reality by modifying the theory. And so was born the "punctuated equilibrium" model of evolution, which differs from neo-Darwinism in a number of respects. This model began to be vigorously promoted at the start of the 1970s by the paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History. They summarized the evidence presented by the fossil record as revealing two basic characteristics: 1. Stasis 2. Sudden appearance 173 143 THE INVALIDITY OF PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM I In order to explain these two facts within the theory of evolution, Gould and Eldredge proposed that living species came about not through a series of small changes, as Darwin had maintained, but by sudden, large ones. This theory was actually a modified form of the "Hopeful Monster" theory put forward by the German paleontologist Otto Schindewolf in the 1930s. Schindewolf suggested that living things evolved not, as neoDarwinism had proposed, gradually over time through small mutations, but suddenly through giant ones. When giving examples of his theory, Schindewolf claimed that the first bird in history had emerged from a reptile egg by a huge mutation—in other words, through a giant, coincidental change in genetic structure.174 According to this theory, some land animals might have suddenly turned into giant whales through a comprehensive change that they underwent. This fantastic theory of Schindewolf's was taken up and defended by the Berkeley University geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. But the theory was so inconsistent that it was quickly abandoned. The factor that obliged Gould and Eldredge to embrace this theory again was, as we have already established, that the fossil record is at odds with the Darwinistic notion of step by step evolution through minor changes. The fact of stasis and sudden emergence in the record was so empirically well supported that they had to resort to a more refined version of the "hopeful monster" theory again to explain the situation. Gould's famous article "Return of the Hopeful Monster" was a statement of this obligatory step back.175 Gould and Eldredge did not just repeat Schindewolf's fantastic theory, of course. In order to give the theory a "scientific" appearance, they tried to develop some kind of mechanism for these sudden evolutionary leaps. (The interesting term, "punctuated equilibrium," they chose for this theory is a sign of this struggle to give it a scientific veneer.) In the years that followed, Gould and Eldredge's theory was taken up and expanded by some other paleontologists. However, the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution was full of contradictions and inconsistencies at least as much as the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution did. DARWINISM REFUTED 144 The Mechanism of Punctuated Equilibrium The punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution, in its present state, holds that living populations show no changes over long periods of time, but stay in a kind of equilibrium. According to this viewpoint, evolutionary changes take place in short time frames and in very restricted populations—that is, the equilibrium is divided into separate periods or, in other words, "punctuated." Because the population is very small, large mutations are chosen by means of natural selection and thus enable a new species to emerge. For instance, according to this theory, a species of reptile survives for millions of years, undergoing no changes. But one small group of reptiles somehow leaves this species and undergoes a series of major mutations, the reason for which is not made clear. Those mutations which are advantageous quickly take root in this restricted group. The group evolves rapidly, and in a short time turns into another species of reptile, or even a mammal. Because this process happens very quickly, and in a small population, there are very few fossils of intermediate forms left behind, or maybe none. On close examination, this theory was actually proposed to develop an answer to the question, "How can one imagine an evolutionary period so rapid as not to leave any fossils behind it?" Two basic hypotheses are accepted while developing this answer: 1. that macromutations—wide-ranging mutations leading to large changes in living creatures' genetic make-up—bring advantages and produce new genetic information; and 2. that small animal populations have greater potential for genetic change. However, both of these hypotheses are clearly at odds with scientific knowledge. The Misconception About Macromutations The first hypothesis—that macromutations occur in large numbers, making the emergence of new species possible—conflicts with known facts of genetics. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 145 One rule, put forward by R. A. Fisher, one of the last century's best known geneticists, and based on observations, clearly invalidates this hypothesis. Fisher states in his book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection that the likelihood that a particular mutation will become fixed in a population is inversely proportional to its effect on the phenotype.176 Or, to put it another way, the bigger the mutation, the less possibility it has of becoming a permanent trait within the group. It is not hard to see the reason for this. Mutations, as we have seen in earlier chapters, consist of chance changes in genetic codes, and never have a beneficial influence on organisms' genetic data. Quite the contrary: individuals affected by mutation undergo serious illnesses and deformities. For this reason, the more an individual is affected by mutation, the less possibility it has of surviving. Ernst Mayr, a fervent advocate of Darwinism, makes this comment on the subject: The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation … is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless'. They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection … the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles … The finding of a suitable mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation from the normal members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable difficulties.177 It is obvious that mutations cannot bring about evolutionary development, and this fact places both neo-Darwinism and the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution in a terrible difficulty. Since mutation is a destructive mechanism, the macromutations that proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory talk about must have "macro" destructive effects. Some evolutionists place their hopes in mutations in the regulatory genes in DNA. But the feature of destructiveness which applies to other mutations, applies to these, as well. The problem is that mutation is a random change: any kind of random change in a structure as complex as genetic data will lead to harmful results. DARWINISM REFUTED 146 In their book The Natural Limits to Biological Change, the geneticist Lane Lester and the population biologist Raymond Bohlin describe the blind alley represented by the notion of macromutation: The overall factor that has come up again and again is that mutation remains the ultimate source of all genetic variation in any evolutionary model. Being unsatisfied with the prospects of accumulating small point mutations, many are turning to macromutations to explain the origin of evolutionary novelties. Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters have indeed returned. However, though macromutations of many varieties produce drastic changes, the vast majority will be incapable of survival, let alone show the marks of increasing complexity. If structural gene mutations are inadequate because of their inability to produce significant enough changes, then regulatory and developmental mutations appear even less useful because of the greater likelihood of nonadaptive or even destructive consequences… But one thing seems certain: at present, the thesis that mutations, whether great or small, are capable of producing limitless biological change is more an article of faith than fact. 178 Observation and experiment both show that mutations do not enhance genetic data, but rather damage living things. Therefore, it is clearly irrational for proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory to expect greater success from "mutations" than the mainstream neoDarwinists have found. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 147 Two famous proponents of the punctuated evolution model: Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. The Misconception About Restricted Populations The second concept stressed by the proponents of punctuated equilibrium theory is that of "restricted populations." By this, they mean that the emergence of new species comes about in communities containing very small numbers of plants or animals. According to this claim, large populations of animals show no evolutionary development and maintain their "stasis." But small groups sometimes become separated from these communities, and these "isolated" groups mate only amongst themselves. (It is hypothesized that this usually stems from geographical conditions.) Macromutations are supposed to be most effective within such small, inbreeding groups, and that is how rapid "speciation" can take place. But why do proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory insist so much on the concept of restricted populations? The reason is clear: Their aim is try to provide an explanation for the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. However, scientific experiments and observations carried out in recent years have revealed that being in a restricted population is not an advantage for the theory of evolution from the genetic point of view, but rather a disadvantage. Far from developing in such a way as to give rise to new species, small populations give rise to serious genetic defects. The reason for this is that in restricted populations individuals must continually mate within a narrow genetic pool. For this reason, normally heterozygous individuals become increasingly homozygous. This means that defective genes which are normally recessive become dominant, with the result that genetic defects and sickness increase within the population.179 In order to examine this matter, a 35-year study of a small, inbred population of chickens was carried out. It was found that the individual chickens became progressively weaker from the genetic point of view over time. Their egg production fell from 100 to 80 percent of individuals, and their fertility declined from 93 to 74 percent. But when chickens from other regions were added to the population, this trend toward genetic weakening was halted and even reversed. With the infusion of new genes from outside the restricted group, eventually the indicators of the health of the population returned to normal.180 This and similar discoveries have clearly revealed that the claim by the proponents of punctuated equilibrium theory that small populations are the source of evolution has no scientific validity. DARWINISM REFUTED 148 Conclusion Scientific discoveries do not support the claims of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution. The claim that organisms in small populations can swiftly evolve with macromutations is actually at least as invalid as the model of evolution proposed by the mainstream neoDarwinists. So, why has this theory become so popular in recent years? This question can be answered by looking at the debates within the Darwinist community. Almost all the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution are paleontologists. This group, led by such paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, and Steven M. Stanley, clearly see that the fossil record disproves the Darwinist theory. However, they have conditioned themselves to believe in evolution, no matter what. So for this reason they have resorted to the punctuated equilibrium theory as the only way of accounting even in part for the facts of the fossil record. On the other hand, geneticists, zoologists, and anatomists see that there is no mechanism in nature which can give rise to any "punctuations," and for this reason they insist on defending the gradualistic Darwinist model of evolution. The Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins fiercely criticizes the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution, and accuses them of "destroying the theory of evolution's credibility." The result of this dialogue of the deaf is the scientific crisis the theory of evolution now faces. We are dealing with an evolution myth which agrees with no experiments or observations, and no paleontological Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 149 Richard Dawkins, busy indoctrinating the young through Darwinist propaganda. discoveries. Every evolutionist theoretician tries to find support for the theory from his own field of expertise, but then enters into conflict with discoveries from other branches of science. Some people try to gloss over this confusion with superficial comments such as "science progresses by means of academic disputes of this kind." However, the problem is not that the mental gymnastics in these debates are being carried out in order to discover a correct scientific theory; rather, the problem is that speculations are being advanced dogmatically and irrationally in order to stubbornly defend a theory that is demonstrably false. However, the theoreticians of punctuated equilibrium have made one important, albeit unwitting, contribution to science: They have clearly shown that the fossil record conflicts with the concept of evolution. Phillip Johnson, one of the world's foremost critics of the theory of evolution, has described Stephen Jay Gould, one of the most important punctuated equilibrium theoreticians, as "the Gorbachev of Darwinism."181 Gorbachev thought that there were defects in the Communist state system of the Soviet Union and tried to "reform" that system. However, the problems which he thought were defects were in fact fundamental to the nature of the system itself. That is why Communism melted away in his hands. The same fate awaits Darwinism and the other models of evolution. DARWINISM REFUTED 150 arwin put forward his claim that human beings and apes descended from a common ancestor in his book The Descent of Man, published in 1871. From that time until now, the followers of Darwin's path have tried to support this claim. But despite all the research that has been carried out, the claim of "human evolution" has not been backed up by any concrete scientific discovery, particularly in the fossil field. The man in the street is for the most part unaware of this fact, and thinks that the claim of human evolution is supported by a great deal of firm evidence. The reason for this incorrect opinion is that the subject is frequently discussed in the media and presented as a proven fact. But real experts on the subject are aware that there is no scientific foundation for the claim of human evolution. David Pilbeam, a Harvard University paleoanthropologist, says: If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on."182 And William Fix, the author of an important book on the subject of paleoanthropology, makes this comment: As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence...183 151 THE ORIGIN OF MAN D This claim of evolution, which "lacks any evidence," starts the human family tree with a group of apes that have been claimed to constitute a distinct genus, Australopithecus. According to the claim, Australopithecus gradually began to walk upright, his brain grew, and he passed through a series of stages until he arrived at man's present state (Homo sapiens). But the fossil record does not support this scenario. Despite the claim that all kinds of intermediate forms exist, there is an impassable barrier between the fossil remains of man and those of apes. Furthermore, it has been revealed that the species which are portrayed as each other's ancestors are actually contemporary species that lived in the same period. Ernst Mayr, one of the most important proponents of the theory of evolution in the twentieth century, contends in his book One Long Argument that "particularly historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation."184 But what is the so-called basis for the human evolution thesis? It is the existence of plenty of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 species live on the earth. These 6,000 or so species of ape, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists. On the other hand, there are considerable differences in the anatomic makeup of the various human races. Furthermore, the differences were even greater between prehistoric races, because as time has passed the human races have to some extent mixed with each other and become assimilated. Despite this, important differences are still seen between different population groups living in the world today, such as, for example, Scandinavians, African pygmies, Inuits, native Australians, and many others. DARWINISM REFUTED 152 There is no scientific evidence for the claim that man evolved. What is put forward as "proof" is nothing but one-sided comment on a few fossils. There is no evidence to show that the fossils called hominid by evolutionary paleontologists do not actually belong to different species of ape or to vanished races of humans. To put it another way, no example of a transitional form between mankind and apes has been found. After these general explanations, let us now examine how the human evolution scenario contradicts the scientific findings. The Imaginary Family Tree of Man The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from some kind of ape-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started from 5 to 6 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some transitional forms between modern man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, the following four basic categories are listed: 1. Australophithecines (any of the various forms belonging to the genus Australophithecus) 2. Homo habilis 3. Homo erectus 4. Homo sapiens Evolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of man belonged Australopithecus, which means "southern ape." Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old type of ape that has become extinct, is found in various different forms. Some of them are larger and strongly built ("robust"), while others are smaller and delicate ("gracile"). Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as the genus Homo, that is "man." According to the evolutionist claim, the living things in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very different from modern man. The modern man of our day, that is, the species Homo sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this genus Homo. Fossils like "Java man," "Peking man," and "Lucy," which appear in the media from time to time and are to be found in evolutionist publications and textbooks, are included in one of the four groups listed above. Each of these groupings is also assumed to branch into species and sub-species, as the case may be. Some suggested transitional forms of the past, such as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 153 from the imaginary human family tree after it was realised that they were ordinary apes.185 By outlining the links in the chain as "australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens," the evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by paleoanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time. Moreover, some of those humans classified as Homo erectus probably lived up until very recent times. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia," it was reported in the journal that Homo erectus fossils found in Java had "mean ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this "raise[s] the possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia."186 Furthermore, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man) and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) also clearly co-existed. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other. Intrinsically, all the findings and scientific research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists propose. The fossils, which evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of humans, in fact belong either to different human races, or else to species of ape. Then which fossils are human and which ones are apes? Why is it impossible for any one of them to be considered a transitional form? In order to find the answers, let us have a closer look at each category. Australopithecus The first category, the genus Australopithecus, means "southern ape," as we have said. It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago, and lived until 1 million years ago. There are a number of different species among the australopithecines. Evolutionists assume that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. afarensis. After that comes A. africanus, and then A. robustus, which has relatively bigger bones. As for A. Boisei, some researchers accept it as a different species, and others as a sub-species of A. Robustus. DARWINISM REFUTED 154 All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. Many other characteristics—such as the details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms, and their short legs—constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today's ape. However, evolutionists claim that, although australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, unlike apes, they walked upright like humans. This claim that australopithecines walked upright is a view that has been held by paleoanthropologists such as Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet many scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of australopithecines have proved the invalidity of that argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 155 An Australopithecus robustus skull. It bears a close resemblance to that of modern apes. Australopithecus skulls and skeletons closely resemble those of modern apes. The drawing to the side shows a chimpanzee on the left, and an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton on the right. Adrienne L. Zhilman, the professor of anatomy who did the drawing, stresses that the structures of the two skeletons are very similar. An Australopithecus robustus skull. It bears a close resemblance to that of modern apes. from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, showed that these creatures did not walk upright in human manner. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years by means of grants from the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of five specialists reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.187 Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionary anatomist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of australopithecines to that of modern orangutans.188 That Australopithecus cannot be counted an ancestor of man has recently been accepted by evolutionist sources. The famous French popular scientific magazine Science et Vie made the subject the cover of its May 1999 issue. Under the headline "Adieu Lucy"—Lucy being the most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus afarensis—the magazine reported that apes of the species Australopithecus would have to be removed from the human family tree. In this article, based on the discovery of another Australopithecus fossil known simply as St W573, the following sentences appear: A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree… Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered.189 DARWINISM REFUTED 156 "GOODBYE, LUCY" Scientific discoveries have left evolutionist assumptions regarding "Lucy," once considered the most important example of the Australopithecus genus, completely unfounded. The famous French scientific magazine, Science et Vie, accepted this truth under the headline "Goodbye, Lucy," in its February 1999 issue, and confirmed that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man. AFARENSIS AND CHIMPANZEES On top is the AL 444-2 Australopithecus afarensis skull, and on the bottom a skull of a modern chimpanzee. The clear resemblance between them is an evident sign that A. afarensis is an ordinary species of ape, with no human characteristics. Homo Habilis The great similarity between the skeletal and cranial structures of australopithecines and chimpanzees, and the refutation of the claim that these creatures walked upright, have caused great difficulty for evolutionary paleoanthropologists. The reason is that, according to the imaginary evolution scheme, Homo erectus comes after Australopithecus. As the genus name Homo (meaning "man") implies, Homo erectus is a human species, and its skeleton is straight. Its cranial capacity is twice as large as that of Australopithecus. A direct transition from Australopithecus, which is a chimpanzee-like ape, to Homo erectus, which has a skeleton no different from modern man's, is out of the question, even according to evolutionist theory. Therefore, "links"— that is, transitional forms—are needed. The concept of Homo habilis arose from this necessity. The classification of Homo habilis was put forward in the 1960s by the Leakeys, a family of "fossil hunters." According to the Leakeys, this new species, which they classified as Homo habilis, had a relatively large cranial capacity, the ability to walk upright and to use stone and wooden tools. Therefore, it could have been the ancestor of man. New fossils of the same species unearthed in the late 1980s were to completely change this view. Some researchers, such as Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace, who relied on those newly-found fossils, stated that Homo habilis (which means "skillful man," that is, man capable of using tools), should be classified as Australopithecus habilis, or "skillful southern ape," because Homo habilis had a lot of characteristics in common with the austalopithecine apes. It had long arms, short legs and an ape-like skeletal structure just like Australopithecus. Its fingers and toes were suitable for climbing. Their jaw was very similar to that of today's apes. Their 600 cc average cranial capacity is also an indication of the fact that they were apes. In short, Homo habilis, which was presented as a different species by some evolutionists, was in reality an ape species just like all the other australopithecines. Research carried out in the years since Wood and Brace's work has demonstrated that Homo habilis was indeed no different from Australopithecus. The skull and skeletal fossil OH62 found by Tim White showed that this species had a small cranial capacity, as well as long arms and short legs, which enabled them to climb trees just like modern apes do. DARWINISM REFUTED 158 The detailed analyses conducted by American anthropologist Holly Smith in 1994 indicated that Homo habilis was not Homo, in other words, human, at all, but rather unequivocally an ape. Speaking of the analyses she made on the teeth of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, Smith stated the following; Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, patterns of dental development of gracile australopithecines and Homo Habilis remain classified with African apes. Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals are classified with humans.190 Within the same year, Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld, all specialists on anatomy, reached a similar conclusion through a totally different method. This method was based on the comparative analysis of the semicircular canals in the inner ear of humans and apes, which allow them to maintain their balance. Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld concluded that: Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the semicircular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant great apes.191 Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld also studied a Homo habilis specimen, namely Stw 53, and found out that "Stw 53 relied less on bipedal behavior than the australopithecines." This meant that the H. habilis specimen was even more ape-like than the Australopithecus species. Thus they concluded that "Stw 53 represents an unlikely intermediate between the morphologies seen in the australopithecines and H. erectus."192 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 159 Femur KNM-ER 1472. This femur is no different from that of modern man. The finding of this fossil in the same layer as Homo habilis fossils, although a few kilometers away, gave rise to incorrect opinions, such as that Homo habilis was bipedal. Fossil OH 62, found in 1987, showed that Homo habilis was not bipedal, as had been believed. Many scientists today accept that Homo habilis was a species of ape very similar to Australopithecus. This finding yielded two important results: 1. Fossils referred to as Homo habilis did not actually belong to the genus Homo, i.e., humans, but to that of Australopithecus, i.e., apes. 2. Both Homo habilis and Australopithecus were creatures that walked stooped forward—that is to say, they had the skeleton of an ape. They have no relation whatsoever to man. The Misconception about Homo rudolfensis The term Homo rudolfensis is the name given to a few fossil fragments unearthed in 1972. The species supposedly represented by this fossil was designated Homo rudolfensis because these fossil fragments were found in the vicinity of Lake Rudolf in Kenya. Most paleoanthropologists accept that these fossils do not belong to a distinct species, but that the creature called Homo rudolfensis is in fact indistinguishable from Homo habilis. Richard Leakey, who unearthed the fossils, presented the skull designated KNM-ER 1470, which he said was 2.8 million years old, as the greatest discovery in the history of anthropology. According to Leakey, this creature, which had a small cranial capacity like that of Australopithecus together with a face similar to that of present-day humans, was the missing link between Australopithecus and humans. Yet, after a short while, it was realized that the human-like face of the KNM160 The claim that Australopithecus and Homo habilis walked upright was disproved by inner ear analyses carried out by Fred Spoor. He and his team compared the centers of balances in the inner ears, and showed that both moved in a similar way to apes of our own time. Fred Spoor ER 1470 skull, which frequently appeared on the covers of scientific journals and popular science magazines, was the result of the incorrect assembly of the skull fragments, which may have been deliberate. Professor Tim Bromage, who conducts studies on human facial anatomy, brought this to light by the help of computer simulations in 1992: When it [KNM-ER 1470] was first reconstructed, the face was fitted to the cranium in an almost vertical position, much like the flat faces of modern humans. But recent studies of anatomical relationships show that in life the face must have jutted out considerably, creating an ape-like aspect, rather like the faces of Australopithecus.193 The evolutionary paleoanthropologist J. E. Cronin states the following on the matter: ... its relatively robustly constructed face, flattish naso-alveolar clivus, (recalling australopithecine dished faces), low maximum cranial width (on the temporals), strong canine juga and large molars (as indicated by remaining roots) are all relatively primitive traits which ally the specimen with members of the taxon A. africanus. 194 C. Loring Brace from Michigan University came to the same conclusion. As a result of the analyses he conducted on the jaw and tooth structure of skull 1470, he reported that "from the size of the palate and the expansion of the area allotted to molar roots, it would appear that ER 1470 retained a fully Australopithecus-sized face and dentition."195 Professor Alan Walker, a paleoanthropologist from Johns Hopkins University who has done as much research on KNM-ER 1470 as Leakey, maintains that this creature should not be classified as a member of Homo—i.e., as a human species—but rather should be placed in the Australopithecus genus.196 In summary, classifications like Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis, which are presented as transitional links between the australopithecines and Homo erectus, are entirely imaginary. It has been confirmed by many researchers today that these creatures are members of the Australopithecus series. All of their anatomical features reveal that they are species of apes. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 161 Richard Leakey misled both himself and the world of paleontology about Homo rudolfensis. This fact has been further established by two evolutionist anthropologists, Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, whose research was published in 1999 in Science. Wood and Collard explained that the Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis (Skull 1470) taxa are imaginary, and that the fossils assigned to these categories should be attributed to the genus Australopithecus: More recently, fossil species have been assigned to Homo on the basis of absolute brain size, inferences about language ability and hand function, and retrodictions about their ability to fashion stone tools. With only a few exceptions, the definition and use of the genus within human evolution, and the demarcation of Homo, have been treated as if they are unproblematic. But ... recent data, fresh interpretations of the existing evidence, and the limitations of the paleoanthropological record invalidate existing criteria for attributing taxa to Homo....in practice fossil hominin species are assigned to Homo on the basis of one or more out of four criteria. ... It is now evident, however, that none of these criteria is satisfactory. The Cerebral Rubicon is problematic because absolute cranial capacity is of questionable biological significance. Likewise, there is compelling evidence that language function cannot be reliably inferred from the gross appearance of the brain, and that the language-related parts of the brain are not as well localized as earlier studies had implied... ... In other words, with the hypodigms of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis assigned to it, the genus Homo is not a good genus. Thus, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu lato for those who do not subscribe to the taxonomic subdivision of "early Homo") should be removed from Homo. The obvious taxonomic alternative, which is to transfer one or both of the taxa to one of the existing early hominin genera, is not without problems, but we recommend that, for the time being, both H. habilis and H. rudolfensis should be transferred to the genus Australopithecus.197 The conclusion of Wood and Collard corroborates the conclusion that we have maintained here: "Primitive human ancestors" do not exist in history. Creatures that are alleged to be so are actually apes that ought to be assigned to the genus Australopithecus. The fossil record shows that there is no evolutionary link between these extinct apes and Homo, i.e., human species that suddenly appears in the fossil record. DARWINISM REFUTED 162 Homo erectus According to the fanciful scheme suggested by evolutionists, the internal evolution of the Homo genus is as follows: First Homo erectus, then so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), and finally, Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens). However all these classifications are really only variations and unique races in the human family. The difference between them is no greater than the difference between an Inuit and an African, or a pygmy and a European. Let us first examine Homo erectus, which is referred to as the most primitive human species. As the name implies, Homo erectus means "man who walks upright." Evolutionists have had to separate these fossils from earlier ones by adding the qualification of "erectness," because all the Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 163 The large eyebrow protrusions on Homo erectus skulls, and features such as the backward-sloping forehead, can be seen in a number of races in our own day, as in the native shown here. available Homo erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in any of the australopithecines or so-called Homo habilis specimens. There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus. The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primitive" is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance). It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organization of the brain, rather than on its volume.198 The fossils that have made Homo erectus known to the entire world are those of Peking man and Java man in Asia. However, in time it was realized that these two fossils are not reliable. Peking man consists of some elements made of plaster whose originals have been lost, and Java man is composed of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was found yards away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same creature. This is why the Homo erectus fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance. (It should also be noted that some of the fossils said to be Homo erectus were included under a second species named Homo ergaster by some evolutionists. There is disagreement among the experts on this issue. We will treat all these fossils under the classification of Homo erectus.) The most famous of the Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome Homo erectus," or the "Turkana Boy," which was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in adolescence. The upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal."199 As we will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a human race. DARWINISM REFUTED 164 Alan Thorne and Phillip Macumber, who discovered the skulls, interpreted them both as Homo sapiens skulls, whereas they actually contained many features reminiscent of Homo erectus. The only reason they were treated as Homo sapiens was the fact that they were calculated to be 10,000 years old. Evolutionists did not wish to accept the fact that Homo erectus, which they considered a "primitive" species and which lived 500,000 years before modern man, was a human race which had lived 10,000 years ago. THE 10,000-YEAR-OLD HOMO ERECTUS These two skulls, discovered on October 10, 1967, in the Kow Swamp in Victoria, Australia, were named Kow Swamp I and Kow Swamp V. Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and present-day man are no more than racial variance: One would also see differences: in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological DARWINISM REFUTED 166 HOMO ERECTUS AND THE ABORIGINES The Turkana Boy skeleton shown at the side is the best preserved example of Homo erectus that has so far been discovered. The interesting thing is that there is no major difference between this 1.6 million-year-old-fossil and people of our day. The Australian aboriginal skeleton above particularly resembles Turkana Boy. This situation reveals once again that Homo erectus was a genuine human race, with no "primitive" features. variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time.200 Professor William Laughlin from the University of Connecticut made extensive anatomical examinations of Inuits and the people living on the Aleut islands, and noticed that these people were extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus. The conclusion Laughlin arrived at was that all these distinct races were in fact different races of Homo sapiens (modern man): When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong to the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen] belongs within this same diverse species.201 It is now a more pronounced fact in the scientific community that Homo erectus is a superfluous taxon, and that fossils assigned to the Homo erectus class are actually not so different from Homo sapiens as to be considered a different species. In American Scientist, the discussions over this issue and the result of a conference held on the subject in 2000 were summarized in this way: 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 167 HOMO ERECTUS'S SAILING CULTURE "Ancient mariners: Early humans were much smarter than we suspected" According to this article in the March 14, 1998, issue of New Scientist, the people that evolutionists call Homo erectus were sailing 700,000 years ago. It is impossible, of course, to think of people who possessed the knowledge, technology and culture to go sailing as primitive. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens, with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus, didn't exist.202 The conclusion reached by the scientists defending the abovementioned thesis can be summarized as "Homo erectus is not a different species from Homo sapiens, but rather a race within Homo sapiens." On the other hand, there is a huge gap between Homo erectus, a human race, and the apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human evolution" scenario (Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, and Homo rudolfensis). This means that the first men appeared in the fossil record suddenly and without any prior evolutionary history. Neanderthals: Their Anatomy and Culture Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) were human beings who suddenly appeared 100,000 years ago in Europe, and who disappeared, or were assimilated by mixing with other races, quietly but quickly 35,000 years ago. Their only difference from modern man is that their skeletons are more robust and their cranial capacity slightly bigger. Neanderthals were a human race, a fact which is admitted by almost everybody today. Evolutionists have tried very hard to present them as a "primitive species," yet all the findings indicate that they were no different from a "robust" man walking on the street today. A prominent authority on the subject, Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist from New Mexico University, writes: Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans. 203 Many contemporary researchers define Neanderthal man as a subspecies of modern man, and call him Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. On the other hand, the fossil record shows that Neanderthals possessed an advanced culture. One of the most interesting examples of this is a fossilized flute made by Neanderthal people. This flute, made DARWINISM REFUTED 168 NEANDERTHALS: A HUMAN RACE To the side is shown the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Amud I skull, found in Israel. The owner is estimated to have been 1.80 meters tall. Its brain capacity is as big as that found today: 1,740 cc. Beneath, are shown a fossil skeleton from the Neanderthal race, and a stone tool believed to have been used by its owner. This and similar discoveries show that Neanderthals were a genuine human race who vanished over time. NEANDERTHAL SEWING NEEDLE 26,000-year-old needle: This interesting find shows that Neanderthals had the knowledge to make clothing tens of thousands of years ago (D. Johanson, B. Edgar, From Lucy to Language, page 99). NEANDERTHAL FLUTE A Neanderthal flute made from bone. Calculations made from this artifact have shown that the holes were made to produce correct notes, in other words that this was an expertly designed instrument. Above can be seen researcher Bob Fink's calculations regarding the flute. Contrary to evolutionist propaganda, discoveries such as this show that Neanderthal people were civilized, not primitive cavemen (The AAAS Science News Service, "Neanderthals Lived Harmoniously," April 3, 1997). from the thighbone of a bear, was found by the archaeologist Ivan Turk in a cave in northern Yugoslavia in July 1995. Musicologist Bob Fink then analyzed it. Fink proved that this flute, thought by radio-carbon testing to be between 43,000 and 67,000 years old, produced four notes, and that it had half and full tones. This discovery shows that Neanderthals used the seven-note scale, the basic formula of western music. Fink, who examined the flute, states that "the distance between the second and third holes on the old flute is double that between the third and fourth." This means that the first distance represents a full note, and the distance next to it a half note. Fink says, "These three notes … are inescapably diatonic and will sound like a near-perfect fit within any kind of standard diatonic scale, modern or antique," thus revealing that Neanderthals were people with an ear for and knowledge of music.204 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 171 COUNTERFACTUAL PROPAGANDA Although fossil discoveries show that Neanderthals had no "primitive" features as compared to us and were a human race, the evolutionist prejudices regarding them continue unabated. Neanderthal man is still sometimes described as an "ape man" in some evolutionist museums, as shown in the picture to the side. This is an indication how Darwinism rests on prejudice and propaganda, not on scientific discoveries. Some other fossil discoveries show that Neanderthals buried their dead, looked after their sick, and used necklaces and similar adornments.205 A 26,000-year-old sewing needle, proved to have been used by Neanderthal people, was also found during fossil excavations. This needle, which is made of bone, is exceedingly straight and has a hole for the thread to be passed through.206 People who wear clothing and feel the need for a sewing needle cannot be considered "primitive." The best research into the Neanderthals' tool-making abilities is that of Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner, professors of anthropology and archaeology, respectively, at the University of New Mexico. Although these two scientists are proponents of the theory of evolution, the results of their archaeological research and analyses show that the Neanderthals who lived in caves on the coast of southwest Italy for thousands of years carried out activities that required as complex a capacity for thought as modern-day human beings. 207 Kuhn and Stiner found a number of tools in these caves. The discoveries were of sharp, pointed cutting implements, including spearheads, made by carefully chipping away layers at the edges of the flint. Making sharp edges of this kind by chipping away layers is without a doubt a process calling for intelligence and skill. Research has shown that one of the most important problems encountered in that process is breakages that occur as a result of pressure at the edge of the stones. For this reason, the individual carrying out the process has to make fine judgments of the amount of force to use in order to keep the edges straight, and of the precise angle to strike at, if he is making an angled tool. Margaret Conkey from the University of California explains that tools made in periods before the Neanderthals were also made by communities of intelligent people who were fully aware of what they were doing: If you look at the things archaic humans made with their hands, Levallois cores and so on, that's not a bumbling king of thing. They had an appreciation of the material they were working with, an understanding of their world.208 In short, scientific discoveries show that Neanderthals were a human race no different from us on the levels of intelligence and dexterity. This DARWINISM REFUTED 172 race either disappeared from history by assimilating and mixing with other races, or became extinct in some unknown manner. But they were definitely not "primitive" or "half-ape." Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo heidelbergensis and Cro-Magnon Man Archaic Homo sapiens is the last step before contemporary man in the imaginary evolutionary scheme. In fact, evolutionists do not have much to say about these fossils, as there are only very minor differences between them and modern human beings. Some researchers even state that representatives of this race are still living today, and point to native Australians as an example. Like Homo sapiens (archaic), native Australians also have thick protruding eyebrows, an inward-inclined mandibular structure, and a slightly smaller cranial capacity. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 173 A typical Cro-magnon skull. The group characterized as Homo heidelbergensis in evolutionist literature is in fact the same as archaic Homo sapiens. The reason why two different terms are used to define the same human racial type is the disagreements among evolutionists. All the fossils included under the Homo heidelbergensis classification suggest that people who were anatomically very similar to modern Europeans lived 500,000 and even 740,000 years ago, in England and in Spain. It is estimated that Cro-Magnon man lived 30,000 years ago. He has a dome-shaped cranium and a broad forehead. His cranium of 1,600 cc is above the average for contemporary man. His skull has thick eyebrow projections and a bony protrusion at the back that is characteristic of both Neanderthal man and Homo erectus. Although the Cro-Magnon is considered to be a European race, the structure and volume of Cro-Magnon's cranium look very much like those of some races living in Africa and the tropics today. Relying on this similarity, it is estimated that Cro-Magnon was an archaic African race. Some other paleoanthropological finds have shown that the Cro-Magnon and the Neanderthal races intermixed and laid the foundations for the races of our day. As a result, none of these human beings were "primitive species." They were different human beings who lived in earlier times and either assimilated and mixed with other races, or became extinct and disappeared from history. The Collapse of the Evolutionary Tree What we have investigated so far forms a clear picture: The scenario of "human evolution" is a complete fiction. In order for such a family tree to represent the truth, a gradual evolution from a common ancestor of apes and human beings to man must have taken place and a fossil record of this process should be able to be found. In fact, however, there is a huge gap between apes and humans. Skeletal structures, cranial capacities, and such criteria as walking upright or bent sharply forward distinguish humans from apes. (We already mentioned that on the basis of research done in 1994 on the inner ear, Australopithecus and Homo habilis were reclassified as apes, while Homo erectus was reclassified as a fully modern human.) DARWINISM REFUTED 174 Another significant finding proving that there can be no family-tree relationship among these different species is that species that are presented as ancestors of others in fact lived concurrently. If, as evolutionists claim, Australopithecus changed into Homo habilis, which, in turn, turned into Homo erectus, the periods they lived in should necessarily have followed each other. However, there is no such chronological order to be seen in the fossil record. According to evolutionist estimates, Australopithecus lived from 4 million up until 1 million years ago. The creatures classified as Homo habilis, on the other hand, are thought to have lived until 1.7 to 1.9 million years ago. Homo rudolfensis, which is said to have been more "advanced" than Homo habilis, is known to be as old as from 2.5 to 2.8 million years! That is to say, Homo rudolfensis is nearly 1 million years older than Homo habilis, of which it is alleged to have been the "ancestor." On the other hand, the age of Homo erectus goes as far back as 1.6-1.8 million years ago, which means that Homo erectus appeared on the earth in the same time frame as its so-called ancestor, Homo habilis. Alan Walker confirms this fact by stating that "there is evidence from East Africa for late-surviving small Australopithecus individuals that were contemporaneous first with H. Habilis, then with H. erectus."209 Louis Leakey has found fossils of Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus almost next to each other in the Olduvai Gorge region of Tanzania, in the Bed II layer.210 There is definitely no such family tree. Stephen Jay Gould, the paleontologist from Harvard University, explains this deadlock faced by evolution, although he is an evolutionist himself: What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth.211 When we move on from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, we again see that there is no family tree to talk about. There is evidence showing that Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens continued living up to 27,000 years and even as recently as 10,000 years before our time. In the Kow Swamp in Australia, some 13,000-year-old Homo erectus skulls have been found. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 175 On the island of Java, Homo erectus remains were found that are 27,000 years old.212 One of the most surprising discoveries in this area was the 30,000- year-old Homo erectus, Neanderthal, and Homo sapiens fossils found in Java in 1996. The New York Times wrote in its front-page story: "Until about a couple of decades ago, scientists conceived of the human lineage as a neat progression of one species to the next and generally thought it impossible that two species could have overlapped in place or time."213 This discovery reveals once again the invalidity of the "evolutionary tree" scenario regarding the origin of man. Latest Evidence: Sahelanthropus tchadensis and The Missing Link That Never Was The latest evidence to shatter the evolutionary theory's claim about the origin of man is the new fossil Sahelanthropus tchadensis unearthed in the Central African country of Chad in the summer of 2002. The fossil has disturbed the world of Darwinism. In its article giving news of the discovery, the world-renowned journal Nature admitted that "New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution."214 Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University said that "This [discovery] will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb."215 The reason for this is that although the fossil in question is 7 million years old, it has a more "human-like" structure (according to the criteria evolutionists have hitherto used) than the 5 million-year-old Australopithecus ape species that is alleged to be "mankind's oldest ancestor." This shows that the evolutionary links established between extinct ape species based on the highly subjective and prejudiced criterion of "human similarity" are totally imaginary. John Whitfield, in his article "Oldest Member of Human Family Found" published in Nature on July, 11, 2002, confirms this view quoting from Bernard Wood, an evolutionist anthropologist from George Washington University in Washington: "When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the DARWINISM REFUTED 176 last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.216 The comments of Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature and a leading paleoanthropologist, about the newly discovered ape fossil are very noteworthy. In his article published in The Guardian, Gee refers to the debate about the fossil and writes: Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a 'missing link' is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.217 The Secret History of Homo sapiens The most interesting and significant fact that nullifies the very basis of the imaginary family tree of evolutionary theory is the unexpectedly ancient history of modern man. Paleoanthropological findings reveal that Homo sapiens people who looked exactly like us were living as long as 1 million years ago. It was Louis Leakey, the famous evolutionary paleoanthropologist, who discovered the first findings on this subject. In 1932, in the Kanjera region around Lake Victoria in Kenya, Leakey found several fossils that belonged to the Middle Pleistocene and that were no different from 177 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) A face bone discovered in Atapuerca in Spain, showing that people with the same facial structure as present-day people were living 800,000 years ago. modern man. However, the Middle Pleistocene was a million years ago.218 Since these discoveries turned the evolutionary family tree upside down, they were dismissed by some evolutionary paleoanthropologists. Yet Leakey always contended that his estimates were correct. Just when this controversy was about to be forgotten, a fossil unearthed in Spain in 1995 revealed in a very remarkable way that the history of Homo sapiens was much older than had been assumed. The fossil in question was uncovered in a cave called Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca region of Spain by three Spanish paleoanthropologists from the University of Madrid. The fossil revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. Yet, it had been 800,000 years since the child died. Discover magazine covered the story in great detail in its December 1997 issue. This fossil even shook the convictions of Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, who lead the Gran Dolina excavation. Ferreras said: We expected something big, something large, something inflated—you know, something primitive… Our expectation of an 800,000-year-old boy was something like Turkana Boy. And what we found was a totally modern DARWINISM REFUTED 178 The skull reconstructed from the Atapuerca fossil (left) bears a close resemblance to that of man living today (right). face.... To me this is most spectacular—these are the kinds of things that shake you. Finding something totally unexpected like that. Not finding fossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, and it's okay. But the most spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged to the present, in the past. It's like finding something like—like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We don't expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago—it's the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it.219 The fossil highlighted the fact that the history of Homo sapiens had to be extended back to 800,000 years ago. After recovering from the initial shock, the evolutionists who discovered the fossil decided that it belonged to a different species, because according to the evolutionary family tree, Homo sapiens did not live 800,000 years ago. Therefore, they made up an imaginary species called Homo antecessor and included the Atapuerca skull under this classification. Huts and Footprints There have been many findings demonstrating that Homo sapiens dates back even earlier than 800,000 years. One of them is a discovery by Louis Leakey in the early 1970s in Olduvai Gorge. Here, in the Bed II layer, Leakey discovered that Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus species had co-existed at the same time. What is even more interesting was a structure Leakey found in the same layer (Bed II). Here, he found the remains of a stone hut. The unusual aspect of the event was that this construction, which is still used in some parts of Africa, could only have been built by Homo sapiens! So, according to Leakey's findings, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and modern man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago.220 This discovery must surely invalidate the evolutionary theory that claims that modern man evolved from ape-like species such as Australopithecus. Indeed, some other discoveries trace the origins of modern man back to 1.7 million years ago. One of these important finds is the footprints found in Laetoli, Tanzania, by Mary Leakey in 1977. These footprints were found in a layer that was calculated to be 3.6 million years old, and more importantly, they were no different from the footprints that a contemporary man would leave. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 179 The footprints found by Mary Leakey were later examined by a number of famous paleoanthropologists, such as Donald Johanson and Tim White. The results were the same. White wrote: Make no mistake about it,... They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you.221 After examining the footprints, Louis Robbins from the University of North California made the following comments: 180 3.6-million-year-old human footprints in Laetoli, in Tanzania. The AL 666-1, 2.3-million-yearold Homo sapiens (human) jaw. AL 222-1 fossil, an A. afarensis jaw from the same period as AL 666-1. AL 222-1 – a side view. The side views of the two jaws make the difference between the two fossils clearer. The AL 222-1 jaw protrudes forwards. This is an ape-like feature. But the AL 666-1 jaw on top is a completely human one. Side view of AL 666-1 AL 666-1: A 2.3-MILLION-YEAR-OLD HUMAN JAW Fossil AL 666-1 was found in Hadar in Ethiopia, together with A. afarensis fossils. This 2.3-million-year-old jaw bone had features identical to those of Homo sapiens. AL 666-1 resembled neither the A. afarensis jawbones that were found with it, nor a 1.75-million-year-old Homo habilis jaw. The jaws of these two species, with their narrow and rectangular shapes, resembled those of present-day apes. Although there is no doubt that AL 666- 1 belonged to a "Homo" (human) species, evolutionary paleontologists do not accept this fact. They refrain from making any comment on this, because the jaw is calculated to be 2.3 million years old—in other words, much older than the age they allow for the Homo, or human, race. Evolutionary paleontologists portray different Homo erectus, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and archaic Homo sapiens human fossils as indicating different species or subspecies on the evolutionary path. They base this on the differences between these fossil skulls. However, these differences actually consist of variations among different human races that have existed, some of which have become extinct or have been assimilated. These differences have grown less pronounced as human races have intermixed over time. Despite this, quite striking differences can still be observed between human races living today. The skulls in these pages, all belonging to modern human beings (Homo sapiens sapiens), are all examples of these differences. To show similar structural differences between races that lived in the past as evidence for evolution is quite simply bias. German male aged 25-30. Middle-aged Bengali. Male Congolese aged 35-40. Male Inuit aged 35-40. Male from the Solomon Islands (Melanesia) who died in 1893. Native Peruvian from the fifteenth century. SKELETAL VARIATION AMONG MODERN HUMAN RACES Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 183 The arch is raised — the smaller individual had a higher arch than I do — and the big toe is large and aligned with the second toe … The toes grip the ground like human toes. You do not see this in other animal forms.222 Examinations of the morphological form of the footprints showed time and again that they had to be accepted as the prints of a human, and moreover, a modern human (Homo sapiens). Russell Tuttle, who also examined the footprints, wrote: A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them... In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans.223 Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners. In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilized footprints of a 10-yearold modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger one. They were certainly modern people like us. This situation put the Laetoli footprints at the center of discussions for years. Evolutionary paleoanthropologists desperately tried to come up with an explanation, as it was hard for them to accept the fact that a modern man had been walking on the earth 3.6 million years ago. During the 1990s, the following "explanation" started to take shape: The evolutionists decided that these footprints must have been left by an Australopithecus, because according to their theory, it was impossible for a Homo species to have existed 3.6 years ago. However, Russell H. Tuttle wrote the following in an article in 1990: In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that there had been made by a member of our genus, Homo... In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis. 224 To put it briefly, these footprints that were supposed to be 3.6 million years old could not have belonged to Australopithecus. The only reason why the footprints were thought to have been left by members of Australopithecus was the 3.6-million-year-old volcanic layer in which the footprints were found. The prints were ascribed to Australopithecus purely on the assumption that humans could not have lived so long ago. These interpretations of the Laetoli footprints demonstrate one important fact. Evolutionists support their theory not based on scientific findings, but in spite of them. Here we have a theory that is blindly defended no matter what, with all new findings that cast the theory into doubt being either ignored or distorted to support the theory. Briefly, the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory, but a dogma kept alive despite science. The Bipedalism Problem Apart from the fossil record that we have dealt with so far, unbridgeable anatomical gaps between men and apes also invalidate the fiction of human evolution. One of these has to do with the manner of walking. Human beings walk upright on two feet. This is a very special form of locomotion not seen in any other mammalian species. Some other animals do have a limited ability to move when they stand on their two hind feet. Animals like bears and monkeys can move in this way only rarely, such as when they want to reach a source of food, and even then DARWINISM REFUTED The human skeleton is created to walk upright. Ape skeletons, however, with their forward-leaning stance, short legs, and long arms, are suited to walking on four legs. It is not possible for there to be an "intermediate form" between them, because this would be extremely unproductive. only for a short time. Normally, their skeletons lean forward and they walk on all fours. Well, then, has bipedalism evolved from the quadrupedal gait of apes, as evolutionists claim? Of course not. Research has shown that the evolution of bipedalism never occurred, nor is it possible for it to have done so. First of all, bipedalism is not an evolutionary advantage. The way in which apes move is much easier, faster, and more efficient than man's bipedal stride. Man can neither move by jumping from tree to tree without descending to the ground, like a chimpanzee, nor run at a speed of 125 km per hour, like a cheetah. On the contrary, since man walks on two feet, he moves much more slowly on the ground. For the same reason, he is one of the most unprotected of all species in nature in terms of movement and defence. According to the logic of evolution, apes should not have evolved to adopt a bipedal stride; humans should instead have evolved to become quadrupedal. Another impasse of the evolutionary claim is that bipedalism does not serve the "gradual development" model of Darwinism. This model, which constitutes the basis of evolution, requires that there should be a "compound" stride between bipedalism and quadrupedalism. However, with the computerized research he conducted in 1996, Robin Crompton, senior lecturer in anatomy at Liverpool University, showed that such a "compound" stride was not possible. Crompton reached the following conclusion: A living being can either walk upright, or on all fours.225 A type of stride between the two is impossible because it would involve excessive energy consumption. This is why a half-bipedal being cannot exist. The immense gap between man and ape is not limited solely to bipedalism. Many other issues still remain unexplained, such as brain capacity, the ability to talk, and so on. Elaine Morgan, an evolutionary paleoanthropologist, makes the following confession in relation to this matter: Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 185 Apes' hands and feet are curled in a manner suited to living in trees. Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are: 1) why do they walk on two legs? 2) why have they lost their fur? 3) why have they developed such large brains? 4) why did they learn to speak? The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) 'We do not yet know;' 2) 'We do not yet know;' 3) 'We do not yet know;' 4) 'We do not yet know.' The list of questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony of the answers.226 Evolution: An Unscientific Faith Lord Solly Zuckerman is one of the most famous scientists in the United Kingdom. For years, he studied the fossil record and conducted many investigations, for which he was elevated to the peerage. Zuckerman is an evolutionist. Therefore, his comments on evolution cannot be regarded as ignorant or prejudiced. After years of research on the fossils included in the human evolution scenario however, he reached the conclusion that there is no truth to the family tree that is put forward. Zuckerman also advanced an interesting concept of the "spectrum of the sciences," ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most "scientific"—that is, dependent on concrete data—fields are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific," are extra-sensory perception—concepts such as telepathy and the "sixth sense"—and finally human evolution. Zuckerman explains his reasoning as follows: We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time. 227 Robert Locke, the editor of Discovering Archeology, an important publication on the origins of man, writes in that journal, "The search for human ancestors gives more heat than light," quoting the confession of the famous evolutionary paleoantropologist Tim White: We're all frustrated by "all the questions we haven't been able to answer."228 DARWINISM REFUTED 186 Locke's article reviews the impasse of the theory of evolution on the origins of man and the groundlessness of the propaganda spread about this subject: Perhaps no area of science is more contentious than the search for human origins. Elite paleontologists disagree over even the most basic outlines of the human family tree. New branches grow amid great fanfare, only to wither and die in the face of new fossil finds.229 The same fact was also recently accepted by Henry Gee, the editor of the well-known journal Nature. In his book In Search of Deep Time, published in 1999, Gee points out that all the evidence for human evolution "between about 10 and 5 million years ago – several thousand generations of living creatures – can be fitted into a small box." He concludes that conventional theories of the origin and development of human beings are "a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices," and adds: 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.230 As we have seen, there is no scientific discovery supporting or propping up the theory of evolution, just some scientists who blindly believe in it. These scientists both believe in the myth of evolution themselves, although it has no scientific foundation, and also make other people believe it by using the media, which cooperate with them. In the pages that follow, we shall examine a few examples of this deceptive propaganda carried out in the name of evolution. Deceptive Reconstructions Even if evolutionists are unsuccessful in finding scientific evidence to support their theories, they are very successful at one thing: propaganda. The most important element of this propaganda is the practice of creating false designs known as "reconstructions." Reconstruction can be explained as drawing a picture or constructing a model of a living thing based on a single bone—sometimes only a fragment—that has been unearthed. The "ape-men" we see in newspapers, magazines, and films are all reconstructions. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 187 DARWINISM REFUTED 188 Reconstruction drawings reflect only evolutionists' imaginations, not scientific discoveries. Since fossils are usually fragmented and incomplete, any conjecture based on them is likely to be completely speculative. As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by evolutionists based on fossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the evolutionary thesis. David R. Pilbeam, an eminent anthropologist from Harvard, stresses this fact when he says: "At least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data."231 Since people are highly affected by visual information, these reconstructions best serve the purpose of evolutionists, which is to convince people that these reconstructed creatures really existed in the past. At this point, we have to highlight one particular point: Reconstructions based on bone remains can only reveal the most general characteristics of the creature, since the really distinctive morphological features of any animal are soft tissues which quickly vanish after death. Therefore, due to the speculative nature of the interpretation of the soft tissues, the reconstructed drawings or models become totally dependent on the imagination of the person producing them. Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard University explains the situation like this: FALSE To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public … So put not your trust in reconstructions.232 As a matter of fact, evolutionists invent such preposterous stories that they even ascribe different faces to the same skull. For example, the three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus) are a famous example of such forgery. The biased interpretation of fossils and outright fabrication of many imaginary reconstructions are an indication of how frequently evolutionists have recourse to tricks. Yet these seem innocent when compared to the deliberate forgeries that have been perpetrated in the history of evolution. There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures; nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the fossils they cannot find. Piltdown man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method. The Piltdown Man Scandal In 1912, a well-known doctor and amateur paleoanthropologist named Charles Dawson came out with the assertion that he had found a jawbone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England. Even though the jawbone was more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man's. These specimens were labelled the "Piltdown man." Alleged to be 500,000 years old, they were displayed as an absolute proof of human evolution in several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written on "Piltdown man," many interpretations and drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as important evidence for human evolution. No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject.233 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 189 While visiting the British Museum in 1921, leading American paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said "We have to be reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes" and proclaimed Piltdown "a discovery of transcendent importance to the prehistory of man."234 In 1949, Kenneth Oakley, from the British Museum's Paleontology Department, attempted to use "fluorine testing," a new test used for determining the date of fossils. A trial was made on the fossil of Piltdown man. The result was astonishing. During the test, it was realized that the jawbone of Piltdown man did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that it had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a small amount of fluorine, showed that it was only a few thousand years old. It was determined that the teeth in the jawbone, belonging to an orangutan, had been worn down artificially and that the "primitive" tools discovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with steel implements. In the detailed analysis completed by Joseph Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the jaw bone belonged to a recently deceased ape! The teeth had been specially arranged in a particular way and added to the jaw, and the molar surfaces were filed in order to resemble those of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with DARWINISM REFUTED For 40 years, Piltdown man fossil was accepted as the greatest evidence for human evolution. Evolutionist fossil experts claimed to have found a lot of transitional features in the skull. It only emerged later that the fossil was a fake. 190 potassium dichromate to give them an old appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark, who was in the team that uncovered the forgery, could not hide his astonishment at this situation, and said: "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?"235 In the wake of all this, "Piltdown man" was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years. The Nebraska Man Scandal In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the director of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth belonging to the Pliocene period in western Nebraska near Snake Brook. This tooth allegedly bore common characteristics of both man and ape. An extensive scientific debate began surrounding this fossil, which came to be called "Nebraska man," in which some interpreted this tooth as belonging to Pithecanthropus erectus, while others claimed it was closer to human beings. Nebraska man was also immediately given a "scientific name," Hesperopithecus haroldcooki. Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting. All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "imaginary man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticized. In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realized that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, "Hesperopithecus Apparently Not an Ape Nor a Man."236 Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 191 Conclusion All the scientific deceptions and prejudiced evaluations made to support the theory of evolution show that the theory is a kind of ideology, and not at all a scientific account. Like all ideologies, this one too has its fanatical supporters, who are desperate to prove evolution, at no matter what cost. Or else they are so dogmatically bound to the theory that every new discovery is perceived as a great proof of the theory, even if it has nothing to do with evolution. This is really a very distressing picture for science, because it shows that science is being misdirected in the name of a dogma. In his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, the Swedish scientist Soren Lovtrup has this to say on the subject: I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar "Darwinian" vocabulary—"adaptation," "selection pressure," "natural selection," etc.—thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.237 Further proof that Darwinism is the greatest deception in the history of science is provided by molecular biology. DARWINISM REFUTED 192 Nebraska man, and Henry Fairfield Osborn, who named it. n previous sections of this book, we have shown how the fossil record invalidates the theory of evolution. In point of fact, there was no need for us to relate any of that, because the theory of evolution collapses long before one gets to any claims about the evidence of fossils. The subject that renders the theory meaningless from the very outset is the question of how life first appeared on earth. When it addresses this question, evolutionary theory claims that life started with a cell that formed by chance. According to this scenario, four billion years ago various chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell. The first thing that must be said is that the claim that nonliving materials can come together to form life is an unscientific one that has not been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life. Each living cell is formed by the replication of another cell. No one in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories. The theory of evolution claims that a living cell—which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and technology are brought to bear—nevertheless managed to form by chance under primordial conditions on the earth. In the following pages, we will examine why this claim is contrary to the most basic principles of science and reason. 193 MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE I An Example of the Logic of "Chance" If one believes that a living cell can come into existence by chance, then there is nothing to prevent one from believing a similar story that we will relate below. It is the story of a town. One day, a lump of clay, pressed between the rocks in a barren land, becomes wet after it rains. The wet clay dries and hardens when the sun rises, and takes on a stiff, resistant form. Afterwards, these rocks, which also served as a mould, are somehow smashed into pieces, and then a neat, well shaped, and strong brick appears. This brick waits under the same natural conditions for years for a similar brick to be formed. This goes on until hundreds and thousands of the same bricks have been formed in the same place. However, by chance, none of the bricks that were previously formed are damaged. Although exposed to storms, rain, wind, scorching sun, and freezing cold for thousands of years, the bricks do not crack, break up, or get dragged away, but wait there in the same place with the same determination for other bricks to form. When the number of bricks is adequate, they erect a building by being arranged sideways and on top of each other, having been randomly dragged along by the effects of natural conditions such as winds, storms, or tornadoes. Meanwhile, materials such as cement or soil mixtures form under "natural conditions," with perfect timing, and creep between the bricks to clamp them to each other. While all this is happening, iron ore under the ground is shaped under "natural conditions" and lays the foundations of a building that is to be formed with these bricks. At the end of this process, a complete building rises with all its materials, carpentry, and installations intact. Of course, a building does not only consist of foundations, bricks, and cement. How, then, are the other missing materials to be obtained? The answer is simple: all kinds of materials that are needed for the construction of the building exist in the earth on which it is erected. Silicon for the glass, copper for the electric cables, iron for the columns, beams, water pipes, etc. all exist under the ground in abundant quantities. It takes only the skill of "natural conditions" to shape and place these materials inside the building. All the installations, carpentry, and accessories are placed among the bricks with the help of the blowing wind, rain, and DARWINISM REFUTED 194 earthquakes. Everything has gone so well that the bricks are arranged so as to leave the necessary window spaces as if they knew that something called glass would be formed later on by natural conditions. Moreover, they have not forgotten to leave some space to allow the installation of water, electricity and heating systems, which are also later to be formed by chance. Everything has gone so well that "coincidences" and "natural conditions" produce a perfect design. One who manages to sustain his belief in this story so far should have no trouble surmising how the town's other buildings, plants, highways, sidewalks, substructures, communications, and transportation systems came about. If he possesses technical knowledge and is fairly conversant with the subject, he can even write an extremely "scientific" book of a few volumes stating his theories about "the evolutionary process of a sewage system and its uniformity with the present structures." He may well be honored with academic awards for his clever studies, and may consider himself a genius, shedding light on the nature of humanity. The theory of evolution, which claims that life came into existence by chance, is no less absurd than our story, for, with all its operational systems, and systems of communication, transportation and management, a cell is no less complex than a city. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, the molecular biologist Michael Denton discusses the complex structure of the cell: To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?238 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 195 The Complex Structure and Systems in the Cell The complex structure of the living cell was unknown in Darwin's day and at the time, ascribing life to "coincidences and natural conditions" was thought by evolutionists to be convincing enough. Darwin had proposed that the first cell could easily have formed "in some warm little pond."239 One of Darwin's supporters, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, examined under the microscope a mixture of mud removed from the sea bed by a research ship and claimed that this was a nonliving substance that turned into a living one. This so-called "mud that comes to life," known as Bathybius haeckelii ("Haeckel's mud from the depths"), is an indication of just how simple a thing life was thought to be by the founders of the theory of evolution. The technology of the twentieth century has delved into the tiniest particles of life, and has revealed that the cell is one of the most complex systems mankind has ever confronted. Today we know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be DARWINISM REFUTED 196 In Darwin's time, it was thought that the cell had a very simple structure. Darwin's ardent supporter Ernst Haeckel suggested that the above mud pulled up from the bottom of the sea could produce life by itself. produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this amazingly complex system. W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."240 A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned. The theory of evolution claims that this system—which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing—came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. Actually, the probability of forming a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing house. The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the probability that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.241 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been "created." One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 197 Fred Hoyle DARWINISM REFUTED DETAIL 1: Plasma Membrane (Lipid Bilayer) Controls exchange of materials between inside & outside of cell. DETAIL 2: Nuclear Envelope Double phospholipid bilayer membrane that segregates contents of nucleus from cytoplasm. Golgi Complex ● Modifies, distributes&packages secretory products. ● Distributes & recycles cellular membrane. Phospholipid Molecule Transmembrane Channel Protein Centrioles ● Organelles containing 9 triplet bundles of microtubules. ● Important role in cell division. Nucleus ● Contains chromosomal DNA packaged into chromation fiber. ● Plays central role in heredity. ● Controls cellular activity. Nucleolus ● Site where ribosomal RNA is assembled, processed and packaged with proteins into ribosomal subunits. Nuclear Pore ● Special permeable sites on nuclear surface which allow certain macromolecules to pass between nucleus and cytoplasm. Mitochondrion ● Power plant of the cell ● Provides energy in the form of ATP through oxidative phosphorylation. Outer&Inner Membrane of Mitochondrion Matrix Space Cristae Basal Body of Flagellum ● Identical in structure to a centriole. Flagellum ● Microtubular structure which grows from the basal body. Used for locomotion. Plasma membrane 9+2 pairs of microtubules Dynein Arm ● Enzymatic activity of dynein (protein) releases the energy from ATP required for motility. Rough Endoplasmic Reticulum (RER) ● Segregation, modification & transportation of proteins & lysosomal enzymes. ● Ribosome studded membrane. Smooth Endoplasmic Reticulum (SER) ● Synthesis of lipids ● Role in detoxification. ● No ribosomes. DETAIL 3: Cytoskeleton Provides structural organization to the cell. Plasma Membrane (See DETAIL 1) Cytosol ● Gel-like intracellular fluid where many of cell's chemical reactions occur. Forming Face of Golgi Apparatus Maturing Face of Golgi Apparatus Golgi Saccule Golgi Saccule Nuclear Pore Central Granule Granules of Nuclear Pore Ribosome ● Contains high concentration of RNA. ● Important role in protein synthesis. Polysome Microtubule Mitochondrion Microtrabecular Strand Nuclear Envelope (See DETAIL 2) Cholestrol Lysosome Microtubule Glycoprotein Transfer vesicle Peripheral Proteins Integral Protein Surface Membrane Protein Secretory Granule 198 remain alive. The cell does not have the opportunity to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created. The Problem of the Origin of Proteins So much for the cell, but evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible. Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called amino acids that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. Prof. Fred Hoyle comments as follows: Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being selfevident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.242 The reason Hoyle used the term "psychological" is the selfconditioning of evolutionists not to accept that life was created. The rejection of Allah's existence is their main goal. For this reason alone, they go on defending irrational theories which they at the same time acknowledge to be impossible. Left-handed Proteins Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding the formation of proteins is impossible. Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 199 for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids—as of all organic molecules—called "left-handed" and "right-handed." The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands. Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable lefthanded amino acids from the fractured components. Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as 200 The complex 3-D structure of the protein cytochrome-C. The slightest difference in the order of the amino acids, represented by little balls, will render the protein nonfunctional. evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both rightand left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids. The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution. Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to "chance" even worse. In order for a "meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be righthanded. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognize that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance. The Britannica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become lefthanded or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth.243 If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of conscious intervention. A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 201 with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can never be explained by chance. The Indispensability of the Peptide Link The difficulties the theory of evolution is unable to overcome with regard to the development of a single protein are not limited to those we have recounted so far. It is not enough for amino acids to be arranged in the correct numbers, sequences, and required three-dimensional structures. The formation of a protein also requires that amino acid molecules with more than one arm be linked to each other only in certain ways. Such a bond is called a "peptide bond." Amino acids can make different bonds with each other; but proteins are made up of those—and only those—amino acids which are joined by peptide bonds. A comparison will clarify this point. Suppose that all the parts of a car were complete and correctly assembled, with the sole exception that one of the wheels was fastened in place not with the usual nuts and bolts, but with a piece of wire, in such a way that its hub faced the ground. It would be impossible for such a car to move even the shortest distance, no matter how complex its technology or how powerful its engine. At first glance, everything would seem to be in the right place, but the faulty attachment of even one wheel would make the entire car useless. In the same way, in a protein molecule the joining of even one amino acid to another with a bond other than a peptide bond would make the entire molecule useless. Research has shown that amino acids combining at random combine with a peptide bond only 50 percent of the time, and that the rest of the time different bonds that are not present in proteins emerge. To function properly, each amino acid making up a protein must be joined to others only with a peptide bond, in the same way that it likewise must be chosen only from among left-handed forms. A Protein Cannot Form Even if All the Necessary Conditions Were Present Since some people are unable to take a broad view of these matters, DARWINISM REFUTED 202 but approach them from a superficial viewpoint and assume protein formation to be a simple chemical reaction, they may make unrealistic deductions such as "amino acids combine by way of reaction and then form proteins." However, accidental chemical reactions taking place in a nonliving structure can only bring about simple compounds. The number of these is predetermined and limited. For a somewhat more complex chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, and laboratories have to be involved. Medicines and many other chemical materials that we use in our daily life are made in just this way. Proteins have much more complex structures than these chemicals produced by industry. Therefore, it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of creation and engineering, in which every part takes its place in a fixed order, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions. To summarize the subject of proteins; • Around 100 special proteins are needed for a single protein to form. • Protein cannot form if even one of these enzymes (proteins) required for protein synthesis is missing. • It is not enough for these 100 enzymes to be present at the same time; they must all also be present in a special region inside the cell (a specific region inside the nucleus). Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 203 The same protein's left- (L) and right- (D) handed isomers. The proteins in living creatures consist only of left-handed amino acids. L - Left-handed amino acid D - Right-handed amino acid • DNA manufactures the enzymes necessary for protein to form. Proteins are also needed for DNA replication. There is no possibility of one appearing before the other. Both have to be present at the same time. • A ribosome that serves as a factory for protein formation must also exist. But the ribosome is itself made up of proteins. Therefore, proteins are needed for ribosomes to exist, and ribosomes are needed for proteins. • It is impossible for one to form before the other. Proteins, DNA, the ribosome, the cell nucleus, mitochondria that produce energy and all the other organelles in the cell must all exist at one and the same time. • The enzymes essential for protein to form have to be sent to the region where manufacture will be carried out by the cell. Even if enzymes are present, so long as they are not given tasks to perform by the cell they will do nothing for that protein. • There have to be a specific temperature and pH value in order for enzymes to be able to carry out reactions. Enzymes do not initiate reactions if they are not at the right temperature and pH level. • Therefore, it is impossible for a protein to emerge so long as all the organelles of the cell do not co-exist together. • Even if we place all the components necessary for protein in some muddy water, these components can never combine together to constitute proteins. The existence of the cell is a prerequisite for that to happen. • Amino acids do not normally react with one another. Helper enzymes to carry out a reaction have to be ready and present inside the cell. But they do naturally enter into reactions with various substances, such as sugar. Therefore, even if all the requisite amino acids are placed into muddy water they can still never combine spontaneously with other amino acids. The cell is again essential for that to happen. • Under natural conditions, even if a protein is left inside muddy water, that protein will immediately be broken down, under the effect of various environmental factors, or else will combine with other acids, amino acids or chemical substances and lose all its properties and turn into another substance that serves no purpose. • In addition to all this, it will be useful to reiterate the essential conditions for a protein: DARWINISM REFUTED 204 a. There must be peptide bonds between amino acids b. All amino acids must be left-handed c. Only 20 amino acids must be used d. Amino acids have to be in a specific sequence e. The protein that forms has to have a specific 3-D shape. Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described so far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously "by accident." Even so, the theory of evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to survive, it would need to be isolated from its natural habitat and be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, it would either disintegrate from exposure to natural conditions on earth, or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, thereby losing its particular properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance. What we have been discussing so far is the impossibility of just one protein's coming about by chance. However, in the human body alone there are some 100,000 proteins functioning. Furthermore, there are about 1.5 million species named, and another 10 million are believed to exist. Although many similar proteins are used in many life forms, it is estimated that there must be 100 million or more types of protein in the plant and animal worlds. And the millions of species which have already become extinct are not included in this calculation. In other words, hundreds of millions of protein codes have existed in the world. If one considers that not even one protein can be explained by chance, it is clear what the existence of hundreds of millions of different proteins must mean. Bearing this truth in mind, it can clearly be understood that "coincidences" cannot account for the origin of living things. The Evolutionary Argument about the Origin of Life Above all, there is one important point to take into consideration: If any one step in the evolutionary process is proven to be impossible, this is sufficient to prove that the whole theory is totally false and invalid. For instance, by proving that the haphazard formation of proteins is impossible, all other claims regarding the subsequent steps of evolution are also refuted. After this, it becomes meaningless to take some human Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 205 PROTEIN SYNTHESIS: The ribosome reads the messenger RNA, and arranges the amino acids according to the information it receives there. In the illustrations, the consecutive order of the [ val, cys, and ala amino acids ], established by the ribosome and transfer RNA, can be seen. All proteins in nature are produced by this complex process. No protein comes about by "accident." val cys ala valine alanine cysteine protein sequence amino acids transfer RNA codon messenger RNA ribosome Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 207 and ape skulls and engage in speculation about them. How living organisms came into existence out of nonliving matter was an issue that evolutionists did not even want to mention for a long time. However, this question, which had constantly been avoided, eventually had to be addressed, and attempts were made to settle it with a series of experiments in the second quarter of the twentieth century. The main question was: How could the first living cell have appeared in the primordial atmosphere on the earth? In other words, what kind of explanation could evolutionists offer? The first person to take the matter in hand was the Russian biologist Alexander I. Oparin, the founder of the concept of "chemical evolution." Despite all his theoretical studies, Oparin was unable to produce any results to shed light on the origin of life. He says the following in his book The Origin of Life, published in 1936: Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms.244 Since Oparin, evolutionists have performed countless experiments, conducted research, and made observations to prove that a cell could have been formed by chance. However, every such attempt only made the complex structure of the cell clearer, and thus refuted the evolutionists' hypotheses even more. Professor Klaus Dose, the president of the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg, states: 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. 245 In his book The End of Science, the evolutionary science writer John Horgan says of the origin of life, "This is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology."246 The following statement by the geochemist Jeffrey Bada, from the San Diego-based Scripps Institute, makes the helplessness of evolutionists clear: 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? 247 Let us now look at the details of the theory of evolution's "biggest unsolved problem". The first subject we have to consider is the famous Miller experiment. Miller's Experiment The most generally respected study on the origin of life is the Miller experiment conducted by the American researcher Stanley Miller in 1953. (The experiment is also known as the "Urey-Miller experiment" because of the contribution of Miller's instructor at the University of Chicago, Harold Urey.) This experiment is the only "evidence" evolutionists have with which to allegedly prove the "chemical evolution thesis"; they advance it as the first stage of the supposed evolutionary process leading to life. Although nearly half a century has passed, and great technological advances have been made, nobody has made any further progress. In spite of this, Miller's experiment is still taught in textbooks as the evolutionary explanation of the earliest generation of living things. That is because, aware of the fact that such studies do not support, but rather actually refute, their thesis, evolutionist researchers deliberately avoid embarking on such experiments. Stanley Miller's aim was to demonstrate by means of an experiment that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could have come into existence "by chance" on the lifeless earth billions of years ago. In his experiment, Miller used a gas mixture that he assumed to have existed on the primordial earth (but which later proved unrealistic), composed of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor. Since these gases would not react with each other under natural conditions, he added energy to the mixture to start a reaction among them. Supposing that this energy could have come from lightning in the primordial atmosphere, he used an electric current for this purpose. Miller heated this gas mixture at 100°C for a week and added the electrical current. At the end of the week, Miller analyzed the chemicals which had formed at the bottom of the jar, and observed that three out of the 20 amino acids which constitute the basic elements of proteins had been synthesized. This experiment aroused great excitement among evolutionists, and DARWINISM REFUTED 208 was promoted as an outstanding success. Moreover, in a state of intoxicated euphoria, various publications carried headlines such as "Miller creates life." However, what Miller had managed to synthesize was only a few inanimate molecules. Encouraged by this experiment, evolutionists immediately produced new scenarios. Stages following the development of amino acids were hurriedly hypothesized. Supposedly, amino acids had later united in the correct sequences by accident to form proteins. Some of these proteins which emerged by chance formed themselves into cell membrane–like structures which "somehow" came into existence and formed a primitive cell. These cells then supposedly came together over time to form multicellular living organisms. However, Miller's experiment has since proven to be false in many respects. Four Facts That Invalidate Miller's Experiment Miller's experiment sought to prove that amino acids could form on their own in primordial earth-like conditions, but it contains inconsistencies in a number of areas: 1- By using a mechanism called a "cold trap," Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had he not done so, the conditions in the environment in which the amino acids were formed would immediately have destroyed these molecules. Doubtless, this kind of conscious isolation mechanism did not exist on the primordial earth. Without such a mechanism, even if one amino acid were obtained, it would immediately have been destroyed. The chemist Richard Bliss expresses this contradiction by observing that "Actually, without this trap, the chemical products, would have been destroyed by the energy source."248 And, sure enough, in his previous experiments, Miller had been unable to make even one single amino acid using the same materials without the cold trap mechanism. 2- The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 209 So why did Miller insist on these gases? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesize any amino acid. Kevin Mc Kean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine: Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere on the Earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. ...However in the latest studies, it has been understood that the Earth was very hot at those times, and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.249 The American scientists J. P. Ferris and C. T. Chen repeated Miller's experiment with an atmospheric environment that contained carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, and water vapor, and were unable to obtain even a single amino acid molecule. 250 3- Another important point that invalidates Miller's experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when they were thought to have been formed. This fact, overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidized iron found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old.251 There are other findings showing that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere at that time was much higher than originally claimed by evolutionists. Studies also show that the amount of ultraviolet radiation to which the earth was then exposed was 10,000 times more than evolutionists' estimates. This intense radiation would unavoidably have freed oxygen by decomposing the water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This situation completely negates Miller's experiment, in which oxygen was completely neglected. If oxygen had been used in the experiment, methane would have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia into nitrogen and water. On the other hand, in an environment where there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer either; therefore, the amino acids would have immediately been destroyed, since they would have been exposed to the most intense ultraviolet rays without the protection of the ozone layer. In other words, with or without oxygen in the primordial world, the result would have been a deadly environment for the amino acids. DARWINISM REFUTED 210 4- At the end of Miller's experiment, many organic acids had also been formed with characteristics detrimental to the structure and function of living things. If the amino acids had not been isolated, and had been left in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable. Moreover, Miller's experiment also produced right-handed amino acids.252 The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even within its own terms, because right-handed amino acids cannot function in the composition of living organisms. To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids were formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life. In truth, this medium took the form of an acidic mixture destroying and oxidizing the useful molecules obtained. All these facts point to one firm truth: Miller's experiment cannot claim to have proved that living things formed by chance under primordial earth–like conditions. The whole experiment is nothing more than a deliberate and controlled laboratory experiment to synthesize amino acids. The amount and types of the gases used in the experiment were ideally determined to allow amino acids to originate. The amount of energy supplied to the system was neither too much nor too little, but arranged precisely to enable the necessary reactions to occur. The experimental apparatus was isolated, so that it would not allow the leaking of any harmful, destructive, or any other kind of elements to hinder the formation of amino acids. No elements, minerals or compounds that were likely to have been present on the primordial earth, but which would have changed the course of the reactions, were included in the experiment. Oxygen, which would have prevented the formation of amino acids because of oxidation, is only one of these destructive elements. Even under such ideal laboratory conditions, it was impossible for the amino acids produced to survive and avoid destruction without the "cold trap" mechanism. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 211 Stanley Miller with his experimental apparatus. In fact, by his experiment, Miller destroyed evolution's claim that "life emerged as the result of unconscious coincidences." That is because, if the experiment proves anything, it is that amino acids can only be produced in a controlled laboratory environment where all the conditions are specifically designed by conscious intervention. Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled "Life's Crucible": Geologist 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."253 As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled "The Emergence of Life on Earth," the following comments appear: Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to 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 colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.254 In brief, neither Miller's experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject: DARWINISM REFUTED 212 All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.255 The Primordial Atmosphere and Proteins Evolutionist sources use the Miller experiment, despite all of its inconsistencies, to try to gloss over the question of the origin of amino acids. By giving the impression that the issue has long since been resolved by that invalid experiment, they try to paper over the cracks in the theory of evolution. However, to explain the second stage of the origin of life, evolutionists faced an even greater problem than that of the formation of amino acids—namely, the origin of proteins, the building blocks of life, which are composed of hundreds of different amino acids bonding with each other in a particular order. Claiming that proteins were formed by chance under natural conditions is even more unrealistic and unreasonable than claiming that amino acids were formed by chance. In the preceding pages we have already seen the impossibility of the haphazard formation of proteins. Now, we will further examine the impossibility of proteins being produced chemically under primordial earth conditions. The Problem of Protein Synthesis in Water As we saw before, when combining to form proteins, amino acids form a special bond with one Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 213 The artificial atmosphere created by Miller in his experiment actually bore not the slightest resemblance to the primitive atmosphere on earth. another called the peptide bond. A water molecule is released during the formation of this peptide bond. This fact definitely refutes the evolutionist explanation that primordial life originated in water, because, according to the "Le Châtelier principle" in chemistry, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water (a condensation reaction) to take place in a hydrous environment. The probability of this kind of a reaction happening in a hydrate environment is said to "have the least probability of occurring" of all chemical reactions. Hence the ocean, which is claimed to be where life began and amino acids originated, is definitely not an appropriate setting for amino acids to form proteins.256 On the other hand, it would be irrational for evolutionists to change their minds and claim that life originated on land, because the only environment where amino acids could have been protected from ultraviolet radiation is in the oceans and seas. On land, they would be destroyed by ultraviolet rays. The Le Châtelier principle, on the other hand, disproves the claim of the formation of life in the sea. This is another dilemma confronting evolution. Fox's Experiment Challenged by the abovementioned dilemma, evolutionists began to invent unrealistic scenarios based on this "water problem" that so definitively refuted their theories. Sydney Fox was one of the best known of these researchers. Fox advanced the following theory to solve the problem. According to him, the first amino acids must have been transported to some cliffs near a volcano right after their formation in the primordial ocean. The water contained in this mixture that included the amino acids must have evaporated when the temperature increased above boiling point on the cliffs. The amino acids DARWINISM REFUTED 214 Today, Miller too accepts that his 1953 experiment was very far from explaining the origin of life. which were "dried out" in this way, could then have combined to form proteins. However this "complicated" way out was not accepted by many people in the field, because the amino acids could not have endured such high temperatures. Research confirmed that amino acids are immediately destroyed at very high temperatures. But Fox did not give up. He combined purified amino acids in the laboratory, "under very special conditions," by heating them in a dry environment. The amino acids combined, but still no proteins were obtained. What he actually ended up with was simple and disordered loops of amino acids, arbitrarily combined with each other, and these loops were far from resembling any living protein. Furthermore, if Fox had kept the amino acids at a steady temperature, then these useless loops would also have disintegrated. Another point that nullified the experiment was that Fox did not use the useless end products obtained in Miller's experiment; rather, he used pure amino acids from living organisms. This experiment, however, which was intended to be a continuation of Miller's experiment, should have started out from the results obtained by Miller. Yet neither Fox, nor any other researcher, used the useless amino acids Miller produced. Fox's experiment was not even welcomed in evolutionist circles, because it was clear that the meaningless amino acid chains that he obtained (which he termed "proteinoids") could not have formed under natural conditions. Moreover, proteins, the basic units of life, still could not be produced. The problem of the origin of proteins remained unsolved. In an article in the popular science magazine, Chemical Engineering News, which appeared in the 1970s, Fox's experiment was mentioned as follows: Sydney Fox and the other researchers managed to unite the amino acids in the shape of "proteinoids" by using very special heating techniques under conditions which in fact did not exist at all in the primordial stages of Earth. Also, they are not at all similar to the very regular proteins present in living things. They are nothing but useless, irregular chemical stains. It was explained that even if such molecules had formed in the early ages, they would definitely be destroyed.257 Indeed, the proteinoids Fox obtained were totally different from real Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 215 proteins, both in structure and function. The difference between proteins and these proteinoids was as huge as the difference between a piece of high-tech equipment and a heap of unprocessed iron. Furthermore, it was impossible for these irregular amino acid chains to have survived in the primordial atmosphere. Harmful and destructive physical and chemical effects caused by heavy exposure to ultraviolet light and other unstable natural conditions would have caused these proteinoids to disintegrate. Because of the Le Châtelier principle, it was also impossible for the amino acids to combine underwater, where ultraviolet rays would not reach them. In view of this, the idea that the proteinoids were the basis of life eventually lost support among scientists. The Origin of the DNA Molecule Our examinations so far have shown that the theory of evolution is in a serious quandary at the molecular level. Evolutionists have shed no light on the formation of amino acids at all. The formation of proteins, on the other hand, is another mystery all its own. Yet the problems are not even limited just to amino acids and proteins: These are only the beginning. Beyond them, the extremely complex structure of the cell leads evolutionists to yet another impasse. The reason for this is that the cell is not just a heap of amino-acidstructured proteins, but rather one of the most complex systems man has ever encountered. While the theory of evolution was having such trouble providing a coherent explanation for the existence of the molecules that are the basis of the cell structure, developments in the science of genetics and the discovery of nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) produced brand-new problems for the theory. In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick launched a new age in biology with their work on the structure of DNA. The molecule known as DNA, which is found in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our bodies, contains the complete blueprint for the construction of the human body. The information regarding all the characteristics of a person, from physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, is recorded in DNA within the sequence of four special bases that make up the giant molecule. These bases are known as A, T, G, DARWINISM REFUTED 216 and C, according to the initial letters of their names. All the structural differences among people depend on variations in the sequences of these letters. In addition to features such as height, and eye, hair and skin colors, the DNA in a single cell also contains the design of the 206 bones, the 600 muscles, the 100 billion nerve cells (neurons), 1.000 trillion connections between the neurons of the brain, 97,000 kilometers of veins, and the 100 trillion cells of the human body. If we were to write down the information coded in DNA, then we would have to compile a giant library consisting of 900 volumes of 500 pages each. But the information this enormous library would hold is encoded inside the DNA molecules in the cell nucleus, which is far smaller than the 1/100th-of-a-millimeter-long cell itself. DNA Cannot Be Explained by Coincidences At this point, there is an important detail that deserves attention. An error in the sequence of the nucleotides making up a gene would render that gene completely useless. When it is considered that there are some 30,000 genes in the human body, it becomes clearer how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to have been formed, in the right sequence, by chance. The impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by a coincidental accumulation of nucleotides is expressed by the French scientist Paul Auger in this way: We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of complex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one—which is possible—and the combination of these within very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible.258 For many years, Francis Crick believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually even he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule could not have emerged spontaneously by chance, as the result of an evolutionary process: An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. 259 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 217 The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following confession on the issue: In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNARNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the probability of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic.260 A very interesting paradox emerges at this point: While DNA can only replicate with the help of special proteins (enzymes), the synthesis of these proteins can only be realized by the information encoded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. Science writer John Horgan explains the dilemma in this way: DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalyticproteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. 261 This situation once again undermines the scenario that life could have come about by accident. Homer Jacobson, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, comments: Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth—all had to be 218 FOX'S "PROTEINOIDS" Sydney Fox, who was influenced by Miller's scenario, formed the above molecules, which he called "proteinoids," by joining amino acids together. However, these chains of nonfunctioning amino acids had no resemblance to the real proteins that make up the bodies of living things. Actually, all these efforts showed not only that life did not come about by chance, but also that it could not be reproduced in laboratory conditions. simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance...262 The quotation above was written two years after the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. But despite all the developments in science, this problem for evolutionists remains unsolved. This is why German biochemist Douglas R. Hofstadter says: 'How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?' For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.263 Stanley Miller and Francis Crick's close associate from the University of San Diego, California, the highly reputed evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel says in an article published in 1994: It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means. 264 Alongside all of this, it is chemically impossible for nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, which possess a definite string of information, to have emerged by chance, or for even one of the nucleotides which compose them to have come about by accident and to have survived and maintained its unadulterated state under the conditions of the primordial world. Even the famous journal Scientific American, which follows an evolutionist line, has been obliged to confess the doubts of evolutionists on this subject: Even the simpler molecules are produced only in small amounts in realistic experiments simulating possible primitive earth conditions. What is worse, these molecules are generally minor constituents of tars: It remains problematical how they could have been separated and purified through geochemical processes whose normal effects are to make organic mixtures more and more of a jumble. With somewhat more complex molecules these difficulties rapidly increase. In particular a purely geochemical origin of nucleotides (the subunits of DNA and RNA) presents great difficulties.265 As revealed by what has been discussed so far, since it is impossible for life to have emerged by chemical means, life was created by All Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 219 Powerful Allah. This "chemical evolution" that evolutionists have been talking about since the beginning of the last century never happened, and is nothing but a myth. But most evolutionists believe in this and similar totally unscientific fairy tales as if they were true, because accepting that living things were created means accepting Almighty Allah’s existence—and they have conditioned themselves not to accept this truth. One famous biologist from Australia, Michael Denton, discusses the subject in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis: To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!266 DARWINISM REFUTED 220 When Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, they revealed that life was much more complicated than had previously been thought. The Invalidity of the RNA World The discovery in the 1970s that the gases originally existing in the primitive atmosphere of the earth would have rendered amino acid synthesis impossible was a serious blow to the theory of molecular evolution. Evolutionists then had to face the fact that the "primitive atmosphere experiments" by Stanley Miller, Sydney Fox, Cyril Ponnamperuma and others were invalid. For this reason, in the 1980s the evolutionists tried again. As a result, the "RNA World" hypothesis was advanced. This scenario proposed that, not proteins, but rather the RNA molecules that contained the information for proteins, were formed first. According to this scenario, advanced by Harvard chemist Walter Gilbert in 1986, inspired by the discovery about "ribozymes" by Thomas Cech, billions of years ago an RNA molecule capable of replicating itself formed somehow by accident. Then this RNA molecule started to produce proteins, having been activated by external influences. Thereafter, it became necessary to store this information in a second molecule, and somehow the DNA molecule emerged to do that. Made up as it is of a chain of impossibilities in each and every stage, this scarcely credible scenario, far from providing any explanation of the origin of life, only magnified the problem, and raised many unanswerable questions: 1. Since it is impossible to accept the coincidental formation of even one of the nucleotides making up RNA, how can it be possible for these imaginary nucleotides to form RNA by coming together in a particular sequence? Evolutionist John Horgan admits the impossibility of the chance formation of RNA; As researchers continue to examine the RNA-World concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA initially arise? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under really plausible ones.267 2. Even if we suppose that it formed by chance, how could this RNA, consisting of just a nucleotide chain, have "decided" to self-replicate, and with what kind of mechanism could it have carried out this self-replicating process? Where did it find the nucleotides it used while self-replicating? Even evolutionist microbiologists Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel express the desperate nature of the situtation in their book In the RNA World: Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 221 This discussion… has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a selfreplicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential.268 3. Even if we suppose that there was self-replicating RNA in the primordial world, that numerous amino acids of every type ready to be used by RNA were available, and that all of these impossibilities somehow took place, the situation still does not lead to the formation of even one single protein. For RNA only includes information concerning the structure of proteins. Amino acids, on the other hand, are raw materials. Nevertheless, there is no mechanism for the production of proteins. To consider the existence of RNA sufficient for protein production is as nonsensical as expecting a car to assemble itself by simply throwing the DARWINISM REFUTED DNA codes of the beta-globin gene. These codes make up one of the parts of the haemoglobin that carry oxygen in the blood. The important thing is that if there is an error in just one of these codes, the protein that is produced will be totally useless. 222 blueprint onto a heap of parts piled up on top of each other. A blueprint cannot produce a car all by itself without a factory and workers to assemble the parts according to the instructions contained in the blueprint; in the same way, the blueprint contained in RNA cannot produce proteins by itself without the cooperation of other cellular components which follow the instructions contained in the RNA. Proteins are produced in the ribosome factory with the help of many enzymes, and as a result of extremely complex processes within the cell. The ribosome is a complex cell organelle made up of proteins. This leads, therefore, to another unreasonable supposition—that ribosomes, too, should have come into existence by chance at the same time. Even Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod, who was one of the most fanatical defenders of evolution—and atheism—explained that protein synthesis can by no means be considered to depend merely on the information in the nucleic acids: The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least 50 macromolecular components, which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation themselves. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine. 269 How could an RNA chain in the primordial world have taken such a decision, and what methods could it have employed to make protein production happen by doing the work of 50 specialized particles on its own? Evolutionists have no answer to these questions. One article in the preeminent scientific journal Nature makes it clear that the concept of "self-replicating RNA" is a complete product of fantasy, and that actually this kind of RNA has not been produced in any experiment: Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 223 The extraordinary information concealed in DNA is clear proof that life did not emerge by chance, but was deliberately created. No natural process can account for the origin of DNA. DNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of protein enzymes to improve the copying fidelity of a gene-size piece of DNA. "Catch-22" say Maynard Smith and Szathmary. So, wheel on RNA with its now recognized properties of carrying both informational and enzymatic activity, leading the authors to state: "In essence, the first RNA molecules did not need a protein polymerase to replicate them; they replicated themselves." Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for 'biologists in general' that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences.270 Dr. Leslie Orgel uses the term "scenario" for the possibility of "the origination of life through the RNA World." Orgel described what kind of features this RNA would have had to have and how impossible these would have been in his article "The Origin of Life," published in Scientific American in October 1994: This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: A capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.271 As should by now be clear, to expect these two complex and extremely essential processes from a molecule such as RNA is againt scientific thought. Concrete scientific facts, on the other hand, makes it explicit that the RNA World hypothesis, which is a new model proposed for the chance formation of life, is an equally implausible fable. John Horgan, in his book The End of Science, reports that Stanley Miller viewed the theories subsequently put forward regarding the origin of life as quite meaningless (It will be recalled that Miller was the originator of the famous Miller Experiment, which was later revealed to be invalid.): In fact, almost 40 years after his original experiment, Miller told me that solving the riddle of the origin of life had turned out to be more difficult than he or anyone else had envisioned… Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as "nonsense" or "paper chemistry." He was so contemptuous of some hypotheses that, when I asked his opinion of them, he merely shook his head, sighed deeply, and snickered—as if overcome by the folly of humanity. Stuart Kauffman's theory of autocatalysis fell into this category. "Running equations through a computer does not constitute an experiment," Miller sniffed. Miller acknowledged that scientists may never know precisely where and when life emerged.272 DARWINISM REFUTED 224 This statement, by a pioneer of the struggle to find an evolutionary explanation for the origin of life, clearly reflects the despair felt by evolutionist scientists over the cul-de-sac they find themselves in. Order Cannot Be Explained by Coincidence So far, we have examined how impossible the accidental formation of life is. Let us again ignore these impossibilities for just a moment. Let us suppose that millions of years ago a cell was formed which had acquired everything necessary for life, and that it duly "came to life." Evolution again collapses at this point. For even if this cell had existed for a while, it would eventually have died and after its death, nothing would have remained, and everything would have reverted to where it had started. This is because this first living cell, lacking any genetic information, would not have been able to reproduce and start a new generation. Life would have ended with its death. The genetic system does not only consist of DNA. The following things must also exist in the same environment: enzymes to read the code on the DNA, messenger RNA to be produced after reading these codes, a ribosome to which messenger RNA will attach according to this code, transfer RNA to transfer the amino acids to the ribosome for use in production, and extremely complex enzymes to carry out numerous intermediary processes. Such an environment cannot exist anywhere apart from a totally isolated and completely controlled environment such as the cell, where all the essential raw materials and energy resources exist. As a result, organic matter can self-reproduce only if it exists as a fully developed cell, with all its organelles. This means that the first cell on earth was formed "all of a sudden," together with its extraordinarily complex structure. So, if a complex structure came into existence all of a sudden, what does this mean? Let us ask this question with an example. Let us liken the cell to a high-tech car in terms of its complexity. (In fact, the cell is a much more complex and developed system than a car.) Now let us ask the following question: What would you think if you went out hiking in the depths of a thick forest and ran across a brand-new car among the trees? Would you Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 225 imagine that various elements in the forest had come together by chance over millions of years and produced such a vehicle? All the parts in the car are made of products such as iron, copper, and rubber—the raw ingredients for which are all found on the earth—but would this fact lead you to think that these materials had synthesized "by chance" and then come together and manufactured such a car? There is no doubt that anyone with a sound mind would realize that the car was the product of an intelligent design, and wonder what it was doing there in the middle of the forest. The sudden emergence of a complex structure in a complete form, quite out of the blue, shows that this is the work of an intelligent design. Believing that pure chance can produce perfect structures goes well beyond the bounds of reason. Yet every "explanation" put forward by the theory of evolution regarding the origin of life is like that. One outspoken authority on this issue is the famous French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé. Grassé is an evolutionist, yet he acknowledges that Darwinist theory is unable to explain life and makes a point about the logic of "coincidence," which is the backbone of Darwinism: The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. 273 All living things in the world, all of which are clear examples of the intelligent planning we have just been discussing, are at the same time living evidence that coincidence can have no role to play in their existence. Each of its component parts—never mind a whole living creature— contains structures and systems so complex that they cannot be the work of coincidence. We need go no further than our own bodies to find examples of this. One example of this is our eyes. The human eye sees by the working together of some 40 separate parts. If one of these is not present, the eye will be useless. Each of these 40 parts possesses complex structures within itself. The retina at the back of the eye, for instance, is made up of 11 layers. Each layer has a different function. The chemical processes that go on DARWINISM REFUTED 226 inside the retina are so complex that they can only be explained with pages full of formulae and diagrams. The theory of evolution is unable to account for the emergence of even such a flawless and complex structure as a single eye by means of "accident," let alone life itself, or mankind. So, what do these extraordinary features in living things prove to us about the origin of life? As we made clear in the opening part of this book, only two different accounts can be given regarding the origin of life. One is the fallacious evolutionary explanation, the other the evident “fact of creation.” As explained throughout the book, the evolution claim is impossible, and scientific discoveries prove the truth of creation. This truth may surprise some scientists, who from the nineteenth century to the present have seen the concept of "creation" as unscientific, but science can only progress by overcoming shocks of this kind and accepting the truth. Chandra Wickramasinghe describes the reality he faced as a scientist who had been told throughout his life that life had emerged as a result of chance coincidences: From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can't find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to Allah. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling.274 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 227 This illustration shows the sketch of the chemical reactions taking place in a single cell. These intricate activities in the cell, which can only be viewed with an electron microscope, continue to take place flawlessly and ceaselessly. nyone who studies the different living species in the world may observe that there are some similar organs and features among these species. The first person to draw materialistic conclusions from this fact, which has attracted scientists' attention since the eighteenth century, was Charles Darwin. Darwin thought that creatures with similar (homologous) organs had an evolutionary relationship with each other, and that these organs must have been inherited from a common ancestor. According to his assumption, both pigeons and eagles had wings; therefore, pigeons, eagles and indeed all other birds with wings were supposed to have evolved from a common ancestor. Homology is a tautological argument, advanced on the basis of no other evidence than an apparent physical resemblance. This argument has never once been verified by a single concrete discovery in all the years since Darwin's day. Nowhere in the world has anyone come up with a fossil remain of the imaginary common ancestor of creatures with homologous structures. Furthermore, the following issues make it clear that homology provides no evidence that evolution ever occurred. 1. One finds homologous organs in creatures belonging to completely different phyla, among which evolutionists have not been able to establish any sort of evolutionary relationship; 2. The genetic codes of some creatures that have homologous organs are completely different from one another. 228 THE MYTH OF HOMOLOGY A 3. The embryological development of homologous organs in different creatures is completely different. Let us now examine each of these points one by one. The Invalidity of Morphological Homology The homology thesis of the evolutionists is based on the logic of building an evolutionary link between all living things with similar morphologies (structures), whereas there are a number of homologous organs shared by different groups that are completely unrelated to each other. Wings are one example. In addition to birds, we find wings on bats, which are mammals, and on insects and even on some dinosaurs, which are extinct reptiles. Not even evolutionists posit an evolutionary relationship or kinship among those four different groups of animals. Another striking example is the amazing resemblance and the structural similarity observed in the eyes of different creatures. For example, the octopus and man are two extremely different species, between which no evolutionary relationship is likely even to be proposed, yet the eyes of both are very much alike in terms of their structure and function. Not even evolutionists try to account for the similarity of the Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 229 According to the "tree of life" proposed by evolutionists, octopuses are some of the remotest creatures from man. But the octopus eye has exactly the same structure as ours. This is an indication that similarity of structure is no evidence for evolution. eyes of the octopus and man by positing a common ancestor. In response, evolutionists say that these organs are not "homologous" (in other words, from a common ancestor), but that they are "analogous" (very similar to each other, although there is no evolutionary connection between them). For example, in their view, the human eye and the octopus eye are analogous organs. However, the question of which category they will put an organ into, homologous or analogous, is answered totally in line with the theory of evolution's preconceptions. And this shows that the evolutionist claim based on resemblances is completely unscientific. The only thing evolutionists do is to try to interpret new discoveries in accordance with a dogmatic evolutionary preconception. However, the interpretation they put forward is completely invalid. Because organs which they have to consider "analogous" sometimes bear such close resemblance to one another, despite being exceedingly complex structures, that it is totally illogical to propose that this similarity was brought about as a result of coincidental mutations. If an octopus eye emerged completely by coincidence, as evolutionists claim, then how is it that vertebrates' eyes can emerge by the very same coincidences? The famous evolutionist Frank Salisbury, who got dizzy from thinking about this question, writes: Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It's bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim.275 DARWINISM REFUTED 230 The wings of a flying reptile, a bird, and a bat. These wings, between which no evolutionary relationship can be established, possess similar structures. According to the theory of evolution, wings emerged independently of each other four times: in insects, flying reptiles, birds, and flying mammals (bats). The fact that wing with very similar structures developed four times—which cannot be explained by the mechanisms of natural selection/mutation—is yet another headache for evolutionary biologists. One of the most concrete examples of such an obstacle in the path of evolutionary theory can be seen in mammals. According to the accepted view of modern biology, all mammals belong to one of three basic categories: placentals, marsupials and monotremes. Evolutionists consider this distinction to have come about when mammals first appeared, and that each group lived its own evolutionary history totally independent of the other. But it is interesting that there are "pairs" in placentals and marsupials which are nearly the same. Placental wolves, cats, squirrels, anteaters, moles and mice all have their marsupial counterparts with closely similar morphologies.276 In other words, according to the theory of evolution, mutations completely independent of each other must have produced these creatures "by chance" twice! This reality is a question that will give evolutionists problems even worse than dizzy spells. One of the interesting similarities between placental and marsupial mammals is that between the North American wolf and the Tasmanian wolf. The former belongs to the placental class, the latter to the marsupials. Evolutionary biologists believe that these two different species have completely separate evolutionary histories.277 (Since the continent of Australia and the islands around it split off from Gondwanaland (the supercontinent that is supposed to be the originator of Africa, Antarctica, Australia, and South America) the link between placental and marsupial mammals is considered to have been broken, and at that time there were no wolves). But the interesting thing is that the skeletal structure of the Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 231 Starting with kangaroos, all mammals in the continent of Australia belong to the "pouched" or marsupial subclass. According to evolutionists, they have no evolutionary relationship with placental mammals in the other regions of the world. Tasmanian wolf is nearly identical to that of the North American wolf. Their skulls in particular, as shown on the next page, bear an extraordinary degree of resemblance to each other. Extraordinary resemblances and similar organs like these, which evolutionary biologists cannot accept as examples of "homology," show that homology does not constitute any evidence for the thesis of evolution from a common ancestor. What is even more interesting is that the exact opposite situation is to be observed in other living things. In other words, there are living things, some of whose organs have completely different structures, even though they are considered to be close relatives by evolutionists. For example, most crustaceans have eye structures of the "refracting lens" type. In only two species of crustacean—the lobster and the shrimp—is the completely different "reflecting" type of eye seen. (See the chapter on Irreducible Complexity.) The Genetic and Embryological Impasse of Homology The discovery which really overthrew homology is that organs accepted as "homologous" are almost all controlled by very different genetic codes. As we know, the theory of evolution proposes that living things developed through small, chance changes in their genes, in other words, mutations. For this reason, the genetic structures of living things which are seen as close evolutionary relatives should resemble each other. And, in particular, similar organs should be controlled by similar genetic structures. However, in point of fact, genetic researchers have made discoveries which conflict totally with this evolutionary thesis. Similar organs are usually governed by very different genetic (DNA) codes. Furthermore, similar genetic codes in the DNA of different creatures are often associated with completely different organs. The chapter titled "The Failure of Homology" in Michael Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, gives several examples of this, and sums the subject up in this way: Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology.278 This genetic question has also been raised by the well-known DARWINISM REFUTED 232 The presence of "twin" species between marsupial and placental mammals deals a serious blow to the claim of homology. For example, the marsupial Tasmanian wolf (above) and the placental wolf found in North America resemble each other to an extraordinary degree. To the side can be seen the skulls of these two highly similar animals. Such a close resemblance between the two, which cannot be suggested to have any "evolutionary relationship," completely invalidates the claim of homology. Tasmanian wolf skull. MAMMAL TWINS THAT DEFY HOMOLOGY North American wolf skull. TWO UNRELATED EXTINCT MAMMALS WITH GIANT TEETH Another example of extraordinary resemblance between placental and marsupial mammal "twins," is that between the extinct mammals Smilodon (right) and Thylacosmilus (left), both predators with enormous front teeth. The great degree of resemblance between the skull and teeth structures of these two mammals, between which no evolutionary relationship can be established, overturns the homological view that similar structures are evidence in favor of evolution. 233 evolutionary biologist Gavin de Beer. In his book Homology: An Unsolved Problem, published in 1971, de Beer put forward a very wide-ranging analysis of this subject. He sums up why homology is a problem for the theory of evolution as follows: What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns', in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.279 Although some 30 years have passed since de Beer wrote those words, they have still received no answer. A third proof which undermines the homology claim is the question of embryological development, which we mentioned at the start. In order for the evolutionary thesis regarding homology to be taken seriously, the periods of similar structures' embryological development—in other words, the stages of development in the egg or the mother's womb— would need to be parallel, whereas, in reality, these embryological periods for similar structures are quite different from each other in every living creature. Pere Alberch, an eminent developmental biologist, noted, it is "the rule rather than the exception" that "homologous structures form from distinctly dissimilar initial states." 280 The emergence of similar structures as the result of totally dissimilar processes is frequently seen in the latter stages of the development phase. As we know, many species of animal go through a stage known as "indirect development" (in other words the larva stage), on their way to adulthood. For instance, most frogs begin life as swimming tadpoles and turn into four-legged animals at the last stage of metamorphosis. But alongside this there are several species of frog which skip the larva stage and develop directly. But the adults of most of these species that develop directly are practically indistinguishable from those species which pass through the tadpole stage. The same phenomenon is to be seen in water chestnuts and some other similar species.281 To conclude, we can say that genetic and embryological research has proven that the concept of homology defined by Darwin as "evidence of the evolution of living things from a common ancestor" can by no means be regarded as any evidence at all. The inconsistency of homology, which looks quite convincing on the surface, is clearly revealed when examined more closely. DARWINISM REFUTED 234 The Fall of the Homology in Tetrapod Limbs We have already examined homology's morphological claim—in other words the invalidity of the evolutionist claim based on similarities of form in living things—but it will be useful to examine one well-known example of this subject a little more closely. This is the "fore- and hindlimbs of tetrapods," presented as a clear proof of homology in almost all books on evolution. Tetrapods, i.e., land-living vertebrates, have five digits on their foreand hindlimbs. Although these may not always look like fingers or toes, they are all counted as "pentadactyl" (five-digit) due to their bone structure. The hands and feet of a frog, a lizard, a squirrel, or a monkey all have this same structure. Even the bone structures of birds and bats conform to this basic design. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 235 The fact that almost all land-dwelling vertebrates have a five-toed or "pentadactyl" bone structure in their hands and feet has for years been presented as "strong evidence for Darwinism" in evolutionist publications. However, recent research has revealed that these bone structures are governed by quite different genes. For this reason, the "homology of pentadactylism" assumption has today collapsed. Evolutionists claim that all living things descended from a common ancestor, and they have long cited pentadactyl limb as evidence of this. But they know that this claim actually possesses no scientific validity. Even today, evolutionists accept the feature of pentadactylism in living things among which they have been able to establish no evolutionary link. For example, in two separate scientific papers published in 1991 and 1996, evolutionary biologist M. Coates reveals that pentadactylism emerged two separate times, each independently of the other. According to Coates, the pentadactyl structure emerged independently in anthracosaurs and amphibians.282 This discovery is a sign that pentadactylism is no evidence for a "common ancestor." Another matter which creates difficulties for the evolutionist thesis in this respect is that these creatures have five digits on both their fore- and hindlimbs. It is not proposed in evolutionist literature that fore- and hindlimb descended from a "common limb"; rather, it is assumed that they developed separately. For this reason, it should be expected that the structure of the fore- and hindlimbs should be different, the result of different, chance mutations. Michael Denton has this to say on the subject: [T]he forelimbs of all terrestrial vertebrates are constructed according to the same pentadactyl design, and this is attributed by evolutionary biologists as showing that all have been derived from a common ancestral source. But the hindlimbs of all vertebrates also conform to the pentadactyl pattern and are strikingly similar to the forelimbs in bone structure and in their detailed embryological development. Yet no evolutionist claims that the hindlimb evolved from the forelimb, or that hindlimbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source… Invariably, as biological knowledge has grown, common genealogy as an explanation for similarity has tended to grow ever more tenuous… Like so much of the other circumstantial "evidence" for evolution, that drawn from homology is not convincing because it entails too many anomalies, too many counter-instances, far too many phenomena which simply do not fit easily into the orthodox picture.283 But the real blow dealt to the evolutionist claim of the homology of pentadactylism came from molecular biology. The assumption of "the homology of pentadactylism," which was long maintained in evolutionist publications, was overturned when it was realized that the limb structures DARWINISM REFUTED 236 were controlled by totally different genes in different creatures possessing this pentadactyl structure. Evolutionary biologist William Fix describes the collapse of the evolutionist thesis regarding pentadactylism in this way: The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the `pentadactyl' [five bone] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down. 284 On closer examination, William Fix is saying that evolutionist claims regarding "pentadactylism homology" appeared in old textbooks, but that the claims were abandoned after molecular evidence emerged. But, some evolutionist sources still continue to put it forward as major evidence for evolution. The Invalidity of Molecular Homology Evolutionists' advancement of homology as evidence for evolution is invalid not only at the morphological level, but also at the molecular level. Evolutionists say that the DNA codes, or the corresponding protein structures, of different living species are similar, and that this similarity is evidence that these living species have evolved from common ancestors, or else from each other. For example, it is regularly stated in the evolutionist literature that "there is a great similarity between the DNA of a human and that of an ape," and this similarity is presented as a proof for the evolutionist claim that there is an evolutionary relationship between man and ape. We must make it clear from the start that it is perfectly natural that living creatures on the earth should possess very similar DNA structures. Living things' basic life processes are the same, and since human beings possess a living body, they cannot be expected to have a different DNA Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 237 structure to other creatures. Like other creatures, human beings develop by consuming carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, oxygen circulates through the blood in their bodies, and energy is produced every second in each of their cells by the use of this oxygen. For this reason, the fact that living things possess genetic similarities is no proof of the evolutionist claim that they evolved from a common ancestor. If evolutionists want to prove their theory of evolution from a common ancestor, then they have to show that creatures alleged to be each other's common ancestors have a direct line of descent in their molecular structures; in fact, however, as we shall shortly be examining, there have been no concrete discoveries showing any such thing. Let us first of all take the matter of "the similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA." The latest studies on this issue have revealed that evolutionist propaganda about a "98 %" or "99 %" similarity between man and chimp is totally erroneous. If a slightly wider study is made of this subject, it can be seen that the DNA of much more surprising creatures resembles that of man. One of these similarities is between man and worms of the nematode phylum. For example, genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed that "nearly 75% of human genes have some counterpart in nematodes— millimeter-long soil-dwelling worms."285 This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms! According to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum, in which man is included, and the Nematoda phylum were different to each other even 530 million years ago. This situation clearly reveals that the similarity between the DNA strands of these two different categories of life is no evidence for the claim that these creatures evolved from a common ancestor. In fact, when the results of DNA analyses from different species and classes are compared, it is seen that the sequences clearly do not agree with any evolutionist family tree. According to the evolutionist thesis, living things must have undergone a progressive increase in complexity, and, parallel to this, it is to be expected that the number of genes, which make up their genetic data, should also gradually increase. But the data obtained show that this thesis is the work of fantasy. The Russian scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the best-known DARWINISM REFUTED 238 THE MYTH OF HUMAN-CHIMP SIMILARITY IS DEAD F or a very long time, the evolutionist choir had been propagating the unsubstantiated thesis that there is very little genetic difference between humans and chimps. In every piece of evolutionist literature you could read sentences like "we are 99 percent equal to chimps" or "there is only 1 percent of DNA that makes us human." Although no conclusive comparison between human and chimp genomes has been made, Darwinist ideology led them to assume that there is very little difference between the two species. A study in October 2002 revealed that the evolutionist propaganda on this issue, like many others, is completely false. Humans and chimps are not "99% similar" as the evolutionist fairy tale would have it. Genetic similarity turns out to be less than 95%. A news story reported by CNN.com, entitled "Humans, chimps more different than thought," reports the following: There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human being than once believed, according to a new genetic study. Biologists have long held that the genes of chimps and humans are about 98.5 percent identical. But Roy Britten, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, said in a study published this week that a new way of comparing the genes shows that the human and chimp genetic similarity is only about 95 percent. Britten based this on a computer program that compared 780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had, and concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different. This led him to conclude that there is a fundamental genetic difference between the species of about 5 percent. 1 New Scientist, a leading science magazine and a strong supporter of Darwinism, reported the following on the same subject in an article titled "Human-chimp DNA difference trebled": We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a threefold increase in the variation between us and chimps. 2 Biologist Boy Britten and other evolutionists continue to assess the result in terms of evolutionary theory, but in fact there is no scientific reason to do so. The theory of evolution is supported neither by the fossil record nor by genetic or biochemical data. On the contrary, the evidence shows that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly without any evolutionary ancestors and that their complex systems prove the existence of a Creator. 1. http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/09/24/humans.chimps.ap/index.html 2. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992833 theoreticians of evolution, once stated that this irregular relationship between living things and their DNA is a great problem that evolution cannot explain: More complex organisms generally have more DNA per cell than do simpler ones, but this rule has conspicuous exceptions. Man is nowhere near the top of the list, being exceeded by Amphiuma (an amphibian), Protopterus (a lungfish), and even ordinary frogs and toads. Why this should be so has long been a puzzle.286 Other comparisons on the molecular level produce other examples of inconsistency which render evolutionist views meaningless. When the protein strands of various living things are analysed in a laboratory, results emerge which are totally unexpected from the evolutionists' point of view, and some of which are utterly astounding. For example, the cytochrome-C protein in man differs by 14 amino acids from that in a horse, but by only eight from that in a kangaroo. When the same strand is examined, turtles appear closer to man than to a reptile such as the rattlesnake. When this situation is viewed from the evolutionist point of view, a meaningless result will emerge, such as that turtles are more closely related to man than they are to snakes. For instance, chickens and sea snakes differ by 17 amino acids in 100 codons and horses and sharks by 16, which is a greater difference than that between dogs and worm flies, which belong to different phyla even, and which differ by only 15 amino acids. Similar facts have been discovered with respect to hemoglobin. The hemoglobin protein found in human beings differs from that found in lemurs by 20 amino acids, but from that in pigs by only 14. The situation is more or less the same for other proteins.287 DARWINISM REFUTED 240 Comparisons of chromosome numbers and DNA structures show that there is no evolutionary relationship between different living species. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 241 This being the case, evolutionists should arrive at the conclusion that, in evolutionary terms, man is more closely related to the kangaroo than to the horse, or to the pig than to the lemur. But these results conflict with all the "evolutionary family tree" plans that have so far been accepted. Protein similarities continue to produce astounding surprises. For example: Adrian Friday and Martin Bishop of Cambridge have analyzed the available protein sequence data for tetrapods… To their surprise, in nearly all cases, man (the mammal) and chicken (the bird) were paired off as closest relatives, with the crocodile as next nearest relative…288 Again, when these similarities are approached from the point of view of evolutionist logic, they lead us to the ridiculous conclusion that man's closest evolutionary relative is the chicken. Paul Erbrich stresses the fact that molecular analyses produce results that show very different groups of living thing to be closely related in this way: Proteins with nearly the same structure and function (homologous proteins) are found in increasing numbers in phylogenetically different, even very distinct taxa (e.g., hemoglobins in vertebrates, in some invertebrates, and even in certain plants).289 Dr. Christian Schwabe, a biochemical researcher from the University of South Carolina's Faculty of Medicine, is a scientist who spent years trying to find evidence for evolution in the molecular field. He first tried to establish evolutionary relationships between living things by carrying out studies on proteins such as insulin and relaxin. But Schwabe has several times been forced to admit that he has not been able to come by any evidence for evolution in his studies. He says the following in an article in Science: Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies: so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message.290 Schwabe's studies on relaxins produced rather interesting results: Against this background of high variability between relaxins from purportedly closely related species, the relaxins of pig and whale are all but identical. The molecules derived from rats, guinea-pigs, man and pigs are as distant from each other (approximately 55%) as all are from the elasmobranch's relaxin. ...Insulin, however, brings man and pig phylogenetically closer together than chimpanzee and man.291 Schwabe was faced by the same realities when he compared the arrangements of other proteins besides insulin and relaxin. Schwabe has this to say about these other proteins that constitute exceptions to the orderly molecular development proposed by evolutionists: The relaxin and insulin families do not stand alone as exceptions to the orderly interpretation of molecular evolution in conventional monophyletic terms. It is instructive to look at additional examples of purportedly anomalous protein evolution and note that the explanations permissible under the molecular clock theories cover a range of ad hoc explanations apparently limited only by imagination.292 Schwabe reveals that the comparison of the arrangement of lysosomes, cytochromes, and many hormones and amino acids show "unexpected results and anomalies" from the evolutionary point of view. Based on all this evidence, Schwabe maintains that all proteins had their On the molecular level no organism is the "ancestor" of another, or more "primitive" or "advanced" than another. DARWINISM REFUTED present forms right from the start, undergoing no evolution, and that no intermediate form has been found between molecules, in the same way as with fossils. Concerning these findings in the field of molecular biology, Dr. Michael Denton comments: Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology… At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives… There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago… the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.293 The "Tree of Life" is Collapsing In the 1990s, research into the genetic codes of living things worsened the quandary faced by the theory of evolution in this regard. In these experiments, instead of the earlier comparisons that were limited to protein sequences, "ribosomal RNA" (rRNA) sequences were compared. From these findings, evolutionist scientists sought to establish an "evolutionary tree." However, they were disappointed by the results. According to a 1999 article by French biologists Hervé Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "with more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA tree."294 Besides rRNA comparisons, the DNA codes in the genes of living things were also compared, but the results have been the opposite of the "tree of life" presupposed by the theory of evolution. Molecular biologists James A. Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera elaborated on this in an article in 1999: …[S]cientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone.295 Neither the comparisons that have been made of proteins, nor those of rRNAs or of genes, confirm the premises of the theory of evolution. Carl Woese, a highly reputed biologist from the University of Illinois, admits Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 243 that the concept of "phylogeny" has lost its meaning in the face of molecular findings in this way: No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.296 The fact that results of molecular comparisons are not in favor of, but rather opposed to, the theory of evolution is also admitted in an article called "Is it Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" published in Science in 1999. This article by Elizabeth Pennisi states that the genetic analyses and comparisons carried out by Darwinist biologists in order to shed light on the "tree of life" actually yielded directly opposite results, and goes on to say that "new data are muddying the evolutionary picture": A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes from more than a dozen microorganisms thought these data might support the accepted plot lines of life's early history. But what they saw confounded them. Comparisons of the genomes then available not only didn't clarify the picture of how life's major groupings evolved, they confused it. And now, with an additional eight microbial sequences in hand, the situation has gotten even more confusing.... Many evolutionary biologists had thought they could roughly see the beginnings of life's three kingdoms... When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing other kinds of genes, researchers expected that they would simply add detail to this tree. But "nothing could be further from the truth," says Claire Fraser, head of The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead, the comparisons have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well...297 In short, as molecular biology advances, the homology concept loses more ground. Comparisons that have been made of proteins, rRNAs and genes reveal that creatures which are allegedly close relatives according to the theory of evolution are actually totally distinct from each other. A 1996 study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with primates instead of rodents; a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins among the chordates; and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses. DARWINISM REFUTED 244 As life is investigated on a molecular basis, the homology hypotheses of the evolutionary theory collapse one by one. Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells sums up the situation in 2000 in this way: Inconsistencies among trees based on different molecules, and the bizarre trees that result from some molecular analyses, have now plunged molecular phylogeny into a crisis.298 But in that case what kind of scientific explanation can be given for similar structures in living things? The answer to that question was given before Darwin's theory of evolution came to dominate the world of science. Men of science such as Carl Linnaeus and Richard Owen, who first raised the question of similar organs in living creatures, saw these organs as examples of "common creation." In other words, similar organs or similar genes resemble each other not because they have evolved by chance from a common ancestor, but because they have been created to perform a particular function. Modern scientific discoveries show that the claim that similarities in living things are due to descent from a "common ancestor" is not valid, and that the only rational explanation for such similarities is "common creation." 245 Comparisons that have been made of proteins, rRNA and genes reveal that creatures which are allegedly close relatives according to the theory of evolution are actually totally distinct from each other. Various studies grouped rabbits with primates instead of rodents, and cows with whales instead of horses. n the preceding sections, we examined the inconsistencies and difficulties the theory of evolution finds itself in in the fields of paleontology and molecular biology in the light of scientific proof and discoveries. In this chapter, we shall be considering some biological facts presented as evidence for the theory in evolutionist sources. In contrast to widespread belief, these facts show that there is actually no scientific discovery that supports the theory of evolution. Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics One of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present as evidence for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Many evolutionist sources mention antibiotic resistance as "an example of the development of living things by advantageous mutations." A similar claim is also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides such as DDT. However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too. Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by microorganisms to fight other microorganisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realized that mould produced a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this discovery marked a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics derived from microorganisms were used against bacteria and the results were successful. 246 IMMUNITY, "VESTIGIAL ORGANS" AND EMBRYOLOGY I Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics. Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by adapting to conditions." The truth, however, is very different from this superficial evolutionary interpretation. One of the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for his book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are: 1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria. 2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation. Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published in 2001: Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.299 Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution": The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.300 So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 247 The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes: ... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule.301 In his book Not by Chance, Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium and DARWINISM REFUTED 248 Bacteria quickly become immune to antibiotics by transferring their resistance genes to one another. The picture above shows a colony of E. coli bacteria. inactivates it. Mutation, on the other hand, decomposes the ribosome, thus preventing streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome. Although this is interpreted as "bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin," this is not a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes: It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.302 To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled." (Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less functional than that of a normal bacterium.) Since this "disability" prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops. Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic information." Evolutionists, who want to present antibiotic resistance as evidence for evolution, treat the issue in a very superficial way and are thus mistaken. The same situation holds true for the immunity that insects develop to DDT and similar insecticides. In most of these instances, immunity genes that already exist are used. The evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala admits this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds."303 Some other examples explained by mutation, just as with the ribosome mutation mentioned above, are phenomena that cause "genetic information deficit" in insects. In this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity mechanisms in bacteria and insects constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. That is because the theory of evolution is based on the assertion that living things develop through mutations. However, Spetner explains that neither antibiotic immunity nor any other biological phenomena indicate such an example of mutation: Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 249 The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by NeoDarwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO!304 The Myth of Vestigial Organs For a long time, the concept of "vestigial organs" appeared frequently in evolutionist literature as "evidence" of evolution. Eventually, it was silently put to rest when this was proved to be invalid. But some evolutionists still believe in it, and from time to time someone will try to advance "vestigial organs" as important evidence of evolution. The notion of "vestigial organs" was first put forward a century ago. As evolutionists would have it, there existed in the bodies of some creatures a number of non-functional organs. These had been inherited from progenitors and had gradually become vestigial from lack of use. The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered." The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory: Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.305 The list of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 organs, including the appendix and coccyx. As science progressed, it was discovered that all of the organs in Wiedersheim's list in fact had very important functions. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a "vestigial organ," was in fact a lymphoid organ that fought infections in the body. This fact was made clear in 1997: DARWINISM REFUTED 250 Other bodily organs and tissues—the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and small collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer's patch in the small intestine—are also part of the lymphatic system. They too help the body fight infection.306 It was also discovered that the tonsils, which were included in the same list of vestigial organs, had a significant role in protecting the throat against infections, particularly until adolescence. It was found that the coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column supports the bones around the pelvis and is the convergence point of some small muscles and for this reason, it would not be possible to sit comfortably without a coccyx. In the years that followed, it was realized that the thymus triggered the immune system in the human body by activating the T cells, that the pineal gland was in charge of the secretion of some important hormones such as melatonin, which inhibits secretion of luteinizing hormone, that the thyroid gland was effective in providing steady growth in babies and children and in metabolism and body activity, and that the pituitary gland controlled skeletal growth and the proper functioning of the thyroid, adrenals, and reproductive glands. All of these were once considered to be "vestigial organs." Finally, the semi-lunar fold in the eye, which was referred to as a vestigial organ by Darwin, has been found in fact to be in charge of cleansing and lubricating the eyeball. There was a very important logical error in the evolutionist claim regarding vestigial organs. As we have just seen, this claim was that the vestigial organs in living things were inherited from their ancestors. However, some of the alleged "vestigial" organs are not found in the species alleged to be the ancestors of human beings! For example, the Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 251 A scientific study of the myth of vestigial organs: "Vestigial Organs" Are Fully Functional. appendix does not exist in some ape species that are said to be ancestors of man. The famous biologist H. Enoch, who challenged the theory of vestigial organs, expressed this logical error as follows: Apes possess an appendix, whereas their less immediate relatives, the lower apes, do not; but it appears again among the still lower mammals such as the opossum. How can the evolutionists account for this?307 Beside all of this, the claim that an organ which is not used atrophies and disappears over time carries a logical inconsistency within it. Darwin was aware of this inconsistency, and made the following confession in The Origin of Species: There remains, however, this difficulty. After an organ has ceased being used, and has become in consequence much reduced, how can it be still further reduced in size until the merest vestige is left; and how can it be finally quite obliterated? It is scarcely possible that disuse can go on producing any further effect after the organ has once been rendered DARWINISM REFUTED 252 The appendix (above), which evolutionists thought to be a vestigial organ, has now been understood to play an important part in the body's immune system. The coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column is also not a vestigial organ but provides an attachment for our pelvic organs so that they will not collapse. functionless. Some additional explanation is here requisite which I cannot give.308 Simply put, the scenario of vestigial organs put forward by evolutionists contains a number of serious logical flaws, and has in any case been proven to be scientifically untrue. There exists not one inherited vestigial organ in the human body. Yet Another Blow To "Vestigial Organs": The Leg of the Horse The latest blow to the myth of vestigial organs comes from a recent study on the leg of the horse. In an article in the 20-27 December 2001 issue of the journal Nature, titled "Biomechanics: Damper for bad vibrations," it is noted that "Some muscle fibres in the legs of horses seem to be evolutionary leftovers with no function. But in fact they may act to damp damaging vibrations generated in the leg as the horse runs." The article reads as follows: Horses and camels have muscles in their legs with tendons more than 600 millimetres long connected to muscle fibres less than 6 millimetres long. Such short muscles can change length only by a few millimetres as the animal moves, and seem unlikely to be of much use to large mammals. The tendons function as passive springs, and it has been assumed that the short muscle fibres are redundant, the remnants of longer fibres that have lost their function over the course of evolution. But Wilson and colleagues argue… that these fibres might protect bones and tendons from potentially damaging vibrations…. Their experiments show that short muscle fibers can damp the damaging vibrations following the impact of a foot on the ground. When the foot of a running animal hits the ground, the impact sets the leg vibrating; the frequency of the vibrations is relatively high—for example, 30–40 Hz in horses—so many cycles of vibration would occur while the foot was on the ground if there were no damping. The vibrations might cause damage, because bone and tendon are susceptible to fatigue failure. Fatigue in bones and tendons is the accumulation of damage resulting from repeated application of stresses. Bone fatigue is responsible for the stress fractures suffered by both human athletes and racehorses, and tendon fatigue may explain at least some cases Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 253 of tendonitis. Wilson et al. suggest that the very short muscle fibres protect both bones and tendons from fatigue damage by damping out vibrations…309 In short, a closer look at the anatomy of the horse revealed that the structures that have been considered as nonfunctional by evolutionists have very important functions. In other words, scientific progress demonstrated that what was considered to be evidence for evolution is in fact evidence for creation. Evolutionists should be objective and evaluate scientific findings reasonably. The Nature article comments as follows: Wilson et al. have found an important role for a muscle that seemed to be the relic of a structure that had lost its function in the course of evolution. Their work makes us wonder whether other vestiges (such as the human appendix) are as useless as they seem.310 This is not surprising. The more we learn about nature, the more we see the evidence for creation. As Michael Behe notes, "the conclusion of design comes not from what we do not know, but from what we have learned over the past 50 years."311 And Darwinism turns out to be an argument from ignorance. The Recapitulation Misconception What used to be called the "recapitulation theory" has long been eliminated from scientific literature, but it is still being presented as a scientific reality by some evolutionist publications. The term "recapitulation" is a condensation of the dictum "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," put forward by the evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel at the end of the nineteenth century. This theory of Haeckel's postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theorized that during its development in its mother's womb, the human embryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish, and then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human. It has since been proven that this theory is completely bogus. It is now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, DARWINISM REFUTED 254 parathyroid, and thymus. That part of the embryo that was likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that was identified as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do. These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves. Two leading Darwinists, George Gaylord Simpson and W. Beck have admitted: Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.312 The following was written in an article in New Scientist dated October 16, 1999: [Haeckel] called this the biogenetic law, and the idea became popularly known as recapitulation. In fact Haeckel's strict law was soon shown to be incorrect. For instance, the early human embryo never has functioning gills like a fish, and never passes through stages that look like an adult reptile or monkey. 313 In an article published in American Scientist, we read: Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 255 With his faked embryo drawings, Ernst Haeckel deceived the world of science for a century. Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry it was extinct in the twenties…314 Another interesting aspect of "recapitulation" was Ernst Haeckel himself, a faker who falsified his drawings in order to support the theory he advanced. Haeckel's forgeries purported to show that fish and human embryos resembled one another. When he was caught out, the only defense he offered was that other evolutionists had committed similar offences: After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed.315 In the September 5, 1997, edition of the well-known scientific journal Science, an article was published revealing that Haeckel's embryo drawings were the product of a deception. The article, called "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," had this to say: The impression they [Haeckel's drawings] give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School in London… So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining and photographing embryos DARWINISM REFUTED 256 Haeckel's fake drawings. 257 Observations in recent years have revealed that embryos of different species do not resemble each other, as Haeckel had attempted to show. The great differences between the mammal, reptile and bat embryos above are a clear instance of this. In its September 5, 1997, issue, the famous journal Science published an article revealing that Haeckel's embryo drawings had been falsified. The article described how the embryos were in fact very different from one another. roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos "often looked surprisingly different," Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology. 316 Science explained that, in order to be able to show the embryos as similar, Haeckel deliberately removed some organs from his drawings or else added imaginary ones. Later in this same article, the following information was revealed: Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. "It (Haeckel's drawings) looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology," Richardson concludes.317 The Science article goes on to discuss how Haeckel's confessions on this subject were covered up from the beginning of the last century, and how the fake drawings began to be presented in textbooks as scientific fact: Haeckel's confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English language biology texts.318 In short, the fact that Haeckel's drawings were falsified had already emerged in 1901, but the whole world of science continued to be deceived by them for a century. DARWINISM REFUTED 258 ife on earth is divided into five (or sometimes six) kingdoms by scientists. We have so far concentrated mainly on the greatest kingdom, that of animals. In the preceding chapters, we considered the origin of life itself, studying proteins, genetic information, cell structure and bacteria, issues that are related with two other kingdoms, Prokaryotae and Protista. But at this point there is another important matter we need to concentrate on—the origin of the plant kingdom (Plantae). We find the same picture in the origin of plants as we met when examining the origin of animals. Plants possess exceedingly complex structures, and it is not possible for these to come about by chance effects and for them to evolve into one another. The fossil record shows that the different classes of plants emerged all of a sudden in the world, each with its own particular characteristics, and with no period of evolution behind it. The Origin of the Plant Cell Like animal cells, plant cells belong to the type known as "eukaryotic." The most distinctive feature of these is that they have a cell nucleus, and the DNA molecule in which their genetic information is encoded lies within this nucleus. On the other hand, some single-celled creatures such as bacteria have no cell nucleus, and the DNA molecule is free inside the cell. This second type of cell is called "prokaryotic." This type of cell structure, with free DNA unconfined within a nucleus, is an 259 THE ORIGIN OF PLANTS L C M Y K ideal design for bacteria, as it makes possible the very important process— from the bacterial point of view—of plasmid transfer (that is, the transfer of DNA from cell to cell). Because the theory of evolution is obliged to arrange living things in a sequence "from primitive to complex," it assumes that prokaryotic cells are primitive, and that eukaryotic cells evolved from them. Before moving to the invalidity of this claim, it will be useful to demonstrate that prokaryotic cells are not at all "primitive." A bacterium possesses some 2,000 genes; each gene contains about 100 letters (links). This means that the information in a bacterium's DNA is some 200,000 letters long. According to this calculation, the information in the DNA of one bacterium is equivalent to 20 novels, each of 10,000 words.319 Any change in the information in the DNA code of a bacterium would be so deleterious as to ruin the bacterium's entire working system. As we have seen, a fault in a bacterium's genetic code means that the working system will go wrong—that is, the cell will die. Alongside this sensitive structure, which defies chance changes, the fact that no "intermediate form" between bacteria and eukaryotic cells has been found makes the evolutionist claim unfounded. For example, the famous Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy confesses the groundlessness of the scenario that bacterial cells evolved into eukaryotic cells, and then into complex organisms made up of these cells: One of the most difficult stages to be explained in evolution is to scientifically explain how organelles and complex cells developed from these primitive creatures. No transitional form has been found between these two forms. One- and multicelled creatures carry all this complex structure, and no creature or group has yet been found with organelles of a simpler construction in any way, or which are more primitive. In other words, the organelles carried forward have developed just as they are. They have no simple and primitive forms.320 One wonders, what is it that encourages Professor Ali Demirsoy, a loyal adherent of the theory of evolution, to make such an open admission? The answer to this question can be given quite clearly when the great structural differences between bacteria and plant cells are examined. These are: DARWINISM REFUTED 260 1- While the walls of bacterial cells are formed of polysaccharide and protein, the walls of plant cells are formed of cellulose, a totally different structure. 2- While plant cells possess many organelles, covered in membranes and possessing very complex structures, bacterial cells lack typical organelles. In bacterial cells there are just freely moving tiny ribosomes. But the ribosomes in plant cells are larger and are attached to the cell membrane. Furthermore, protein synthesis takes place by different means in the two types of ribosomes. 3- The DNA structures in plant and bacterial cells are different. 4- The DNA molecule in plant cells is protected by a double-layered membrane, whereas the DNA in bacterial cells stands free within the cell. 5- The DNA molecule in bacterial cells resembles a closed loop; in other words, it is circular. In plants, the DNA molecule is linear. 6- The DNA molecule in bacterial cells carries information belonging to just one cell, but in plant cells the DNA molecule carries information about the whole plant. For example, all the information about a fruitbearing tree's roots, stem, leaves, flowers, and fruit are all found separately in the DNA in the nucleus of just one cell. 7- Some species of bacteria are photosynthetic, in other words, they carry out photosynthesis. But unlike plants, in photosynthetic bacteria Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 261 Plants form the fundamental basis of life on earth. They are an indispensable condition for life, as they provide food and release oxygen to the air. (cyanobacteria, for instance), there is no chloroplast containing chlorophyll and photosynthetic pigments. Rather, these molecules are buried in various membranes all over the cell. 8- The biochemistry of messenger RNA formation in prokaryotic (bacterial) cells and in eukaryotic (including plant and animal) cells are quite different from one another. 321 Messenger RNA plays a vital role for the cell to live. But although messenger RNA assumes the same vital role in both prokaryotic cells and in eukaryotic cells, their biochemical structures are different. J. Darnell wrote the following in an article published in Science: The differences in the biochemistry of messenger RNA formation in eukaryotes compared to prokaryotes are so profound as to suggest that sequential prokaryotic to eukaryotic cell evolution seems unlikely. 322 The structural differences between bacterial and plant cells, of which we have seen a few examples above, lead evolutionist scientists to another dead-end. Although plant and bacterial cells have some aspects in common, most of their structures are quite different from one another. In fact, since there are no membrane-surrounded organelles or a cytoskeleton (the internal network of protein filaments and microtubules) in bacterial cells, the presence of several very complex organelles and cell organization in plant cells totally invalidates the claim that the plant cell evolved from the bacterial cell. Biologist Ali Demirsoy openly admits this, saying, "Complex cells never developed from primitive cells by a process of evolution." 323 DARWINISM REFUTED 262 The evolutionist hypothesis that prokaryotic cells (left) turned into eukaryotic cells over time has no scientific basis to it. The Endosymbiosis Hypothesis and Its Invalidity The impossibility of plant cells' having evolved from a bacterial cell has not prevented evolutionary biologists from producing speculative hypotheses. But experiments disprove these. 324 The most popular of these is the "endosymbiosis" hypothesis. This hypothesis was put forward by Lynn Margulis in 1970 in her book The Origin of Eukaryotic Cells. In this book, Margulis claimed that as a result of their communal and parasitic lives, bacterial cells turned into plant and animal cells. According to this theory, plant cells emerged when a photosynthetic bacterium was swallowed by another bacterial cell. The photosynthetic bacterium evolved inside the parent cell into a chloroplast. Lastly, organelles with highly complex structures such as the nucleus, the Golgi apparatus, the endoplasmic reticulum, and ribosomes evolved, in some way or other. Thus, the plant cell was born. As we have seen, this thesis of the evolutionists is nothing but a work of fantasy. Unsurprisingly, it was criticized by scientists who carried out very important research into the subject on a number of grounds: We can cite D. Lloyd 325, M. Gray and W. Doolittle 326, and R. Raff and H. Mahler as examples of these. The endosymbiosis hypothesis is based on the fact that the mitochondria of animal cells and the chloroplasts of plant cells contain their own DNA, separate from the DNA in the nucleus of the parent cell. So, on this basis, it is suggested that mitochondria and chloroplasts were once independent, free-living cells. However, when chloroplasts are studied in detail, it can be seen that this claim is inconsistent. A number of points invalidate the endosymbiosis hypothesis: 1- If chloroplasts, in particular, were once independent cells, then there could only have been one outcome if one were swallowed by a larger cell: namely, it would have been digested by the parent cell and used as food. This must be so, because even if we assume that the parent cell in question took such a cell into itself from the outside by mistake, instead of intentionally ingesting it as food, nevertheless, the digestive enzymes in the parent cell would have destroyed it. Of course, some evolutionists have gotten around this obstacle by saying, "The digestive enzymes had disappeared." But this is a clear contradiction, because if the cell's digestive Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 263 enzymes had disappeared, then the cell would have died from lack of nutrition. 2- Again, let us assume that all the impossible happened and that the cell which is claimed to have been the ancestor of the chloroplast was swallowed by the parent cell. In this case we are faced with another problem: The blueprints of all the organelles inside the cell are encoded in the DNA. If the parent cell were going to use other cells it swallowed as organelles, then it would be necessary for all of the information about them to be already present and encoded in its DNA. The DNA of the swallowed cells would have to possess information belonging to the parent cell. Not only is such a situation impossible, the two complements of DNA belonging to the parent cell and the swallowed cell would also have to become compatible with each other afterwards, which is also clearly impossible. 3- There is great harmony within the cell which random mutations cannot account for. There are more than just one chloroplast and one mitochondrion in a cell. Their number rises or falls according to the activity level of the cell, just like with other organelles. The existence of DNA in the bodies of these organelles is also of use in reproduction. As the cell divides, all of the numerous chloroplasts divide too, and the cell division happens in a shorter time and more regularly. 4- Chloroplasts are energy generators of absolutely vital importance to the plant cell. If these organelles did not produce energy, many of the cell's functions would not work, which would mean that the cell could not live. These functions, which are so important to the cell, take place with proteins synthesized in the chloroplasts. But the chloroplasts' own DNA is not enough to synthesize these proteins. The greater part of the proteins are synthesized using the parent DNA in the cell nucleus. 327 While the situation envisioned by the endosymbiosis hypothesis is occurring through a process of trial and error, what effects would this have on the DNA of the parent cell? As we have seen, any change in a DNA molecule definitely does not result in a gain for that organism; on the contrary, any such mutation would certainly be harmful. In his book The Roots of Life, Mahlon B. Hoagland explains the situation: You'll recall we learned that almost always a change in an organism's DNA is detrimental to it; that is, it leads to a reduced capacity to survive. By way DARWINISM REFUTED 264 of analogy, random additions of sentences to the plays of Shakespeare are not likely to improve them! …The principle that DNA changes are harmful by virtue of reducing survival chances applies whether a change in DNA is caused by a mutation or by some foreign genes we deliberately add to it.328 The claims put forward by evolutionists are not based on scientific experiments, because no such thing as one bacterium swallowing another one has ever been observed. In his review of a later book by Margulis, Symbiosis in Cell Evolution, molecular biologist P. Whitfield describes the situation: Prokaryotic endocytosis is the cellular mechanism on which the whole of S.E.T. (Serial Endosymbiotic Theory) presumably rests. If one prokaryote could not engulf another it is difficult to imagine how endosymbioses could be set up. Unfortunately for Margulis and S.E.T., no modern examples of prokaryotic endocytosis or endosymbiosis exist… 329 The Origin of Photosynthesis Another matter regarding the origin of plants which puts the theory of evolution into a terrible quandary is the question of how plant cells began to carry out photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is one of the fundamental processes of life on earth. By means of the chloroplasts inside them, plant cells produce starch by using water, carbon dioxide and sunlight. Animals are unable to produce their own nutrients and must use the starch from plants for food instead. For this reason, photosynthesis is a basic condition for complex life. An even more interesting side of the matter is the fact that this complex process of photosynthesis has not yet been fully understood. Modern technology has not yet been able to reveal all of its details, let alone reproduce it. How is it that evolutionists believe such a complex process as photosynthesis is the product of natural and random processes? According to the evolution scenario, in order to carry out photosynthesis, plant cells swallowed bacterial cells which could photosynthesize and turned them into chloroplasts. So, how did bacteria learn to carry out such a complex process as photosynthesis? And why had they not begun to carry out such a process before then? As with other Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 265 questions, the scenario has no scientific answer to give. Have a look at how an evolutionist publication answers the question: The heterotroph hypothesis suggests that the earliest organisms were heterotrophs that fed on a soup of organic molecules in the primitive ocean. As these first heterotrophs consumed the available amino acids, proteins, fats, and sugars, the nutrient soup became depleted and could no longer support a growing population of heterotrophs. …Organisms that could use an alternate source of energy would have had a great advantage. Consider that Earth was (and continues to be) flooded with solar energy that actually consists of different forms of radiation. Ultraviolet radiation is destructive, but visible light is energy-rich and undestructive. Thus, as organic compounds became increasingly rare, an already-present ability to use visible light as an alternate source of energy might have enabled such organisms and their descendents to survive. 330 DARWINISM REFUTED 266 Plant cells carry out a process that no modern laboratory can duplicate—photosynthesis. By means of the organelle called the "chloroplast" in the plant cell, plants use water, carbon dioxide and sunlight to create starch. This food product is the first step in the earth's food chain, and the source of food for all its inhabitants. The details of this exceedingly complex process are still not fully understood today. Chloroplast Chlorophyll The book Life on Earth, another evolutionist source, tries to explain the emergence of photosynthesis: The bacteria fed initially on the various carbon compounds that had taken so many millions of years to accumulate in the primordial seas. But as they flourished, so this food must have become scarcer. Any bacterium that could tap a different source of food would obviously be very successful and eventually some did. Instead of taking ready-made food from their surroundings, they began to manufacture their own within their cell walls, drawing the necessary energy from the sun.331 In short, evolutionist sources say that photosynthesis was in some way coincidentally "discovered" by bacteria, even though man, with all his technology and knowledge, has been unable to do so. These accounts, which are no better than fairy tales, have no scientific worth. Those who study the subject in a bit more depth will accept that photosynthesis is a major dilemma for evolution. Professor Ali Demirsoy makes the following admission, for instance: Photosynthesis is a rather complicated event, and it seems impossible for it to emerge in an organelle inside a cell (because it is impossible for all the stages to have come about at once, and it is meaningless for them to have emerged separately). 332 The German biologist Hoimar von Ditfurth says that photosynthesis is a process that cannot possibly be learned: No cell possesses the capacity to 'learn' a process in the true sense of the word. It is impossible for any cell to come by the ability to carry out such functions as respiration or photosynthesis, neither when it first comes into being, nor later in life. 333 Since photosynthesis cannot develop as the result of chance, and cannot subsequently be learned by a cell, it appears that the first plant cells that lived on the earth were specially created to carry out photosynthesis. In other words, plants were created by Allah with the ability to photosynthesize. The Origin of Algae The theory of evolution hypothesizes that single-celled plant-like creatures, whose origins it is unable to explain, came in time to form algae. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 267 The origin of algae goes back to very remote times. So much so, that fossil algae remains from 3.1 to 3.4 million years old have been found. The interesting thing is that there is no structural difference between these extraordinarily ancient living things and specimens living in our own time. An article published in Science News says: Both blue-green algae and bacteria fossils dating back 3.4 billion years have been found in rocks from S. Africa. Even more intriguing, the pleurocapsalean algae turned out to be almost identical to modern pleurocapsalean algae at the family and possibly even at the generic level.334 The German biologist Hoimar von Ditfurth makes this comment on the complex structure of so-called "primitive" algae: The oldest fossils so far discovered are objects fossilized in minerals which belong to blue green algae, more than 3 billion years old. No matter how primitive they are, they still represent rather complicated and expertly organized forms of life.335 Evolutionary biologists consider that the algae in question gave rise over time to other marine plants and moved to the land some 450 million years ago. However, just like the scenario of animals moving from water onto the land, the idea that plants moved from water to the land is another fantasy. Both scenarios are invalid and inconsistent. Evolutionist sources usually try to gloss over the subject with such fantastical and unscientific comments as "algae in some way moved onto the land and adapted to it." But there are a large number of obstacles that make this transition quite impossible. Let us have a short look at the most important of them. 1- The danger of drying out: For a plant which lives in water to be able to live on land, its surface has first of all to be protected from water loss. Otherwise the plant will dry out. Land plants are provided with special systems to prevent this from happening. There are very important details in these systems. For example, this protection must happen in such DARWINISM REFUTED 268 Free-swimming algae in the ocean. a way that important gases such as oxygen and carbon dioxide are able to leave and enter the plant freely. At the same time, it is important that evaporation be prevented. If a plant does not possess such a system, it cannot wait millions of years to develop one. In such a situation, the plant will soon dry up and die. 2- Feeding: Marine plants take the water and minerals they need directly from the water they are in. For this reason, any algae which tried to live on land would have a food problem. They could not live without resolving it. 3- Reproduction: Algae, with their short life span, cannot possibly reproduce on land, because, as in all their functions, algae also use water to disperse their reproductive cells. In order to be able to reproduce on land, they would need to possess multicellular reproductive cells like those of land plants, which are covered by a protective layer of cells. Lacking these, any algae which found themselves on land would be unable to protect their reproductive cells from danger. 4- Protection from oxygen: Any algae which arrived on land would have taken in oxygen in a decomposed form up until that point. According to the evolutionists' scenario, now they would have to take in oxygen in a form they had never encountered before, in other words, directly from the atmosphere. As we know, under normal conditions the oxygen in the atmosphere has a poisoning effect on organic substances. Living things which live on land possess systems which stop them being harmed by it. But algae are marine plants, which means they do not possess the enzymes to protect them from the harmful effects of oxygen. So, as soon as they arrived on land, it would be impossible for them to avoid these effects. Neither is there any question of their waiting for such a system to develop, because they could not survive on land long enough for that to happen. There is yet another reason why the claim that algae moved from the ocean to the land inconsistent—namely, the absence of a natural agent to make such a transition necessary. Let us imagine the natural environment of algae 450 million years ago. The waters of the sea offer them an ideal environment. For instance, the water isolates and protects them from extreme heat, and offers them all kinds of minerals they need. And, at the Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 269 This 300-million-year-old plant from the late Carboniferous is no different from specimens growing today. This plant from the Jurassic Age, some 180 million years old, emerged with its own unique structure, and with no ancestor preceding it. This 140-millionyear-old fossil from the species Archaefructus is the oldest known fossil angiosperm (flowering plant). It possesses the same body, flower and fruit structure as similar plants alive today. same time, they can absorb the sunlight by means of photosynthesis and make their own carbohydrates (sugar and starch) by carbon dioxide, which dissolves in the water. For this reason, there is nothing the algae lack in the ocean, and therefore no reason for them to move to the land, where there is no "selective advantage" for them, as the evolutionists put it. All of this shows that the evolutionist hypothesis that algae emerged onto the land and formed land plants is completely unscientific. The Origin of Angiosperms When we examine the fossil history and structural features of plants that live on land, another picture emerges which fails to agree with evolutionist predictions. There is no fossil series to confirm even one branch of the "evolutionary tree" of plants that you will see in almost any biological textbook. Most plants possess abundant remains in the fossil record, but none of these fossils is an intermediate form between one species and another. They are all specially and originally created as completely distinct species, and there are no evolutionary links between them. As the evolutionary paleontologist E. C. Olson accepted, "Many new groups of plants and animals suddenly appear, apparently without any close ancestors."336 The botanist Chester A. Arnold, who studies fossil plants at the University of Michigan, makes the following comment: It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. 337 Arnold accepts that paleobotany (the science of plant fossils) has produced no results in support of evolution: "[W]e have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present." 338 The fossil discoveries which most clearly deny the claims of plant evolution are those of flowering plants, or "angiosperms," to give them their scientific name. These plants are divided into 43 separate families, each one of which emerges suddenly, leaving no trace of any primitive Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 271 "transitional form" behind it in the fossil record. This was realised in the nineteenth century, and for this reason Darwin described the origin of angiosperms as "an abominable mystery." All the research carried out since Darwin's time has simply added to the amount of discomfort this mystery causes. In his book The Paleobiology of Angiosperm Origins, the evolutionary paleobotanist N. F. Hughes makes this admission: … With few exceptions of detail, however, the failure to find a satisfactory explanation has persisted, and many botanists have concluded that the problem is not capable of solution, by use of fossil evidence. 339 In his book The Evolution of Flowering Plants, Daniel Axelrod says this about the origin of flowering plants, The ancestral group that gave rise to angiosperms has not yet been identified in the fossil record, and no living angiosperm points to such an ancestral alliance. 340 All this leads us to just one conclusion: Like all living things, plants were also created. From the moment they first emerged, all their mechanisms have existed in a finished and complete form. Terms such as 'development over time," "changes dependent on coincidences," and "adaptations which emerged as a result of need," which one finds in the evolutionist literature, have no truth in them at all and are scientifically meaningless. 272 This fossil fern from the Carboniferous was found in the Jerada region of Morocco. The interesting thing is that this fossil, which is 320 million years old, is identical to present-day ferns. DARWINISM REFUTED ne of the most important concepts that one must employ when questioning Darwinist theory in the light of scientific discoveries is without a doubt the criterion that Darwin himself employed. In The Origin of Species, Darwin put forward a number of concrete criteria suggesting how his theory might be tested and, if found wanting, disproved. Many passages in his book begin, "If my theory be true," and in these Darwin describes the discoveries his theory requires. One of the most important of these criteria concerns fossils and "transitional forms." In earlier chapters, we examined how these “prophecies” of Darwin's did not come true, and how, on the contrary, the fossil record completely contradicts Darwinism. In addition to these, Darwin gave us another very important criterion by which to test his theory. This criterion is so important, Darwin wrote, that it could cause his theory to be absolutely broken down: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.341 We must examine Darwin's intention here very carefully. As we know, Darwinism explains the origin of life with two unconscious natural mechanisms: natural selection and random changes (in other words, mutations). According to Darwinist theory, these two mechanisms led to the emergence of the complex structure of living cells, as well as the anatomical systems of complex living things, such as eyes, ears, wings, lungs, bat sonar and millions of other complex systems. However, how is it that these systems, which possess complex 273 IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY O structures, can be considered the products of two unconscious natural effects? At this point, the concept Darwinism applies is that of "reducibility." It is claimed that these systems can be reduced to very basic states, and that they may have then developed by stages. Each stage gives a living thing a little more advantage, and is therefore chosen through natural selection. Then, later, there will be another small, chance development, and that too will be preferred because it affords an advantage, and the process will go on in this way. As a result of this, according to the Darwinist claim, a species which originally possessed no eyes will come to possess perfect ones, and another species which was formerly unable to fly, will grow wings and be able to do so. This story is explained in a very convincing and reasonable manner in evolutionist sources. But when one reflects on it, a great error appears. The first aspect of this error is a subject we have already studied in earlier pages of this book: Mutations are destructive, not constructive. In other words, chance mutations that occur in living creatures do not provide them any "advantages," and, furthermore, the idea that they could do this thousands of times, one after the other, is a dream that contradicts all scientific observations. But there is yet another very important aspect to the error. Darwinist theory requires all the stages from one point to another to be individually "advantageous." In an evolutionary process from A to Z (for instance, from a wingless creature to a winged one), all the "intermediate" stages B, C, D, …V, W, X, and Y along the way have to provide advantages for the living thing in question. Since it is not possible for natural selection and mutation to consciously pick out their targets in advance, the whole theory is based on the hypothesis that living systems can be reduced to discrete traits that can be added on to the organism in small steps, each of which carries some selective advantage. That is why Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Given the primitive level of science in the nineteenth century, Darwin may have thought that living things possess a reducible structure. But twentieth century discoveries have shown that many systems and organs in living things cannot be reduced to simplicity. This fact, known as DARWINISM REFUTED 274 "irreducible complexity," definitively destroys Darwinism, just as Darwin himself feared. The Bacterial Flagellum The most important person to bring the concept of irreducible complexity to the forefront of the scientific agenda is the biochemist Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University in the United States. In his book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, published in 1996, Behe examines the irreducibly complex structure of the cell and a number of other biochemical structures, and reveals that it is impossible to account for these by evolution. According to Behe, the real explanation of life is creation. Behe's book was a serious blow to Darwinism. In fact, Peter van Inwagen, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, stresses the importance of the book in this manner: If Darwinians respond to this important book by ignoring it, misrepresenting it, or ridiculing it, that will be evidence in favor of the widespread suspicion that Darwinism today functions more as an ideology than as a scientific theory. If they can successfully answer Behe's arguments, that will be important evidence in favor of Darwinism. 342 One of the interesting examples of irreducible complexity that Behe gives in his book is the bacterial flagellum. This is a whip-like organ that is used by some bacteria to move about in a liquid environment. This Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 275 An electric motor—but not one in a household appliance or vehicle. This one is in a bacterium. By means of this motor, bacteria have been able to move those organs known as "flagella" and thus swim in water. This was discovered in the 1970s, and astounded the world of science, because this "irreducibly complex" organ, made up of some 240 distinct proteins, cannot be explained by chance mechanisms as Darwin had proposed. organ is embedded in the cell membrane, and enables the bacterium to move in a chosen direction at a particular speed. Scientists have known about the flagellum for some time. However, its structural details, which have only emerged over the last decade or so, have come as a great surprise to them. It has been discovered that the flagellum moves by means of a very complicated "organic motor," and not by a simple vibratory mechanism as was earlier believed. This propellerlike engine is constructed on the same mechanical principles as an electric motor. There are two main parts to it: a moving part (the "rotor") and a stationary one (the "stator"). The bacterial flagellum is different from all other organic systems that produce mechanical motion. The cell does not utilize available energy stored as ATP molecules. Instead, it has a special energy source: Bacteria use energy from the flow of ions across their outer cell membranes. The inner structure of the motor is extremely complex. Approximately 240 distinct proteins go into constructing the flagellum. Each one of these is carefully positioned. Scientists have determined that these proteins carry the signals to turn the motor on or off, form joints to facilitate movements at the atomic scale, and activate other proteins that connect the flagellum to the cell membrane. The models constructed to summarize the working of the system are enough to depict the complicated nature of the system. The complicated structure of the bacterial flagellum is sufficient all by itself to demolish the theory of evolution, since the flagellum has an irreducibly complex structure. If one single molecule in this fabulously complex structure were to disappear, or become defective, the flagellum would neither work nor be of any use to the bacterium. The flagellum must have been working perfectly from the first moment of its existence. This fact again reveals the nonsense in the theory of evolution's assertion of "step by step development." In fact, not one evolutionary biologist has so far succeeded in explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum although a few tried to do so. The bacterial flagellum is clear evidence that even in supposedly "primitive" creatures there are extraordinary features. As humanity learns more about the details, it becomes increasingly obvious that the organisms considered to be the simplest by the scientists of nineteenth century, including Darwin, are in fact just as complex as any others. DARWINISM REFUTED 276 The Creation of the Human Eye The human eye is a very complex system consisting of the delicate conjunction of some 40 separate components. Let us consider just one of these components: for example, the lens. We do not usually realize it, but the thing that enables us to see things clearly is the constant automatic focusing of the lens. If you wish, you can carry out a small experiment on this subject: Hold your index finger up in the air. Then look at the tip of your finger, then at the wall behind it. Every time you look from your finger to the wall you will feel an adjustment. This adjustment is made by small muscles around the lens. Every time we look at something, these muscles go into action and enable us to see what we are looking at clearly by changing the thickness of the lens and turning it at the right angle to the light. The lens carries out this adjustment every second of our lives, and makes no mistakes. Photographers make the same adjustments in their cameras by hand, and sometimes have to struggle for quite some time to get the right focus. Within the last 10 to 15 years, modern technology has produced cameras which focus automatically, but no camera can focus as quickly and as well as the eye. For an eye to be able to see, the 40 or so basic components which make it up need to be present at the same time and work together perfectly. The lens is only one of these. If all the other components, such as the cornea, iris, pupil, retina, and eye muscles, are all present and functioning properly, but just the eyelid is missing, then the eye will shortly incur serious damage and cease to carry out its function. In the same way, if all the subsystems exist but tear production ceases, then the eye will dry up and go blind within a few hours. The theory of evolution's claim of "reducibility" loses all meaning in the face of the complex structure of the eye. The reason is that, in order for the eye to function, all its parts need to be present at the same time. It is impossible, of course, for the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation to give rise to the eye's dozens of different subsystems when they can confer no advantage right up until the last stage. Professor Ali Demirsoy accepts the truth of this in these words: It is rather hard to reply to a third objection. How was it possible for a complicated organ to come about suddenly even though it brought benefits Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 277 with it? For instance, how did the lens, retina, optic nerve, and all the other parts in vertebrates that play a role in seeing suddenly come about? Because natural selection cannot choose separately between the visual nerve and the retina. The emergence of the lens has no meaning in the absence of a retina. The simultaneous development of all the structures for sight is unavoidable. Since parts that develop separately cannot be used, they will both be meaningless, and also perhaps disappear with time. At the same time, their development all together requires the coming together of unimaginably small probabilities. 343 What Professor Demirsoy really means by "unimaginably small probabilities" is basically an "impossibility." It is clearly an impossibility for the eye to be the product of chance. Darwin also had a great difficulty in the face of this, and in a letter he even admitted, "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over." 344 In The Origin of Species, Darwin experienced a serious difficulty in the face of the eye's complexity. The only solution he found was in pointing to the simpler eye structure found in some creatures as the origin of the more complex eyes found in others. He claimed that more complex eyes evolved from simpler ones. However, this claim does not reflect the truth. Paleontology shows that living things emerged in the world with their exceedingly complex structures already intact. The oldest known system 278 The human eye works by some 40 different parts functioning together. If just one of these is not present, the eye will serve no purpose. Each of these 40 parts has its own individual complex structure. For instance, the retina, at the back of the eye, is made up of 11 strata (above right), each of which has a different function. The theory of evolution is unable to account for the development of such a complex organ. of sight is the trilobite eye. This 530-million-year-old compound eye structure, which we touched on in an earlier chapter, is an "optical marvel" which worked with a double lens system. This fact totally invalidates Darwin's assumption that complex eyes evolved from "primitive" eyes. The Irreducible Structure of the "Primitive" Eye It remains to be said that the organs described by Darwin as "primitive" eyes actually possess a complex and irreducible structure that can never be explained by chance. Even in its simplest form, for seeing to happen, some of a creature's cells need to become light-sensitive—that is, they need to possess the ability to transduce this sensitivity to light into electrical signals; a nerve network from these cells to the brain needs to emerge; and a visual center in the brain to evaluate the information has to be formed. It is senseless to propose that all of these things came about by chance, at the same time, and in the same living thing. In his book Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry), which he wrote to defend the theory of evolution, the evolutionist writer Cemal Yildirim admits this fact in this way: A large number of mechanisms need to work together for sight: As well as the eye and the mechanisms inside it, we can mention the links between special centers in the brain and the eye. How did this complex systemcreation come about? According to biologists, the first step in the emergence of the eye during the evolutionary process was taken with the appearance of a small, light-sensitive area on the skin of some primitive living things. But what advantage could such a minute development on its own confer on a living thing in natural selection? As well as this, there needs to be a visual center formed in the brain and a nerve system linked to it. As long as these rather complicated mechanisms are not linked to one another, then we cannot expect what we call "sight" to emerge. Darwin believed that variations emerged by chance. If that were the case, would not the appearance of all the many variations that sight requires in various places in the organism at the same time and their working together turn into a mystical puzzle?… However, a number of complementary changes working together in harmony and cooperation are needed for sight… Some molluscs' eyes have retina, cornea, and a lens of cellulose tissue just like ours. Now, how can we explain the evolutionary processes of these two very different Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 279 types requiring a string of chance events just by natural selection? It is a matter for debate whether Darwinists have been able to provide a satisfactory answer to this question… 345 This problem is so great from the evolutionist point of view that the closer we look at the details, the worse the quandary the theory finds itself in. One important "detail" which needs to be looked at is the claim about "the cell which came to be sensitive to light." Darwinists gloss this over by saying, "Sight may have started by a single cell becoming sensitive to light." But what kind of design is such a structure supposed to have had? The Chemistry of Sight In his book Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe stresses that the structure of the living cell and all other biochemical systems were unknown "black boxes" for Darwin and his contemporaries. Darwin assumed that these black boxes possessed very simple structures and could have come about by chance. Now, however, modern biochemistry has opened up these black boxes and revealed the irreducibly complex structure of life. Behe states that Darwin's comments on the emergence of the eye seemed convincing because of the primitive level of nineteenthcentury science: Darwin persuaded much of the world that a modern eye evolved gradually from a simpler structure, but he did not even try to explain where his starting point—the relatively simple light-sensitive spot—came from. On the contrary, Darwin dismissed the question of the eye's ultimate origin… He had an excellent reason for declining the question: it was completely beyond nineteenth-century science. How the eye works—that is, what happens when a photon of light first hits the retina—simply could not be answered at that time. 346 So, how does this system, which Darwin glossed over as a simple structure, actually work? How do the cells in the eye's retinal layer perceive the light rays that fall on them? The answer to that question is rather complicated. When photons hit the cells of the retina they activate a chain action, rather like a domino effect. The first of these domino pieces is a molecule called "11-cis-retinal" DARWINISM REFUTED 280 that is sensitive to photons. When struck by a photon, this molecule changes shape, which in turn changes the shape of a protein called "rhodopsin" to which it is tightly bound. Rhodopsin then takes a form that enables it to stick to another resident protein in the cell called "transducin." Prior to reacting with rhodopsin, transducin is bound to another molecule called GDP. When it connects with rhodopsin, transducin releases the GDP molecule and is linked to a new molecule called GTP. That is why the new complex consisting of the two proteins (rhodopsin and transducin) and a smaller molecule (GTP) is called "GTP-transducinrhodopsin." But the process has only just begun. The new GTP-transducinrhodopsin complex can now very quickly bind to another protein resident in the cell called "phosphodiesterase." This enables the phosphodiesterase protein to cut yet another molecule resident in the cell, called cGMP. Since this process takes place in the millions of proteins in the cell, the cGMP concentration is suddenly decreased. How does all this help with sight? The last element of this chain reaction supplies the answer. The fall in the cGMP amount affects the ion channels in the cell. The so-called ion channel is a structure composed of proteins that regulate the number of sodium ions within the cell. Under normal conditions, the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell while another molecule disposes of the excess ions to maintain a balance. When the number of cGMP molecules falls, so does the number of sodium ions. This leads to an imbalance of charge across the membrane, which stimulates the nerve cells connected to these cells, forming what we refer to as an "electrical impulse." Nerves carry the impulses to the brain and "seeing" happens there. 347 In brief, a single photon hits a single cell, and through a series of chain reactions the cell produces an electrical impulse. This stimulus is modulated by the energy of the photon—that is, the brightness of the light. Another fascinating fact is that all of the processes described so far happen in no more than one thousandth of a second. As soon as this chain reaction is completed, other specialized proteins within the cells convert elements such as 11-cis-retinal, rhodopsin and transducin back to their original states. The eye is under a constant shower of photons, and the chain reactions within the eye's sensitive cells enable it to perceive each one of these. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 281 The process of sight is actually a great deal more complicated than the outline presented here would indicate. However, even this brief overview is sufficient to demonstrate the extraordinary nature of the system. There is such a complex, finely calculated system inside the eye that it is nonsensical to claim that it could have come about by chance. The system possesses a totally irreducibly complex structure. If even one of the many molecular parts that enter into a chain reaction with each other were missing, or did not possess a suitable structure, then the system would not function at all. It is clear that this system deals a heavy blow to Darwin's explanation of life by "chance." Michael Behe makes this comment on the chemistry of the eye and the theory of evolution: Now that the black box of vision has been opened, it is no longer enough for an evolutionary explanation of that power to consider only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the nineteenth century (and as popularizers of evolution continue to do today). Each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric. 348 The irreducibly complex structure of the eye not only definitively disproves the Darwinist theory, but also shows that life was created by the All-Wise and All-Powerful Allah. The Lobster Eye There are many different types of eye in the living world. We are accustomed to the camera-type eye found in vertebrates. This structure works on the principle of the refraction of light, which falls onto the lens and is focused on a point behind the lens inside the interior of the eye. However, the eyes possessed by other creatures work by very different methods. One example is the lobster. A lobster's eye works on a principle of reflection, rather than that of refraction. The most outstanding characteristic of the lobster eye is its surface, which is composed of numerous squares. As shown in the picture, these squares are positioned most precisely. As one astronomer commented in Science: "The lobster is the most unrectangular animal I've ever seen. But under the microscope a lobster's eye looks like perfect graph paper." 349 DARWINISM REFUTED 282 These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of tiny square tubes forming a structure resembling a honeycomb. At first glance, the honeycomb appears to be made up of hexagons, although these are actually the front faces of hexagonal prisms. In the lobster's eye, there are the squares in place of hexagons. Even more intriguing is that the sides of each one of these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected light is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes inside the eye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus onto a single point. The extraordinary nature of this system is quite indisputable. All of these perfect square tubes have a layer that works just like a mirror. Furthermore, each one of these cells is sited by means of precise geometrical alignments, so that they all focus the light at a single point. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 283 The lobster eye is composed of numerous squares. These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of tiny square tubes. The sides of each one of these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected light is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes inside the eye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus onto a single point. reflector units retina Michael Land, a scientist and researcher at the University of Sussex in England, was the first to examine the lobster eye structure in detail. Land stated that the eye had a most surprising structure. 350 It is obvious that the lobster eye presents a great difficulty for the theory of evolution. Most importantly, it exemplifies the concept of "irreducible complexity." If even one of its features—such as the facets of the eye, which are perfect squares, the mirrored sides of each unit, or the retina layer at the back—were eliminated, the eye could never function. Therefore, it is impossible to maintain that the eye evolved step-by-step. It is scientifically unjustifiable to argue that such a perfect structure as this could have come about haphazardly. It is quite clear that the lobster eye was created by Allah as a miraculous system. One can find further traits in the lobster's eye that nullify the assertions of evolutionists. An interesting fact emerges when one looks at creatures with similar eye structures. The reflecting eye, of which the lobster's eye is one example, is found in only one group of crustaceans, the so-called long-bodied decapods. This family includes the lobsters, the prawns and shrimp. The other members of the Crustacea class display "the refracting type eye structure," which works on completely different principles from those of the reflecting type. Here, the eye is made up of hundreds of cells like a honeycomb. Unlike the square cells in a lobster eye, these cells are either hexagonal or round. Furthermore, instead of reflecting light, small lenses in the cells refract the light onto the focus on the retina. The majority of crustaceans have the refracting eye structure. According to evolutionist assumptions, all the creatures within the class Crustacea should have evolved from the same ancestor. Therefore, evolutionists claim that reflecting mirrored eye evolved from a refracting eye. However, such reasoning is impossible, because both eye structures function perfectly within their own systems and have no room for any "transitional" phase. A crustacean would be left sightless and would be eliminated by natural selection if the refracting lens in its eye were to diminish and be replaced by reflecting mirrored surfaces. It is, therefore, certain that both of these eye structures were created separately. There is such superb geometric precision in these eyes that believing that they came into being by chance is simply ludicrous. DARWINISM REFUTED 284 The Creation of the Ear Another interesting example of the irreducibly complex organs in living things is the human ear. As is commonly known, the hearing process begins with vibrations in the air. These vibrations are enhanced in the external ear. Research has shown that that part of the external ear known as the concha works as a kind of megaphone, and sound waves are intensified in the external auditory canal. In this way, the volume of sound waves increases considerably. Sound intensified in this way enters the external auditory canal. This is the area from the external ear to the ear drum. One interesting feature of the auditory canal, which is some three and a half centimeters long, is the wax it constantly secretes. This liquid contains an antiseptic property which keeps bacteria and insects out. Furthermore, the cells on the surface of the auditory canal are aligned in a spiral form directed towards the outside, so that the wax always flows towards the outside of the ear as it is secreted. Sound vibrations which pass down the auditory canal in this way reach the ear drum. This membrane is so sensitive that it can even perceive vibrations on the molecular level. By means of the exquisite sensitivity of the ear drum, you can easily hear somebody whispering from yards away. Or you can hear the vibration set up as you slowly rub two fingers together. Another extraordinary feature of the ear drum is that after receiving a vibration it returns to its normal state. Calculations have revealed that, after perceiving the tiniest vibrations, the ear drum becomes motionless again within up to four thousandths of a second. If it did not become motionless again so quickly, every sound we hear would echo in our ears. The ear drum amplifies the vibrations which come to it, and sends them on to the middle ear region. Here, there are three bones in an extremely sensitive equilibrium with each other. These three bones are known as the hammer, the anvil and the stirrup; their function is to amplify the vibrations that reach them from the ear drum. But the middle ear also possesses a kind of "buffer," to reduce exceedingly high levels of sound. This feature is provided by two of the body's smallest muscles, which control the hammer, anvil and stirrup Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 285 bones. These muscles enable exceptionally loud noises to be reduced before they reach the inner ear. As a result of this mechanism, we hear sounds that are loud enough to shock the system at a reduced volume. These muscles are involuntary, and come into operation automatically, in such a way that even if we are asleep and there is a loud noise beside us, these muscles immediately contract and reduce the intensity of the vibration reaching the inner ear. The middle ear, which is so flawless, needs to maintain an important equilibrium. The air pressure inside the middle ear has to be the same as that beyond the ear drum, in other words, the same as the atmospheric air pressure. But this balance has been thought of, and a canal between the middle ear and the outside world which allows an exchange of air has been built in. This canal is the Eustachean tube, a hollow tube running from the inner ear to the oral cavity. The Inner Ear It will be seen that all we have examined so far consists of the vibrations in the outer and middle ear. The vibrations are constantly 286 Hammer, anvil and stirrup Semicircular canals Vestibular nerve Cochlea Eustachian tube Eardrum External auditory canal DARWINISM REFUTED passed forward, but so far there is still nothing apart from a mechanical motion. In other words, there is as yet no sound. The process whereby these mechanical motions begin to be turned into sound begins in the area known as the inner ear. In the inner ear is a spiral-shaped organ filled with a liquid. This organ is called the cochlea. The last part of the middle ear is the stirrup bone, which is linked to the cochlea by a membrane. The mechanical vibrations in the middle ear are sent on to the liquid in the inner ear by this connection. The vibrations which reach the liquid in the inner ear set up wave effects in the liquid. The inner walls of the cochlea are lined with small hair-like structures, called stereocilia, which are affected by this wave effect. These tiny hairs move strictly in accordance with the motion of the liquid. If a loud noise is emitted, then more hairs bend in a more powerful way. Every different frequency in the outside world sets up different effects in the hairs. But what is the meaning of this movement of the hairs? What can the movement of the tiny hairs in the cochlea in the inner ear have to do with listening to a concert of classical music, recognizing a friend's voice, hearing the sound of a car, or distinguishing the millions of other kinds of sounds? The answer is most interesting, and once more reveals the complexity of the ear. Each of the tiny hairs covering the inner walls of the cochlea is actually a mechanism which lies on top of 16,000 hair cells. When these hairs sense a vibration, they move and push each other, just like dominos. This motion opens channels in the membranes of the cells lying beneath the hairs. And this allows the inflow of ions into the cells. When the hairs move in the opposite direction, these channels close again. Thus, this constant motion of the hairs causes constant changes in the chemical balance within the underlying cells, which in turn enables them to produce electrical signals. These electrical signals are forwarded to the brain by nerves, and the brain then processes them, turning them into sound. Science has not been able to explain all the technical details of this system. While producing these electrical signals, the cells in the inner ear also manage to transmit the frequencies, strengths, and rhythms coming from the outside. This is such a complicated process that science has so far Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 287 been unable to determine whether the frequency-distinguishing system takes place in the inner ear or in the brain. At this point, there is an interesting fact we have to consider concerning the motion of the tiny hairs on the cells of the inner ear. Earlier, we said that the hairs waved back and forth, pushing each other like dominos. But usually the motion of these tiny hairs is very small. Research has shown that a hair motion of just by the width of an atom can be enough to set off the reaction in the cell. Experts who have studied the matter give a very interesting example to describe this sensitivity of these hairs: If we imagine a hair as being as tall as the Eiffel Tower, the effect on the cell attached to it begins with a motion equivalent to just 3 centimeters of the top of the tower. 351 Just as interesting is the question of how often these tiny hairs can move in a second. This changes according to the frequency of the sound. As the frequency gets higher, the number of times these tiny hairs can move reaches very high levels: for instance, a sound of a frequency of 20,000 causes these tiny hairs to move 20,000 times a second. Everything we have examined so far has shown us that the ear possesses an extraordinary structure. On closer examination, it becomes evident that this structure is irreducibly complex, since, in order for 288 The complex structure of the inner ear. Inside this complicated bone structure is found both the system that maintains our balance, and also a very sensitive hearing system that turns vibrations into sound. Utriculus Sacculus Vestibular nerve Tympanic canal Cochlea duct Vestibule canal Cochlea Vestibular nerve Oval window Posterior semicircular canal Ampulla Lateral semicircular canal Superior semicircular canal Common crus hearing to happen, it is necessary for all the component parts of the auditory system to be present and in complete working order. Take away any one of these—for instance, the hammer bone in the middle ear—or damage its structure, and you will no longer be able to hear anything. In order for you to hear, such different elements as the ear drum, the hammer, anvil and stirrup bones, the inner ear membrane, the cochlea, the liquid inside the cochlea, the tiny hairs that transmit the vibrations from the liquid to the underlying sensory cells, the latter cells themselves, the nerve network running from them to the brain, and the hearing center in the brain must all exist in complete working order. The system cannot develop "by stages," because the intermediate stages would serve no purpose. Evolutionist Errors Regarding the Origin of the Ear The irreducibly complex system in the ear is something that evolutionists can never satisfactorily explain. When we look at the theories evolutionists occasionally propose, we are met by a facile and superficial logic. For example, the writer Veysel Atayman, who translated the book Im Anfang War der Wasserstoff (In the Beginning was Hydrogen), by the German biologist Hoimar von Ditfurth, into Turkish, and who has come to be regarded as an "evolution expert" by the Turkish media, sums up his 289 The inner walls of the cochlea in the inner ear are lined with tiny hairs. These move in line with the wave motion set up in the liquid in the inner ear by vibrations coming from outside. In this way, the electrical balance of the cells to which the hairs are attached changes, and forms the signals we perceive as "sound." "scientific" theory on the origin of the ear and the so-called evidence for it in this way: Our hearing organ, the ear, emerged as a result of the evolution of the endoderm and exoderm layers, which we call the skin. One proof of this is that we feel low sounds in the skin of our stomachs! 352 In other words, Atayman thinks that the ear evolved from the ordinary skin in other parts of our bodies, and sees our feeling low sounds in our skin as a proof of this. Let us first take Atayman's "theory," and then the so-called "proof" he offers. We have just seen that the ear is a complex structure made up of dozens of different parts. To propose that this structure emerged with "the evolution of layers of skin" is, in a word, to build castles in the air. What mutation or natural selection effect could enable such an evolution to happen? Which part of the ear formed first? How could that part, the product of coincidence, have been chosen through natural selection even though it had no function? How did chance bring about all the sensitive mechanical balances in the ear: the ear drum, the hammer, anvil and stirrup bones, the muscles that control them, the inner ear, the cochlea, the liquid in it, the tiny hairs, the movement-sensitive cells, their nerve connections, etc.? There is no answer to these questions. In fact, to suggest that all this complex structure is just "chance" is actually an attack on human intelligence. However, in Michael Denton's words, to the Darwinist "the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!" 353 Beyond the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation, evolutionists really believe in a "magic wand" that brings about the most complex systems by chance. The "proof" that Atayman supplies for this imaginary theory is even more interesting. He says, "Our feeling low sounds in our skin is proof." What we call sound actually consists of vibrations in the air. Since vibrations are a physical effect, of course they can be perceived by our sense of touch. For that reason it is quite normal that we should be able to feel high and low sounds physically. Furthermore, these sounds also affect bodies physically. The breaking of glass in a room under high intensities of sound is one example of this. The interesting thing is that the DARWINISM REFUTED 290 evolutionist writer Atayman should think that these effects are a proof of the evolution of the ear. The logic Atayman employs is the following: "The ear perceives sound waves, our skin is affected by these vibrations, therefore, the ear evolved from the skin." Following Atayman's logic, one could also say, "The ear perceives sound waves, glass is also affected by these, therefore the ear evolved from glass." Once one has left the bounds of reason, there is no "theory" that cannot be proposed. Other scenarios that evolutionists put forward regarding the origin of the ear are surprisingly inconsistent. Evolutionists claim that all mammals, including human beings, evolved from reptiles. But, as we saw earlier, reptiles' ear structures are very different from those of mammals. All mammals possess the middle ear structure made up of the three bones that have just been described, whereas there is only one bone in the middle ear of all reptiles. In response to this, evolutionists claim that four separate bones in the jaws of reptiles changed place by chance and "migrated" to the middle ear, and that again by chance they took on just the right shape to turn into the anvil and stirrup bones. According to this imaginary scenario, the single bone in reptiles' middle ears changed shape and turned into the hammer bone, and the exceedingly sensitive equilibrium between the three bones in the middle ear was established by chance. 354 This fantastical claim, based on no scientific discovery at all (it corresponds to nothing in the fossil record), is exceedingly selfcontradictory. The most important point here is that such an imaginary change would leave a creature deaf. Naturally, a living thing cannot continue hearing if its jaw bones slowly start entering its inner ear. Such a species would be at a disadvantage compared to other living things and would be eliminated, according to what evolutionists themselves believe. On the other hand, a living thing whose jaw bones were moving towards its ear would end up with a defective jaw. Such a creature's ability to chew would greatly decrease, and even disappear totally. This, too, would disadvantage the creature, and result in its elimination. In short, the results which emerge when one examines the structure of ears and their origins clearly invalidate evolutionist assumptions. The Grolier Encyclopedia, an evolutionist source, makes the admission that "the origin of the ear is shrouded in uncertainty." 355 Actually, anyone who Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 291 studies the system in the ear with common sense can easily see that it is the product of Allah’s magnificent creation. The Reproduction of Rheobatrachus Silus Irreducible complexity is not a feature that we only see at the biochemical level or in complicated organs. Many biological systems possessed by living things are irreducibly complex, and invalidate the theory of evolution for that reason. The extraordinary reproductive method of Rheobatrachus silus, a species of frog living in Australia, is an example of this. The females of this species use a fascinating method to protect their eggs after fertilization. They swallow them. The tadpoles remain and grow in the stomach for the first six weeks after they hatch. How is it possible that they can remain in their mothers' stomach that long without being digested? A flawless system has been created to enable them to do so. First, the female gives up eating and drinking for those six weeks, which means the stomach is reserved solely for the tadpoles. However, another danger is the regular release of hydrochloric acid and pepsin in the stomach. These chemicals would normally quickly kill the offspring. However, this is prevented by a very special measure. The fluids in the stomach of the mother are neutralized by the hormonelike substance prostaglandin E2, which is secreted first by the egg capsules and then by the tadpoles. Hence, the offspring grow healthily, even though they are swimming in a pool of acid. How do the tadpoles feed inside the empty stomach? The solution to this has been provided, too. The eggs of this species are significantly larger than those of others, as they contain a yolk very rich in proteins, sufficient DARWINISM REFUTED 292 The females of this frog species hide their young in their stomachs throughout the incubation period, and then give birth to them through their mouths. But in order for this to happen, a number of adjustments have to be made, all at the same time and with no mistakes allowed: The eggstructure has to be set up, the stomach acid must be neutralized, and the mothers have to be able to live for weeks without feeding. to feed the tadpoles for six weeks. The time of birth is arrangedperfectly, as well. The oesophagus of the female frog dilates during birth, like the dilation in mammals during delivery. Once the young have emerged, the oesophagus and the stomach both return to normal, and the female starts feeding again. 356 The miraculous reproduction system of Rheobatrachus silus explicitly invalidates the theory of evolution, since the whole system is irreducibly complex. Every step has to take place fully in order for the frogs to survive. The mother has to swallow the eggs, and has to stop feeding completely for six weeks. The eggs have to release a hormonelike substance to neutralize stomach acids. The addition of the extra proteinrich yolk to the egg is another necessity. The widening of the female's oesophagus cannot be coincidental. If all these things failed to happen in the requisite sequence, the froglets would not survive, and the species would face extinction. Therefore, this system cannot have developed step-by-step, as asserted by the theory of evolution. The species has existed with this entire system intact since its first member came into existence. Another way of putting it is, they were created. Conclusion In this section we have only examined a few examples of the concept of irreducible complexity. In fact, most organs and systems in living things possess the feature. On the biochemical level in particular, systems function by the working together of a number of independent parts, and cannot by any means be reduced to further simplicity. This fact invalidates Darwinism, which tries to account for the marvelous features of life by coincidental processes. Darwin said that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Today, modern biology has revealed countless examples of this. One can only conclude, then, that Darwinism has "absolutely" broken down. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 293 he Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is accepted as one of the basic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions all systems left on their own tend to become disordered, dispersed, and corrupted in direct relation to the amount of time that passes. Everything, whether living or not, wears out, deteriorates, decays, disintegrates, and is destroyed. This is the absolute end that all beings will face one way or another, and according to the law, the process cannot be avoided. This is something that all of us have observed. For example if you take a car to a desert and leave it there, you would hardly expect to find it in a better condition when you came back years later. On the contrary, you would see that its tires had gone flat, its windows had been broken, its chassis had rusted, and its engine had stopped working. The same inevitable process holds true for living things. The second law of thermodynamics is the means by which this natural process is defined, with physical equations and calculations. This famous law of physics is also known as the "law of entropy." In physics, entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system. A system's entropy increases as it moves from an ordered, organized, and planned state towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned one. The more disorder there is in a system, the higher its entropy is. The law of entropy holds that the entire universe is unavoidably proceeding towards a more disordered, unplanned, and disorganized state. The truth of the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy, has been experimentally and theoretically established. All 294 EVOLUTION AND THERMODYNAMICS T foremost scientists agree that the law of entropy will remain the principle paradigm for the foreseeable future. Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of our age, described it as the "premier law of all of science." Sir Arthur Eddington also referred to it as the "supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe." 357 Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics. The mechanism offered by the theory of evolution totally contradicts the second law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged. According to the theory of Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 295 If you leave a car out in natural conditions, it will rust and decay. In the same way, without an intelligent organization all the systems in the universe would decay. This is an incontrovertible law. evolution, this supposed process—which yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organized structure at each stage—was formed all by itself under natural conditions. The law of entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics. Evolutionist scientists are also aware of this fact. J. H. Rush states: In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order. 358 The evolutionist author Roger Lewin expresses the thermodynamic impasse of evolution in an article in Science: One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order. 359 Another defender of the theory of evolution, George Stravropoulos, states the thermodynamic impossibility of the spontaneous formation of life and the impossibility of explaining the existence of complex living mechanisms by natural laws in the well-known evolutionist journal American Scientist: Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously, but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it will be, and the more assured, sooner or later, its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes, and even life itself, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science, despite the use of confused or deliberately confusing language. 360 As we have seen, the evolution claim is completely at odds with the laws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for the scenario of evolution, in terms of both science and logic. Unable to offer any scientific and consistent explanation to overcome this obstacle, evolutionists can only do so in their imagination. For instance, Jeremy Rifkin notes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a "magical power": The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We DARWINISM REFUTED 296 believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth.361 These words well indicate that evolution is a dogmatic belief rather than a scientific thesis. The Misconception About Open Systems Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the second law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems," and that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law. This claim goes no further than being an attempt by some evolutionists to distort scientific facts that invalidate their theory. In fact, a large number of scientists openly state that this claim is invalid, and violates thermodynamics. One of these is the Harvard scientist John Ross, who also holds evolutionist views. He explains that these unrealistic claims contain an important scientific error in the following remarks in Chemical and Engineering News: ...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.362 An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures. However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol. The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 297 derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts. As can be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on their own. The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins, or of making proteins form the much more complex and organized structures of cell organelles. Ilya Prigogine and the Myth of the "Self-Organization of Matter" Quite aware that the second law of thermodynamics renders evolution impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative attempts to square the circle between the two, in order to be able to claim that evolution is possible. One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine. Starting out from chaos theory, Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which order develops from chaos (disorder). However, despite all his best efforts, he was unable to reconcile thermodynamics and evolution. In his studies, he tried to link irreversible physical processes to the evolutionist scenario on the origin of life, but he was unsuccessful. His DARWINISM REFUTED 298 books, which are completely theoretical and include a large number of mathematical propositions which cannot be implemented in real life and which there is no possibility of observing, have been criticized by scientists, recognized as experts in the fields of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics, as having no practical and concrete value. For instance, P. Hohenberg, a physicist regarded as an expert in the fields of statistical mechanics and pattern formation, and one of the authors of the book Review of Modern Physics, sets out his comments on Prigogine's studies in the May 1995 edition of Scientific American: I don't know of a single phenomenon his theory has explained. 363 And Cosma Shalizi, a theoretical physicist from Wisconsin University, has this to say about the fact that Prigogine's studies have reached no firm conclusion or explanation: …in the just under five hundred pages of his Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems, there are just four graphs of real-world data, and no comparison of any of his models with experimental results. Nor are his ideas about irreversibility at all connected to self-organization, except for their both being topics in statistical physics. 364 The studies in the physical field by the determinedly materialist Prigogine also had the intention of providing support for the theory of evolution, because, as we have seen in the preceding pages, the theory of evolution is in clear conflict with the entropy principle, i.e., the second law of thermodynamics. The law of entropy, as we know, definitively states that when any organized, and complex structure is left to natural conditions, then loss of organization, complexity and information will result. In opposition to this, the theory of evolution claims that unordered, scattered, and unconscious atoms and molecules came together and gave rise to living things with their organized systems. Prigogine determined to try to invent formulae that would make processes of this kind feasible. However, all these efforts resulted in nothing but a series of theoretical experiments. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 299 Ilya Prigogine The two most known theories that emerged as a result of that aim were the theory of "self-organization" and the theory of "dissipative structures." The first of these maintains that simple molecules can organize together to form complex living systems; the second claims that ordered, complex systems can emerge in unordered, high-entropy systems. But these have no other practical and scientific value than founding new, imaginary worlds for evolutionists. The fact that these theories of Prigogine explain nothing, and have produced no results, is admitted by many scientists. The well-known physicist Joel Keizer writes: "His supposed criteria for predicting the stability of far-from-equilibrium dissipative structures fails—except for states very near equilibrium." 365 The theoretical physicist Cosma Shalizi has this to say on the subject: "Second, he tried to push forward a rigorous and well-grounded study of pattern formation and self-organization almost before anyone else. He failed…" 366 F. Eugene Yates, editor of Self-Organizing Systems: The Emergence of Order, sums up the criticisms directed at Prigogine by Daniel L. Stein and the Nobel Prize-winning scientist Phillip W. Anderson, in an essay in that same journal: The authors [Anderson and Stein] compare symmetry-breaking in thermodynamic equilibrium systems (leading to phase change) and in systems far from equilibrium (leading to dissipative structures). Thus, the authors do not believe that speculation about dissipative structures and their broken symmetries can, at present, be relevant to questions of the origin and persistence of life. 367 In short, Prigogine's theoretical studies are of no value in explaining the origin of life. The same authors make this comment about his theories: Contrary to statements in a number of books and articles in this field, we believe that there is no such theory, and it even may be that there are no such structures as they are implied to exist by Prigogine, Haken, and their collaborators. 368 In essence, experts in the subject state that none of the theses Prigogine put forward possess any truth or validity, and that structures of the kind he discusses (dissipative structures) may not even really exist. Prigogine's claims are considered in great detail in Jean Bricmont's DARWINISM REFUTED 300 article "Science of Chaos or Chaos in Science?" which makes their invalidity clear. Despite the fact that Prigogine did not manage to find a way to support evolution, the mere fact that he took initiatives of this sort was enough for the evolutionists to accord him the very greatest respect. A large number of evolutionists have welcomed Prigogine's concept of "selforganization" with great hope and a superficial bias. Prigogine's imaginary theories and concepts have nevertheless convinced many people who do not know much about the subject that evolution has resolved the dilemma of thermodynamics, whereas even Prigogine himself has accepted that the theories he has produced for the molecular level do not apply to living systems—for instance, a living cell: The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular activity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far from being solved. 369 These are the speculations that evolutionists have indulged in, encouraged by Prigogine's theories, which were meant to resolve the conflict between evolution and other physical laws. The Difference Between Organized and Ordered Systems If we look carefully at Prigogine and other evolutionists' claims, we can see that they have fallen into a very important trap. In order to make evolution fit in with thermodynamics, evolutionists are constantly trying to prove that a given order can emerge from open systems. And here it is important to bring out two key concepts to reveal the deceptive methods the evolutionists use. The deception lies in the deliberate confusing of two distinct concepts: "ordered" and "organized." We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely flat beach on the seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds of sand, large and small, form bumps on the surface of the sand. This is a process of "ordering." The seashore is an open system, and the energy flow (the wave) that enters it can form simple patterns in the sand, which look completely regular. From the thermodynamic point of view, it can set up order here where before there was none. But we must Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 301 make it clear that those same waves cannot build a castle on the beach. If we see a castle there, we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it, because the castle is an "organized" system. In other words, it possesses a clear design and information. Every part of it has been made by an intelligent entity in a planned manner. The difference between the sand and the castle is that the former is an organized complexity, whereas the latter possesses only order, brought about by simple repetitions. The order formed from repetitions is as if an object (in other words the flow of energy entering the system) had fallen on the letter "a" on a typewriter keyboard, writing "aaaaaaaa" hundreds of times. But the string of "a"s in an order repeated in this manner contains no information, and no complexity. In order to write a complex chain of letters actually containing information (in other words a meaningful sentence, paragraph or book), the presence of intelligence is essential. The same thing applies when a gust of wind blows into a dusty room. When the wind blows in, the dust which had been lying in an even layer may gather in one corner of the room. This is also a more ordered situation than that which existed before, in the thermodynamic sense, but the individual specks of dust cannot form a portrait of someone on the floor in an organized manner. This means that complex, organized systems can never come about as the result of natural processes. Although simple examples of order can happen from time to time, these cannot go beyond certain limits. But evolutionists point to this self-ordering which emerges through natural processes as a most important proof of evolution, portray such cases as examples of "self-organization." As a result of this confusion of concepts, they propose that living systems could develop of their own accord from occurrences in nature and chemical reactions. The methods and studies employed by Prigogine and his followers, which we considered above, are based on this deceptive logic. However, as we made clear at the outset, organized systems are completely different structures from ordered ones. While ordered systems contain structures formed of simple repetitions, organized systems contain highly complex structures and processes, one often embedded inside the other. In order for such structures to come into existence, there DARWINISM REFUTED 302 is a need for intelligence, knowledge, and planning. Jeffrey Wicken, an evolutionist scientist, describes the important difference between these two concepts in this way: 'Organized' systems are to be carefully distinguished from 'ordered' systems. Neither kind of system is 'random,' but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external 'wiring diagram' with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. 370 Ilya Prigogine—maybe as a result of evolutionist wishful thinking— resorted to a confusion of these two concepts, and advertised examples of molecules which ordered themselves under the influence of energy inflows as "self-organization." The American scientists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, in their book titled The Mystery of Life's Origin, explain this fact as follows: ... In each case random movements of molecules in a fluid are spontaneously replaced by a highly ordered behaviour. Prigogine, Eigen, and others have suggested that a similar sort of self-organization may be intrinsic in organic chemistry and can potentially account for the highly complex macromolecules essential for living systems. But such analogies have scant relevance to the origin-of-life question. A major reason is that they fail to distinguish between order and complexity... 371 And this is how the same scientists explain the logical shallowness and distortion of claiming that water turning into ice is an example of how biological order can spontaneously emerge: It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however… The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature however, much less some orderly arrangement. 372 Prigogine devoted his whole career to reconciling evolution and thermodynamics, but even he admitted that there was no resemblance Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 303 between the crystallization of water and the emergence of complex biological structures: The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. 373 In short, no chemical or physical effect can explain the origin of life, and the concept of "the self-organization of matter" will remain a fantasy. Self-Organization: A Materialist Dogma The claim that evolutionists maintain with the concept of "selforganization" is the belief that inanimate matter can organize itself and generate a complex living thing. This is an utterly unscientific conviction: Observation and experiment have incontrovertibly proven that matter has no such property. The famous English astronomer and mathematician Prof. Fred Hoyle notes that matter cannot generate life by itself, without deliberate interference: If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. 374 Evolutionary biologist Andrew Scott admits the same fact: Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The 'fundamental' forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest... But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains DARWINISM REFUTED 304 hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment. 375 So why do evolutionists continue to believe in scenarios such as the "self-organization of matter," which have no scientific foundation? Why are they so determined to reject the intelligence and signs of creation that can so clearly be seen in living systems? The answer to these questions lies hidden in the materialist philosophy that the theory of evolution is fundamentally constructed on. Materialist philosophy believes that only matter exists, for which reason living things need to be accounted for in a manner based on matter. It was this difficulty which gave birth to the theory of evolution, and no matter how much it conflicts with the scientific evidence, it is defended for just that reason. A professor of chemistry from New York University and DNA expert, Robert Shapiro, explains this belief of evolutionists about the "selforganization of matter" and the materialist dogma lying at its heart as follows: Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and selforganization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin. 376 The truths that we have been examining in this section clearly demonstrate the impossibility of evolution in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. The concept of "self-organization" is another dogma that evolutionist scientists are trying to keep alive despite all the scientific evidence. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 305 aterialist philosophy lies at the basis of the theory of evolution. Materialism rests on the supposition that everything that exists is matter. According to this philosophy, matter has existed since eternity, will continue to exist forever, and there is nothing but matter. In order to provide support for their claim, materialists use a logic called "reductionism." This is the idea that things which are not observable can also be explained by material causes. To make matters clearer, let us take the example of the human mind. It is evident that the mind cannot be touched or seen. Moreover, it has no center in the human brain. This situation unavoidably leads us to the conclusion that mind is a concept beyond matter. Therefore, the being which we refer to as "I," who thinks, loves, fears, worries, and feels pleasure or pain, is not a material being in the same way as a sofa, a table or a stone. Materialists, however, claim that mind is "reducible to matter." According to the materialist claim, thinking, loving, worrying and all our mental activities are nothing but chemical reactions taking place between the atoms in the brain. Loving someone is a chemical reaction in some cells in our brain, and fear is another. The famous materialist philosopher Karl Vogt is notorious for his assertion that "the brain secretes thought just as the liver secretes bile."377 Bile, however, is matter, whereas there is no evidence that thought is. Reductionism is a logical deduction. However, a logical deduction can be based on solid grounds or on shaky ones. For this reason, the question we need to ask is: What happens when reductionism is compared to scientific data? M 306 INFORMATION THEORY AND THE END OF MATERIALISM Nineteenth-century materialist scientists and thinkers thought that the answer would be that science verifies reductionism. Twentiethcentury science, however, has revealed a very different picture. One of the most salient feature of this picture is "information," which is present in nature and can never be reduced to matter. The Difference between Matter and Information We earlier mentioned that there is astonishingly comprehensive information contained in the DNA of living things. Something as small as a hundred thousandth of a millimeter across contains a sort of "data bank" that specifies all the physical details of the body of a living thing. Moreover, the body also contains a system that reads this information, interprets it and carries out "production" in line with it. In all living cells, the information in the DNA is "read" by various enzymes, and proteins are produced. This system makes possible the production of millions of proteins every second, of just the required type for just the places where they are needed in our bodies. In this way, dead eye cells are replaced by living ones, and old blood cells by new ones. At this point, let us consider the claim of materialism: Is it possible that the information in DNA could be reduced to matter, as materialists suggest? Or, in other words, can it be accepted that DNA is merely a collection of matter, and the information it contains came about as a result of the random interactions of such pieces of matter? All the scientific research, experiments and observations carried out in the twentieth century show that the answer to this question is a definite "No." The director of the German Federal Physics and Technology Institute, Prof. Werner Gitt, has this to say on the issue: A coding system always entails a nonmaterial intellectual process. A physical matter cannot produce an information code. All experiences show that every piece of creative information represents some mental effort and can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised his own free will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind.... There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter... 378 Werner Gitt's words summarize the conclusions of "information Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 307 theory," which has been developed in the last 50 years, and which is accepted as a part of thermodynamics. Information theory investigates the origin and nature of the information in the universe. The conclusion reached by information theoreticians as a result of long studies is that "Information is something different from matter. It can never be reduced to matter. The origin of information and physical matter must be investigated separately." For instance, let us think of the source of a book. A book consists of paper, ink, and the information it contains. Paper and ink are material elements. Their source is again matter: Paper is made of cellulose, and ink of various chemicals. However, the information in the book is nonmaterial, and cannot have a material source. The source of the information in each book is the mind of the person who wrote it. Moreover, this mind determines how the paper and ink will be used. A book initially forms in the mind of the writer. The writer builds a chain of logic in his mind, and orders his sentences. As a second step, he puts them into material form, which is to say that he translates the information in his mind into letters, using a pen, a typewriter or a computer. Later, these letters are printed in a publishing house, and take the shape of a book made up of paper and ink. We can therefore state this general conclusion: If physical matter contains information, then there is a Mind possessing superior knowledge that created that matter. It is the Almighty Allah Who perfectly created the entire universe. The Origin of the Information in Nature When we apply this scientific definition of information to nature, a very important result DARWINISM REFUTED It is impossible for the information inside DNA to have emerged by chance and natural processes. 308 ensues. This is because nature overflows with an immense body of information (as, for example, in the case of DNA), and since this information cannot be reduced to matter, it therefore comes from a source beyond matter. One of the foremost advocates of the theory of evolution, George C. Williams, admits this reality, which most materialists and evolutionists are reluctant to see. Williams has strongly defended materialism for years, but in an article he wrote in 1995, he states the incorrectness of the materialist (reductionist) approach which holds that everything is matter: Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter… These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term "reductionism." …The gene is a package of information, not an object... In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality... This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms. 379 Therefore, contrary to the supposition of materialists, the source of the information in nature cannot be matter itself. The source of information is not matter but a superior Wisdom beyond matter. This Wisdom existed prior to matter. The possessor of this Wisdom is Allah, the Lord of all the Worlds. Matter was brought into existence, given form, and organized by Him. Gerald Schroeder, an MIT-trained Israeli scientist who worked in physics and biology and authored The Science of God, makes a number of important comments on this subject. In his more recent book, Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth, Schroeder sets out the conclusion revealed by such branches of science as molecular biology and quantum physics: A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe. The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom.380 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 309 According to Schroeder, the contemporary scientific conclusions have enabled science and theology to agree on a common point. That is the fact of creation. Science has now reached the point of discovering this fact which the Divine religions have been teaching for thousands of years. Materialist Admissions We have already described how one of the fundamental principles that make up life is "knowledge," and it is clear that this knowledge proves the existence of an intelligent Creator. The theory of evolution, which tries to account for life as being the result of coincidences in a purely material world, and the materialist philosophy it is based on, are quite helpless in the face of this reality. When we look at evolutionists' writings, we sometimes see that this helplessness is openly admitted. One forthright authority on this subject is the well-known French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé. He is a materialist and an evolutionist, although he sometimes openly admits the quandaries Darwinist theory faces. According to Grassé, the most important truth which invalidates the Darwinist account is the knowledge that gives rise to life: Any living being possesses an enormous amount of "intelligence," very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this "intelligence" is called information, but it is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on a molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of every other organelle in each cell. This "intelligence" is the sine qua non of life. Where does it come from?... This is a problem that concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it.381 The reason why Pierre-Paul Grassé says, "Science seems incapable of solving it," is that he does not want any nonmaterialist explanation to be thought of as "scientific." However, science itself invalidates the hypotheses of materialist philosophy, and proves the existence of a Creator. Grassé and other materialist "scientists" either ignore this reality, or else say, "Science does not explain this." They do this because they are materialists first and scientists second, and they continue to believe in materialism, even if science demonstrates the exact opposite. For this reason, in order to possess a correct scientific attitude, one has to distinguish between science and materialist philosophy. DARWINISM REFUTED 310 he information we have considered throughout this book has shown us that the theory of evolution has no scientific basis, and that, on the contrary, evolutionist claims conflict with scientific facts. In other words, the force that keeps evolution alive is not science. Evolution may be maintained by some "scientists," but behind it there is another influence at work. This other influence is materialist philosophy. The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, and those who support that philosophy do so despite the scientific evidence. This relationship between materialism and the theory of evolution is accepted by "authorities" on these concepts. For example, the discovery of Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."382 The evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma writes, "Together with Marx's materialist theory of history and society…. Darwin hewed the final planks of the platform of mechanism and materialism."383 And the evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould says, "Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature."384 Materialist philosophy is one of the oldest beliefs in the world, and assumes the absolute and exclusive existence of matter as its basic principle. According to this view, matter has always existed, and everything that exists consists of matter. Materialism denies the evident existence of a Creator. 311 DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SCIENCE AND MATERIALISM T Karl Marx So the question becomes one of why the materialist point of view is false. One method of testing whether a philosophy is true or false is to investigate the claims it makes about science by using scientific methods. For instance, a philosopher in the tenth century could have claimed that there was a divine tree on the surface of the moon and that all living things actually grew on the branches of this huge tree like fruit, and then fell off onto the earth. Some people might have found this philosophy attractive and believed in it. But in the twentyfirst century, at a time when man has managed to walk on the moon, it is no longer possible to seriously hold such a belief. Whether such a tree exists there or not can be determined by scientific methods, that is, by observation and experiment. We can therefore investigate by means of scientific methods the materialist claim that matter has existed for all eternity and that this matter can organize itself without a supramaterial Creator and cause life to begin. When we do this, we see that materialism has already collapsed, because the idea that matter has existed since the beginning of time has been overthrown by the Big Bang theory which shows that the universe was created from nothingness. The claim that matter organized itself and created life is the claim that we call the theory of evolution—which this book has been examining—and which has been shown to have collapsed. However, if someone is determined to believe in materialism and puts his devotion to materialist philosophy before everything else, then he will act differently. If he is a materialist first and a scientist second, he will not abandon materialism when he sees that evolution is disproved by science. On the contrary, he will attempt to uphold and defend materialism by trying to support evolution, no matter what. This is exactly the predicament that evolutionists defending the theory of evolution find themselves in today. Interestingly enough, they also confess this fact from time to time. A well-known geneticist and outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin from Harvard University, confesses that he is "a materialist first and a scientist second" in these words: It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an DARWINISM REFUTED 312 apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine [intervention]…393allow a Divine Foot in the door.385 The term "a priori" that Lewontin uses here is quite important. This philosophical term refers to a presupposition not based on any experimental knowledge. A thought is "a priori" when you consider it to be correct and accept it as so even if there is no information available to confirm it. As the evolutionist Lewontin frankly states, materialism is an "a priori" commitment for evolutionists, who then try to adapt science to this preconception. Since materialism definitely necessitates denying the existence of a Creator, they embrace the only alternative they have to hand, which is the theory of evolution. It does not matter to such scientists that evolution has been belied by scientific facts, because they have accepted it "a priori" as true. This prejudiced behavior leads evolutionists to a belief that "unconscious matter composed itself," which is contrary not only to science, but also to reason. The concept of "the self-organization of matter," which we examined in an earlier chapter, is an expression of this. Evolutionist propaganda, which we constantly come across in the Western media and in well-known and "esteemed" science magazines, is the outcome of this ideological necessity. Since evolution is considered to be indispensable, it has been turned into a taboo subject by the circles that set the standards of science. Some scientists find themselves in a position where they are forced to defend this far-fetched theory, or at least avoid uttering any word against it, in order to maintain their reputations. Academics in Western countries have to have articles published in certain scientific journals in order to attain and hold onto their professorships. All of the journals dealing with biology are under the control of evolutionists, and they do not allow any anti-evolutionist article to appear in them. Biologists, therefore, have to conduct their research under the domination of this theory. They, too, are part of the materialist order, which regards evolution as an ideological necessity, which is why they blindly defend all the "impossible coincidences" we have been examining in this book. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 313 The Definition of the "Scientific Cause" The German biologist Hoimar von Ditfurth, a prominent evolutionist, is a good example of this bigoted materialist understanding. After Ditfurth cites an example of the extremely complex composition of life, this is what he says concerning the question of whether it could have emerged by chance or not: Is such a harmony that emerged only out of coincidences possible in reality? This is the basic question of the whole of biological evolution. ...Critically speaking, we can say that somebody who accepts the modern science of nature has no other alternative than to say "yes," because he aims to explain natural phenomena by means that are understandable and tries to derive them from the laws of nature without reverting to supernatural interference. 386 Yes, as Ditfurth states, the materialist scientific approach adopts as its basic principle explaining life by denying "supernatural interference," i.e., creation. Once this principle is adopted, even the most impossible scenarios are easily accepted. It is possible to find examples of this dogmatic mentality in almost all evolutionist literature. Professor Ali Demirsoy, the well-known advocate of evolutionary theory in Turkey, is just one of many. According to Demirsoy, the probability of the coincidental formation of cytochrome-C, an essential protein for life, is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes."387 There is no doubt that to accept such a possibility is actually to reject the basic principles of reason and common sense. Even one single correctly formed letter written on a page makes it certain that it was written by a person. When one sees a book of world history, it becomes even more certain that the book has been written by an author. No logical person would agree that the letters in such a huge book could have been put together "by chance." However, it is very interesting to see that the evolutionist scientist Professor Ali Demirsoy accepts this sort of irrational proposition: In essence, the probability of the formation of a cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realized once in the whole universe. Otherwise some metaphysical powers beyond our definition must have DARWINISM REFUTED 314 acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate for the scientific cause. We thus have to look into the first hypothesis.388 Demirsoy writes that he prefers the impossible, in order not to have to accept supernatural forces—in other words, the existence of a Creator. However, the aim of science is not to avoid accepting the existence of supernatural forces. Science can get nowhere with such an aim. It should simply observe nature, free of all prejudices, and draw conclusions from these observations. If these results indicate that there is planning by a supernatural intelligence, which is the case in every corner of the universe, then science must accept the fact. Under close examination, what they call the "scientific cause" is actually the materialist dogma that only matter exists and that all of nature can be explained by material processes. This is not a "scientific cause," or anything like it; it is just materialist philosophy. This philosophy hides behind such superficial words as "scientific cause" and obliges scientists to accept quite unscientific conclusions. Not surprisingly, when Demirsoy cites another subject—the origins of the mitochondria in the cell—he openly accepts chance as an explanation, even though it is "quite contrary to scientific thought": The heart of the problem is how the mitochondria have acquired this feature, because attaining this feature by chance even by one individual, requires extreme probabilities that are incomprehensible... The enzymes providing respiration and functioning as a catalyst in each step in a different form make up the core of the mechanism. A cell has to contain this enzyme sequence completely, otherwise it is meaningless. Here, despite being contrary to biological thought, in order to avoid a more dogmatic explanation or speculation, we have to accept, though reluctantly, that all the respiration enzymes completely existed in the cell before the cell first came in contact with oxygen.389 The conclusion to be drawn from such pronouncements is that evolution is not a theory arrived at through scientific investigation. On the contrary, the form and substance of this theory were dictated by the requirements of materialistic philosophy. It then turned into a belief or dogma in spite of concrete scientific facts. Again, from evolutionist literature, we can clearly see that all of this effort has a "purpose"—a purpose that requires maintaining, at no matter what cost, that living things were not created. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 315 Coming to Terms with the Shocks As we recently stressed, materialism is the belief that categorically rejects the existence of the nonmaterial (or the "supernatural"). Science, on the other hand, is under no obligation to accept such a dogma. The duty of science is to observe nature and produce results. And science does reveal the fact that living things were created. This is something demonstrated by scientific discoveries. When we examine the fantastically complex structures in living things, we see that they possess such extraordinary features that they can never be accounted for by natural processes and coincidences. Every instance of extraordinary feature is evidence for an intelligence that brought it into being; therefore, we must conclude that life, too, was created by a power. This power belongs to a nonmaterial wisdom—the superior wisdom of the All-Powerful Allah, Who rules all of nature… In short, life and all living things were created. This is not a dogmatic belief like materialism, but a plain fact revealed by scientific observation and experiment. We see that this fact comes as a terrible shock for scientists who are used to believing in materialism, and that materialism is a science. See how this shock is described by Michael Behe, one of the most important scientists to stand against the theory of evolution in the world today: The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them.390 Mankind has been freed from such dogmas as that the world is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. And it is now being freed from the materialist and evolutionist dogma that life came about by itself. The duty that befalls a true scientist in this respect, is to do away with materialist dogma and evaluate the origin of life and living things with the honesty and objectivity befitting a real scientist. A real scientist must come to terms with the "shock," and not tie himself to outdated nineteenth-century dogmas and defend impossible scenarios. DARWINISM REFUTED 316 hroughout this book we have examined the scientific evidence for the origin of life, and what emerges clearly demonstrates that life was not the result of chance, as claimed by Darwinism and materialist philosophy in general. Living species could not have evolved from one another through a string of coincidences. On the contrary, all living things were independently and flawlessly created. As the twenty-first century dawns, science offers but one answer to the question of the origin of life: Creation. The important thing is that science has confirmed the truth which religion has been witness to from the dawn of history to the present day. Allah created the universe and all the living things in it from nothing. And it was Allah Who created man from nothing and blessed him with countless characteristics. This truth has been sent down to man since the dawn of time by prophets, and revealed in holy books. Every prophet has told the communities to whom he was sent that Allah created man and all living things. The Bible and the Qur'an all tell of the news of creation in the same way. In the Qur'an, Allah announces in a number of verses that it was He Who created the universe and all the living things in it from nothing, and flawlessly ordered them. In this verse, it is declared that creation belongs to Him: Your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne. He covers the day with the night, each pursuing the other urgently; and the sun and moon and stars are subservient to His command. Both creation and command belongs to Him. Blessed be Allah, the Lord of all the worlds. (Surat al-A‘raf: 54) Just as Allah created everything that exists, so he created the world we live in today, and made it capable of supporting life. This fact is revealed in certain verses: 317 CONCLUSION T As for the earth, We stretched it out and cast firmly embedded mountains in it and made everything grow in due proportion on it. And We put livelihoods in it both for you and for those you do not provide for. (Surat al-Hijr: 19-20) And the earth:how We stretched it out and cast firmly embedded mountains onto it and caused luxuriant plants of every kind to grow in it. (Surah Qaf: 7-8) The above verses announce that all plants were created by Allah. All plants, known and unknown, all trees, grasses, fruit, flowers, seaweed and vegetables were created by Allah. And the same thing applies to animals. All of the millions of different animal species that live, or have ever lived, on earth, were created by Allah. Fish, reptiles, birds, mammals, horses, giraffes, squirrels, deer, sparrows, eagles, dinosaurs, whales, and peacocks were all created from nothing by Allah, the Lord of infinite art and knowledge. Allah's creation of the different species of living things is mentioned in the verses: Allah created every animal from water. Some of them go on their bellies, some of them on two legs, and some on four. Allah creates whatever He wills. Allah has power over all things. (Surat an-Nur: 45) And He created livestock. There is warmth for you in them, and various uses and some you eat. (Surat an-Nahl: 5) And Allah created man in exactly the same way. It is revealed in the Qur'an that Adam, the first man, was created from mud, and then all subsequent people came into existence from each other by a simple liquid (sperm). Furthermore, man had a soul breathed into him, unlike all the other species in the world. The Qur'an has this to say about the truth of the creation of man: He Who has created all things in the best possible way. He commenced the creation of man from clay;then produced his seed from an extract of base fluid. (Surat as-Sajda: 7-9) Man's Duty As we made clear at the start, science has once again revealed the truth of creation, as handed down in the Qur'an. Scientific discoveries DARWINISM REFUTED 318 show that living things possess extraordinary features, and that they were brought into existence by a superior intelligence and knowledge. Biological observations show that one living species cannot turn into another, and that for that reason, if one could go back in time, one would eventually come across, for each species, the first individuals that ever existed and that were created from nothing. For example, since eagles have always been eagles, if we could go back in time, we would arrive at the first pair, or group, of eagles who were created from nothing. In fact, the fossil record confirms this, and shows that different living species suddenly emerged with all their particular, individual features. These species may have been created at different points in time and settled in different parts of the world, but this all happened through the will of Allah. In short, science reveals the proof we have considered that living things were all created by Allah. However, science goes no further than that. It is the Qur'an, the holy book that has come down to us from Allah, that introduces us to the essence of Allah and is the sole source of truth on every subject that tells us why we were created and what the reason for our lives is. It is stated in the Qur'an that the reason for our creation is so that we might believe in Allah, our Lord, and serve Him. In one verse, He says, "I only created jinn and man to worship me." (Surat adh-Dhariyat: 56) The duty falling to everyone who grasps the truth of creation is to live in accordance with that verse, and to say, "Why indeed should I not worship Him Who brought me into being, Him to Whom you will be returned?" (Surah Ya Sin: 22), like every believer, as described in the Qur'an. As for those who still deny Allah and the truth of creation, despite all the evidence before their eyes, their minds have been conquered by their own pride. One of Allah's holy verses describes how helpless and powerless these individuals really are: Mankind! an example has been made, so listen to it carefully. Those whom you call upon besides Allah are not even able to create a single fly, even if they were to join together to do it. And if a fly steals something from them, they cannot get it back. How feeble are both the seeker and the sought! (Surat al-Hajj: 73) Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 319 320 The chapter you are now about to read reveals a crucial secret of your life. You should read it very attentively and thoroughly for it is concerned with a subject that is liable to make a fundamental change in your outlook on the external world. The subject of this chapter is not just a point of view, a different approach, or a traditional philosophical thought: it is a fact which everyone, believing or unbelieving, must admit and which is also proven by science today. WARNING ! The Secret Beyond Matter is Not Wahdatul Wujood The topic called "The Real Essence of Matter" has been criticized by some people. Having misunderstood the essence of the subject, these people claim that what is explained as the secret beyond matter is identical to the teaching of Wahdatul Wujood. Let us state, before all else, that the author of this book is a believer strictly abiding by the doctrine of Ahlus Sunnah and does not defend the view of Wahdatul Wujood. However, it should also be remembered that Wahdatul Wujood was defended by some leading Islamic scholars including Muhyiddin Ibn al- 'Arabi. It is true that numerous significant Islamic scholars who described the concept of Wahdatul Wujood in the past did so by considering some subjects found in these books. Still, what is explained in these books is not the same as Wahdatul Wujood. Some of those who defended the view of Wahdatul Wujood were engrossed by some erroneous opinions and made some claims contrary to the Qur'an and the doctrine of Ahlus Sunnah. They, for example, completely rejected the creation of Allah. When the subject of the secret beyond matter is told, however, there is definitely no such claim. This section explains that all beings are created by Allah, and that the originals of these beings are seen by Him whereas people merely see the images of these beings formed in their brains. Mountains, plains, flowers, people, seas-briefly everything we see and everything that Allah informs us in the Qur'an that exists and that He created out of nothing is created and does indeed exist. However, people 321 THE SECRET BEYOND MATTER AN IMPORTANT STATEMENT cannot see, feel or hear the real nature of these beings through their sense organs. What they see and feel are only the copies that appear in their brains. This is a scientific fact taught at all schools primarily in medicine. The same applies to the article you are reading now; you can not see nor touch the real nature of it. The light coming from the original article is converted by some cells in your eyes into electrical signals, which are then conveyed to the sight center in the back of your brain. This is where the view of this article is created. In other words, you are not reading an article which is before your eyes through your eyes; in fact, this article is created in the sight center in the back of your brain. The article you are reading right now is a "copy of the article" within your brain. The original article is seen by Allah. In conclusion, the fact that the matter is an illusion formed in our brains does not "reject" the matter, but provides us information about the real nature of the matter: that no person can have connection with its original. There Is Matter Outside of Us, But We Cannot Reach It … [S]aying that matter is an illusion does not mean it does not exist. Quiet the contrary: whether we perceive the physical world or not, it does exist. But we see it as a copy in our brain or, in other words, as an interpretation of our senses. For us, therefore, the physical world of matter is an illusion. The matter outside is seen not just by us, but by other beings too. The angels Allah delegated to be watchers witness this world as well: And the two recording angels are recording, sitting on the right and on the left. He does not utter a single word, without a watcher by him, pen in hand! (Surah Qaf: 17-18) Most importantly, Allah sees everything. He created this world with all its details and sees it in all its states. As He informs us in the Qur'an: … Heed Allah and know that Allah sees what you do. (Surat alBaqara: 233) Say: "Allah is a sufficient witness between me and you. He is certainly aware of and sees His servants." (Surat al-Isra': 96) It must not be forgotten that Allah keeps the records of everything in DARWINISM REFUTED 322 the book called Lawh Mahfuz (Preserved Tablet). Even if we don't see all things, they are in the Lawh Mahfuz. Allah reveals that He keeps everything's record in the "Mother of the Book" called Lawh Mahfuz with the following verses: It is in the Source Book with Us, high-exalted, full of wisdom. (Surat az-Zukhruf: 4) … We possess an all-preserving Book. (Surah Qaf: 4) Certainly there is no hidden thing in either heaven or Earth which is not in a Clear Book. (Surat an-Naml: 75) Knowing the Real Essence of Matter Those who contemplate their surroundings conscientiously and wisely realize that everything in the universe—both living and nonliving—must have been created. So the question becomes, "Who is the Creator of all these things?" It is evident that the creation that reveals itself in every aspect of the universe cannot be an outgrowth of the universe itself. For example, no insect could have created itself, nor could the solar system have created or organized itself. Neither could plants, humans, bacteria, red-blood cells, nor butterflies have created themselves. As this book explains throughout, any possibility that all these could have originated "by chance" is unimaginable. Therefore, we arrive at the following conclusion: Everything that we see has been created, but nothing we see can itself be a "creator." The Creator is different from—and superior to—all that we see, a Superior Power Who is invisible to our eyes, but Whose existence and attributes are revealed in everything that He creates. This is where those who deny Allah's existence are led astray. They are conditioned not to believe in Allah's existence unless they see Him with their own eyes, forced to conceal the actuality of creation manifested all throughout the universe, and to claim that the universe and all the living things it contains have not been created. In order to do so, they resort to falsehoods. Evolutionary theory is one key example of their lies and vain endeavors to this end. The basic mistake of those who deny Allah is shared by many others Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 323 who don't actually deny His existence, but have wrong perceptions of Him. These people, constituting the majority of society in some countries, do not deny creation openly, but have superstitious beliefs about Allah, most believing that He is only "up in the sky." They tacitly and falsely imagine that Allah is off behind some very distant planet and only occasionally interferes with worldly affairs. Or perhaps He doesn't intervene at all: He created the universe, and then left it to itself, leaving humans to determine their fates for themselves. (Surely Allah is beyond that.) Still others are aware of the fact that Allah is "everywhere," as revealed in the Qur’an, but cannot fully understand what this means. Superstitiously, they think that Allah surrounds all matter like radio waves or like an invisible, intangible gas. (Allah is certainly beyond that.) However, this and other notions that cannot clarify "where" Allah is (and unwisely deny His apparent existence perhaps because of this) are all based on a common mistake: They hold a groundless prejudice that moves them to wrong opinions about Allah. What is this prejudice? It concerns the existence and nature of matter. Some people have been so conditioned to the mistaken ideas about the true nature of matter that they may have never thought about it thoroughly. Modern science, however, demolishes this prejudice about the nature of matter and discloses a very important and imposing truth. In the following pages, we will explain this great reality pointed to in the Qur'an. The World of Electrical Signals All the information we have about the world is conveyed to us by our five senses. Thus, the world we know consists of what our eyes see, our hands feel, our nose smells, our tongue tastes, and our ears hear. Many people never think that the external world can be other than what our senses present to us, since we've depended on those senses since the day we were born. Yet modern research in many different fields of science points to a very different understanding, leading to serious doubt about the "outside" world that we perceive with our senses. For this new understanding, the starting point is that everything we perceive as external is only a response formed by electrical signals in our DARWINISM REFUTED 324 brain. The information one has about the red of an apple, the hardness of wood—moreover, one's mother, father, family, and everything that one owns, one's house, job, and even the pages of this book—is comprised of electrical signals only. In other words, we can never know the true color of the apple in the outside world, nor the true structure of wood there, nor the real appearance of our parents and the ones we love. They all exist in the outside world as Allah’s creations, but we can only have direct experience of the copies in our brains for so long as we live. To clarify, let's consider the five senses which provide us with all our information about the external world. How Do We See, Hear, and Taste? The act of seeing occurs in a progressive fashion. Light (photons) traveling from the object passes through the lens in front of the eye, where the image is refracted and falls, upside down, onto the retina at the back of the eye. Here, visual stimuli are turned into electrical signals, in turn transmitted by neurons to a tiny spot in the rear of the brain known as the vision center. After a series of processes, these electrical signals in this brain center are perceived as an image. The act of seeing actually takes place at the posterior of the brain, in this tiny spot which is pitch dark, completely insulated from light. Even though this process is largely understood, when we claim, "We see," in fact we are perceiving the effects of impulses reaching our eye, transformed into electrical signals, and induced in our brain. And so, when we say, "We see," actually we are observing electrical signals in our mind. All the images we view in our lives are formed in our center of vision, which takes up only a few cubic centimeters in the brain's volume. The book you are now reading, as well as the boundless landscape you see when you gaze at the horizon, both occur in this tiny space. And keep in mind that, as noted before, the brain is insulated from light. Inside the skull is absolutely dark; and the brain itself has no contact with light that exists outside. An example can illustrate this interesting paradox. Suppose we place a burning candle in front of you. You can sit across from it and watch this candle at length. During this time, however, your brain never has any direct contact with the candle's original light. Even while you perceive the Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 325 candle's light, the inside of your brain is lightless. We all watch a bright, colorful world inside our pitch-dark brain. R. L. Gregory explains the miraculous aspect of seeing, which is taken so very much for granted: We are so familiar with seeing, that it takes a leap of imagination to realize that there are problems to be solved. But consider it. We are given tiny distorted upside-down images in the eyes, and we see separate solid objects in surrounding space. From the patterns of simulation on the retinas we perceive the world of objects, and this is nothing short of a miracle.391 The same applies to all our other senses. Sound, touch, taste and smell are all transmitted as electrical signals to the brain, where they are perceived in the relevant centers. The sense of hearing proceeds in the same manner. The auricle in the outer ear picks up available sounds and directs them to the middle ear; the middle ear transmits the sound vibrations to the inner ear by intensifying them; the inner ear translates these vibrations into electrical signals and sends them to the brain. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing takes place DARWINISM REFUTED 326 Everything we see, touch, hear, and perceive as "matter," "the world" or "the universe" is in fact electrical signals interpreted in our brain. We can never reach the original of the matter outside our brain. We merely taste, hear and see an image of the external world formed in our brain. in the brain's hearing center. The brain is insulated from sound just as it is from light. Therefore, no matter how noisy it may be outside, it is completely silent inside the brain. Nevertheless, the brain perceives sounds most precisely, so that a healthy person's ear hears everything without any atmospheric noise or interference. Your brain is insulated from sound, yet you listen to the symphonies of an orchestra, hear all the noises in a crowded auditorium, and perceive all sounds within a wide frequency, from the rustling of leaves to the roar of a jet plane. However, were a sensitive device to measure the sound level in your brain, it would show complete silence prevailing there. Our perception of odor forms in a similar way. Volatile molecules, emitted by vanilla extract or a rose, reach receptors in the delicate hairs in the olfactory epithelium and become involved in an interaction that is transmitted to the brain as electrical signals and perceived as smell. Everything that you smell, be it pleasant or repugnant, is only your brain's perception of the interactions of volatile molecules transformed into electrical signals. The scent of a perfume, a flower, any delicious food, the sea, or other odors you like or dislike, you perceive entirely in your brain. The molecules themselves never reach there. Just as with sound and vision, what reaches your sensory centers is simply an assortment of electrical signals. In other words, all the sensations that, since you were born, you've assumed to belong to external objects are just electrical signals interpreted through your sense organs. You can never have direct experience of the true nature of a scent in the outside world. Similarly, at the front of your tongue, there are four different types of chemical receptors that enables you to perceive the tastes of salty, sweet, sour, and bitter. After a series of chemical processes, your taste receptors transform these perceptions into electrical signals and transmit them to the brain, which perceives these signals as flavors. The taste you get when you eat chocolate or a fruit that you like is your brain's interpretation of electrical signals. You can never reach the object outside; you can never see, smell or taste the chocolate itself. For instance, if the nerves between your tongue and your brain are cut, no further signals will reach your brain, and you will lose your sense of taste completely. Here, we come across another fact: You can never be sure that how a Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 327 food tastes to you is the same as how it tastes to anyone else; or that your perception of a voice is the same as what another's when he hears that same voice. Along the same lines, science writer Lincoln Barnett wrote that "no one can ever know whether his sensation of red or of Middle C is the same as another man's."392 Our sense of touch is no different. When we handle an object, all the information that helps us recognize it is transmitted to the brain by sensitive nerves on the skin. The feeling of touch is formed in our brain. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we perceive sensations of touch not at our fingertips or on our skin, but in our brain's tactile center. As a result of the brain's assessment of electrical stimulations coming to it from the skin, we feel different sensations pertaining to objects, such as hardness or softness, heat or cold. From these stimulations, we derive all details that help us recognize an object. Concerning this important fact, consider the thoughts of B. Russell and L. J. J. Wittgenstein, two famous philosophers: For instance, whether a lemon truly exists or not and how it came to exist cannot be questioned and investigated. A lemon consists merely of a taste DARWINISM REFUTED 328 Bundles of light coming from an object fall on the retina upside-down. Here, the image is converted into electrical signals and transmitted to the center of vision at the back of the brain. Since the brain is insulated from light, it is impossible for light to reach the center of vision. This means that we view a vast world of light and depth in a tiny spot that is insulated from light. Even at the moment when we feel the light and heat of a fire, the inside of our brain is pitch dark and its temperature never changes. sensed by the tongue, an odor sensed by the nose, a color and shape sensed by the eye; and only these features of it can be subject to examination and assessment. Science can never know the physical world.393 It is impossible for us to reach the original of the physical world outside our brain. All objects we're in contact with are actually collection of perceptions such as sight, hearing, and touch. Throughout our lives, by processing the data in the sensory centers, our brain confronts not the "originals" of the matter existing outside us, but rather copies formed inside our brain. We can never know what the original forms of these copies are like. The "External World" Inside Our Brain As a result of these physical facts, we come to the following indisputable conclusion: We can never have direct experience of any of the things we see, touch, hear, and name "matter," "the world" or "the universe." We only know their copies in our brain and can never reach the original of the matter outside our brain. We merely taste, hear and see an image of the external world formed in our brain. In fact, someone eating an apple confronts not the actual fruit, but its perceptions in the brain. What that person considers to be an apple actually consists of his brain's perception of the electrical information concerning the fruit's shape, taste, smell, and texture. If the optic nerve to the brain were suddenly severed, the image of the fruit would instantly disappear. Any disconnection in the olfactory nerve traveling from receptors in the nose to the brain would interrupt the sense of smell completely. Simply put, that apple is nothing but the interpretation of electrical signals by the brain. Also consider the sense of distance. The empty space between you and this page is only a sense of emptiness formed in your brain. Objects that appear distant in your view also exist in the brain. For instance, someone watching the stars at night assumes that they are millions of light-years away, yet the stars are within himself, in his vision center. While you read these lines, actually you are not inside the room you assume you're in; on the contrary, the room is inside you. Perceiving your body makes you think that you're inside it. However, you must remember that you have never seen your original body, either; you have always seen a copy of it formed inside your brain. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 329 The same applies to all other perceptions. When you believe you're hearing the sound of the television in the next room, for instance, actually you are experiencing those sounds inside your brain. The noises you think are coming from meters away and the conversation of the person right beside you—both are perceived in the auditory center in your brain, only a few cubic centimeters in size. Apart from this center of perception, no concepts such as right, left, front or behind exist. That is, sound does not come to you from the right, from the left, or from above; there is no direction from which sound "really" comes. Similarly, none of the smells you perceive reach you from any distance away. You suppose that the scents perceived in your center of smell are the real ones of outside objects. However, just as the image of a rose exists in your visual center, so its scent is located in your olfactory center. You can never have direct contact with the original sight or smell of that rose that exists outside. To us, the "external world" is a collection of the electrical signals reaching our brains simultaneously. Our brains process these signals, and some people live without recognizing how mistaken they are in assuming that these are the actual, original versions of matter existing in the "external world." They are misled, because by means of our senses, we can never reach the matter itself. Again, our brain interprets and attributes meanings to the signals related to the "external world" of which people imagine they are in contact with the original that exists outside. Consider the sense of hearing, for example. In fact, our brain interprets and transforms sound waves reaching our ear into symphonies. That is to say, we know music as interpreted by our brain, not the original music that exists outside. In the same manner, when we see colors, different wavelengths of light are all that reaches our eyes, and our brain transforms these wavelengths into colors. The colors in the "external world" are unknown to us. We can never have direct experience of the true red of an apple, the true blue of the sky or the true green of trees. The external world depends entirely on the perceiver. Even the slightest defect in the eye's retina can cause color blindness. Some people perceive blue as green, others red as blue, and still others see all colors as different tones of gray. At this point, it no longer matters whether the outside object is colored or not. DARWINISM REFUTED 330 The World of Senses Can Occur Without Outside World's Existence One factor which reveals that everything we see and experience exists in our brain and that we can never know the original of the matter that exists outside is that we do not need an outside world for senses to occur in the brain. Many technological developments such as simulators and also dreams are the most important evidences of this truth. Science writer, Rita Carter, states in her book, Mapping the Mind, that "there's no need for eyes to see" and describes at length an experiment carried out by scientists. In the experiment, blind patients were fitted with a device that transformed video pictures into vibrating pulses. A camera mounted next to the subjects' eyes spread the pulses over their backs so they had continuous sensory input from the visual world. The patients started to behave as if they could really see, after a while. For example, there was a zoom lens in one of the devices so as to move closer the image. When the zoom is operated without informing the patient beforehand, the patient had an urge to protect himself with two arms because the image on the subject's back expanded suddenly as though the world was looming in.394 As it is seen from this experiment, we can form sensations even when they are not caused by material equivalents in the outside world. All stimuli can be created artificially. "The world of senses" that we experience in dreams A person can experience all senses vividly without the presence of the outside world. The most obvious example of this is dreams. A person lies on his bed with closed eyes while dreaming. However, in spite of this, that person senses many things which he or she experiences in real life, and experiences them so realistically that the dreams are indistinguishable from the real life experience. Everyone who reads this book will often bear Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 331 The findings of modern physics show that the universe is a collection of perceptions. Thus the wellknown science journal New Scientist asks: "Beyond Reality: Is the Universe Really a Frolic of Primal Information and Matter Just a Mirage?" All the images we see in our lives are formed in a part of our brain called the "vision center," which is only a few cubic centimeters in size. Both a small room and a boundless landscape fit into this tiny space. Therefore, what we see is not the true size of what is on the outside, but only the size the brain perceives. witness to this truth in their own dreams. For example, a person lying down alone on a bed in a calm and quiet atmosphere at night might, in his dream, see himself in danger in a very crowded place. He could experience the event as if it were real, fleeing from danger in desperation and hiding behind a wall. Moreover, the images in his dreams are so realistic that he feels fear and panic as if he really was in danger. He has his heart in his mouth with every noise, is shaken with fear, his heart beats fast, he sweats and demonstrates the other physical affects that the human body undergoes in a dangerous situation. A person who falls from a high place in his dream feels it with all his body, even though he is lying in bed without moving. Alternatively, one might see oneself slipping into a puddle, getting soaked and feeling cold because of a cold wind. However, in such a case, there is neither a puddle, nor is there wind. Furthermore, despite sleeping in a very hot room, one experiences the wetness and the cold, as if one were awake. Someone who believes he is dealing with the original of the material world in his dream can be very sure of himself. He can put his hand on his friend's shoulder when the friend tells him that "it isn't possible to deal with the original of the world", and then ask "Don't you feel my hand on your shoulder? If so, how can you say that you don’t see the original matter? What makes you think this way? Let's take a trip up the Bosphorus; we can have a chat about it and you'll explain to me why you believe this." The dream that he sees in his deep sleep is so clear that he turns on the engine with pleasure and accelerates slowly, almost jumping the car by pressing the pedal suddenly. While going on the road, trees and road lines seem solid because of the speed. In addition, he breathes clean Bosphorus air. But suppose he is woken up by his ringing alarm clock just when he's getting ready to tell his friend that he's seeing the original of matter. Wouldn't he object in the same manner regardless of whether he was asleep or awake? When people wake up they understand that what they've seen until that moment is a dream. But for some reason they are not suspicious of the nature of the life (what they call "real") that starts with a "waking" image. However, the way we perceive images in "real life" is exactly the same as the way we perceive our dreams. We see both of them in the mind. We cannot understand they are images until we are woken up. Only then do Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 333 we say "what I have just seen was a dream." So, how can we prove that what we see at any given moment is not a dream? We could be assuming that the moment in which we are living is real just because we haven't yet woken up. It is possible that we will discover this fact when we are woken up from this "waking dream" which takes longer than dreams we see everyday. We do not have any evidence that proves otherwise. Many Islamic scholars have also proclaimed that the life around us is only a dream, and that only when we are awakened from that dream with "a big awakening," will people be able to understand that they live in a dreamlike world. A great Islamic scholar, Muhyiddin Ibn al-'Arabi, referred to as Sheikh Akbar (The greatest Sheikh) due to his superior knowledge, likens the world to our dreams by quoting a saying of the Prophet Muhammad (saas): The Prophet Muhammad [saas] said that, "people are asleep and wake up when they die." This is to say that the objects seen in the world when alive are similar to those seen when asleep while dreaming...395 In a verse of the Qur’an, people are told to say on the Judgment Day when they are resurrected from the dead: They will say, "Alas for us! Who has raised us from our sleepingplace? This is what the All-Merciful promised us. The Messengers were telling the truth." (Surah Ya Sin: 52) As demonstrated in the verse, people wake up on the Judgment Day as if waking from a dream. Like someone woken from the middle of a dream in deep sleep, such people will similarly ask who has woken them up. As Allah reveals in the verse, the world around us is like a dream and everybody will be woken up from this dream, and will begin to see images of the afterlife, which is the real life. Who Is the Perceiver? We can never have direct experience of the "external world" that many people think they inhabit. Here, however, arises a question of primary importance: If we cannot reach the original of any physical object we know of, what about our brain itself? Since our brain is a part of the material world just like our arms, our legs, or any other object, we can never reach its original either. DARWINISM REFUTED 334 When the brain is dissected, nothing is found in it but lipid and protein molecules, which exist in other organs of the body as well. This means that within the tissue we call "our brain," there is nothing to observe and interpret the images, constitute consciousness, or to make the being we call "ourselves." In relation to the perception of images in the brain, perceptual scientist R.L. Gregory refers to a mistake people make: There is a temptation, which must be avoided, to say that the eyes produce pictures in the brain. A picture in the brain suggests the need of some kind of internal eye to see it—but this would need a further eye to see its picture… and so on in an endless regress of eyes and pictures. This is absurd.396 This problem puts materialists, who hold that nothing is real except matter, in a quandary: Who is behind the eye that sees? What perceives what it sees, and then reacts? Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 335 The brain is a heap of cells made up of protein and fat molecules. It is formed of nerve cells called neurons (above). It is not, of course, the neurons that give rise to consciousness. What we encounter when we examine the structure of neurons is atoms. (Left) And it is certainly impossible for unconscious atoms to give rise to consciousness. There is no power in this piece of meat, called the brain, to observe the images, to constitute consciousness, or to create the being we call "myself." Renowned cognitive neuroscientist Karl Pribram focused on this important question, relevant to the worlds of both science and philosophy, about who the perceiver is: Philosophers since the Greeks have speculated about the "ghost" in the machine, the "little man inside the little man" and so on. Where is the I—the entity that uses the brain? Who does the actual knowing? Or, as Saint Francis of Assisi once put it, "What we are looking for is what is looking."397 This book in your hand, the room you are in—in brief, all the images before you—are perceived inside your brain. Is it the blind, deaf, unconscious component atoms that view these images? Why did some atoms acquire this quality, whereas most did not? Do our acts of thinking, comprehending, remembering, being delighted, and everything else consist of chemical reactions among these atoms' molecules? There is no sense in looking for will in atoms. Clearly, the being who sees, hears, and feels is a supra-material being, "alive," who is neither matter nor an image. This being interacts with the perceptions before it by using the image of our body. This being is the soul. DARWINISM REFUTED 336 Someone looking at a landscape actually sees it in the pitch-black visual center at the rear of the brain. But who is it who looks at this landscape in the brain, who takes pleasure from what he sees, who recognizes the buildings he sets eyes on, and who enjoys gazing on the bright sky? Since brain cells or atoms are devoid of all such characteristics as seeing, hearing and enjoying anything, who watches and feels all these things in the brain? Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 337 It is the soul that sees, hears, feels, perceives and interprets the copies in the brain of the matter existing on the outside. The intelligent being reading these lines is not an assortment of atoms and molecules and the chemical reactions between them, but a soul. The Real Absolute Being We are brought face to face with a very significant question: Since we know nothing about the original of the material world and we only deal with the copy images in our brain, then what is the source of these images? Who continuously makes our soul watch the stars, the Earth, the plants, the people, our body and everything else that we see? Very evidently, there exists a supreme Creator Who has created the entire material universe, and Who ceaselessly continues His creation. This Creator displays a magnificent creation, and surely He has eternal power and might. This Creator describes Himself, the universe and the reason of our existence for us through the Book He has sent down. This Creator is Allah, and His book is the Qur’an. The fact is, the heavens and the Earth—that is, the universe—are not stable. Their presence is made possible only by Allah's creation, and that they will disappear when He ends this creation. This is revealed in a verse as follows: Allah keeps a firm hold on the heavens and Earth, preventing them from vanishing away. And if they vanished no one could then keep hold of them. Certainly He is Most Forbearing, Ever-Forgiving. (Surah Fatir: 41) As we mentioned at the beginning, some people have no genuine understanding of Allah and so, as a result of terrible ignorance, they imagine Him as a being present somewhere in the heavens and not really intervening in worldly affairs. (Surely Allah is beyond that.) The basis of this corrupt logic actually lies in the mistaken thought that the universe is merely an assembly of matter and Allah is "outside" this material world, in a faraway place. (Surely Allah is beyond that.) The only real absolute being is Allah. That means that only Allah exists; matter is not absolute being. The material world on the outside is one of the works of Allah’s sublime creation. Allah is surely "everywhere" and encompasses all. This reality is explained in the Qur'an as follows; Allah! There is no deity but He,--the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. Neither slumber nor sleep can overtake Him. His are all things in the heavens and on Earth. Who can intercede in His Presence except as He permits? He knows what (appears to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall man grasp anything of His knowledge except as He wills. His Throne extends over the heavens and the Earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them, for He is the Most High, and the Supreme (in glory). (Surat al-Baqara: 255) The facts that Allah is not bound by space and that He encompasses everything are stated in another verse as follows: To Allah belong the East and the West: Wherever you turn, there is the Presence of Allah. For Allah is all-Pervading, and all-Knowing. (Surat al-Baqara: 115) The fullness of faith consists of understanding this truth, avoiding the mistake of associating others with Allah and acknowledging Allah as the One Absolute Being. Someone who knows that, apart from Allah, everything is a shadow existence, will say with certain faith (at the level of Haqq-al yakin – truth of certainty) that only Allah exists and there is no other deity (or any being with strength) besides Him. The materialists do not believe in the existence of Allah, because they cannot see Him with their eyes. But their claims are completely invalidated when they learn the real nature of matter. Someone who learns this truth understands that his own existence has the quality of an illusion, and grasps that a being which is an illusion will not be able to see a being which is absolute. As it is revealed in the Qur’an, human beings cannot see Allah but Allah sees them. Eyesight cannot perceive Him but He perceives eyesight... (Surat alAn‘am: 103) Certainly, we human beings cannot see the Being of Allah with our eyes but we know that He completely encompasses our inside, our outside, our views and our thoughts. For this reason, Allah reveals DARWINISM REFUTED 338 Himself in the Qur’an as "controlling hearing and sight" (Surah Yunus: 31) We cannot say one word, we cannot even take one breath without Allah's knowing it. Allah knows everything we do. This is revealed in the Qur’an: Allah – Him from Whom nothing is hidden, either on Earth or in heaven. (Surah Al ‘Imran: 5) When people observe the copy world in their brains, imagining that they are dealing with the original matter, that is, as they lead their lives, the closest being to us is clearly Allah. The secret of the verse "We created man and We know what his own self whispers to him. We are nearer to him than his jugular vein" (Surah Qaf: 16) is hidden in this fact. Allah has encompassed man all around and is eternally near to him. That Allah is eternally near to human beings is also revealed in this verse: "If My servants ask you about Me, I am near (to them)..." (Surat alBaqara: 186) In another verse the same reality is expressed, "Surely your Lord encompasses mankind round about." (Surat al-Isra’: 60). Many people continue to err by thinking that the nearest thing to themselves is themselves. However, Allah is closer to us even than we are to ourselves. Allah reveals this fact in these verses: "Why then, when death reaches his throat and you are at that moment looking on—and We are nearer him than you but you cannot see" (Surat al-Waqi‘a: 83-85). But as revealed in the verse, because people do not see it with their eyes, some of them are ignorant of this extraordinary reality. Some people are unaware of this great fact. They accept that Allah created them, but think that the work they do belongs to them. However, every action performed by a human being is created with the permission of Allah. For example, a person who writes a book writes it with the permission of Allah; every sentence, every idea, and every paragraph is composed because Allah wills it. Allah reveals this very important principle in several verses; one of these verses is, "... Allah created both you and what you do?". (Surat as-Saffat: 96) In the verse "... when you threw; it was Allah Who threw... ," (Surat al-Anfal: 17) Allah reveals that everything we do is an act that belongs to Him. A person may not want to concede this reality; but this changes nothing. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 339 Understanding the Reality of Matter Removes Worldly Ambitions What we have described so far is one of the most profound truths that you have heard in your whole life. We have shown that the whole material world is really a shadow, and that this is the key to understanding the existence of Allah, His creation, and the fact that He is the one absolute Being. At the same time, we have presented a scientifically undeniable demonstration both of how helpless human beings are and a manifestation of Allah's wonderful artistry. This knowledge makes people assured believers making it impossible for them not to believe. This is the main reason why some people avoid this truth. The things that are being explained here are as true as a physical law or a chemical formula. When necessary, human beings can solve the most difficult mathematical problems and understand many very complex matters. However, when these same people are informed that throughout their lives they have experience of only the images formed in their mind, and that they have no connection with the original of matter, they have no desire at all to understand. This is an “exaggerated” case of an inability to understand, because what is discussed here is no more difficult than the answer to the questions, "What is two times two?" or "How old are you?". If you ask any scientist or professor of neurology where they see the world, they will answer you that they see it in their brains. You will find this fact even in high school biology text books. But despite the fact that it is clearly evident, information pertaining to the fact that we perceive the material world in our brains and the results that this information entails for human beings can be overlooked. It is of major significance that one of the most important scientifically proven facts is so carefully hidden from people's eyes. The fundamental reason why people easily accept all scientific facts, yet are so afraid to accept this one, is that learning the truth about matter will basically change the way everyone looks at life. Those who believe that matter and the self are absolute beings will discover one day that they have merely dealt with the reflection in their minds of everything they have worked for and protected based on this idea - their spouses, their children, their wealth, even their own personalities. People are very afraid of this reality and pretend not to understand it even if they do. They try DARWINISM REFUTED 340 with determination to disprove the facts, which are simple enough for even a primary school child to understand. The reason behind this opposition is that they are afraid to lose what this world offers. For someone who is attached to his possessions, his children, or the transient offerings of this world, the illusory nature of matter is cause for great fear. At the moment such a person understands this, he will have died before his natural death, and he will have surrendered his possessions and his soul. In the verse, "If He did ask you for it (all your wealth) and put you under pressure, you would be tight-fisted and it would bring out your malevolence." (Surah Muhammad: 37), Allah reveals how human beings will behave with meanness when He demands their possessions from them. But when a person learns the real nature of matter, he will understand that his soul and his possessions already belong to Allah. If he knows that there is nothing to give or to resist giving, he will submit himself and all he possesses to Allah before he dies. For sincere believers, this is a beautiful and honorable thing and a way to draw nearer to Allah. Those who do not believe or whose faith is weak cannot recognize this beauty and stubbornly reject this reality. The Environment That Will Come To Be When the Real Nature of Matter Is Not Kept Secret Those who know that they have no connection with the actual material things, and that they are in the presence only of images that Allah presents to them, will change their whole way of living, their view of life and their values. This will be a change that will be useful both from the personal and social point of view, because someone who sees this truth will live without difficulty according to the high moral qualities that Allah has revealed in the Qur’an. For those who do not regard the world as important and who understand that we cannot have direct experience of the original matter, it is spiritual things that deserve to be given importance. Someone who knows that Allah is listening to him and watching him at every moment, and is aware that he will render an account of his every action in the Hereafter, will naturally live a morally virtuous life. He will be very careful about what Allah has commanded and what He has forbidden. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 341 Everyone in society will be filled with love and respect for one another, and everyone will compete with one another in the performance of good and noble deeds. People will change the values according to which they judge others. Material things will lose their value and therefore, people will be judged not according to their standing and position in society but according to their moral character and their piety. No one will pursue things whose external originals cannot be reached; everyone will seek after truth. Everyone will act without worrying about what others will think; the only question in their minds will be whether or not Allah will be pleased with what they do. In the place of the feelings of pride, arrogance and self-satisfaction that come from possessions, property, standing and position, there will be a sense of the understanding of humility and dependence. Therefore, people will willingly live according to those examples of good moral qualities mentioned in the Qur’an. Eventually, these changes will put an end to many problems of today's societies. In place of angry, aggressive people, anxious even about small profit, there will be those who know that what they see are images Allah shows them. They will be well aware that reactions of anger and loud shouting make them look foolish. Well-being and trust will prevail in individuals and societies and everyone will be pleased with his life and possessions. These, then, are some of the blessings that this hidden reality will bring to individuals and societies. Knowing, considering and living according to this reality will bring much more goodness to human beings. Those who wish to attain this goodness should consider this reality well and endeavor to understand it. In one verse, Allah says, Clear insights have come to you from your Lord. Whoever sees clearly, does so to his own benefit. Whoever is blind, it is to his own detriment... (Surat al-An‘am: 104) Logical Deficiencies of the Materialists From the start, this chapter has clearly and scientifically stated that matter is not absolute, as materialists claim, and that we can never reach its original that exists outside. In an extremely dogmatic manner, materialists resist this evident reality which destroys their philosophy, and bring forward baseless counterclaims to refute it. DARWINISM REFUTED 342 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 343 George Politzer, for example, an ardent Marxist and one of the twentieth century's biggest advocates of the materialist philosophy, gave the "bus example" supposedly as an important evidence on this subject. According to Politzer, even those philosophers who espouse the fact that we merely deal with the copy of matter in our brains run away when they see a bus about to run them over.398 Samuel Johnson, another famous materialist, was told that one can never have direct experience of the original matter, and tried to deny this reality by giving one of them a kick.399 There are similar examples in the books of famous materialists such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, and others along with impetuous sentences such as, "You understand the real nature of matter when you are slapped in the face." The point where materialists are mistaken is that they think the concept of "perception" only applies to the sense of sight. In fact, all sensations, such as touch, contact, hardness, pain, heat, cold and wetness also form in the human brain, in precisely the same way that visual images are formed. For instance, someone who feels the cold metal of the door as he gets off a bus, actually "feels the cold metal" in his brain. This is a clear and well-known truth. As we have already seen, the sense of touch forms in a particular section of the brain, through nerve signals from the fingertips, for instance. It is not your fingers that do the feeling. People accept this because it has been demonstrated scientifically. However, when it comes to the bus hitting someone, not just to his feeling the metal of the indoor—in other words when the sensation of touch is more violent and painful—they think that this fact somehow no longer applies. However, pain or heavy blows are also perceived in the brain. Someone who is hit by a bus feels all the violence and pain of the event in his brain. In order to understand this better, it will be useful to consider our dreams. A person may dream of being hit by a bus, of opening his eyes in hospital later, being taken for an operation, the doctors talking, his family's arrival at the hospital, and that he is crippled or suffers terrible pain. In his dream, he perceives all the images, sounds, feelings of hardness, pain, light, the colors in the hospital, all aspects of the incident in fact, very clearly and distinctly. They are all as natural and believable as in real life. At that moment, if the person who is having that dream were told it was only a dream, he would not believe it. Yet all that he is seeing is an illusion, and the bus, hospital and even the body he sees in his dream have no physical counterparts in the real world. Although they have no physical counterparts, he still feels as if a “real body” has been hit by a “real bus.” 344 DARWINISM REFUTED THE WORLD IN DREAMS The images, sounds, feeling of hardness, pain, light, colors—all the feelings pertaining to the event a person experiences in his dream—are perceived very sharply. They seem as natural as the ones in real life. The cake he eats in his dream satiates him, although it is a mere perception, because feeling satisfied is a perception too. At that moment, however, this person is lying in his bed. There are really no stairs, no traffic, no buses, no cake, because the dreamer experiences perceptions and feelings that don't exist in the external world. The fact that our dreams give us events with no physical, external correlates clearly reveals that the "world out there" is one whose true essence we can never know. We can learn the true nature of that world only from the revelation of Almighty Allah, Who created it. In the same way, there is no validity to the materialists' objections along the lines of "You realize the real nature of matter when someone hits you," "You can have no doubt as to whether or not you see the original of matter when someone kicks your knee," "You run away when you meet a savage dog," "When a bus has hit you, you understand whether it is in your brain or not," or "In that case, go and stand on the motorway in front of the oncoming traffic". A sharp blow, the pain from a dog's teeth or a violent slap are not evidence that you are dealing with the matter itself. As we have seen, you can experience the same things in dreams, with no corresponding physical counterparts. Furthermore, the violence of a sensation does not alter the fact that the sensation in question occurs in the brain. This is a clearly proven scientific fact. The reason why some people think that a fast-moving bus on the motorway or an accident caused by that bus are striking proofs of their dealing with the physical existence of matter is that the image concerned is seen and felt as so real that it deceives one. The images around them, for instance the perfect perspective and depth of the motorway, the perfection of the colors, shapes and shadows they contain, the vividness of sound, smell and hardness, and the completeness of the logic within that image can deceive some people. On account of this vividness, some people forget that these are actually perceptions. Yet no matter how complete and flawless the perceptions in the mind may be, that does not alter the fact that they are still perceptions. If someone is hit by a car while walking along the road, or is trapped under a house that collapses during an earthquake, or is surrounded by flames during a fire, or trips up and falls down the stairs, he still experiences all these things in his mind, and is not actually confronting the reality of what happens. When someone falls under a bus, the bus in his mind hits the body in his mind. The fact that he dies as a result, or that his body is completely shattered, does not alter this reality. If something a person experiences in his mind ends in death, Allah replaces the images He shows that person with images belonging to the Hereafter. Those who are unable to understand the truth of this now on honest reflection will certainly do so when they die. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 345 The Example of a Shared Nervous System Let us consider Politzer's car crash example: If the injured person's nerves traveling from his five senses to his brain, were connected in parallel to another person's—Politzer's, for instance—then at the instant the bus hit that person, Politzer, sitting at his home at that same time, would feel the impact too. Politzer would experience all the sensations experienced by the person undergoing the accident, just as the same song will issue from two different loudspeakers connected to the same tape recorder. Politzer will hear the braking of the bus, feel its impact on his body, see the sights of a broken arm and spreading blood, suffer the aching fractures, experience entering the operation room, the hardness of the plaster cast, and the feebleness of his healing arm. Just like Politzer, every other person connected to that man's nerves would experience the accident from beginning to end. If the man in the accident fell into a coma, so would everyone. Moreover, if all the perceptions pertaining to the car accident were recorded in some device, DARWINISM REFUTED 346 A material world just as vivid and realistic as the original can be constructed in our brains by means of artificial stimuli. As a result of these artificial stimuli, a person might imagine that he is flying a plane when he is actually sitting at home. and repeatedly transmitted to someone, the bus would knock this person down again and again. But which one of these two buses hitting those people is real? To this question, materialist philosophers have no consistent answer. The correct answer is that all of them experience the car accident, in all its details, in their own minds. The same principle applies to our other examples. If the nerves of materialist Johnson, who felt pain in his foot after delivering a sound kick to a stone, were connected to a second individual, that person too would feel himself kick the same stone and feel the same pain. So, which stone is the real one? Again, materialist philosophy falls short of giving a consistent answer. The correct, consistent answer is that both Johnson and the second person have fully experienced kicking the stone, in their minds. In our previous example, let's make an exchange: Connecting the nerves of the man hit by the bus to Politzer's brain, and the nerves of Politzer, sitting in his house, to brain of that man who had the accident. In this case, Politzer will think that a bus has hit him, but the man actually hit by the bus will never feel the impact and think that he is sitting in Politzer's house. The very same logic can be applied to the example involving the stone. As is evident, it is not possible for man to transcend his senses and break free of them. In this respect, a man's soul can be subjected to all kinds of representations, although it has no physical body and no material existence and there are no material surroundings. It is not possible for a person to realize this because he assumes these perfectly threedimensional images to be real and is absolutely certain of their existence, because everybody depends on the perceptions stemming from his sensory organs. The famous British philosopher David Hume expressed his thoughts on this point: For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.400 Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 347 Formation of Perceptions in the Brain Is Not Philosophy, But Scientific Fact Materialists claim that what we have stated here is a philosophical view. But the plain scientific fact is we cannot interact with the original of the "external world." This is not a matter of philosophy. All medical schools teach in detail how images and feelings form in the brain. Facts proven by twentieth-century science, and by physics in particular, clearly show that we can never reach the originals of physical matter; and that in a sense, everyone is watching the "monitor" in his brain. Everyone who believes in science, be he an atheist, Buddhist, or of any other belief, must accept this fact. Even the materialist who denies the existence of Allah cannot deny scientific reality. That Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Georges Politzer and others were never able to comprehend such an evident fact is still startling, even though their level of scientific understanding was primitive and insufficient. Our highly advanced science and technology make it even easier to comprehend this explicit fact. Materialists, on the other hand, are paralyzed with their fears of even partially comprehending this fact and thereby, realizing how completely it demolishes their philosophy. The Materialists' Great Fear Materialists have been loudly publicizing their fear and panic in their publications, conferences and panels for some time. Their agitated, hopeless discourse implies that they are suffering a severe intellectual crisis. The collapse of the theory of evolution—the basis of their so-called scientific philosophy—already came as a great shock. Now they experience an even greater one, as they realize that they are losing matter itself, which for them is a greater mainstay than even Darwinism. They declare that for them, this issue is a tremendous threat that totally demolishes their cultural fabric. One who expressed the materialist circles' anxiety and panic in a most outspoken way was Renan Pekunlu, an academician and writer in the periodical Bilim ve Utopya (Science and Utopia) which has assumed the task of defending materialism. Both in his articles in Bilim ve Utopya and in the panels he attended, Pekunlu presented our book The Evolution Deceit DARWINISM REFUTED 348 as the number-one threat. What disturbed Pekunlu even more than the chapters invalidating Darwinism was the section you are currently reading, which is also available in The Evolution Deceit. Pekunlu admonished his handful of readers not to let themselves be carried away by the indoctrination of idealism and to keep their faith in materialism. He used Vladimir I. Lenin, leader of Russia's bloody communist revolution, as a reference. Advising everyone to read Lenin's century-old book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Pekunlu only repeated Lenin's ignorant counsel to "not think over this issue, or you will lose track of materialism and be carried away by religion." In an article for the aforementioned periodical, Pekunlu quoted the following lines from Lenin: Once you deny the objective reality [that is] given us in sensation, you have already lost every weapon against fideism [reliance on faith alone], for you have slipped into agnosticism or subjectivism—and that is all that fideism requires. A single claw ensnared, and the bird is lost. And our Machists [an adherent of Machism, a modern positivist philosophy], have all become ensnared in idealism, that is, in a diluted, subtle fideism; They became ensnared from the moment they took "sensation" not as an image of the external world, but as a special "element." It is nobody's sensation, nobody's mind, nobody's spirit, nobody's will.401 These words explicitly demonstrate how the reality that Lenin found alarming and wanted to expunge, both from his own mind and the minds of his "comrades" disturbs contemporary materialists too, in a similar way. But Pekunlu and other materialists suffer a yet greater distress because they know that this certain fact is now being advanced in a way that's far more explicit convincing than a hundred years ago. For the first time, this subject is being explained in a truly irrefutable way. Still, nevertheless, a great number of materialist scientists take a superficial stand against the fact that no one can ever have direct experience of the original of matter. The subject covered in this chapter is one of the most important and most exciting that a person can ever run across. It's fairly unlikely that these scientists would have faced such a crucial subject before, but the reactions and the stance they employ in their speeches and articles still hint at how superficial their comprehension really is. Some materialists' reactions show that their blind adherence to Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 349 materialism has somehow impaired their logic, making them far removed from comprehending the subject. For instance, Alaettin Senel—like Rennan Pekunlu, an academician and a writer for Bilim ve Utopya—said, "Forget the collapse of Darwinism, the real threatening subject is this one," and made demands implying " prove what you tell," sensing that his own philosophy has no basis. More interestingly, this writer has written lines revealing that he can by no means grasp this very fact which he considers such a menace. For instance, in one article where Senel discussed this subject exclusively, he accepts that the brain perceives the external world as an image. But he writes, "I do not know whether or not the images in my brain have correlates in the external world, but the same thing applies when I speak on the phone. When I speak on the telephone, I cannot see the person I am speaking to, but I can have this conversation confirmed later, when I see him face to face."402 By this, he actually means that if we doubt our perceptions, we can look at their origin and check its reality. This is an evident misconception, however, since it's impossible for us to reach matter itself. We can never get outside of our minds to know what is "outside." Does the voice on the phone have an objective correlate or not? We can confirm that by meeting the person we spoke with. However, this confirmation is nothing but one again experienced in the mind! In fact, these writers also experience the same events in their dreams. For instance, Senel may dream that he speaks on the phone, then have this conversation confirmed by the person he spoke to. Or Pekunlu may, in his dream, feel he's facing a serious threat and advise others to read centuryold books by Lenin. But no matter what they do, these materialists can never deny that they have never had direct experience of the events they've experienced and the people they talked to. Materialists Have Fallen into One of the Biggest Traps in History The panicky atmosphere sweeping materialist circles in Turkey, of which we've mentioned only a few examples here, shows that materialists face utter defeat. Modern science has proven that we don’t have direct experience of the original of matter, and put this forward in a clear, DARWINISM REFUTED 350 straightforward, forceful way. Materialists see that the material world, in which they blindly believe and on which they rely and depend, disappears altogether. In the face of this fact, they can do nothing. Throughout human history, materialist thought has always existed. Being assured of themselves and their philosophy, materialists ignorantly revolted against Allah Who created them. Unreasonably and unscientifically, they maintained that matter is eternal, that none of it could possibly have had a Creator. (Surely Allah is beyond that) While denying Allah out of their arrogance, they took refuge in the lie that matter had absolute existence. So confident were they of this philosophy that they believed that no arguments could ever disprove it. That is why this book's facts regarding the real nature of matter so surprised these people. What we've related here destroyed the very basis of their philosophy and left no grounds for further discussion. Matter, on which they based all their thoughts, lives, arrogance, and denial, suddenly vanished. One of the attributes of Allah is His plotting against the unbelievers. This is stated in the verse; "They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah." (Surat al-Anfal: 30) Allah entrapped materialists by making them assume that they are in direct contact with the original of matter and in so doing, humiliated them in a way never seen before. Materialists deemed they knew the originals of their possessions, status, rank, the society they belonged to, the whole world and everything else of which they actually experienced only the copies. Moreover, by relying on these, they ignorantly grew arrogant against Allah. By displaying the greatest unreason and being boastful, they revolted against Him and added to their unbelief. While so doing, they relied on matter. Yet so lacking are they in understanding that they fail to realize that Allah compasses them round about. Allah announces the state to which the unbelievers are led as a result of their thickheadedness: Or do they intend a plot [against you]? But those who defy Allah are themselves involved in a Plot! (Surat at-Tur: 42) Theirs is most probably the biggest intellectual defeat in history. While growing arrogant of their own accord, materialists have been Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 351 tricked and suffered a serious defeat in their struggle against Allah by bringing up something monstrous against Him. The verse "Thus have We placed leaders in every town, its wicked men, to plot [and burrow] therein: but they only plot against their own souls, and they perceive it not" (Surat al-An‘am: 123) announces how unconscious these people who ignorantly revolt against our Creator are (surely Allah is beyond that), and how they will end up. In another verse the same fact is related as: Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realize (it) not! (Surat al-Baqara: 9) While trying to plot, unbelievers do not realize the very important fact that everything they experience are copy images they deal with in their brains, and that they merely have experience of images of all the plots they devise formed in their brains, just like every other act they perform. Their folly has let them forget that they are all alone with Allah and, hence, are trapped in their own devious plans. Just like those unbelievers of bygone days, those living today face a reality that will shatter the basis of their devious plans. With the verse "... feeble indeed is the cunning of satan" (Surat an-Nisa’: 76), Allah has stated that these plots were doomed to end with failure the day they were hatched, and gave the good tidings to believers with the verse "... not the least harm will their cunning do to you." (Surah Al ‘Imran: 120) In another verse Allah reveals the delusion of unbelievers: "But the unbelievers, their deeds are like a mirage in sandy deserts, which the man parched with thirst mistakes for water; until when he comes up to it, he finds it to be nothing, but he finds Allah there." (Surat an-Nur: 39) Materialist philosophy, too, offers a mirage for the rebellious; when they have recourse to materialism, they find everything to be merely an illusion. Allah has deceived them with such a mirage, and beguiled them into thinking that they have direct experience of the original of this collection of perceptions. All those professors, astronomers, biologists, physicists and all others, regardless of their rank and post, are simply deceived and humiliated because they foolishly took matter as their deity. (Surely Allah is beyond that) Assuming the copy images they watched within their brains to be absolute, they based their philosophy and ideology on it, grew involved in serious discussions, adopting a so-called DARWINISM REFUTED 352 "intellectual" discourse. They deemed themselves wise enough to argue about the truth of the universe and, more seriously thought unworthy thoughts about Allah with their limited intelligence. Allah explains their situation in the following verse: And [the unbelievers] plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah. (Surah Al ‘Imran: 54) One may possibly escape from some plots in the world; but Allah's plan against the unbelievers is so firm that there is no avoiding it. No matter what they do or to whom they appeal, never can they find any helper other than Allah. As Allah informs us in the Qur'an, "they shall not find for them other than Allah a patron or a help." (Surat an-Nisa’: 173) Materialists never expected to fall into such a trap. Having all the means of the twentieth century at their disposal, they believed they could grow obstinate in their denial and drag others into disbelief. This everlasting mentality of unbelievers and their end are described as follows in the Qur'an: They plotted and planned, but We too planned, even while they perceived it not. Then see what was the end of their plot! - this, that We destroyed them and their people, all [of them]. (Surat an-Naml: 50-51) This, in another sense, is what the fact stated in the verses comes to mean: Materialists are now told that they merely have experience of the copies in their brains of everything they own, and therefore, everything they possess has been rendered valueless. As they witness their possessions, factories, gold, money, children, spouses, friends, rank and status, and even their own bodies—the originals of all of which they believe they know—slipping out of their hands, they are in a sense destroyed. At this point, they are no longer material entities but souls. Realizing this truth is doubtless the worst possible thing for the materialists. This is, in their own words, tantamount to "death before dying" in this world. With the verse, "Leave Me alone, [to deal] with the [creature] whom I created [bare and] alone!" (Surat al-Muddaththir: 11) Allah has revealed the fact that each human being is, in truth, all alone in His Presence. This remarkable fact is revealed in many other verses: Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 353 "And behold! You come to Us bare and alone as We created you for the first time: you have left behind you all (the favors) which We bestowed on you..." (Surat al-An‘am: 94) And each one of them will come unto Him on the Day of Resurrection, alone. (Surah Maryam: 95) This, in another sense, is what the fact stated in the verses comes to mean: Those who ignorantly take matter as their deity (surely Allah is beyond that) have come from Allah and returned to Him. They have submitted themselves to Allah, whether they want to or not. Now they wait for the Day of Judgment, when each one of them will be called to account, however unwilling they may be to understand it. Conclusion The subject we have explained so far is one of the greatest truths you will ever read in your lifetime. Proving that we can never have direct experience of the original of matter, this subject is important in comprehending the existence of Allah and His creations and to understanding that He is the only absolute Being. The person who understands this will realize that the world is not the sort of place that most people surmise. Not an absolute place whose original we know of, as supposed by those who wander aimlessly about the streets, get into fights in pubs, show off in luxurious cafes, brag about their property, or who dedicate their lives to hollow aims. All our knowledge of the world consists of copy images we see in our brains. All of the people cited above are shadow beings who watch these copy images in their minds, yet are unaware of this. This very important concept undermines the materialist philosophy that denies the existence of Allah. This is why materialists like Marx, Engels, and Lenin panicked, became enraged, and warned their followers "not to think over" this concept when told about it. Such people are so mentally deficient that they cannot even comprehend the fact that perceptions are formed inside the brain. Assuming that what they watch in their brains is the "original of the external world," they cannot comprehend obvious evidence to the contrary. DARWINISM REFUTED 354 This unawareness is the outcome of the lack of wisdom Allah gives to disbelievers. As Allah reveals in the Qur'an, the unbelievers "have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not. They are like cattle-nay more misguided: for they are heedless [of warning]." (Surat al-A‘raf: 179) In the age we live in, this fact has been proven with clarity by the body of evidence put forward by science. For the first time, the fact that we don’t have direct experience of the original of the universe is described in a concrete, clear, and explicit way. For this reason, the 21st century will be a turning point when people in general will comprehend the Divine realities and be led in crowds to Allah, the only Absolute Being. In the 21st century, twisted materialistic creeds of the 19th-century will be relegated to the trash-heaps of history; Allah's existence and creation will be grasped; facts like spacelessness and timelessness will be better understood. Humanity will break free of the centuries-old veils, deceits, and superstitions enshrouding them. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 355 verything related so far demonstrates that we never have direct contact with the external world, that we only know the version of matter as it exists in our minds and that one actually leads one’s whole life in “spacelessness.” Asserting the contrary would be to profess a superstitious belief removed from reason and scientific truth, for what is set out here are all technical and scientific facts even described in middle school textbooks. This refutes the primary assumption of the materialist philosophy underlying evolutionary theory—the assumption that matter is absolute and eternal. The materialistic philosophy's second assumption is that time is also absolute and eternal—a supposition just as superstitious as the first. The Perception of Time What we call "time" is in fact a method by which one moment is compared to another. For example, when a person taps an object, he hears a particular sound. If he taps the same object five minutes later, he hears another sound. Thinking there is an interval between the two sounds, he calls this interval "time." Yet when he hears the second sound, the first one he heard is no more than a memory in his mind, merely a bit of information in his imagination. A person formulates his perception of time by comparing the moment in which he lives with what he holds in memory. If he doesn't make this comparison, he can have no perception of time either. 356 RELATIVITY OF TIME AND THE REALITY OF FATE E Similarly, a person makes a comparison when he sees someone enter through a door and sit in an armchair in the middle of the room. By the time this person sits in the armchair, the images of the moment he opened the door and made his way to the armchair are compiled as bits of information in memory. The perception of time takes place when one compares the man sitting on the armchair with those bits of recalled information. Briefly, time comes about as a result of comparisons of information stored in the brain. If man had no memory, his brain could not make such interpretations and therefore, he would never form any perception of time. One determines himself to be thirty years old, only because he has accumulated in his mind information pertaining to those thirty years. If his memory did not exist, then he could not think of any such preceding period and would be experiencing only the single "moment" in which he was living. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 357 The perception of time comes with comparing one moment to another. For example, we think that a period of time elapses between two people holding out their hands and then shaking them. The Scientific Explanation of Timelessness We can clarify this subject by quoting various scientists' and scholars' explanations. Regarding the idea of time flowing backwards, François Jacob, a famous intellectual and Nobel laureate professor of genetics, states the following in his book Le Jeu des Possibles (The Play of Possibilities): Films played backwards let us imagine a world in which time flows backwards. A world in which cream separates itself from the coffee and jumps out of the cup to reach the creamer; in which the walls emit light rays that are collected in a light source instead of radiating out from it; a world in which a stone leaps up to a man's hand from the water where it was thrown by the astonishing cooperation of innumerable drops of water surging together. Yet, in such a time-reversed world with such opposite features, our brain processes, and the way our memory compiles information, would similarly function backwards. The same is true for the past and future, though the world will appear to us exactly as it does currently.403 But since our brain is accustomed to a certain sequence of events, the world does not operate as related above. We assume that time always flows forward. However, this is a decision reached in the brain and is, DARWINISM REFUTED 358 T ime is a concept entirely contingent on the perceiver. While a certain time period seems long for one person, it may seem short for another. In order to understand which one is right, we need sources such as clocks and calendars. It is impossible to make correct judgments about time without them. therefore, completely relative. In reality, we never can know how time flows—or even whether it flows or not! This is because time is not an absolute fact, but only a form of perception. That time is a perception is also verified by Albert Einstein in his Theory of General Relativity. In his book The Universe and Dr. Einstein, Lincoln Barnett writes: Along with absolute space, Einstein discarded the concept of absolute time—of a steady, unvarying inexorable universal time flow, streaming from the infinite past to the infinite future. Much of the obscurity that has surrounded the Theory of Relativity stems from man's reluctance to recognize that sense of time, like sense of color, is a form of perception. Just as space is simply a possible order of material objects, so time is simply a possible order of events. The subjectivity of time is best explained in Einstein's own words. "The experiences of an individual," he says, "appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criterion of 'earlier' and 'later'. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time. This in itself is not measurable. I can, indeed, associate numbers with the events, in such a way that a greater number is associated with the later event than with an earlier one.404 As Barnett wrote, Einstein showed that, "space and time are forms of intuition, which can no more be divorced from consciousness than can our concepts of color, shape, or size." According to the Theory of General Relativity: "time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it."405 Since time consists of perception, it depends entirely on the perceiver—and is therefore relative. The speed at which time flows differs according to the references we use to measure it, because the human body has no natural clock to indicate precisely how fast time passes. As Barnett wrote, "Just as there is no such thing as color without an eye to discern it, so an instant or an hour or a day is nothing without an event to mark it.” 406 The relativity of time is plainly experienced in dreams. Although what we perceive in a dream seems to last for hours, in fact, it only lasts for a few minutes, and often even a few seconds. An example will clarify the point. Assume that you were put into a room with a single window, specifically designed; and were kept there for Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 359 a certain period of time. A clock on the walls shows you the amount of time that has passed. During this "time," from the room's window, you see the sun setting and rising at certain intervals. A few days later, questioned about the amount of time spent in the room, you would give an answer based on the information you had collected by looking at the clock from time to time, as well as by counting how many times the sun had set and risen. Say, for example, you estimate you'd spent three days in the room. However, if the person who put you in there says that you spent only two days in there; that the sun you saw from the window was falsely produced; and that the clock in the room was especially regulated to move faster, then your calculation would be erroneous. This example dramatizes that the information we have about the rate of time's passing is based only on references that change according to the perceiver. That time is relative is a scientific fact, also proven by scientific methodology. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity maintains that the speed of time changes depending on the speed of the object and its distance from the center of gravity. As speed increases, time is shortened—compressed—and slows down until it approaches to the point of stopping entirely. Einstein himself gave an example. Imagine two twins, one of whom remains on Earth while the other goes into space at a speed close to the speed of light. On his return, the traveler will find that his brother has grown much older than he has. The reason is that time flows much more slowly for the person who travels at near-light speed. What about a spacetraveling father and his son who stays behind on Earth? If the father were 27 years old when he set out, and his son was only three, the father, when he comes back 30 years later in Earth time, will be only 30, whereas his son will be 33 years old!407 This relativity of time is caused not by clocks slowing down or running fast. Rather, it's the result of the differentiated operational periods of the entire material system, as deep as sub-atomic particles. In such a setting where time stretches out, one's heartbeat, cell replications, and brain functions all operate more slowly. The person continues with his daily life and does not notice the slowing of time at all. DARWINISM REFUTED 360 Relativity in the Qur'an The conclusion to which we are led by the findings of modern science is that time is not an absolute fact as supposed by materialists, but only a relative perception. This fact, undiscovered until the 20th century by science, was imparted to mankind in the Qur'an 14 centuries ago. There are various references in the Qur'an to the relativity of time. It is possible to see the scientifically-proven fact that time is a psychological perception dependent on events, setting, and conditions in many verses of the Qur'an. For instance, the entire life of a person is a very short time as we are informed in the Qur'an: On the Day when He will call you, and you will answer [His Call] with [words of] His Praise and Obedience, and you will think that you have stayed [in this world] but a little while! (Surat al-Isra’: 52) And on the Day when He shall gather them together, [it will seem to them] as if they had not tarried (on earth) longer than an hour of a day: they will recognize each other. (Surah Yunus: 45) In some verses, it is indicated that people perceive time differently and that sometimes people can perceive a very short period of time as a very lengthy one. The following conversation of people held during their judgment in the Hereafter is an example of this: He will say: "What number of years did you stay on earth?" They will say: "We stayed a day or part of a day: but ask those who keep account." He will say: "You stayed not but a little, if you had only known!" (Surat al-Muminun: 112-114) In some other verses it is stated that time may flow at different paces in different settings: Yet they ask you to hasten on the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise. Verily a Day in the Sight of your Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning. (Surat al-Hajj: 47) The angels and the spirit ascend unto Him in a day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years. (Surat al-Ma‘arij: 4) He directs the whole affair from heaven to Earth. Then it will again ascend to Him on a day whose length is a thousand years by the way you measure. (Surat as-Sajda: 5) Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 361 These verses are all manifest expressions of the relativity of time. The fact that this result only recently understood by science in the 20th century was communicated to man 1,400 years ago in the Qur'an is an indication of the revelation of the Qur'an by Allah, Who encompasses the whole time and space. The narration in many other verses of the Qur'an reveals that time is a perception. This is particularly evident in the stories. For instance, Allah has kept the Companions of the Cave, a believing group mentioned in the Qur'an, in a deep sleep for more than three centuries. When they were awoken, these people thought that they had stayed in that state but a little while, and could not figure out how long they slept: Then We draw [a veil] over their ears, for a number of years, in the Cave, [so that they heard not]. Then We raised them up that We might know which of the two parties would best calculate the time that they had tarried. (Surat al-Kahf: 11-12) Such [being their state], We raised them up [from sleep], that they might question each other. Said one of them, "How long have you stayed [here]?" They said, "We have stayed [perhaps] a day, or part of a day." [At length] they [all] said, "Allah [alone] knows best how long you have stayed here...” (Surat al-Kahf: 19) The situation told in the below verse is also evidence that time is in truth a psychological perception. Or [take] the similitude of one who passed by a hamlet, all in ruins to its roofs. He said: "Oh! How shall Allah bring it [ever] to life, after [this] its death?" but Allah caused him to die for a hundred years, then raised him up [again]. He said: "How long did you tarry [thus]?" He said: [Perhaps] a day or part of a day." He said: "Nay, you have tarried thus a hundred years; but look at your food and your drink; they show no signs of age; and look at your donkey: And that We may make of you a sign unto the people, Look further at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh." When this was shown clearly to him, he said: "I know that Allah has power over all things." (Surat al-Baqara: 259) It is clearly stated in the above verse that Allah, Who created time, is DARWINISM REFUTED 362 unbound by it. Man, on the other hand, is bound by time that Allah ordains. As in the verse, man is even incapable of knowing how long he stayed in his sleep. In such a state, to assert that time is absolute [just like the materialists do in their distorted mentality], would be very unreasonable. Destiny Time's variable relativity reveals a very important reality: A period of time of apparently billions of years' duration to us, may last only a second in another dimension. Moreover, an enormous period of time—from the world's beginning to its end—may not last even a second, but just an instant in another dimension. This is the very essence of destiny's reality—one that is not well understood by most people, especially materialists, who deny it completely. Destiny is Allah's perfect knowledge of all events, past or future. Many, if not most, question how Allah can already know events that have not yet been experienced, and this leads them to fail to understand the authenticity of destiny. However, events not yet experienced are not yet experienced by us only. Allah is not bound by time or space, for He Himself has created them. For this reason, the past, the future, and the present are all the same to Allah; for Him, everything has already taken place and is finished. In The Universe and Dr. Einstein, Lincoln Barnett explains how the Theory of General Relativity leads to this insight. According to him, the universe can be "encompassed in its entire majesty only by a cosmic intellect."408 What Barnett calls "the cosmic intellect" is the wisdom and knowledge of Allah, Who prevails over the entire universe. Just as we easily see the beginning, middle, and end of a ruler and all the units in between as a whole, so Allah knows the time to which we're subjected right from its beginning to the end, like a single moment. People experience incidents only when their time comes for them to witness the fate Allah has created for them. It is also important to consider society's distorted understanding of destiny. This distorted conviction presents the superstitious belief that Allah has determined a "destiny" for every man, but sometimes that Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 363 people can change these destinies. For instance, speaking of a patient who's recovered from a fatal disease, people make superficial statements like, "He defeated his destiny." Yet no one is able to change his destiny. The person who recovers is destined not to die then. Again, it's the destiny of those people to deceive themselves by saying, "I defeated my destiny" and maintain such a mindset. Destiny is the eternal knowledge of Allah. And for Allah, Who knows the whole time as a single moment and Who prevails over the whole time and space, everything is determined and finished in its destiny. We also understand from what is related in the Qur'an that time is one for Allah: some incidents that appear to happen to us in the future are related in the Qur'an in such a way that they already took place long before. For instance, the verses that describe the account that people are to give to Allah in the Hereafter are related as events which already occurred long ago: And the trumpet is blown, and all who are in the heavens and all who are in the earth swoon away, save him whom Allah willeth. Then it is blown a second time, and behold them standing waiting! And the earth shineth with the light of her Lord, and the Book is set up, and the prophets and the witnesses are brought, and it is judged between them with truth, and they are not wronged... And those who disbelieve are driven unto Hell in troops... And those who keep their duty to their Lord are driven unto the Garden in troops... (Surat az-Zumar: 68-73) Some other verses on this subject are: And every soul came, along with it a driver and a witness. (Surah Qaf: 21) And the heaven is cloven asunder, so that on that day it is frail. (Surat al-Haqqa: 16) And because they were patient and constant, He rewarded them with a Garden and (garments of) silk. Reclining in the (Garden) on raised thrones, they saw there neither the sun's (excessive heat) nor excessive cold. (Surat al-Insan: 12-13) DARWINISM REFUTED 364 And Hell is placed in full view for (all) to see. (Surat an-Nazi‘at: 36) But on this Day the believers laugh at the unbelievers. (Surat alMutaffifin: 34) And the sinful saw the fire and apprehended that they have to fall therein: no means did they find to turn away therefrom. (Surat alKahf: 53) As may be seen, occurrences that are going to take place after our death (from our point of view) are related as already experienced and past events in the Qur'an. Allah is not bound by the relative time frame that we are confined in. Allah has willed these things in timelessness: people have already performed them and all these events have been lived through and ended. It is imparted in the verse below that every event, be it big or small, is within the knowledge of Allah and recorded in a book: In whatever business you may be, and whatever portion you may be reciting from the Qur'an, and whatever deed you [humanity] may be doing, We are witnesses thereof when you are deeply engrossed therein. Nor is hidden from your Lord [so much as] the weight of an atom on the earth or in heaven. And not the least and not the greatest of these things but are recorded in a clear record. (Surah Yunus: 61) The Worry of the Materialists The facts discussed in this chapter, namely the truth underlying matter, timelessness, and spacelessness, are extremely clear indeed. As expressed earlier, these are not some sort of philosophy or way of thinking, but crystal-clear scientific truths, impossible to deny. On this issue, rational and logical evidence admits no other alternatives: For us, the universe—with all the matter composing it and all the people living on it—is an image, a collection of perceptions that we experience in our minds and whose original reality we cannot contact directly. Materialists have a hard time in understanding this—for example, if we return to the example of Politzer's bus. Although Politzer technically knew that he could not step out of his perceptions, he could admit it only Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 365 for certain cases. For him, events take place in the brain until the bus crash takes place, then events escape from the brain and assume a physical reality. At this point, the logical defect is very clear: Politzer has made the same mistake as the materialist Samuel Johnson, who said, "I hit the stone, my foot hurts, therefore it exists." Politzer could not understand that in fact, the shock felt after a bus impact was a mere perception too. One subliminal reason why materialists cannot comprehend this is their fear of the implication they must face if they comprehend it. Lincoln Barnett tells of the fear and anxiety that even "discerning" this subject inspires in materialist scientists: Along with philosophers' reduction of all objective reality to a shadowworld of perceptions, scientists became aware of the alarming limitations of man's senses.409 Any reference to the fact that we cannot make contact with original matter, and that time is a perception, arouses great fear in a materialist because these are the only notions he relies on as absolutes. In a sense, he takes these as idols to worship; because he thinks that he has been created by matter and time, through evolution. When he feels that he cannot get to the essence of the universe he lives in, nor the world, his own body, other people, other materialist philosophers whose ideas he is influenced by—in short, to anything—he feels overwhelmed by the horror of it all. Everything he depends on and believes in suddenly vanishes. He feels the despair which he, essentially, will experience on Judgment Day in its real sense as described in the verse "That Day shall they [openly] show [their] submission to Allah; and all their inventions shall leave them in the lurch." (Surat an-Nahl: 87) From then on, this materialist tries to convince himself that he's really confronting external, original matter, and makes up "evidence." He hits his fist on the wall, kicks stones, shouts, and yells. But he can never escape from the reality. Just as materialists want to dismiss this reality from their minds, they also want other people to discard it. They realize that if the true nature of matter becomes known to people in general, the primitiveness of their DARWINISM REFUTED 366 own philosophy and the ignorance of their worldview will be laid bare for all to see. No ground will be left on which they can rationalize their views. These fears explain why they are so disturbed by the facts related here. Allah states that the fears of the unbelievers will be intensified in the Hereafter. On Judgment Day, they will be addressed thus: One day shall We gather them all together: We shall say to those who ascribed partners [to Us]: "Where are the partners whom you (invented and) talked about?" (Surat al-An‘am: 22) In the Hereafter, unbelievers will bear witness to their possessions, children and close friends leaving them and vanishing. They had assumed themselves to be in contact with their originals in the world and associated them with Allah. Allah stated this fact in the verse "Behold! How they lie against their own souls! But the (lie) which they invented will leave them in the lurch." (Surat al-An‘am: 24) The Gain of Believers The facts—that matter is not absolute and that time is a perception— alarm materialists, but for true believers, just the opposite holds true. People with faith in Allah become very glad to have perceived the secret behind matter, because this reality is the key to every question. With this, all secrets are unlocked, and one can easily understand many issues that previously seemed hard to grasp. As said before, the issues of death, Paradise, Hell, the Hereafter, and changing dimensions will be comprehended. Important questions such as, "Where is Allah?," "What existed before Allah?," "Who created Allah?," "How long will the life in cemetery last?," "Where are Paradise and Hell?," and "Do Paradise and Hell currently exist?" will be easily answered. Once it's understood that Allah created the entire universe from nothingness, the questions of "When?," and "Where?" become meaningless, because there will be no time or place left. When spacelessness is comprehended, it can be understood that Hell, Paradise and Earth are all actually in the same location. If timelessness is understood, it will be understood that everything takes place at one single moment: Nothing need be awaited, Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 367 DARWINISM REFUTED 368 and time does not go by, because everything has already happened and finished. When this secret is comprehended, the world becomes like Paradise for any believer. All distressful material worries, anxieties, and fears vanish. The person grasps that the entire universe has one single Sovereign, that He creates the entire physical world as He pleases, and that all one has to do is to turn unto Him. He then submits himself entirely to Allah "to be devoted to His service." (Surah Al ‘Imran: 35) To comprehend this secret is the greatest gain in the world. With this secret, another very important reality mentioned in the Qur'an is unveiled: the fact that "Allah is nearer to man than his jugular vein." (Surah Qaf: 16) As everybody knows, the jugular vein is inside the body. What could be nearer to a person than his inside? This situation can be easily explained by the fact that we cannot get out of our minds. This verse can also be much better comprehended by understanding this secret. This is the plain truth. It should be well established that there is no other helper and provider for man than Allah. Nothing is absolute but Allah; He is the only absolute being in Whom one can seek refuge, appeal for help, and count on for reward. Wherever we turn, there is the Face of Allah … Glory be to You! We have no knowledge except what You have taught us. You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. (Qur'an, 2: 32) 1 H. S. Lipson, "A Physicist's View of Darwin's Theory", Evolution Trends in Plants, vol. 2, no. 1, 1988, p. 6. 2 Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose, Molecular Evolution and The Origin of Life, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1972, p. 4. 3 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, pp. 36, 41-42. 4 B.E. Bishop, "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin," Journal of Heredity, 87, 1996, pp. 205-213; also please see. L.A. Callender, "Gregor Mendel: An Opponent of Descent with Modification," History of Science, 26, 1988, pp. 41-75. 5 Lee Spetner, Not By Chance!, The Judaica Press, New York, 1997, p. 20. 6 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985. 7 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, The Modern Library, New York, p. 127. (emphasis added) 8 V. C. Wynne-Edwards, "Self Regulating Systems in Populations of Animals, Science, vol. 147, 26 March 1965, pp. 1543-1548; V. C. Wynne-Edwards, Evolution Through Group Selection, London, 1986. 9 A. D. Bradshaw, "Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants," Advances in Genetics, vol. 13, pp. 115-155; cited in Lee Spetner, Not By Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, The Judaica Press, Inc., New York, 1997, pp. 16-17. 10 Andy Coghlan "Suicide Squad", New Scientist, 10 July 1999. 11 Colin Patterson, "Cladistics", Interview by Brian Leek, interviewer Peter Franz, March 4, 1982, BBC.(emphasis added) 12 Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin On Trial, Intervarsity Press, Illinois, 1993, p. 27. 13 For more detailed information about Industrial Melanism, please see Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, InterVarsity Press, 2nd. Ed., Washington D.C., p. 26. 14 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, Washington, 2000, pp. 149-150. 15 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, Washington, 2000, pp. 141-151. 16 Jerry Coyne, "Not Black and White", a review of Michael Majerus's Melanism: Evolution in Action, Nature, 396, 1988, pp. 35- 36. 17 Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monster", Natural History, vol. 86, June-July 1977, p. 28. 18 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.(emphasis added) 19 B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988. (emphasis added) 20 Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1159. (emphasis added) 21 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 48. 22 Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, River Publishing, London, 1984, p. 70. (emphasis added) 369 NOTES 23 David A. Demick, "The Blind Gunman", Impact, no. 308, February 1999. (emphasis added) 24 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 97, 98. 25 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88. (emphasis added) 26 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books Ltd., London, 1985, p. 149. 27 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 87. (emphasis added) 28 Loren C. Eiseley, The Immense Journey, Vintage Books, 1958, p. 186.; cited in Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press, Boston, 1971, p. 30. 29 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 184. 30 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press, Boston, 1971, pp. 32-33. 31 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press, Boston, 1971, p. 36. 32 Jerry Bergman, Some Biological Problems With the Natural Selection Theory, The Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 3, December 1992. 33 Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey, Vintage Books, 1958. p 227., cited in Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press, Boston, 1971, p. 33. 34 Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff, "Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology", Developmental Biology, 173, Article no. 0032, 1996, p. 361. (emphasis added) 35 R. Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire", Science, vol. 210, 21 November, 1980, p. 883. 36 H. Lisle Gibbs and Peter R. Grant, "Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches," Nature, 327, 1987, pp. 513; For more detailed information, please see Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, 2000, pp. 159-175. 37 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 9 38 Pierre Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 82. 39 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 179. 40 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, The Modern Library, New York, p. 124-125. (emphasis added) 41 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 25. 42 K. S. Thomson, Morphogenesis and Evolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 98. 43 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Tichnor and Fields, New Haven, 1982, p. 40. 44 S.J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977. (emphasis added) 45 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, "Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered", Paleobiology, 3 (2), 1977, p. 115. DARWINISM REFUTED 370 46 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 146. 47 S. J. Gould & N. Eldredge, Paleobiology, vol. 3, 1977, p. 147. 48 Duane T. Gish, Evolution: Fossils Still Say No, CA, 1995, p. 41 49 David Day, Vanished Species, Gallery Books, New York, 1989. 50 T. Neville George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48, January 1960, pp. 1, 3. (emphasis added) 51 N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59. (emphasis added) 52 R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 45. 53 Science, July 17, 1981, p. 289. (emphasis added) 54 N. Eldredge, and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, Columbia University Press, 1982, pp. 45-46. (emphasis added) 55 S. M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, Basic Books Inc., N.Y., 1981, p. 71. (emphasis added) 56 Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang, 2001, p. 2. 57 Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient," Discover, April 1993, p. 40. (emphasis added) 58 Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient," Discover, April 1993, p. 40. 59 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton, London, 1986, p. 229. (emphasis added) 60 Phillip E. Johnson, "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning," in Darwinism: Science or Philosophy by Buell Hearn, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1994, p. 12. (emphasis added) 61 R. Lewin, Science, vol. 241, 15 July 1988, p. 291. (emphasis added) 62 Gregory A. Wray, "The Grand Scheme of Life," Review of The Crucible Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals by Simon Conway Morris, Trends in Genetics, February 1999, vol. 15, no. 2. 63 Richard Fortey, "The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?," Science, vol. 293, no. 5529, 20 July 2001, pp. 438-439. 64 Richard Fortey, "The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?," Science, vol. 293, no. 5529, 20 July 2001, pp. 438-439. 65 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, Pantheon Books, New York, 1983, p. 197. 66 Jeffrey S. Levinton, "The Big Bang of Animal Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84. 67 "The New Animal Phylogeny: Reliability And Implications", Proc. of Nat. Aca. of Sci., 25 April 2000, vol. 97, no. 9, pp. 4453-4456. 68 "The New Animal Phylogeny: Reliability And Implications, Proc. of Nat. Aca. of Sci., 25 April 2000, vol. 97, no. 9, pp. 4453-4456. 69 David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, January 1979, p. 24. 70 Richard Fortey, "The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?," Science, vol. 293, no. 5529, 20 July 2001, pp. 438-439. 71 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 313-314. 72 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302. 73 Stefan Bengston, Nature, vol. 345, 1990, p. 765. (emphasis added) 74 R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Notes 371 Physiology of Seeing, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 31. 75 Douglas Palmer, The Atlas of the Prehistoric World, Discovery Channel, Marshall Publishing, London, 1999, p. 66. 76 Mustafa Kuru, Omurgal Hayvanlar (Vertebrates), Gazi University Publications, 5th ed., Ankara, 1996, p. 21. (emphasis added) 77 Mustafa Kuru, Omurgal Hayvanlar (Vertebrates), Gazi University Publications, 5th ed., Ankara, 1996, p. 27. 78 Douglas Palmer, The Atlas of the Prehistoric World, Discovery Channel, Marshall Publishing, London, 1999, p. 64. 79 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 296. 80 Gerald T. Todd, "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Casual Relationship," American Zoologist, vol. 26, no. 4, 1980, p. 757. 81 Ali Demirsoy, Kaltm ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, pp. 495-496. 82 Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time: Going Beyond The Fossil Record To A Revolutionary Understanding of the History Of Life, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster Inc., 1999, p. 7. 83 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 230. 84 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 301. 85 This time frame is also given by Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 304. 86 Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time: Going Beyond The Fossil Record To A Revolutionary Understanding of the History Of Life, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 54. 87 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 292-93. 88 Jean-Jacques Hublin, The Hamlyn Encyclopædia of Prehistoric Animals, The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., New York, 1984, p. 120. 89 www.ksu.edu/fishecology/relict.htm 90 http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science /9809/23/living.fossil/index.html 91 P. L. Forey, Nature, vol. 336, 1988, p. 727. 92 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, Adler and Adler, 1986, pp. 218-219. 93 Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1988, p. 198. 94 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 296-97. 95 Stephen Jay Gould, "Eight (or Fewer) Little Piggies," Natural History, vol. 100, no. 1, January 1991, p. 25. (emphasis added) 96 Duane Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, Institute For Creation Research, California, 1995, p. 97. 97 Robert Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, p. 235. 98 Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, "Turtle – Origin and Evolution." 99 Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, p. 207. 100 Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No, ICR, San Diego, 1998, p. 103. 101 Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. p. 336. (emphasis added) 102 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University DARWINISM REFUTED 372 Press, 1997, pp. 296-97. 103 E. H. Colbert, M. Morales, Evolution of the Vertebrates, John Wiley and Sons, 1991, p. 193. (emphasis added) 104 A. S Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed., Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1966, p. 120. (emphasis added) 105 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 296-97. 106 John Ostrom, "Bird Flight: How Did It Begin?," American Scientist, January-February 1979, vol. 67, p. 47. 107 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 314. 108 Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February 1997, p. 28. 109 Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February 1997, p. 28. 110 Duane T. Gish, Dinosaurs by Design, Master Books, AR, 1996, pp. 65-66. 111 Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, pp. 210-211. 112 Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, pp. 211-212. (emphasis added) 113 J. A. Ruben, T. D. Jones, N. R. Geist, and W. J. Hillenius, "Lung Structure And Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds," Science, vol. 278, p. 1267. 114 Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, Free Press, New York, 1998, p. 361. 115 Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, Free Press, New York, 1998, pp. 361-62. 116 Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, pp. 349- 350. (emphasis added) 117 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.132. 118 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.131. 119 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.133. 120 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.131. 121 Alan Feduccia, "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers," The Beginning of Birds, Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, 1985, p. 76. (emphasis added) 122 Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species, Dover, New York, 1964, p. 296. 123 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press, 1971, p. 131. 124 Nature, vol. 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401. 125 Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1961, p. 310. 126 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 280-81. 127 L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone, The Auk, vol. 97, 1980, p. 86. 128 L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone, The Auk, vol. 97, 1980, p. 86; L. D. Martin, "Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods", Ithaca, Comstock Publishing Association, New York, 1991, pp. 485-540. 129 S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, vol. 69, 1980, p. 149; A. D. Walker, Geological Magazine, vol. 117, 1980, p. 595. 130 A.D. Walker, as described in Peter Dodson, "International Archaeopteryx Conference," Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 5(2):177, Notes 373 June 1985. 131 Richard Hinchliffe, "The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?," Science, vol. 278, no. 5338, 24 October 1997, pp. 596-597. 132 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 117 133 Richard L. Deem, "Demise of the 'Birds are Dinosaurs' Theory," http://www.yfiles.com/dinobird2.html. 134 Pat Shipman, "Birds do it... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February, 1997, p. 31. 135 "Old Bird," Discover, March 21, 1997. 136 "Old Bird," Discover, March 21, 1997. 137 Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," p. 28. 138 Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur," Science, vol. 278, no. 5341, 14 November 1997, pp. 1229 - 1230 139 National Geographic, Vol. 196, No. 5, November 1999, "Feathers for T. Rex?" 140 Tim Friend, "Dinosaur-bird link smashed in fossil flap," USA Today, 25 January 2000 141 "Open Letter: Smithsonian decries National Geographic's "editorial propagandizing" of dinosaur-to-bird "evolution," http://www.trueorigin.org/ birdevoletter.asp 142 M. Kusinitz, Science World, 4 February, 1983, p. 19. 143 San Diego Union, New York Times Press Service, 29 May, 1983; W. A. Shear, Science, vol. 224, 1984, p. 494. (emphasis added) 144 R. J. Wootton, C. P. Ellington, "Biomechanics & the Origin of Insect Flight," Biomechanics in Evolution, ed. J. M. V. Rayner & R. J. Wootton, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991, p. 99. 145 Robin J. Wootton, "The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings," Scientific American, vol. 263, November 1990, p. 120. (emphasis added) 146 Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 30. (emphasis added) 147 George Gamow, Martynas Ycas, Mr. Tompkins Inside Himself, The Viking Press, New York, 1967, p. 149. 148 Roger Lewin, "Bones of Mammals, Ancestors Fleshed Out," Science, vol. 212, June 26, 1981, p. 1492. (emphasis added) 149 George Gaylord Simpson, Life Before Man, Time-Life Books, New York, 1972, p. 42. (emphasis added) 150 R. Eric Lombard, "Review of Evolutionary Principles of the Mammalian Middle Ear, Gerald Fleischer," Evolution, vol. 33, December 1979, p. 1230. 151 George G., Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, Columbia University Press, New York, 1944, pp. 105, 107. 152 Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15. (emphasis added) 153 Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin’s Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Santee, CA, Master Books, 1988, p. 78. (emphasis added) 154 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New American Library, New York, 1982, pp. 16-17, 19. 155 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New American Library, New York, 1982, pp. 16-17, 19. 156 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 230. (emphasis added) 157 John E. Hill, James D Smith, Bats: A Natural History, British Museum of Natural History, London, 1984, p. 33. (emphasis added) 158 L. R. Godfrey, "Creationism and Gaps in the Fossil Record," Scientists Confront Creationism, W. W. Norton and Company, 1983, p. 199. 159 Jeff Hecht, "Branching Out," New Scientist, DARWINISM REFUTED 374 10 October 1998, vol. 160, no. 2155, p. 14. 160 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.329. 161 Ashby L. Camp, "The Overselling of Whale Evolution," Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society, May/June 1998. 162 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 333. 163 Douglas H. Chadwick, "Evolution of Whales," National Geographic, November 2001, p. 73. 164 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 329. 165 G. A. Mchedlidze, General Features of the Paleobiological Evolution of Cetacea, trans. from Russian (Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1986), p. 91. 166 Douglas H. Chadwick, "Evolution of Whales," National Geographic, November 2001, p. 69. 167 Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 103. 168 B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications Inc., 1985, p. 489. 169 Michel C. Milinkovitch, "Molecular phylogeny of cetaceans prompts revision of morphological transformations," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10 August 1995, pp. 328-334. 170 Uwe George, "Darwinismus der Irrtum des Jahrhunderts," Geo, January 1984, pp. 100-102. 171 Victor B. Scheffer, "Exploring the Lives of Whales," National Geographic, Vol. 50, December 1976, p. 752. 172 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, Pantheon Books, New York, 1983, p. 197. 173 Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977, p. 14. 174 Stephen M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1979, pp. 35, 159. 175 S. J. Gould, "Return of the Hopeful Monster," The Panda's Thumb, W. W. Norton Co., New York, 1980, pp. 186-193. 176 R. A. Fisher, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1930. 177 Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, Belknap Press, Cambridge, 1970, p. 235. 178 Lane P. Lester, Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, Probe Books, Dallas, 1989, pp. 141-142. (emphasis added) 179 M. E. Soulé and L. S. Mills, "Enhanced: No need to isolate genetics," Science, 1998, vol. 282, p. 1658. 180 R. L. Westemeier, J. D. Brawn, J. D. Brawn, S. A. Simpson, T. L. Esker, R. W. Jansen, J. W. Walk, E. L. Kershner, J. L. Bouzat, and K. N. Paige, "Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population", Science, 1998, vol. 282, p. 1695. 181 Phillip Johnson, Objections Sustained, Intervarsity Press, Illinois, 1998, pp. 77-85. 182 Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books Limited, Barcelona, 1982, p. 43. 183 William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1984, pp. 150-153. 184 "Could science be brought to an end by scientists' belief that they have final answers or by society's reluctance to pay the bills?" Scientific American, December 1992, p. 20. Notes 375 185 David Pilbeam, "Rearranging Our Family Tree," Human Nature, June 1978, p. 40. 186 C. C. Swisher III, W. J. Rink, S. C. Antón, H. P. Schwarcz, G. H. Curtis, A. Suprijo, Widiasmoro, "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia," Science, Volume 274, Number 5294, Issue of 13 Dec 1996, pp. 1870- 1874; also see, Jeffrey Kluger, "Not So Extinct After All: The Primitive Homo Erectus May Have Survived Long Enough To Coexist With Modern Humans, Time, December 23, 1996 187 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, pp. 75- 94. 188 Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt," Nature, vol. 258, 4 December 1975, p. 389. 189 Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62. (emphasis added) 190 Holly Smith, American Journal of Physical Antropology, vol. 94, 1994, pp. 307-325. (emphasis added) 191 Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood & Frans Zonneveld, "Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion," Nature, vol 369, 23 June 1994, p. 645 192 Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood & Frans Zonneveld, "Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion," Nature, vol 369, 23 June 1994, p. 648 193 Tim Bromage, "Faces From the Past," New Scientist, vol. 133, issue 1803, 11 January 1992, p. 41. (emphasis added) 194 J. E. Cronin, N. T. Boaz, C. B. Stringer, Y. Rak, "Tempo and Mode in Hominid Evolution," Nature, vol. 292, 1981, pp. 117. 195 C. L. Brace, H. Nelson, N. Korn, M. L. Brace, Atlas of Human Evolution, 2. b., Rinehart and Wilson, New York, 1979. 196 Alan Walker and Richard E.F. Leakey, "The Hominids of East Turkana", Scientific American, vol. 239 (2), August 1978, p. 54. 197 Bernard Wood, Mark Collard, "The Human Genus," Science, vol. 284, No 5411, 2 April 1999, pp. 65-71. 198 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention: a creationist assessment of the human fossils, Baker Books, 1992, p. 83. 199 Boyce Rensberger, Washington Post, 19 October 1984, p. A11. 200 Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books, London, 1981, p. 116. 201 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention: a creationist assessment of the human fossils, Baker Books, 1992. p. 136. 202 Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi," American Scientist, November- December 2000, p. 491 203 Erik Trinkaus, "Hard Times Among the Neanderthals," Natural History, vol. 87, December 1978, p. 10; R. L. Holloway, "The Neanderthal Brain: What Was Primitive," American Journal of Physical Anthropology Supplement, vol. 12, 1991, p. 94. (emphasis added) 204 "Neandertals Lived Harmoniously," The AAAS Science News Service, April 3, 1997. 205 Ralph Solecki, Shanidar, The First Flower People, Knopf, New York, 1971, p. 196; Paul G. Bahn and Jean Vertut, Images in the Ice, Windward, Leichester, 1988, p. 72. 206 D. Johanson, B. Edgar, From Lucy to Language, p. 99. 207 S. L. Kuhn, "Subsistence, Technology, and Adaptive Variation in Middle Paleolithic Italy," DARWINISM REFUTED 376 American Anthropologist, vol. 94, no. 2, March 1992, pp. 309-310. 208 Roger Lewin, The Origin of Modern Humans, Scientific American Library, New York, 1993, p. 131. 209 R.E.F. Leakey, A. Walker, "On the Status of Australopithecus afarensis", Science, vol. 207, issue 4435, 7 March 1980, p. 1103. 210 A. J. Kelso, Physical Antropology, 1st ed., J. B. Lipincott Co., New York, 1970, p. 221; M. D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971, p. 272. 211 S. J. Gould, Natural History, vol. 85, 1976, p. 30. (emphasis added) 212 Jeffrey Kluger, "Not So Extinct After All: The Primitive Homo Erectus May Have Survived Long Enough To Coexist With Modern Humans," Time, 23 December 1996. 213 John Noble Wilford, "3 Human Species Coexisted Eons Ago, New Data Suggest," The New York Times, 13 December 1996. 214 John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found," Nature, 11 July 2002. 215 D.L. Parsell, "Skull Fossil From Chad Forces Rethinking of Human Origins," National Geographic News, July 10, 2002. 216 John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found," Nature, 11 July 2002. 217 The Guardian, 11 July 2002 218 L. S. B. Leakey, The Origin of Homo Sapiens, ed. F. Borde, UNESCO, Paris, 1972, pp. 25-29; L. S. B. Leakey, By the Evidence, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1974. 219 Robert Kunzig, "The Face of An Ancestral Child", Discover, December 1997, pp. 97, 100. (emphasis added) 220 A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1.b., 1970, ss. 221; M.D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, volume 3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971, s. 272 221 Donald C. Johanson & M. A. Edey, Lucy, The Beginnings of Humankind, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 250. (emphasis added) 222 "The Leakey Footprints: An Uncertain Path," Science News, vol. 115, 1979, p. 196. 223 Ian Anderson, "Who made the Laetoli footprints?" New Scientist, vol. 98, 12 May 1983, p. 373. (emphasis added) 224 Russell H. Tuttle, "The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet," Natural History, vol. 99, March 1990, p. 64. (emphasis added) 225 Ruth Henke, "Aufrecht aus den Bäumen," Focus, vol. 39, 1996, p. 178. 226 Elaine Morgan, The Scars of Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, p. 5. 227 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19. (emphasis added) 228 Robert Locke, "Family Fights," Discovering Archaeology, July/August 1999, p. 36-39. 229 Robert Locke, "Family Fights," Discovering Archaeology, July/August 1999, p. 36-39. 230 Henry Gee, In Search of Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, New York, The Free Press, 1999, p. 126-127. 231 David R. Pilbeam, "Rearranging Our Family Tree," Human Nature, June 1978, p. 45. (emphasis added) 232 Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape, McMillan, New York, 1931, p. 332. (emphasis added) 233 Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59. 234 Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly," New Scientist, 5 April 1979, p. 44. 235 Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly," New Scientist, 5 April 1979, p. 43. (emphasis added) Notes 377 236 William K. Gregory, "Hesperopithecus Apparently Not An Ape Nor A Man," Science, vol. 66, issue 1720, 16 December 1927, p. 579. 237 Søren Løvtrup , Darwinism: The Refutation of A Myth, Croom Helm, New York, 1987, p. 422. 238 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pp. 328, 342. 239 Charles Darwin, Life and Letter of Charles Darwin, vol. II, From Charles Darwin to J. Do Hooker, March 29, 1863 240 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, pp. 298-99. 241 "Hoyle on Evolution," Nature, vol. 294, November 12, 1981, p. 105. 242 Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1984, p. 130. (emphasis added) 243 Fabbri Britannica Bilim Ansiklopedisi (Fabbri Britannica Science Encyclopaedia), vol. 2, no. 22, p. 519. 244 Alexander I. Oparin, Origin of Life, Dover Publications, New York, 1936, 1953 (reprint), p. 196. 245 Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 1988, p. 348. (emphasis added) 246 Horgan, John, The End of Science, M. A. Addison-Wesley, 1996, p. 138. (emphasis added) 247 Jeffrey Bada, Earth, "Life's Crucible," February 1998, p. 40. (emphasis added) 248 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15. 249 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7. 250 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, "Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth," Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964. 251 "New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330. 252 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16. 253 "Life's Crucible," Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added) 254 "The Rise of Life on Earth," National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added) 255 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added) 256 Richard Dickerson, "Chemical Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239:3, 1978, p. 75. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains the reason for this in this way: "If polymeric chains of proteins and nucleic acids are to be forged out of their precursor monomers, a molecule of water must be removed at each link in the chain. It is therefore hard to see how polymerization could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization rather than polymerization." 257 S. W. Fox, K. Harada, G. Kramptiz, G. Mueller, "Chemical Origin of Cells," Chemical Engineering News, June 22, 1970, p. 80. 258 Paul Auger, De La Physique Theorique a la Biologie, 1970, p. 118. 259 Francis Crick, Life Itself: It's Origin and Nature, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88. (emphasis added) 260 Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim DARWINISM REFUTED 378 (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 39. 261 John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119. (emphasis added) 262 Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life," American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121. 263 Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Vintage Books, New York, 1980, p. 548. (emphasis added) 264 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78. (emphasis added) 265 Cairns-Smith, Alexander G., "The First Organisms," Scientific American, 252: 90, June 1985. (emphasis added) 266 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351. 267 John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119. 268 G. F. Joyce, L. E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," In the RNA World, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York, 1993, p. 13. 269 Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, New York, 1971, p. 143. (emphasis added) 270 Dover, Gabby L., Looping the Evolutionary loop, review of the origin of life from the birth of life to the origin of language, Nature, 1999, vol. 399, p. 218. (emphasis added) 271 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, October 1994, vol. 271, p. 78. 272 Horgan, John, The End of Science, M. A. Addison-Wesley, 1996, p. 139. 273 Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 103. (emphasis added) 274 Chandra Wickramasinghe, Interview in London Daily Express, August 14, 1981. 275 Frank Salisbury, "Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 338. (emphasis added) 276 Dean H. Kenyon, Percival Davis, Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, Haughton Publishing, Dallas, 1993, p. 33. 277 Dean H. Kenyon, Percival Davis, Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, Haughton Publishing, Dallas, 1993, p. 117. 278 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, p. 145. 279 Gavin De Beer, Homology: An Unsolved Problem, Oxford University Press, London, 1971, p. 16. 280 Pere Alberch, "Problems with the Interpretation of Developmental Sequences," Systematic Zoology, 1985, vol. 34 (1), pp. 46-58. 281 Raff, Rudolf A., The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996. 282 Coates M., "New paleontological contributions to limb ontogeny and phylogeny," In: J. R. Hinchcliffe (ed.), Developmental Patterning of the Vertebrate Limb, Plenum Press, New York, 1991, 325-337; Coates M. I., The Devonian tetrapod Acanthostega gunnari Jarvik: postcranial anatomy, basal tetrapod interrelationships and patterns of skeletal evolution, transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1996, vol. 87, pp. 363-421. 283 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, Bethesda, MA, 1985, pp. 151, 154. (emphasis added) 284 William Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Notes 379 Evolution, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, 1984, p. 189. (emphasis added) 285 Karen Hopkin, "The Greatest Apes," New Scientist, vol. 62, issue 2186, 15 May 1999, p. 27. 286 Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics of the Evolutionary Process, Columbia University Press, New York & London, 1970, pp. 17-18. 287 Pierre Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 194. 288 Mike Benton, "Is a Dog More Like Lizard or a Chicken?," New Scientist, vol. 103, August 16, 1984, p. 19. (emphasis added) 289 Paul Erbrich, "On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function," Acta Biotheoretica, vol. 34, 1985, p. 53. 290 Christian Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution," Trends in Biochemical Sciences, vol. 11, July 1986, p. 280. (emphasis added) 291 Christian Schwabe, "Theoretical Limitations of Molecular Phylogenetics and the Evolution of Relaxins," Comparative Biochemical Physiology, vol. 107B, 1974, pp.171-172. (emphasis added) 292 Christian Schwabe and Gregory W. Warr, "A Polyphyletic View of Evolution," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. 27, Spring 1984, p. 473. (emphasis added) 293 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pp. 290- 291. (emphasis added) 294 Hervé Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life is Not Reliable," Journal of Molecular Evolution, vol 49, 1999, p. 510. 295 James Lake, Ravi Jain ve Maria Rivera, "Mix and Match in the Tree of Life," Science, vol. 283, 1999, p. 2027. 296 Carl Woese, "The Universel Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 95, (1998) p. 6854. 297 Elizabeth Pennisi, "Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" Science, vol. 284, no. 5418, 21 May 1999, p. 1305. 298 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 51. 299 Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001, http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp 300 Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001, http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp 301 Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001, http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp 302 Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001, http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp 303 Francisco J. Ayala, "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 64. 304 Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001, http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp 305 S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?," Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173. 306 The Merck Manual of Medical Information, Home edition, Merck & Co., Inc. The Merck Publishing Group, Rahway, New Jersey, 1997. 307 H. Enoch, Creation and Evolution, New York, 1966, pp. 18-19. 308 Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, DARWINISM REFUTED 380 http://www.zoo.uib.no/classics/darwin/orig in.chap14.html. 309 R. Mcneill Alexander, "Biomechanics: Damper For Bad Vibrations," Nature, 20-27 December 2001. 310 R. Mcneill Alexander, "Biomechanics: Damper For Bad Vibrations," Nature, 20-27 December 2001. 311 Behe's Seminar in Princeton, 1997 312 G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt Brace and World, New York, 1965, p. 241. 313 Ken McNamara, "Embryos and Evolution," New Scientist, vol. 12416, 16 October 1999. (emphasis added) 314 Keith S. Thomson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated," American Scientist, vol. 76, May/June 1988, p. 273. 315 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Ticknor and Fields, New York, 1982, p. 204. 316 Elizabeth Pennisi, "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," Science, 5 September, 1997. (emphasis added) 317 Elizabeth Pennisi, "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," Science, 5 September, 1997. (emphasis added) 318 Elizabeth Pennisi, "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," Science, 5 September, 1997. (emphasis added) 319 Mahlon B. Hoagland, The Roots of Life, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978, p.18 320 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara, Meteksan Yayınları, p. 79. 321 Robart A. Wallace, Gerald P. Sanders, Robert J. Ferl, Biology, The Science of Life, Harper Collins College Publishers, p. 283. 322 Darnell, "Implications of RNA-RNA Splicing in Evolution of Eukaryotic Cells," Science, vol. 202, 1978, p. 1257. 323 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kal?t?m ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publications, Ankara, p.79. 324 "Book Review of Symbiosis in Cell Evolution," Biological Journal of Linnean Society, vol. 18, 1982, pp. 77-79. 325 D. Lloyd, The Mitochondria of Microorganisms, 1974, p. 476. 326 Gray & Doolittle, "Has the Endosymbiant Hypothesis Been Proven?," Microbilological Review, vol. 30, 1982, p. 46. 327 Wallace-Sanders-Ferl, Biology: The Science of Life, 4th edition, Harper Collins College Publishers, p. 94. 328 Mahlon B. Hoagland, The Roots of Life, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978, p. 145. 329 Whitfield, Book Review of Symbiosis in Cell Evolution, Biological Journal of Linnean Society, 1982, pp. 77-79. 330 Milani, Bradshaw, Biological Science, A Molecular Approach, D. C.Heath and Company, Toronto, p. 158 . 331 David Attenborough, Life on Earth, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1981, p. 20. 332 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kal?t?m ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publications, Ankara, p. 80. 333 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Im Amfang War Der Wasserstoff (Secret Night of the Dinosaurs), pp. 60-61. 334 "Ancient Alga Fossil Most Complex Yet," Science News, vol. 108, September 20, 1975, p. 181. 335 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Im Amfang War Der Wasserstoff (Secret Night of the Dinosaurs), p. 199. Notes 381 336 E. C. Olson, The Evolution of Life, The New American Library, New York, 1965, p. 94. 337 Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction to Paleobotany, McGraw-Hill Publications in the Botanical Sciences, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1947, p. 7. 338 Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction to Paleobotany, McGraw-Hill Publications in the Botanical Sciences, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1947, p. 334. 339 N. F. Hughes, Paleobiology of Angiosperm Origins: Problems of Mesozoic Seed-Plant Evolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976, pp. 1-2. 340 Daniel Axelrod, The Evolution of Flowering Plants, in The Evolution Life, 1959, pp. 264-274. 341 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189. (emphasis added) 342 Peter van Inwagen, Review about Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box. 343 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publications, Ankara, p. 475. (emphasis added) 344 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press, 1971, p. 131. 345 Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (Theory of Evolution and Bigotry), Bilgi Publications, January 1989, pp. 58-59. (emphasis added) 346 Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, The Free Press, New York, 1996, p. 18. 347 Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, The Free Press, New York, 1996, pp. 18-21. 348 Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, The Free Press, New York, 1996, p. 22. (emphasis added) 349 J. R. P. Angel, "Lobster Eyes as X-ray Telescopes," Astrophysical Journal, 1979, No. 233, pp. 364-373. See also B. K. Hartline (1980), "Lobster-Eye X-ray Telescope Envisioned," Science, No. 207, p. 47, cited in Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, The Free Press, 1998, p. 354. 350 M. F. Land, "Superposition Images are Formed by Reflection in the Eyes of Some Oceanic Decapod Crustacea," Nature, 1976, vol. 263, pp. 764-765. 351 Jeff Goldberg, "The Quivering Bundles That Let Us Hear," Seeing, Hearing, and Smelling the World, A Report from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, p. 38. 352 Veysel Atayman, "Maddeci 'Madde', Evrimci Madde" (Materialist 'Matter', Evolutionist Matter), Evrensel News Paper, 13 June 1999. (emphasis added) 353 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, p. 351. 354 Duane T. Gish, "The Mammal-like Reptiles," Impact, no. 102, December 1981. 355 "Ear / Evolution of the Ear" Grolier Academic Encyclopedia,1986, p. 6. (emphasis added) 356 William E. Duruelleman & Linda Trueb, "The Gastric Brooding Frog," Megraw-Hill Book com., 1986. 357 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, Viking Press, New York, 1980, p. 6. 358 J. H. Rush, The Dawn of Life, New York, Signet, 1962, p. 35. 359 Roger Lewin, "A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity," Science, vol. 217, 24 September, 1982, p. 1239. 360 George P. Stravropoulos, "The Frontiers and Limits of Science," American Scientist, vol. 65, November-December 1977, p. 674. 361 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, Viking Press, New York, 1980, p. 55. DARWINISM REFUTED 382 362 John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 27 July, 1980, p. 40. (emphasis added) 363 "From Complexity to Perplexity," Scientific American, May 1995. 364 Cosma Shalizi, "Ilya Prigogine," October 10, 2001,www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/notebooks/pr igogine.html. (emphasis added) 365 Joel Keizer, "Statistical Thermodynamics of Nonequilibrium Processes," Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987, p. 360-1. (emphasis added) 366 Cosma Shalizi, "Ilya Prigogine," October 10, 2001,www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/notebooks/pr igogine.html. (emphasis added) 367 F. Eugene Yates, Self-Organizing Systems: The Emergence of Order, "Broken Symmetry, Emergent Properties, Dissipative Structures, Life: Are They Related," Plenum Press, New York, 1987, pp. 445-457. (emphasis added) 368 F. Eugene Yates, Self-Organizing Systems: The Emergence of Order, "Broken Symmetry, Emergent Properties, Dissipative Structures, Life: Are They Related" (NY: Plenum Press, 1987), p. 447. 369 Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, Bantam Books, New York, 1984, p. 175. 370 Jeffrey S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion," Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 77, April 1979, p. 349. 371 Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley & Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, 4th edition, Dallas, 1992, p. 151. 372 C. B. Thaxton, W. L. Bradley, and R. L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, Texas, 1992, p. 120. (emphasis added) 373 I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis ve A. Babloyants, "Thermodynamics of Evolution," Physics Today, November 1972, vol. 25, p. 23. (emphasis added) 374 Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, 1983, p. 20-21. (emphasis added) 375 Andrew Scott, "Update on Genesis," New Scientist, vol. 106, May 2nd, 1985, p. 30. (emphasis added) 376 Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books, New York, 1986, p. 207. (emphasis added) 377 Encyclopædia Britannica, "Modern Materialism." (emphasis added) 378 Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, CLV, Bielefeld, Germany, pp. 107, 141. (emphasis added) 379 George C. Williams, The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1995, pp. 42-43. (emphasis added) 380 Gerald Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth, Touchstone, New York, 2001, p. xi. 381 Pierre P. Grassé, The Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p. 168. 382 Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism," Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science, London, 1993 . 383 Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2. b., MA: Sinauer, Sunderland, 1986, p. 4. (emphasis added) 384 Alan Woods, Ted Grant, "Marxism and Darwinism," Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science, London, 1993. (emphasis added) 385 Richard Lewontin, "The Demon-Haunted World," The New York Review of Books, Notes 383 January 9, 1997, p. 28. (emphasis added) 386 Hoimar Von Dithfurth, Im Anfang War Der Wasserstoff (Secret Night of the Dinosaurs), vol. 2, p. 64. (emphasis added) 387 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 61. (emphasis added) 388 Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 61. (emphasis added) 389 Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 94-95. (emphasis added) 390 Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, The Free Press, New York, 1996, pp. 252-53. 391 R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing, Oxford University Press Inc. New York, 1990, p.9. 392 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr.Einstein, William Sloane Associate, New York, 1948, p.20. 393 Orhan Hancerlioglu, Dusunce Tarihi (The History of Thought), Istanbul: Remzi Bookstore, 6.ed., September 1995, p.447. 394 V.I.Lenin, Materialism and Empiriocriticism, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1970, p.14. 395 Bertrand Russell, ABC of Relativity, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1964, pp.161-162. 396 R.L.Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing, Oxford University Press Inc. New York, 1990, p.9. 397 Ken Wilber, Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes, p.20. 398 George Politzer, Principes Fondamentaux de Philosophie, Editions Sociales, Paris 1954, p.53. 399 Orhan Hancerlioglu, Dusunce Tarihi (The History of Thought), Istanbul: Remzi Bookstore, 6.ed., September 1995, p.261. 400 George Politzer, Principes Fondamentaux de Philosophie, Editions Sociales, Paris 1954, p.65. 401 Rennan Pekunlu, "Aldatmacanin Evrimsizligi", (Non-Evolution of Deceit), Bilim ve Utopya, December 1998 (V.I.Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-criticism, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1970, pp.334-335). 402 Alaettin Senel, "Evrim Aldatmacasi mi?, Devrin Aldatmacasi mi?", (Evolution Deceit or Deceit of the Epoch?), Bilim ve Utopya, December 1998. 403 Francois Jacob, Le Jeu des Possibles, University of Washington Press, 1982, p.111. 404 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr.Einstein, William Sloane Associate, New York, 1948, pp. 52-53. 405 Ibid., p.17. 406 Ibid., p.58. 407 Paul Strathern, The Big Idea: Einstein and Relativity, Arrow Books, 1997, p. 57. 408 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr.Einstein, William Sloane Associate, New York, 1948, p.84. 409 Ibid., pp.17-18. DARWINISM REFUTED 384