6 WHY IS THE CLAIM THAT HUMAN AND APE GENOMES ARE 99 PERCENT SIMILAR AND THAT THIS CONFIRMS EVOLUTION NOT TRUE?

MANY evolutionist sources from time to time carry the claim that humans and apes share 99 percent of their genetic information and that this is proof of evolution. This evolutionist claim focuses particularly on chimpanzees, and says that this creature is the closest monkey to man, for which reason there is a kinship between the two. However, this is a false proof put forward by evolutionists who take advantage of the layman's lack of information on these subjects.

99% similarity claim is misleading propaganda

For 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 identical 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 done, the 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 went on. Genetic similarity turns out to be less than 95 %. In a news story reported by CNN.com, entitled "Humans, chimps more different than thought," it reads:

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.25

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 three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.26

Biologist Boy Britten and other evolutionists continue to assess the result in terms of the 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, evidence shows that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly without any evolutionary ancestors and that their complex systems prove the existence of an "intelligent design."

Human DNA is also similar to that of the worm, mosquito, and chicken!

Moreover, the above-mentioned basic proteins are common vital molecules present, not just in chimpanzees, but also in very many completely different living creatures. The structure of the proteins in all these species is very similar to that of the proteins present in humans.

For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75% similarity between the DNA of nematode worms and man.27 This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms!

On the other hand, in another finding which also appeared in the media, it was stated that the comparisons carried out between the genes of fruit flies belonging to the Drosophila genus and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%.28

When living things other than man are studied, it appears that there is no molecular relationship such as that claimed by evolutionists.29 This fact shows that the concept of similarity is not evidence for evolution.

"Common design": The reason for similarities

It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms, and therefore their genetic make-ups, would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.

This "common material" is the result not of evolution but of "common design," that is, of their being created upon the same plan.

It is possible to explain this matter with an example: all construction in the world is done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same holds for living beings as well.

However, the complexity of the structure of living things cannot be compared to that of bridges, of course.

Life did not originate as the result of unconscious coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the possessor of infinite knowledge and wisdom.

7 WHY IS THE CLAIM THAT DINOSAURS EVOLVED INTO BIRDS AN UNSCIENTIFIC MYTH?

THE theory of evolution is a fairy tale built on the hope of the impossible coming true. Birds have a special place in this story. Above all things, birds possess that magnificent organ, the wing. Beyond the structural wonders of wings, their function also inspires amazement. So much so that flight was man's obsession for thousands of years, and thousands of scientists and researchers put considerable effort into duplicating it. Apart from a few very primitive attempts, man only managed to build machines capable of flying in the twentieth century. Birds have been doing something which man tried to do with the accumulated technology of hundreds of years right through the millions of years that they have existed. Moreover, a young bird can acquire this skill after only a few attempts. Many of their characteristics are so perfect that not even the products of the latest modern technology can compare with them.

The idea that "dinosaurs grew wings while trying to catch flies" is not a joke, but rather a theory which evolutionists claim is very scientific. This example is sufficient by itself to show how seriously we should take evolutionists.

The theory of evolution relies on prejudiced comments and twisting the truth to account for the emergence of life and all its variety. When it comes to living things such as birds, science is finally sidelined completely, to be replaced by evolutionists' fantasy stories. The reason for this is the creatures that evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of birds. The theory of evolution maintains that the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, members of the reptile family. Such a claim raises two questions that need to be answered. The first is, "How did dinosaurs come to grow wings?" The second is, "Why is there no sign of such a development in the fossil record?"

On the subject of how dinosaurs turned into birds, evolutionists debated the matter for a long time and came up with two theories. The first of these is the "cursorial" theory. This maintains that dinosaurs turned into birds by taking to the air from the ground. Supporters of the second theory object to the cursorial theory, and say that it is not possible for dinosaurs to have turned into birds in this way. They offer another solution to the question. They claim that dinosaurs that lived in the branches of trees turned into birds by trying to jump from one branch to another. This is known as the "arboreal" theory. The answer to the question of how dinosaurs could have taken to the air is also ready: "While trying to catch flies."

However, we must first of all put the following question to those people who claim that a flight system, together with wings, emerged from the body of such an animal as a dinosaur: How did flies' flight system, that is much more efficient than that of a helicopter, which is in turn modelled on them, come about? You will see that evolutionists have no answer. It is certainly most unreasonable for a theory which cannot explain the flight system of such a tiny creature as the fly to claim that dinosaurs turned into birds.

As a result, all reasonable, logical scientists are agreed that the only scientific things about these theories is their Latin names. The essence of the matter is that flight by reptiles is simply the product of fantasy.

Evolutionists who claim that dinosaurs turned into birds need to be able to find evidence for it in the fossil record. If dinosaurs did turn into birds, then half-dinosaur, half-bird creatures must have lived in the past and left some trace behind them in the fossil record. For long years evolutionists claimed that a bird called "Archaeopteryx" represented such a transition. However, those claims were nothing but a great deception.

The Archaeopteryx deception

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 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. 30

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."31 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. 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… 32

Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archaeopteryx's feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. As was discussed above, reptiles and-although there is some evolutionist wishful thinking on the opposite direction-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 anatomy of Archaeopteryx and the evolutionists' error

Studies of Archaeopteryx's anatomy revealed that it possessed complete powers of flight, just like a modern bird has. The efforts to liken it to a reptile are totally unfounded.

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."

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.33 These researchers also compared the ankle bones of Archaeopteryx with those of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them. 34

Studies by anatomists such as S. Tarsitano, M.K. Hecht, and A.D. Walker have revealed that some of the similarities that John Ostrom, a leading authority on the subject who claims that Archaeopteryx evolved from dinosaurs, and others have seen between the limbs of Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs were in reality misinterpretations.35 For example, A.D. Walker has analysed the ear region of Archaeopteryx and found that it is very similar to that of modern birds. 36

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." 37

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. 38

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 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.

Latest Evidence: Ostrich Study Refutes The Dino-Bird Story

Dr. Alan Feduccia

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 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."39

In the same report, Dr. Feduccia 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."40

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.

Evolutionists' bogus dino-bird fossils

With the collapse of evolutionists' claims regarding fossils like Archaeopteryx, they are now at a complete dead-end as regards the origin of birds. That is why some evolutionists have had to resort to classical methods-forgery. In the 1990s, the public were several times given the message that "a half-dinosaur, half-bird fossil has been found." The evolutionist media carried pictures of these so-called "dino-birds" and an international campaign was thus set in motion. However, it soon began to emerge that the campaign was based on contradiction and forgery.

A Sinosauropteryx fossil.

The first hero of the campaign was a dinosaur called Sinosauropteryx, discovered in China in 1996. The fossil was presented to the whole world as a "feathered dinosaur," and made a number of headlines. However, detailed analyses in the months that followed revealed that the structures which evolutionists had excitedly portrayed as "bird feathers" were actually nothing of the kind.

This was how the matter was presented in an article called "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur" in the journal Science:

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.41

THE DINOSAUR DECEPTION IN THE EVOLUTIONIST MEDIA… National Geographic magazine portrayed "dino-birds" in this way in 1999, and presented them to the whole world as evidence of evolution. Two years later, however, the source of inspiration for these drawings, Archaeoraptor, was shown to be a scientific falsehood.

Another "dino-bird" storm blew up in 1999. Another fossil discovered in China was presented to the world as "major evidence for evolution." National Geographic magazine, the source of the campaign, drew and published imaginary "feathered dinosaur" pictures inspired by the fossil, and these hit the headlines in a number of countries. This species, which was said to have lived 125 million years ago, was immediately given the scientific name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.

However, the fossil was a fake and was skilfully 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 X-ray 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. An article in the scientific journal Nature describes the forgery like this:

The Archaeoraptor fossil was announced as a 'missing link' and purported to be possibly the best evidence since Archaeopteryx that birds did, in fact, evolve from certain types of carnivorous dinosaur. But Archaeoraptor was revealed to be a forgery in which bones of a primitive bird and a non-flying dromaeosaurid dinosaur had been combined… The Archaeoraptor specimen, which was reportedly collected from the Early Cretaceous Jiufotang Formation of Liaoning, was smuggled out of China and later sold in the United States on the commercial market… We conclude that Archaeoraptor represents two or more species and that it was assembled from at least two, and possibly five, separate specimens.... 42

So how was it that National Geographic could have presented such a huge scientific forgery to the whole world as "major evidence for evolution"? The answer to this question lay concealed in the magazine's evolutionary fantasies. Since National Geographic was blindly supportive of Darwinism and had no hesitation about using any propaganda tool it saw as being in favour of the theory, it ended up signing up to a second "Piltdown man scandal."

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." 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.

Evolutionist scientists also accepted National Geographic's fanaticism. Dr. Storrs L. Olson, head of the famous U.S. Smithsonian Institute's Ornithology Department, announced that he had previously warned that the fossil was a forgery, but that the magazine's executives had ignored him. In a letter he wrote to Peter Raven of National Geographic, Olson wrote:

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.43

In a statement in USA Today, Olson said, "The problem is, at some point the fossil was known by Geographic to be a fake, and that information was not revealed."44 In other words, he said that National Geographic maintained the deception, even though it knew that the fossil it was portraying as proof of evolution was a forgery.

We must make it clear that this attitude of National Geographic was not the first forgery that had been carried out in the name of the theory of evolution. Many such incidents have taken place since it was first proposed. The German biologist Ernst Haeckel drew false pictures of embryos in order to support Darwin. British evolutionists mounted an orangutan jaw on a human skull and exhibited it for some 40 years in the British Museum as "Piltdown man, the greatest evidence for evolution." American evolutionists put forward "Nebraska man" from a single pig's tooth. All over the world, false pictures called "reconstructions," which have never actually lived, have been portrayed as "primitive creatures" or "ape-men."

In short, evolutionists once again employed the method they first tried in the Piltdown man forgery. They themselves created the intermediate form they were unable to find. This event went down in history as showing how deceptive the international propaganda on behalf of the theory of evolution is, and that evolutionists will resort to all kinds of falsehood for its sake.

8 WHAT SCIENTIFIC FORGERY IS THE MYTH THAT "HUMAN EMBRYOS HAVE GILLS" BASED ON?

THE thesis that living things go through various stages in their mothers' wombs that can be seen as evidence for evolution has a special position amongst the unfounded claims of the theory of evolution. That is because the thesis, known as "recapitulation" in evolutionist literature, is more than a scientific deception: It is a scientific forgery.

Haeckel's recapitulation superstition

Ernst Haeckel, one of the foremost charlatans in the history of science.

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 theorised that during its development in its mother's womb, the human embryo first displays the characteristics of a fish, then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human. The claim that the embryo possesses "gills" while it develops stems from this thesis.

However, this is utter superstition. Scientific developments in the years since recapitulation was first broached have enabled studies to be made of just how valid it is. These studies have shown that the recapitulation doctrine has no other basis than evolutionists' imaginations and deliberate distortions.

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, 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. George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, writes:

Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.45

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. 46

In an article published in American Scientist, we read:

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… 47

As we have seen, developments since it was first put forward have shown that recapitulation has no scientific basis at all. However, those same advances would show that it was not just a scientific deception, but that it stemmed from a complete "forgery."

Haeckel's forged drawings

Ernst Haeckel, who first put the recapitulation thesis forward, published a number of drawings to back up his theory. Haeckel produced falsified drawings to make fish and human embryos resemble each other! When he was caught out, the only defense he offered was that other evolutionists had committed similar offences:

In its April 8, 2001, edition, The New York Times devoted wide space to the theory of intelligent design and the ideas of scientists and philosophers who support the theory, such as Michael Behe and William Dembski. In general, it said that the theory of intelligent design possessed such a scientific respectability and validity that it would rock Darwinism to its foundations. The paper also compared Haeckel's forged drawings with true pictures of embryos taken under the microscope.

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. 48

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 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.49

Science, September 5, 1997

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.50

It is noteworthy that, although Haeckel's falsification came out in 1901, the subject was still portrayed in many evolutionist publications for nearly a century as if it were a proven scientific law. Those who held evolutionist beliefs inadvertently sent out a most important message by putting their ideology before science: Evolution is not science, it is a dogma that they are trying to keep alive in the face of the scientific facts.

9 WHY IS IT DECEPTIVE TO PORTRAY CLONING AS "EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION"?

THE fact that such a question as whether such a scientific advance as cloning "supports evolution" is asked or even comes to mind actually reveals a very important truth. This is the cheapness of the propaganda that evolutionists resort to to get people to accept their theory. Since the subject of cloning has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it cannot be a matter of concern for any professional evolutionist. However, some of those who blindly support evolution at whatever cost, and particularly certain circles within media organizations, have even tried to turn such a totally unconnected matter as cloning into propaganda for evolution.

Cloning is the using of one life form's DNA code to make a copy of that life form in the laboratory. It is a biological process, and has nothing to do with evolution. There is no question of the emergence of a new species or organ, nor indeed of any development or change.

What does cloning a living thing mean?

The DNA of the living thing that is proposed to be copied is used in the cloning process. The DNA is extracted from any cell belonging to the organism in question, and then placed into an egg cell belonging to another organism of the same species. A shock is then given immediately afterwards, which prompts the egg cell to start dividing. The embryo is then placed into a living thing's womb, where it continues to divide. Scientists then await its development and birth.

Why has cloning nothing to do with evolution?

Copying consists of adding already existing genetic information to the already existing reproductive mechanism of a living thing. No new mechanism or genetic information is created by the process.

Cloning has recently become a matter of major concern to scientists. Although it is a biological process carried out within the framework of known laws, evolutionists have tried to take it over in the excited hope that it might support their theory, as happens with every new scientific discovery. The media that gives ideological backing to evolution made headlines out of it, accompanied by slogans supporting evolution. Although it has absolutely no scientific foundation, Darwinists attempted to use cloning as evidence for evolution in various debates. Yet it was clear that cloning had nothing to do with evolution. The scientific community did not even take these ridiculous efforts seriously. Right: A diagram of how cloning works, taken from a scientific publication.

The concepts of cloning and evolution are completely different. The theory of evolution is built on the claim that inanimate matter turned into living matter by chance. (There is not the slightest scientific proof that this could actually happen.) Cloning, on the other hand, is the copying of a living thing by using genetic material from that creature's cells. The new organism starts from a single cell, and a biological process is transferred to the laboratory and repeated there. In other words, there is no question of such a process happening by "chance"-the basic claim of the theory of evolution-nor of "lifeless matter coming to life."

The cloning process is no evidence for evolution whatsoever. It is, however, clear evidence of a biological law that totally undermines evolution. That is the famous principle that "Life can only come from life," put forward by the famous scientist Louis Pasteur towards the end of the nineteenth century. The fact that cloning is presented as evidence for evolution, despite that open truth, is a deception being carried out by the media.

Advances in many branches of science over the last 30 years have demonstrated that the emergence of life cannot be explained in terms of chance. Evolutionists' scientific errors and one-sided comments have been well-documented, and the theory of evolution has become indefensible within the realm of science. This fact has propelled some evolutionists to look in other areas. That is why scientific advances such as "cloning," or "test-tube babies," have been so fanatically used as evidence for evolution in the recent past.

Evolutionists have nothing more to say to society in the name of science, and so take refuge in the gaps in people's scientific knowledge and try to prolong the theory's life in that way, even though that merely brings the theory to a pitiable state. Just like all other scientific advances, cloning is a very important and revealing scientific advance that also sheds light on the fact that life was created.

Other misinterpretations of cloning

Another misunderstanding that people have fallen into as regards cloning is the idea that cloning can "create human beings." However, cloning bears no such interpretation. Cloning consists of adding genetic information which already exists to a living reproduction mechanism that also already exists. No new mechanism or genetic information is created in the process. Genetic information is taken from someone who already exists and is placed inside a female womb. This enables the child that is eventually born to be the "identical twin" of the person from whom the genetic information was taken.

Many people who do not fully understand what cloning is have all kinds of fantastic ideas about it. For instance, they imagine that a cell can be taken from a 30-year-old man and another 30-year-old can be created that same day. Such an example of cloning is only to be found in science fiction, and is not and never will be possible. Cloning basically consists of bringing a person's "identical twin" to life by natural methods (in other words in a mother's womb).This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, nor with the concept of "creating man."

Creating a human being or any other living thing-in other words bringing something into existence out of nothing-is a power peculiar to God. Scientific advances confirm the same thing by showing that this creation cannot be done by man. This is expressed in a verse:

The Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an, 2: 117)

10 COULD LIFE HAVE COME FROM OUTER SPACE?

WHEN Darwin put forward his theory in the middle of the nineteenth century, he never mentioned how the origin of life, in other words the first living cell, came to be. Scientists looking for the origin of life at the beginning of the twentieth century began to realise that the theory was invalid. The complex and perfect structure in life prepared the ground for many researchers to perceive the truth of creation. Mathematical calculations and scientific experiment and observation demonstrated that life could not be the "product of chance," as the theory of evolution claimed.

With the collapse of the claim that coincidence was responsible and the realisation that life was "planned," some scientists began to look for the origin of life in outer space. The best-known of the scientists who made such claims were Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. These two cobbled together a scenario in which they proposed that there was a force which "seeded" life in space. According to the scenario, these seeds were carried through the emptiness of space by gas or dust clouds, or else by an asteroid, and eventually reached the Earth, and life thus started here.

Nobel Prize-winner Francis Crick, co-discoverer with James Watson of the double helix structure of DNA, is one of those who has sought the origin of life in outer space. Crick came to realise that it is quite unreasonable to expect life to have started by chance, but he has claimed instead that life on Earth was started by intelligent "extraterrestrial" powers.

As we have seen, the idea that life came from outer space has influenced prominent scientists. The matter is now even discussed in writings and debates on the origin of life. The idea of looking for the origin of life in outer space can be considered from two basic perspectives.

Scientific inconsistency

It is not possible for meteors to carry a living organism to Earth because of the intense heat generated when they enter the atmosphere and the violence of impact when they land. Above: A large meteor crater in Arizona. Even if we accept there are living things in outer space, it is still impossible to account for their origins in any other way than through creation.

The key to evaluating the "life began in outer space" thesis lies in studying the meteorites that reached the Earth and the clouds of gas and dust existing in space. No evidence has yet been found to support the claim that celestial bodies contained non-earthly creatures that eventually seeded life on Earth. No research that has been carried out so far has revealed any of the complex macromolecules that appear in life forms.

Furthermore, the substances contained in meteorites do not possess a certain kind of asymmetry found in the macromolecules that constitute life. For instance, amino acids, which make up proteins, which are themselves the basic building blocks of life, should theoretically occur as both left- and right-handed forms ("optical isomers") in roughly equal numbers. However, only left-handed amino acids are found in proteins, whereas this asymmetric distribution does not occur among the small organic molecules (the carbon-based molecules found in living things) discovered in meteorites. The latter exist in both left- and right-handed forms.51

That is by no means the end of the obstacles to the thesis that bodies and substances in outer space gave rise to life on Earth. Those who maintain such an idea need to be able to explain why such a process is not happening now, because the Earth is still being bombarded by meteorites. However, study of these meteorites has not revealed any "seeding" to confirm the thesis in any way.

Another question confronting the defenders of the thesis is this: Even if it is accepted that life was formed by a consciousness in outer space, and that it somehow reached Earth, how did the millions of species on Earth come about? That is a huge dilemma for those who suggest that life began in space.

Alongside all of these obstacles, no trace has been found in the universe of a civilisation or life form that could have started life on Earth. No astronomical observations, which have picked up enormous speed in the last 30 years, have given any indication of the presence of such a civilisation.

What lies behind the "extraterrestrial" thesis?

As we have seen, the theory that life on Earth was begun by extraterrestrials has no scientific basis to it. No discoveries have been made to confirm or support it. However, when the scientists who put forward the suggestion began to look in that direction, they did so because they perceived one important truth.

The truth in question is that a theory that seeks to explain life on Earth as being the result of chance is no longer tenable. It has been realised that the complexity revealed in the life forms on Earth can only be the product of intelligent design. In fact, the areas of expertise of the scientists who sought the origin of life in outer space give a clue as to their rejection of the logic of the theory of evolution.

Both are world-renowned scientists: Fred Hoyle is an astronomer and bio-mathematician, and Francis Crick a molecular biologist.

EVOLUTIONISTS' "EXTRATERRESTRIAL" DILEMMA Claims that the origin of life could lie in space, or even "extraterrestrials," are nothing more than science fiction. No concrete evidence can be supplied to back them up, and news and comments on the subject just consist of speculation that "it could have happened." In fact, these scenarios are quite impossible. Even if we assume that some organic compounds were carried to Earth by meteors, it is a chemical, physical, and mathematical fact that these compounds could not have given rise to life by themselves. The fantasy that life on Earth could have been created by "extraterrestrials" is a ploy by means of which evolutionists try to avoid admitting the existence of God, since life cannot be explained by chance. But this is totally meaningless, too, because the "extraterrestrial" thesis just takes the question one step back, and leads to the question: "Who created the extraterrestrials?" Reason and science lead us to an Absolute Being who created us and all living things, though He Himself was not created and has existed forever. That means God, the Creator of everything.

One point which needs to be considered is that those scientists who look to outer space to find the origin of life do not actually make any new interpretation of the matter. Scientists such as Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, and Crick began to consider the possibility that life came from space because they realised that life could not have come about by chance. Since it was impossible for life on Earth to have begun by chance, they had to accept the existence of a source of intelligent design in outer space.

However, the theory put forward by them on the subject of the origin of this intelligent design is contradictory and meaningless. Modern physics and astronomy have revealed that our universe originated as a result of a huge explosion some 12-15 billion years ago known as "The Big Bang." All matter in the universe came about from that explosion. For this reason, any idea that seeks the origin of life on Earth in another matterbased life form in the universe has to explain in turn how that form of life came into existence. The meaning of this is that such a suggestion does not actually solve the problem, but takes it one step further back. (For more detail, see Harun Yahya's books The Creation of the Universe and Timelessness and The Reality of Fate).

As we have seen, the thesis that "life came from outer space" does not support evolution, but is a view that reveals the impossibility of evolution and accepts that there can be no other explanation for life than intelligent design. The scientists who suggested this began with a correct analysis but then went down a false road, and started the silly search for the origin of life in outer space.

It is obvious that the concept of "extraterrestrials" cannot account for the origin of life. Even if we accept for one moment the hypothesis that "extraterrestrials" actually exist, it is still clear that they could not have come into being by chance, but must themselves be the product of intelligent design. (That is because the laws of physics and chemistry are the same everywhere in the universe, and they make it impossible for life to emerge by chance.) This shows that God, Who is beyond matter and time, and possesses infinite might, wisdom, and knowledge, created the universe and everything in it.