Reluctant to acknowledge the existence of Allah, some people advanced a "theory of coincidences" about how life came into existence. This implausible theory, wholly contradicting scientific evidence, suggests that all living beings on earth came into existence as a result of random chance. However, an examination of these groundless claims reveals that this theory brings not one single rational explanation about "how life came into existence."
A close look at the flawless systems inherent in living beings eventually leads us to one obvious fact: all living beings are created. All evolutionist claims regarding the origin of life are wholly invalid. A process called evolution has never occurred on earth. The Creator created the universe in its unique form, and evolution is a hoax. These are the facts.
Despite the fact that all scientific and reasonable evidence pertaining to the origin of life obviously indicates its CREATION, some people still insistently advocate evolution. In this chapter, we will review how some people, claiming to be adherents of science, assert such irrational claims. We will also witness how this theory, to which people are blindly attached, has collapsed by means of the major breakthroughs in science made in the 20th century.
Never make the mistake that these people did, who are making furious efforts to reject the existence of Allah. Never plead ignorance of the fact that everything is the creation of Allah and that a process called evolution never occurred on earth.
Evolutionists claim that living beings evolve through two main mechanisms: "Mutation" and "Natural Selection".
According to evolutionists, a reason for evolutionary change is random mutations occurring in the genetic structure of living beings. They claim that consecutive little mutations create new species. Yet, mutations only cause damage to the DNA, the structure in which all the information pertaining to the cell is coded. The effects of mutations are always harmful and it is implausible that mutation leads to the formation of a new species. All the mutations that we know of that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. The people exposed to the radiation of the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the recent past are concrete examples of the mutations occurring in living beings due to radiation.
Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. However, this claim has no relation to evolution. Natural selection only weeds out the weak individuals of a species and accordingly lead to a society made up of strong individuals. In other words, natural selection cannot produce new species.
Evolutionists are also aware of this fact. Colin Patterson, senior palaeontologist of the Museum of Natural History in England, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the power to make things evolve:
No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.
So, never plead ignorance that neither of the mechanisms, behind which evolutionists hide, are magic wands that transform living organisms into more advanced and perfect forms gradually by chance.
According to the theory of evolution, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. Yet, if this was the case, then numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long period of transformation. In other words, some half-fish, half-reptile creatures should have lived in the past, exhibiting some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. 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 should have been millions and even billions of them. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. Yet, to our surprise, extensive research concluded that in the fossil records these "transitional links" were missing. Fossil records pertaining to other living beings are quite rich whereas not a single fossil of these imaginary beings is present.
So, never plead ignorance that the absence of transitional forms invalidates evolutionist claims.
According to the imaginary scenario of evolutionists, some fish felt the necessity to pass from sea to land for various reasons. Upon this need (!), some changes occurred in the fish, transforming them in time into amphibians. This is a brief summary of the evolutionary scenario arguing the transition from water to land. Now, let's consider this for a moment. What happens if fish one day decide to pass on to the land? Do fish, gradually approaching the coast, and finally reaching the sand, have a chance of survival? The answer is clear: fish moving on to the land would soon die. Other fish attempting to do the same would also die. The result would still be the same if billions of fish tried to do the same for millions of years: each fish reaching the land would die before having the opportunity to do anything. This is an OBVIOUS fact.
Besides, today it is scientifically shown that it is unlikely for these living beings, differing greatly from each other anatomically and physiologically, to have evolved from each other. There are a number of obvious facts that render such a transition impossible.
1. Carrying weight: land-dwelling creatures consume 40% of their energy just carrying their bodies around. Sea-dwelling creatures, however, have no problem in carrying their own weights. Land-dwelling and sea-dwelling creatures have completely different muscular and skeletal systems and hence are perfectly adapted to their environments.
2. Retention of heat: land-dwelling creatures have bodily mechanisms that can withstand great temperature fluctuations on land. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and the change does not occur within such a wide range. That is why the metabolisms of land-dwelling and sea-dwelling creatures differ greatly. The chance that such a significant transition occurs coincidentally is truly unlikely.
3. Use of Water: essential to metabolism, water and moisture need to be used restrictively due to scarce sources of water on land. For instance, the skin is designed to permit loss of water to a certain extent while also preventing excessive evaporation. Land-dwelling creatures have a sense of thirst, something that sea-dwelling organisms do not have. Besides, the skins of sea-creatures are not suitable for a non-aquatic habitat.
4. Kidneys: sea-creatures can easily discharge waste materials in their bodies by filtering them, since there is plenty of water in their habitat. However, on land water has to be used economically. This is why land creatures have a kidney system. It is improbable that the kidney, a complex structure, comes into existence coincidentally.
5. Respiratory System: fish breathe by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. Land-dwelling animals, on the other hand, have a complete lung system.
Fish have always been fish and reptiles have always been reptiles. So, never plead ignorance of the fact that fish can never evolve into snakes or lizards, and that such a scenario can only be narrated in stories.
Unable to explain how the perfect structure of bird feathers occurred, evolutionists claim that birds evolved from reptiles. This is surely a groundless claim. The fossil record reveals that birds have always been birds and reptiles have always been reptiles.
Due to several physiological and anatomical differences, such a transition is implausible. To cite a few examples;
- Birds have a totally different lung structure from reptiles.
- Their skeletal structure is totally different from reptiles; for instance the bones of birds are lighter than the bones of reptiles.
- Birds have feathers, whereas reptiles are covered with scales that have totally different structures.
In brief, the scenarios that the forelegs of a reptile transformed into wings and that then they started flying has no scientific basis whatsoever. Never plead ignorance of the fact that a reptile can never transform into a bird.
Another fact invalidates the theory of evolution. Evolutionists fail to bring an explanation of how life originated on earth.
All living beings are made up of cells. For instance, there are 100 trillion cells in a human organism. Proteins are the basic building blocks of the cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of but one single protein, out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell, is not possible.
Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called "amino-acids", the simplest of which is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that are composed of thousands of amino acids. The crucial point is that the absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino in the structure of a protein would transform it into a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be at the right place and in the right order.
The fact that the functional structure of proteins absolutely cannot come about by chance can easily be understood even from simple probability calculations that anybody can understand.
An average sized protein molecule is composed of 288 amino acids of which there are twelve different types. These can be arranged in 10300 different ways. In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 out of 10*300 ". The probability of this "1" to occur is therefore practically impossible.
So, never plead ignorance of the fact that it is implausible for proteins, the building blocks of the cell, to occur through chance and that consequently life could not have originated as alleged by evolutionists.
If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times more impossible for about one million of those proteins to come together properly by chance and make up a complete human cell.
Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 200 types of proteins found in single bacteria. (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell) The number that was found was 1 over 1040.000. 1
A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University College (Cardiff, Wales), Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments on this incredible probability:
The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40.000 noughts after it… it is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, either on this planet or on any other, and if the beginning of life was not by chance, it must therefore have been the creation of purposeful intelligence.2
So, never plead ignorance of the fact that even a single bacteria could not have come into existence coincidentally or by accident. That implies the collapse of the theory of evolution.
The molecule called DNA, which is found in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our body, contains the complete construction plan of the human body. Information regarding all characteristics of a person, from physical appearance to the structure of the internal organs, is encoded in the DNA by means of a special system. If we were to write down the information encoded in DNA, then we would need to compile a giant library consisting of 900 encyclopædic volumes of 500 pages each.
This incredibly voluminous information is encoded in the components of DNA called "genes". At this point, there is an important detail that deserves attention. An error in the sequence of nucleotides making up a gene would render the gene completely useless. When we consider that there are 200 thousand genes in the human body, it becomes more evident how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to be formed in the right sequence by coincidence.
So, never plead ignorance of the fact that this complex structure of DNA is a special design. This is concrete evidence that Allah creates DNA.
Evolutionists assert that all living beings evolved from the primitive forms to the advanced. According to this groundless assertion, human beings, too, evolved from half-man, half-ape beings called "primitive human beings". However, today we know that there is not a concept of "primitive man." Men have always been men and apes have always been apes. This is a fact that has been proved. Fossils, alleged to be the ancestors of men, belong to human races that lived until very recently - about 10,000 years ago - and then disappeared. Moreover, many human communities currently living have the same physical appearance and characteristics as these extinct human races, which the evolutionists claim to be pre-human ancestors of men.
There are numerous anatomical differences between apes and men and none of them are of the kind to come into existence through an evolutionary process. This is an OBVIOUS fact.
A few examples indicating this are the following:
In 1995, an 800 thousand-year-old human face fossil was found in Atapuerca, Spain. This fossil is important in the sense that it is no different from modern man. This reveals an undeniable fact: the human beings who lived 800,000 years ago and modern man are the same.
- An item published in New Scientist on March 14th 1998 tells us that humans called by evolutionists Homo Erectus were practising seamanship 700 thousand years ago. These humans who had enough knowledge and technology to build a vessel and possess a culture that made use of sea transport, can hardly be called primitive.
- Near Lake Turkana, Kenya, a fossil of a child with an upright skeletal structure has been found which is no different from that of modern man. Concerning this fossil of a Homo Erectus specimen, paleoanthropologists share a common view. American paleontologist Alan Walker stated that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human."3
- Neanderthals were a human race yet evolutionists present them as "a primitive species." Nevertheless, all findings, including a sewing needle fossil dated 26 thousand years belonging to this race testify that Neanderthals, ten thousands of years ago, had knowledge of clothing.
Never plead ignorance of the fact that these men, who lived hundreds of thousands of years ago, practised seamanship and had knowledge of clothing, and had a skeletal structure no different from modern man, are presented as "primitive men" and that these efforts are vain.
About the origin of man, evolutionists arrange ape-like "transitional forms" and call the resulting sequence "the imaginary family tree of man." According to evolutionists, the origin of man was from an ape who later acquired the traits of man.
This family tree of man is completely imaginary. To have a better understanding of the imaginary nature of this arrangement, it is sufficient to examine evolutionists' alleged basis for this story.
Sometimes a skull, jaw-bone or single tooth has been the spark of inspiration for evolutionists to arrange these "transitional forms." Relying on a bone, it is nevertheless not possible to picture the physical appearance of a living being, and certainly not the family tree of the same living being. That is however exactly what evolutionists dare to do. Relying on a single bone, they put forth imaginary yet quite detailed scenarios about living beings and from them form family trees.
Apart from these imaginary family trees, evolutionists develop incomprehensible scenarios from a single bone. For instance, pictures of ape-like men with their ape-like spouses and children sitting next to a fire have been published in various publications for decades. These publications are all products of evolutionists' subjective interpretation. This is the way to indoctrinate people into believing the existence of half-ape, half-human creatures in history. Detailed pictures depicting these imaginary creatures walking with their families, hunting, or in other moments of their daily lives are surely figments of the imagination and have no counterpart in the fossil record.
So far, we have examined that the theory of evolution has no scientific ground. Yet, there is another fact that is more obvious than the rest. This OBVIOUS fact is the following:
The living being we call "the human being" is a composition of atoms of phosphate, magnesium, carbon and calcium, among others. These atoms have no individual will or conscience. Yet, to our surprise, these inanimate atoms come together to form a living human being. Moreover, this "composition of atoms" decided to attend a university, make a career and become, say, a professor. This professor, made up of atoms, decided to be an expert on microbiology and examine his own cell structure under the electron microscope. He may have decided to become an expert on medicine and treat diseases caused by viruses, also made up of atoms.
This is what evolutionists assert. They know exactly that the atom has no consciousness, yet, they further claim that atoms are assembled into beings which have feelings and which think.
Man is a being who has will and consciousness. He takes decisions, speaks and arrives at conclusions. All these features and functions of the "soul" make man different.
Never PLEAD IGNORANCE of the fact that even if all the parts making up a person could come together coincidentally, such a heap of atoms would not form the "spirit."
1. Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, New York: Summit Books, 1086, p. 127
2. Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984, p. 1485
3. Boyce Rensberger, The Washington Post, 19 November 1984