Macro-Evolution Myth, The
Evolutionists refer to the variety or variation within species as “micro-evolution” and to the hypothesis of the formation of new species as “macro-evolution.” Evolutionists seek to give the impression that micro-evolution is a scientific fact that which everyone agrees on, and that macro-evolution is a result of micro-evolution spread out over a longer time frame. Above all, the point that needs to be emphasized is that there is no such process as micro-evolution.
As we’ve already seen, evolutionists try to create the impression that variation within species is an evolutionary process by giving it the name of “micro-evolution.” In fact, however, that this is an attempt to validate the concept of evolution by using an expression containing the word. Variation consists of the emergence of various dominant genetic combinations as a result of geographic isolation of individuals in a given species. But even with extreme variation, no new information is added to that species’ gene pool. Therefore, no such process as evolution has taken place. (See The Invalidity of Micro-evolution.)
The second distortion is the claim that macro-evolution—in other words, development of one species into another—comes about as the accumulation of micro-evolutions over a long time. Yet when one realizes that there is no such thing as micro-evolution, the supposed basis for macro-evolution disappears. If no such process as micro-evolution ever takes place, macro-evolution must logically be eliminated too.
Many evolutionist biologists have admitted that such various hypotheses based on these fictitious concepts provide no explanation of the origin of species. The well- known evolutionist paleontologist Roger Lewin described his conclusions at a four-day symposium attended by 150 evolutionists held at the Chicago Natural History Museum in 1980:
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No.24
Macro-Mutation Myth, The
Evolutionists’ inability to find any of the intermediate forms that they claim must once have existed led them to come up with new theses. One of these is the theory of punctuated evolution, which hypothesizes that the mutations necessary to form a new species took place, or that some individuals were exposed to intense, consecutive mutations.
One law revealed by Fisher, one of the century’s best known geneticists, on the basis of experiment and observation clearly invalidates that hypothesis. In his book, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Fisher states that “the likelihood that a particular mutation will become fixed in a population is inversely proportional to its effect on the phenotype.”25 In other words, the greater the effect of a mutation, the less chance it has of becoming permanent in a population.
In addition, mutations cause random changes in living things’ genetic data, and do not improve it. On the contrary, individuals exposed to mutations typically suffer serious diseases and deformities. Therefore, the more an individual is affected by a mutation, the less that individual’s chances of survival.
Professor Walter L. Starkey of Ohio University writes about these damaging effects of mutation:
Being bombarded by mutation-causing radiation, would be like shooting a new car with a 30-caliber rifle . . . Similarly, it would be highly unlikely that mutations would do anything other than damage you or an animal. Mutations caused by DNA copying errors would have a similar result . . . Mutations are harmful by a ratio of at least 10,000 to one. Radiation and copying errors do not produce new features that are beneficial. 26
Clearly, mutations establish no evolutionary progress, and this fact represents a major dilemma for both neo-Darwinism and for the theory of punctuated evolution. Since mutation is a destructive mechanism, the macro-mutations that are the proponents of punctuated evolution must have a macro-destructive effect on living individuals.
The geneticist Lane Lester and the population geneticist Raymond Bohlin describe the mutation impasse as follows:
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. 27
Experiment and observation show that mutations do not improve on genetic data but rather, damage living things. So it is clearly inconsistent for the proponents of punctuated evolution to expect great successes from mutations.
Malthus, Thomas Robert
The theories of the British statistician Thomas Robert Malthus were influential in shaping Darwin’s ideas that in nature, there is a deadly struggle for survival and that every living thing strives only for itself. Malthus suggested that food resources increased arithmetically and the human population geometrically—for which reason, he maintained, human beings were necessarily in a fight for survival. Darwin adapted this concept of the struggle for survival to nature as a whole.
In the 19th century, Malthus’ ideas were adopted by a fairly wide audience. Upper-class European intellectuals in particular supported his ideas. An article titled “The Scientific Background to the Nazi Racial Improvement Program” describes the importance that 19th-century Europe attached to Malthus’ theories:
In the opening half of the nineteenth century, throughout Europe, members of the ruling classes gathered to discuss the newly discovered “Population problem” and to devise ways of implementing the Malthusian mandate, to increase the mortality rate of the poor: “Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations,” and so forth and so on. 28
Under the “oppression of the poor” program implemented in Britain in the 19th century, the strong crushed the weak in the struggle for survival, and the rapidly rising population would thus be kept in balance. The struggle for survival that Malthus regarded as theoretically necessary led to millions of poor people in Britain living wretched lives.
Karl Marx, the founder of communism
Karl Marx, the founder of Communism, described Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species, which set forth the basis of the theory of evolution, as “a book which contains the basis of natural history for our views.” 29
Marx demonstrated his regard for Darwin by dedicating his own most important work, Das Kapital, to him. His own handwriting in the German edition of the book read, “Mr. Charles Darwin / On the part of his sincere admirer / Karl Marx.” 30
The American researcher Conway Zirckle explains why Marx and Engels, the founders of Communism, so readily accepted the idea of evolution after Darwin published The Origin of Species:
Evolution, of course, was just what the founders of communism needed to explain how mankind could have come into being without the intervention of any supernatural force, and consequently it could be used to bolster the foundations of their materialistic philosophy. In addition, Darwin’s interpretation of evolution—that evolution had come about through the operation of natural selection—gave them an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing teleological explanation of the observed fact that all forms of life are adapted to their conditions. 31
The social scientist Tom Bethell, who works at the Hoover Institute in America, explains the fundamental reasons for the link between the two theories:
Marx admired Darwin’s book not for economic reasons but for the more fundamental one that Darwin’s universe was purely materialistic, and the explication of it no longer involved any reference to unobservable, nonmaterial causes outside or ‘beyond’ it. In that important respect, Darwin and Marx were truly comrades. 32
The bond between Marxism and Darwinism is an evident fact on which everyone agrees. This link is set out in biographies of Marx, and is described in a biography of Marx brought out by a publishing house specializing in books with Marxist views:
Darwinism featured a series of facts that supported, proved the reality of and developed Marxist philosophy. The spread of Darwinist, evolutionist ideas created a suitable groundwork for Marxist thought to be understood by the working class in society as a whole. . . Marx, Engels and Lenin attached great value to Darwin’s ideas and indicated the scientific importance of these, thus accelerating the spread of those ideas. 33
On the other hand, Marx based historical progress on economics. In his view, society went through various historical phases, and the factor determining them was changes in the relationship between means of production and production itself. The economy determined everything else. This ideology described religion as a fairy tale invented for coercive economic purposes. In the eyes of this superstitious conception, religion was developed by the ruling classes to pacify those they ruled, and was “the opium of the masses.”
In addition, Marx thought that societies followed a process of development. A slave-based society developed into a feudal society, and a feudal society turned into a capitalist one. Finally, thanks to a revolution, a socialist society would be constructed, whereupon the most advanced social stage in history would be attained.
Marx’s views were evolutionist even before the publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species. However, Marx and Engels experienced difficulties in accounting for how living things came into being. That was because in the absence of a thesis accounting for living things on the basis of non-creation, it was impossible to maintain that religion was an invented falsehood and to base all of history on matter. For that reason, Marx immediately adopted Darwin’s theory.
Today, all forms of materialist thinking—and Marx’s ideas in particular— have been totally discredited, because in the face of scientific findings, the theory of evolution on which materialism based itself has been completely invalidated. Science refutes the materialist assumption that denies the existence of anything apart from matter, and shows that all living things are the work of a sublime creation.
Materialist philosophy is one of the oldest ideas in history, whose essence is based on the existence of matter, and nothing else. According to this creed, matter has existed for ever, and everything that exists is composed of physical matter. This definition of course makes belief in a Creator impossible. As a requirement of this logic, materialist philosophy has opposed all forms of belief in Allah and the revealed religions.
The supposed “scientific” foundation of materialist philosophy, which maintains that nothing exists apart from matter, is the theory of evolution.
Since materialism seeks to explain nature in terms of material factors alone and rejects creation right from the outset, it maintains that everything—living or inanimate—emerged without creation but by chance and then later assumed order. Yet when the human mind perceives order, it immediately realizes that there must have been an entity that performed the ordering. Materialist philosophy is a violation of this most fundamental principle of human intelligence, and produced the evolution theory in the 19th century. (See The Evolution Theory.)
We may also question the truth of materialism’s claim of using scientific methods. We can investigate whether or not matter has existed for ever, whether matter is capable of ordering itself in the absence of a Creator, and whether or not it can give rise to life. When we do so, we see that materialism is actually in a state of collapse.
The idea that matter has always existed collapsed with the Big Bang theory, which proved that the universe had come into being from nothing. (See The Big Bang Theory.) Therefore, the evolution theory—in other words, the claim that matter organized itself and gave rise to life—has also collapsed.
However, materialist scientists refuse to abandon their position, even though they clearly see that science has refuted the theory of evolution, since their devotion to this philosophy is so important to them. On the contrary, they seek to keep materialism alive by supporting the theory of evolution in whatever way possible.
The Big Bang, in which the universe began, is a phenomenon that refutes the claims of materialists and evolutionists and which confirms creation by showing that the universe had a finite beginning.
Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith, a professor of chemistry, sets out these facts in one of his books:
The eminent biologist Hubert Yockey agrees:
Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of dialectic materialism plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios. . .That life must exist somewhere in the solar system on ‘suitable planets elsewhere’ is widely and tenaciously believed in spite of lack of evidence or even abundant evidence to the contrary. 35
Stanley Sobottka, a professor of physics from Virginia University, describes the distorted nature of materialism:
This materialist dogma underlies the evolutionist propaganda that one constantly encounters in some of the prominent media organizations and well-known journals, as a result of such ideological and philosophical requirements. Since evolution is crucial in ideological terms, it is accepted without any debate by the materialist circles that determine the standards of science.
Evolution is actually not a theory that emerged as a result of scientific research. On the contrary, the theory was produced in line with the requirements of materialist philosophy, and was then made into a sacred taboo that sought to impose itself despite the scientific facts. As is apparent from evolutionist writings, the clear objective behind all these endeavors is to deny the fact that living things were brought into being by a Creator.
Evolutionists refer to this aim as being “scientifically objective.” Yet they are referring not to science, but to materialist philosophy. Materialism rejects the non-material, or supernatural. Science, on the other hand, is not obliged to accept any such a dogma. Science has a duty to study nature, perform experiments, and duplicate results. If the results reveal the fact that nature was created, then science must accept that fact. A true scientist must not defend untenable scenarios by restricting himself to 19th century dogmas.
Ernst Mayr, a well-known evolutionist biologist, is also the founder of the Modern Synthetic Theory of evolution, which—proposed by adding concept of mutation to Darwin’s natural-selection thesis—was given the name of neo-Darwinism. Therefore, Ernst Mayr and the other founders of the theory (Theodosius Dobzhansky and Julian Huxley) began being referred to as neo-Darwinists.
Ernst Mayr was one of the most significant adherents of the theory of evolution in the 20th century. He based his theory on mutation, and yet at the same time admitted the impossibility of this:
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.37
Mayr made another admission on the subject:
. . . 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.38
Mayr, an adherent of Darwinism, sought to cover up the gaps that Darwinism never could by means of claiming mutation. Yet the scientific impossibility of this can still be seen in his own admissions.
In 1865, following the publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species, the Austrian botanist and monk Gregor Mendel published his laws of inheritance, the result of long experiments and observations. (See The Laws of Inheritance.) However, these laws attracted the attention of the scientific world only toward the end of the century. Not until the early 20th century did the entire scientific world accept the accuracy of these laws. This represented a major dilemma for Darwin’s theory, which sought to account for the concept of beneficial characteristics, based on Lamarck.
But Mendel opposed not only Lamarck’s model of evolution, but also Darwin’s model. As stated in an article titled “Mendel’s Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin,” published in the Journal of Heredity,Mendel was against the theory of evolution. Darwin suggested that all life had evolved from a common ancestor, while Mendel believed in creation.39
David Menton, a professor of anatomy from Washington University, gave a lecture at the 2nd international conference titled “The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution: The Fact of Creation,” held by the Science Research Foundation on 5 July, 1998, in which he discussed the anatomical differences between bird feathers and reptile scales. He revealed the invalidity of the thesis that birds evolved from reptiles, and summarized the facts:
I have been investigating the anatomies of the living creatures since 30 years. The only fact I met during my researches is the flawless creation of God. 40
3. Young frog
4. Abult frog
Frogs are hatched in water, where they live for a while as tadpoles. They then emerge onto land, after growing limbs and losing their tails, in a process known as metamorphosis. Some people regard metamorphosis as evidence of evolution, but the fact is that metamorphosis has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
The only developmental mechanism that the theory of evolution proposes is mutations. Metamorphosis, however, does not take place through such chance events, but these changes are already programmed in the frog’s genetic data. In other words, when a tadpole is first hatched, it is already determined that it will eventually undergo a process of change and come into possession of a frog’s body suited to life on land.
Recent research has shown that metamorphosis is a very complex process controlled by different genes. In this process, for example, during the disappearance of the tail alo ne, “more than a dozen genes increase their activity,” according to the journal Science News.41
Evolutionist claims of a “transition from water to land run along the lines that fish with the genetic data for total life in water evolved by chance into terrestrial amphibians as a result of random mutations. For that reason, metamorphosis represents evidence that actually undermines evolution, rather than supporting it. The slightest error in the process of metamorphosis will leave an animal crippled or dead, so there can be no question of a random change. Metamorphosis must be completed in a flawless manner.
It is impossible to maintain that such a complex process, one that allows no margin of error, emerged through random mutations, as the evolution theory claims.
Micro-Evolution Myth, The
Evolutionists seek to account for differentiation within species—in other words, the emergence of variations—by means of an imaginary mechanism they refer to as micro-evolution. By accumulating over a long period of time, they maintain that small changes can give rise to macro-evolution, in other words the emergence of an entirely new species. (See The Macro-Evolution Myth) In fact, however, there is nothing to do with evolution here. Variation within species occurs with the emergence of individuals with new and different physical characteristics as a result of different combinations of existing genes, through cross-breeding of individuals. However, no new gene is ever added to the gene pool here. All that happens is that genes combine in offspring in new combinations. Since the number and variety of genes in a given species is fixed, there is a limit to the number of combinations that these can give rise to. In addition, variation within a species never produces any new species. For example, no matter how many dogs of different breeds mate together in different combinations, the results will always be dogs, never horses or ferrets. This fixed biological law has been proven through experiment and observation.
Interestingly, Darwin constructed the backbone of his theory on variations he imagined to be micro-evolution. But the advances in biology that gradually undermined Darwin’s claims also revealed that the variations he thought accounted for the origin of new species actually bore no such meaning.
The evolutionist biologs looked for an example of a useful mutation since the beginning of the century. Yet only crippled, diseased and faulty flies were existing at the end of their efforts. In the picture, a normal fruit fly's head and a mutated one that has its legs coming out of its head are seen.
For that reason, evolutionist biologists needed to distinguish between variations within a species and the formation of a whole new species, and present these as two distinct concepts.
By using the concept of micro-evolution, evolutionists seek to give the deceptive impression that variations can eventually, gradually give rise to brand new species, families, and orders. Indeed, many people with not much knowledge of the subject become taken in by the superficial idea that when micro-evolution occurs over a long period of time, the result is macro-evolution.
One often encounters examples of this thinking. Some amateur evolutionists suggest that since human beings’ average height has increased by 2 centimeters (0.78 of an inch) over a century, so all kinds of major evolutionary changes may take place over millions of years.
The fact is, though, that all variations such as a change in average height take place within specific genetic limits, and these biological variations entirely unrelated to evolution.
In fact, present-day evolutionist authorities admit that the variations they refer to as micro-evolution cannot create new genetic information and thus, cannot give rise to macro-evolution. The evolutionist biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz and Rudolf Raff describe this position in a 1996 article published in the journal Developmental Biology:
The Modern Synthesis [the neo-Darwinist theory] 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.” 42
The variations that Darwinism has regarded for a century or so as proof of evolution actually have nothing to do with the origin of species. Horses may be crossbred in different combinations for millions of years and different strains of horse may be obtained. Yet horses will never turn into another species of mammal, such as giraffes or elephants. The different chaffinches that Darwin saw on the Galapagos Islands are, in the same way, examples of the variation that constitutes no evidence for evolution. Therefore, the origin of species will remain a question that can never be answered in terms of evolution.
Miller Experiment, The
Stanley Miller's experimental setup
Research into the origin of life to which evolutionists attach the greatest esteem is the Miller experiment, carried out by the American researcher Stanley Miller in 1953. (The experiment is also known as the Urey-Miller Experiment, due to the contribution made by Miller’s Chicago University supervisor Harold Urey.)
Miller’s aim was to establish an experimental environment to show that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could have formed by chance in the lifeless world of billions of years ago.
In his experiment, Miller used a combination of gasses that he assumed had existed in the Earth’s primordial atmosphere (but which were later determined not to have existed in it), such as ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water vapor. Since under normal conditions, these gasses would not enter into reactions with one another, he added energy from the outside. The energy—which he thought might have stemmed from lightning in the primitive atmosphere—he provided by means of an artificial electrical charge.
Miller heated this mixture of gasses at 100°C for a week, while also providing an electrical current. At the end of the week, Miller measured the chemicals in the mixture at the bottom of the jar and observed that he had synthesized three of the 20 amino acids constituting the building blocks of proteins.
The result of the experiment caused great joy among evolutionists and was announced as a great success. Indeed, some publications went so far as to produce headlines reading “Miller Creates Life.” Yet all that he had actually synthesized was a few inanimate molecules.
With the courage they took from this experiment, evolutionists immediately produced new scenarios. There was immediate speculation about the stages that must have taken place after the amino acids’ formation. According to the scenario, these came together in the appropriate order as the result of chance, and gave rise to proteins. Some of these proteins, the work of still more random coincidences, installed themselves inside structures resembling cell membranes—which also came into being in some way, and thus gave rise to the cell. Cells gradually lined up alongside one another and gave rise to living organisms.
The Miller experiment—the basis for this scenario, not one single stage of which is backed up by any evidence at all—was nothing more than a deception, whose invalidity in all regards was subsequently proven.
The experiment performed by Miller to prove that amino acids could give rise to living organisms under the conditions of the primordial Earth is invalid in several regards:
1. Miller used a mechanism known as the cold trap to isolate amino acids at the moment they formed. Otherwise, the very conditions in which the amino acids formed would have immediately destroyed them.
However, there was no such conscious arrangement in the primordial world atmosphere. Even if any amino acid had formed in the absence of any mechanism, that molecule would have been broken down under the conditions at the time. As the chemist Richard Bliss has stated, “Without this cold trap, the chemical products would be destroyed by the [experiment’s] energy source (electrical sparking).” 43
In fact, Miller had failed to obtain even a single amino acid in earlier experiments in which he did not use a cold trap.
2. The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to replicate in his experiment was not realistic. In 1982, scientists agreed that instead of methane and ammonia in the primitive atmosphere, there must have been nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Indeed, after a long silence, Miller himself admitted that the primitive atmosphere model he’d used was not realistic.44
The American scientists J.P. Ferris and C.T. Chen repeated Miller’s experiment, using a mixture of carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen and water vapor, but failed to obtain even a single amino acid molecule.45
3. Another important point invalidates the Miller experiment: At the time when the amino acids were suggested to have formed, there was so much oxygen in the atmosphere that it would have destroyed any amino acids present. This important fact that Miller ignored was determined by means of uranium and oxidized iron deposits in rocks estimated to be around 3 billion years old.46
Other findings later emerged to show that the level of oxygen in that period was far higher than that claimed by evolutionists. And research showed that the level of ultraviolet rays reaching the Earth’s surface was 10,000 times higher than evolutionists’ estimates. That intense level would inevitably have given rise to oxygen by breaking down atmospheric water vapor and carbon dioxide.
This completely discredited the Miller experiment, which was carried out without considering oxygen. Had oxygen been used in the experiment, then the methane would have transformed into carbon dioxide and water, and the ammonia into nitrogen and water. On the other hand, in an atmosphere with no oxygen—since no ozone layer had yet formed—the amino acids would have been directly exposed to ultraviolet rays and been immediately broken down. At the end of the day, the presence or absence of oxygen in the primordial atmosphere would still make for an environment deadly for amino acids.
4. At the end of the Miller experiment, a large quantity of organic acids also formed whose characteristics were damaging to the structures and functions of living things. In the event that amino acids are not isolated but are left together in the same environment as these chemical substances, they will inevitably react with them and form new compounds.
In addition, at the end of the experiment, a high level of right-handed amino acids also emerged.47 (See Right-Handed Amino Acids.) The presence of these amino acids totally undermined the premise of evolution by means of its own logic. Right-handed amino acids are not used in living structures.
Finally, the environment in which amino acids emerged in the experiment was not suited to life; but on the contrary, was a mixture that would have broken down and oxidized useful molecules.
1.Water is added to the condenser, 2.Vacuum, 3.Water boils, 4.Reaction cell,
The artificial atmosphere created by Miller in his experiment bore no resemblance to that of the primordial Earth. For that reason, the experiment was regarded as invalid by the scientific world.
All this points to the concrete fact that Miller’s experiment —a conscious, controlled laboratory study aimed at synthesizing amino acids—does not prove that life could have emerged by chance under primordial world conditions. The types and levels of the gasses he used were determined at the ideal levels for amino acids to be able to form. The level of energy supplied was carefully regulated, neither too much nor too little, to ensure that the desired reactions would take place.
The experimental apparatus isolated so as not to harbor any element that might be harmful, or prevent the emergence of amino acids. No element, mineral or compound present in the primeval world that might have altered the course of the reactions was included in the experimental apparatus. Oxygen that would hinder the formation of amino acids is just one of these elements. Therefore, in the absence of the cold trap mechanism, even under those ideal laboratory conditions, amino acids could not have survived without being broken down.
With the Miller experiment, evolutionists actually invalidated evolution by their own efforts. Because the experiment demonstrated that amino acids could be obtained only in specially arranged laboratory conditions and with conscious intervention. In other words, the force giving rise to life is creation, not random coincidences.
The reason why evolutionists refuse to accept this stems from their preconceptions. Harold Urey, who organized the experiment together with his student Stanley Miller, made this admission:
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.48
This experiment is the sole proof that supposedly verifies the molecular evolution suggested as the first stage of the evolutionary process. Although half a century has gone by since, and great technological advances have been made, no new progress has been made on the subject. The Miller experiment is still taught in schoolbooks as an explanation of the first emergence of life. Evolutionists, aware that such endeavors will refute their claims rather than supporting them, carefully avoid embarking on any other such experiments.
Stanley Miller with his experimental apparatu
An American researcher, who attempted to synthesize amino acids—the fundamental building blocks of life—in a laboratory environment together with his supervisor, Harold Urey, at Chicago University in 1953. However, during the experiment, he distorted the primitive atmosphere hypothesized by evolutionists. This experiment, known as the Urey-Miller experiment, proved, contrary to what had been hoped, that life could not possibly come into existence spontaneously. (See The Miller Experiment.)
Missing Link in the Evolutionary Chain, The
—See Evolutionary Gaps
“Mitochondrial Eve” Thesis’s Inconsistencies, The
Popular scientific terminology is often used to apply an authoritative veneer to evolution. Evolutionists make use of “DNA” in just this way.
In addition to being present in the nucleus, DNA is also found in mitochondria, energy-production organelles in the cell. The DNA in the nucleus forms as a result of the combination of DNA from the mother and father, but the mother is the sole source of the mitochondrial DNA. Every human being’s mitochondrial DNA is therefore identical to his or her mother’s, and therefore, the origin of man can be researched by following this trail.
The “mitochondrial Eve” thesis distorts this fact by interpreting it according to the dogmas of the theory of evolution. A few evolutionist scientists have regarded the mitochondrial DNA of the first humanoid as the DNA of chimpanzees, by viewing as indisputable scientific fact the claim that the chimpanzee is man’s ancestor. Over hundreds of thousands of years, according to this claim, random mutations turned chimpanzee DNA into our present mitochondrial DNA. Starting from that preconception, they then attempted to determine where and when the present evolutionary family tree began.
The Berkeley University biochemists Wilson, Cann and Stoneking, who first proposed the theory, set out with fundamental assumptions that were impossible to prove:
1. The origin of mitochondrial DNA lies in hominids, in other words ape-like creatures.
2. Mutations must have caused regular changes in mitochondrial DNA.
3. These mutations must have taken place constantly and at a fixed rate.
Taking these assumptions as their basis, the researchers believed that they could obtain a molecular clock to show how quickly a species changed within the alleged process of evolution. In fact, the writers of the computer program to calculate that clock directed their research towards the result they wished to achieve.
The assumptions they worked on were claims whose existence could not be proven, of which no examples had ever been obtained by experiment or observation. Mutations, caused by degeneration of DNA, have only been observed to cause deformity and death in living structures. Mutations can never impart progress by raising a living thing to a higher level. (See Mutation: An Imaginary Mechanism.)
1. Mitochondria 2. Cell membrane 3. Cytoplasm 4. Nucleus 5. Lysozome
The evolutionist researchers developed a computer program that they hoped would camouflage their prejudices. They created their program on the basis of evolution, following the most direct and effective path. This, however, is an imaginary picture that conflicts with even the basic assumptions of the theory of evolution.
Many scientists who supported the theory of evolution agreed that this thesis had no scientific value. Henry Gee, a member of Nature magazine’s editorial board, described the results of the MtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) study as garbage49 in an article titled “Statistical Cloud over African Eden.” In his article, Gee stated that when the current 136 MtDNA series were considered, the number of family trees exceeded 1 billion! In other words, in this study, these 1 billion chance family trees were ignored, and only that one tree compatible with the hypothesis of evolution between chimpanzees and human beings was selected.
Alan Templeton, the well-known Washington University biologist, stated that it was impossible to set out any date for the origin of man based on DNA series, because DNA was highly mixed up, even in present human societies.50
Considered in mathematical terms, it means that it is impossible to determine mtDNA as belonging to a single human being in the family tree.
The most significant admission came from the authors of the thesis themselves. Mark Stoneking, from the team that repeated the study in 1992, said in a letter to Science magazine that the “African Eve” thesis was untenable,51 because it was clear that in all respects, the study had been aimed towards the desired result.
The mitochondrial DNA thesis was developed on the basis of mutations in DNA. But when the evolutionists looked at human DNA, it was unclear how they decided which DNA rungs had formed as the result of mutation, and which were original and unchanged. They had to start work from the original human DNA they claim must have existed. Yet the evolutionist deception here is crystal-clear: They assumed chimpanzee DNA as their basis.52
To put it another way, in a study looking for evidence that chimpanzee DNA turned into human DNA, the chimpanzee is taken as the starting point as the original prehistoric human. Right from the outset, the study is carried out on the assumption that evolution took place, and the result obtained is then depicted as proof of evolution. In these circumstances, the study is far from being scientific.
In addition, if an evolutionist researcher is to employ regular, useful mutations that he claims occurred in DNA in calculating the molecular clock, then he must also calculate the speed of these mutations. Yet there is not the slightest indication, in either the nucleus of the mitochondria, to show the frequency with which DNA was subjected to mutation.
In terms of its own logic, this thesis actually shows that once again, there has been an attempt to use evolution as evidence for evolution. Seeking evidence for evolution in DNA is biased research, based on the assumption that evolution took place in any case.
Why do evolutionists feel the need to pull the wool over people’s eyes in this way? The answer is clear: Because there is no scientific evidence to support evolution.
Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution Myth, The
To the question of “What is the source of the beneficial changes that cause living things to develop?” scientists meeting at the American Geological Association gave the answer, “Random mutations.” Darwin had given the same answer by adopting the concept of mutation, based on Lamarck. But with adding the concept of mutation to Darwin’s natural selection, the new theory that emerged was given the name of the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution.
This new theory soon became known as neo-Darwinism and its proponents as neo-Darwinists. (See Neo-Darwinism Comedy, The.)
Modifications are differences in living things that are not inherited, but occur within limited bounds under the influence of external factors. Reproduction between members of the same animal or plant species will not give rise to other identical individuals. The differences between them that are not hereditary are known as modifications—differences that all biological entities exhibit due to external factors, but which still remain within specific boundaries.
Though identical twins have exactly the same hereditary material, they never resemble one another completely, because it is impossible for environmental conditions to affect them both to exactly the same degree. The external factors leading to modification in living things include food, temperature, moisture and mechanical effects. But since any impact exists in the body only and not the DNA, it remains limited to the individual in question and cannot be transmitted to offspring.
Darwin had claimed that living things could turn into other living things under the effect of environmental conditions, but Mendel proved experimentally that environmental influences could not change living species and showed that heredity took place only within specific bounds. Darwin’s ideas remained a theory based on speculation, rather than on experimental evidence. But Mendel’s laws of heredity which is the result of a long and patient study and based on experiment and observation, went down in the history of science. Although they were roughly contemporaries, Mendel’s genetic studies were accepted by the scientific world only 35 years after Darwin. That was because the science of genetics, for which Mendel laid the groundwork, totally undermined the assumptions of Darwinism, but for a long time evolutionists refused to admit this.
However, scientific progress, obliged them to accept Mendel’s findings, and they came to see making minor modifications to their theories as the only way of overcoming this. (See The Neo-Darwinism Comedy.)
Molecular Evolution Impasse, The
According to the theory of evolution, gas molecules such as water vapor, hydrogen, methane and ammonia that represented the atmosphere on the primordial world were combined out by ultraviolet rays from the Sun, electricity from lightning, radiation from radioactive rocks and thermal energy from volcanoes. According to this non scientific scenario, the atoms that then emerged in new sequences combined together and produced the building blocks that would form the first cell.
These compounds were later transported to lakes and seas by rain. Organic compounds thus combined together and the waters of the Earth gradually grew richer in terms of these substances. The amino acids and other organic substances in this mixture then combined to produce proteins, carbohydrate chains and other increasingly complex organic substances. Because of their tendency to grow, the first large bodies that developed tried to absorb new molecules from around them. Thus bodies with more complex structures and organization, and capable of growing and multiplying, gradually emerged.
Although there is no consensus among evolutionists at this point, according to what most of them maintain, nucleic acids that also came into being outside, by chance, settled inside these bodies, known as coacervates. And when the coacervates’ organizational level had risen sufficiently, they turned into the first living cells.
In the above scenario, evolutionists admit of no conscious intervention in the formation of life from inanimate substances, and claim that everything happened as the result of blind coincidences. They point to the Miller experiment as the first step in the chance emergence of life from inorganic materials.
Today, however, it is recognized that the Miller experiment’s assumptions regarding the chemical make-up of the early atmosphere were incorrect, and Miller himself admitted as much. Despite all evolutionist efforts, it is clear that the theory of evolution has no scientific support, neither on the molecular level nor in any other area.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, from Cambridge University, says that no credibility can be attached to any explanations of the origin of life that are based on chance:
While many outside origin-of-life biology may still invoke “chance” as a causal explanation for the origin of biological information, few serious researchers still do. Since molecular biologists began to appreciate the sequence specificity of proteins and nucleic acids in the 1950s and ’60s, many calculations have been made to determine the probability of formulating functional proteins and nucleic acids at random. Even assuming extremely favorable prebiotic conditions (whether realistic or not) and theoretically maximal reaction rates, such calculations have invariably shown that the probability of obtaining functionally sequenced biomacromolecules at random is, in Prigogine’s words, “vanishingly small . . . even on the scale of . . . billions of years. 53
Thus the theory of evolution, which seeks to account for the origin of life in terms of chance, collapses at the very outset. Science clearly reveals that since chance cannot represent the origin of life, life must have been flawlessly created. Not only the first life form, but all the different life forms on Earth have been created separately. Indeed, the fossil record confirms this, showing that all the life forms on Earth emerged suddenly and with their own particular characteristics, and that they never underwent evolution.
Comparisons carried out at the molecular level show that living things did not evolve from one another, but were created independently. A great many other scientific facts besides the fossil record, the complex structures and systems in living things, and the lack of any evolutionary mechanism have in any case long since demolished the theory of evolution’s claims.
Nonsensical Nature of the Molecular Homology Thesis, The
Comparisons based on chromosome numbers and DNA structures show that no evolutionary relationship can be established between different species..
Evolutionists point to different living things having similar DNA codes or protein structures and interpret this as evidence that these species evolved from some common ancestor. For instance, evolutionist sources often say that there is a great similarity between the DNA of humans and apes, which they offer as evidence of an evolutionary link between the two. (See The Ape-Human Genetic Similarity Lie.)
First off, it’s only to be expected that living things on Earth should have DNA structures similar to one another. Their basic vital functions are the same, and since they all—humans included—have physical bodies, one cannot expect human beings to have a DNA structure totally different from other living things. Like other organisms, our bodies develop by consuming proteins, blood flows through their bodies, and we produce energy at every moment by using of oxygen.
Therefore, the fact that living things are genetically similar cannot be used to argue that they evolved from a common ancestor. If evolutionists wish to verify the theory of evolution from a common ancestor, they have to demonstrate a line of descent on the molecular level. Yet evolutionists have no such concrete finding.
In fact, when the data obtained as a result of the analysis of DNA and chromosomes belonging to various species and classes are compared, it clearly emerges that any similarities or differences are incompatible with any evolutionary logic or link. According to the evolutionist thesis, there must be a gradual increase in species’ complexity, and so is also to be expected that the number of chromosomes establishing this genetic information will gradually increase. However, the data actually obtained show that this is a mere fantasy.
For example, although a tomato has 24 chromosomes, the copepod crab—an organism with far more complex systems—has only six. The single-celled creature Euglena has 45 chromosomes, compared to the alligator, which has only 32. In addition, Radiolaria, microscopic organisms, have more than 800 chromosomes.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, a famous evolutionary theoretician, says that this unregulated relationship between living things and their DNAs is a major 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. 54
Again according to the evolutionist homology thesis, the number of chromosomes should be expected to increase as living things grow—and to decrease as the organism becomes smaller. The fact is, however, that living things of very different sizes and with very different structures, between which no evolutionary relationship can possibly be claimed, having the same number of chromosomes totally undermines the superficial evolutionist logic built on chromosome similarities between organisms.
To give some examples: both oak trees and Macaques monkeys have 42 chromosomes. The deer mouse has 48 chromosomes, the same number as the gorilla, which is many times larger. Another interesting example is that of the gypsy moth and the donkey, both of which have 62 chromosomes.
Other comparisons at the molecular level also offer examples that make evolutionist interpretations quite meaningless. The more protein strings are analyzed in laboratories, the more unexpected and even astonishing results emerge. For instance, while the human cytochrome-C protein differs from that of a horse by 14 amino acids, it differs from that of a kangaroo by only eight. Analysis of cytochrome-C has shown that tortoises are much closer to human beings than they are to rattlesnakes, even though both are members of the reptile family.
According to findings from molecular biology, each living class is unique at the molecular level, different from and independent of all others. No organism is the ancestor of any other.
Interpreted from the evolutionist perspective, this produces utterly meaningless results that not even evolutionists can accept, such as tortoises being more closely related to human beings than to snakes.
The difference of 21 amino acids between tortoises and rattlesnakes, which are both members of the reptile class, is significantly greater than that between representatives of very different classes. The above difference, for example, is greater than the difference of 17 amino acids between chickens and eels, the difference of 16 amino acids between horses and sharks, or even the difference of 15 amino acid between dogs and worm flies, which are members of two totally different phyla.
A similar state of affairs also applies to hemoglobin. The sequence of this protein in human beings differs from that in lemurs by 20 amino acids and from that in pigs by only 14. The position is more or less the same for other proteins.55
Evolutionists should therefore conclude that in evolutionary terms, a human being is closer to the kangaroo than the horse or to the pig than the lemur.
Dr. Christian Schwabe is a professor at department of biochemistry at Medical University of South Carolina and a scientist who has devoted many years to seeking evidence of evolution in the molecular sphere. In particular, he has carried out studies on the proteins insulin and relaxin in an attempt to construct evolutionary relationships between living things. Several times, however, he has been forced to admit that he hasn’t been able to obtain any evidence for evolution at any point. In one article in Science magazine, he writes:
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. 56
Schwabe’s research into relaxin produced most 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%) . . . Insulin, however, brings man and pig phylogenetically closer together than chimpanzee and man. 57
Schwabe states that his comparison of lysozymes, cytochromes and many hormones and amino acid strings revealed unexpected results and abnormalities from the evolutionary point of view. Based on all this evidence, Schwabe maintains that all proteins possess their same, initial structures, without having undergone any evolution—and that, just as with fossils, no intermediate form among molecules has ever been found.
Michael Denton bases this comment on results obtained from the field of molecular biology:
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.58
In short, the homological hypothesis that looks for anatomical or chemical similarities in living things and attempts to portray them as evidence for evolution has been invalidated by the scientific facts.
This is the branch of science that studies the shape and structure of organisms as a whole. With plants, it investigates the structures and common organization of the root, stem, leaves and fruits; and with animals and human beings, compares and analyzes their physical structure.59
Sub-branches of morphology include anatomy, the study of the visible internal and external structures of organisms; histology, the study of the microscopic structure of the tissues that make up organs; cytology, the study of the microscopic structure of the cells that make up tissues; and embryology, the study of all the phases between the fertilized egg (zygote) and the emergence of an independent organism.60
Comparisons between the homologous or analogous organs of living things are performed on the basis of findings obtained from morphology. (See Homologous Organs; Analogous Organs.) All living things with similar morphologies are regarded as homologous in order to construct a supposed evolutionary relationship between them. However, there is no scientific basis for this. Indeed, there are many examples of species that resemble each other very closely, but between which no so-called evolutionary relationship can be constructed—and this represents a major inconsistency from the point of view of evolutionist claims.
The Morphological Homology Myth
Professor John Morris is the director of the Institute for Creation Research and a well-known geologist. At the second international conference held by the Science Research Foundation on 5 July 1998, titled “The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution: The Fact of Creation,” he described the ideological and philosophical conditions behind evolution, the way this theory became a dogma, and how its proponents believe in Darwinism as if it were a religion.61
Using one-sided interpretations, evolutionists sometimes present living things as actually constituting intermediate forms. However, the fact that a species has features belonging to another living group does not make it an intermediate form.
For example, the Australian duck-billed platypus is a mammal, but lays eggs, just like reptiles. In addition, it has a beak just like a bird. However, its fur, milk glands and inner ear structure define it as a mammal. Scientists therefore refer to the platypus as a mosaic creature.
Such prominent evolutionist paleontologists as Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge admit that mosaic creatures cannot be regarded as intermediate forms.62
With its exceedingly specialized structures, the platypus also refutes this claim. (See Platypus,The.)
Mother Nature; An Irrational Concept
The intellectual movement that influenced Darwin—and encouraged him to look for an explanation for the living things he encountered other than one based on creation—was naturalism, one of the main philosophies of the 19th century’s atheistic climate. Naturalism was a movement that recognized no other reality than nature and the world perceived by the five senses. According to this perverted view, nature was its own creator and ruler. Concepts such as Mother Nature or clichéd expressions such as “Nature gave humans this ability,” or “Nature created this creature in this way” result from preconceptions placed in the mind of society by naturalism.
Evolutionists say that Mother Nature gave living things the features they possess. But nature consists of such familiar components as stone, soil, trees, and plants. It is impossible for these natural elements to perform conscious, intelligent actions or to program living things, because everything we see in nature has been created and therefore, cannot be their creator.
Since living things do not create the superior characteristics they possess through their own intelligence. Since they are born with these attributes, then there must be a creator who endows them with these features and who impels them to display such behavior. Almighty Allah is our Creator.
Breaks and shifts in the genetic data in living things are described as mutation. These affect and damage the DNA in the cell nucleus. Every cause giving rise to mutation—generally, some form of chemical effects or particle emissions—is known as a mutagenic factor.
Substances such as mustard gas and nitric acid may be given as examples of chemical mutagenic factors. X-rays or the radiation leaking from a nuclear power station are examples of radioactive mutagenic effects. Particles emitted from a radioactive element can cause damage to DNA. When high-energy particles strike DNA bases, they alter their structure, and usually cause changes of such dimensions that the cell cannot repair them. (See Mutation: An Imaginary Mechanism.)
A physically defective mutant lamb.
Mutant is the name given to any living thing, cell or gene that has undergone obvious changes in its DNA. Mutations are breaks and shifts that occur as a result of physical (for example, radiation) or chemical effects in the DNA molecule, found in the cell nucleus that carries genetic data. Mutations damage the nucleotides that make up DNA. The components making up genetic information are either detached from their locations, damaged or else transported to different sites in the DNA. They cause damage and other changes that are usually too severe for the cell to repair. Cells or living things subjected to such mutations—99% of which are harmful and the other 1% neutral or silent— are known as mutants. (See Mutation: An Imaginary Mechanism)
Although mutations have clearly destructive effects, evolutionists regard random mutations occurring in living things’ genetic structures as the source of the positive evolutionary changes that they assume took place. Yet mutations can never bestow a new organ or new characteristic on a living thing by adding new information to its DNA. They merely cause abnormalities, such as (on a fruit fly) a leg emerging from the back of the insect.
Can new information emerge as the result of mutations? Professor Werner Gitt responds to the question:
This idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information. 63
Mutation: An Imaginary Mechanism
Mutations are breaks and shifts that occur as a result of radioactive or chemical damage to the DNA molecule that carries genetic data. Mutations damage the nucleotides that make up DNA, or else cause them to change places, causing changes that are usually too severe for the cell to repair.
Therefore, contrary to what many people imagine, the mutations that evolutionists depend on are not, magic wands that lead living things to progress and perfection. Mutations’ net effects are harmful. The only changes brought about by mutations are of the kind suffered by the offspring born to inhabitants of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Chernobyl; in other words, death or deformity.
The reason for this is elementary: Any random impact on the very complex structure of the DNA molecule can only harm it.
These photographs show some of the damaging effects of mutation on the human body.
A process that cripples individuals or leaves them ill cannot, of course, give rise to any progress.
The American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan explains:
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement. 64
No examples of beneficial mutations have ever been observed. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver said the following about a report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, set up to examine the mutations arising as a result of nuclear weapons in the wake of 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? 65
All the mutations observed in human beings are harmful. Medical textbooks describe physical or mental defects such as mongolism, Down Syndrome, albinism, dwarfism and sickle cell anemia, or diseases such as cancer as examples of mutation. A process that cripples or sickens cannot, of course, be any evolutionary mechanism.
In a scientific paper, David Demick, an American pathologist, wrote this to say about mutations:
The reasons why mutations cannot support evolutionist claims may be summarized under three main headings:
1. Mutations are always harmful. Since they occur at random, they always damage living things. Logically, any unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will damage it, rather than causing it to develop. Indeed, no useful mutations have ever been observed.
2. No information can be added to DNA as a result of mutation. The components of the genetic information are removed and dismantled, damaged or carried to other locations in the DNA. Yet mutations can never cause a living thing to acquire a new organ or attribute.
3. For a mutation to be transmitted to a subsequent generation, it must take place in the reproductive germ cells. No change arising in any other cell of the body can be passed along to later generations. For example, an embryo’s eye may depart from its original form by being subjected to radiation and other similar effects, but this mutation will not manifest itself in subsequent generations.
45. 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.