Our Bodies’ Electrical System Refutes the Claims of Evolution
One frequently encountered evolutionist scenario is that human beings and apes being descended from a common ancestor. Through imaginary drawings and stories, the written and visual media encourage the myth that apes with a stooped posture gradually turned into upright walking human beings.
More than 6,000 ape species have lived during the course of geologic history. A great many of these became extinct and vanished. Today there are only 120 living ape species. But fossils of the 6,000 or so extinct species form a rich source for evolutionist tall tales.
Evolutionists have selected out the skulls and other bones of those ape species, from small to large, that most suit their purposes and have then added skulls belonging to a few extinct human races, to write the fictitious scenario of human evolution, which states that human beings and present-day apes share common ancestors. These creatures gradually evolved, with some giving rise to present-day monkeys. And another group, following another branch of development, gave rise to present-day human beings.
The fact is, however, that all the paleontological, anatomical and biological findings show that this claim is totally unfounded. There is absolutely no concrete evidence of any familial relationship between man and apes—apart from falsehoods, distortions, sleight of hand, and misleading sketches. (For detailed information see, Harun Yahya, The Evolution Deceit and Harun Yahya, Darwinism Refuted).
The fossil record shows that human beings have been human and apes have been apes right from their beginnings. Some of the fossils that evolutionists seek to depict as belonging to the ancestors of Man belong to old human races that survived until very recent times, until 10,000 years ago, for example. Furthermore, a great many human communities still living today have the same physical appearance and characteristics as these “extinct” human races.
Most important of all, there are countless anatomical difference between apes and human beings, and could not have come about through evolution.
The Evolution of the Human Brain: A Blindly Supported Darwinian Dogma
Evolutionists maintain that man evolved from some ape-like ancestor, and that our brains grew and developed during the course of this imaginary process. According to them, the growth of our brain is an evolutionary adaptation. Again according to this claim, random mutations and natural selection, with no purpose or objective, are responsible for this same evolution. The “fact” that Darwinists resort to most frequently to support these claims is the succession of skulls they have arranged, all in the light of their own preconceptions, from smallest to large.
Various sources constantly present us with this claim and imaginary diagrams. However, all the propaganda regarding the evolution of the brain is invalid. In fact, the skulls included in the illusory human family tree reveal no ordered progression at all, contrary to what we are led to believe. Moreover, the processing capacity in the human brain is very superior to apes’, and its design extremely complex. These abilities are used as inspiration by computer engineers as they develop new designs. The claim that such a sophisticated organ developed and “evolved” through random mutations is utterly ridiculous.
Firstly, it needs to be made clear that there is no direct correlation between brain size and functionality. The well-known linguist David Bickerton describes the situation:
The average human brain size is between 1,400 and 1,500 cubic centimeters, representing a range of roughly 1,000 to 2,000 cubic centimeters. This wide variation seems not to correlate with any differences in intelligence. There are people with brains of 2,000 cubic centimeters, like Oliver Cromwell, and there are people with brains of 1,000 cubic centimeters, like Anatole France. Was Oliver twice as smart as Anatole? The question doesn't make sense. Those at the lower end of the scale have as great a command of language and the same kind of mind and consciousness and intelligence as anyone else.83
Since there is no direct correlation between brain size and intelligence, there can be no significance to any claim of evolution based on cerebral dimensions. This shows that claims that the brain grew in size in response to needs is based not on any scientific observation or evidence, but on blindly supported Darwinism.
In addition, evolutionary scenarios based on brain size are also internally inconsistent. One major inconsistency is that so-called primitive humans possess rather large brains in comparison with the status of ape-man ascribed to them. According to the scenario, creatures living in an almost identical manner to apes have large brains, which contradict the logic of evolution.
Charles Darwin himself first identified this inconsistency.
In 1869 Alfred R. Wallace, a naturalist who developed the theory of natural selection together with Darwin, wrote to Darwin expressing his concern that natural selection could not account for the human brain:
Natural Selection could only have endowed [the so-called] savage man with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one very little inferior to that of the average members of our learned societies.84
Darwin immediately realized that this posed a threat to his theory, because the human brain he had branded as allegedly primitive was very much larger than that of the primitive man predicted by his own theory. In his response to Wallace, Darwin warned,
I hope you have not murdered completely your own and my child [the theory of evolution].85
None of the fossils discovered since then have eliminated Darwin’s fears. For these reasons, when asked why and how such a complex organ as the human brain developed in primitive man, the evolutionist paleontologist Richard Leakey replied, “I have not the slightest idea.”86
Skulls Laid out in Order of Size Constitute No Evidence of Evolution
The skull sequences drawn up by Darwinists to defend the evolution of the human brain actually constitute no scientific evidence. In fact, no evolutionary link has been scientifically demonstrated to exist among them. This link exists solely in the minds of those who set the fossils out in these sequences.
One authority to express this openly is Colin Patterson, chief paleontologist at London’s Natural History Museum. He has frequently made it clear that Darwinism is supported for philosophical reasons. In an interview, Patterson said that the series that people are so fond of portraying as having existed are actually nowhere to be found in the fossil record. He went on to say:
If you ask, “What is the evidence for continuity?” you would have to say, there isn't any in the fossils of animals and man.87
The inconsistencies in the fictitious family tree also appear in the mechanism suggested for the alleged evolution of the brain, with its complex structure and vital functions. Maintaining that so complex an organ could develop through a blind mechanism such as random mutations is meaningless. Radiation and mutation expert James F. Crow describes the position:
A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.88
The human brain has a far more complex design than that in the most advanced modern technology. World-famous computer companies hold seminars for their engineers about the organization inside the brain, and encourage them to draw inspiration from the brain for their new designs.
The late biochemist and science writer Isaac Asimov says this:
And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.89
Considering the perfection of the brain’s creation, the nonsensical nature of the claim that the brain is the work of blind coincidences is plain. Indeed, no evolutionist asked “How?” has ever been able to find a logical answer, and many have admitted that this scenario is untenable. For example, Henry Fairfield Osborn, speaking at an American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting, felt the need to say this:
To my mind the human brain is the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe.90
And he spoke these words in 1929, when we knew incomparably less about the brain than we do today.
The well-known biologist Jean Rostand says that no matter how long a time frame was involved, he still finds the concept of the human brain emerging through evolution impossible to believe:
No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these “slips” of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding adaptations . . . I cannot persuade myself to think that the eye, the ear, the human brain have been formed in this way.91
Lyall Watson, an evolutionist anthropologist, states that he doesn’t know how a human being with a large brain could have emerged in stages:
Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, tool making, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.92
This all goes to show that claims of the human brain emerging through evolution are based on no scientific foundation. They are merely imaginary scenarios stemming from philosophical preconceptions. To maintain that the human brain, with a design that no technology is able to match, emerged as the work of chance is equal to claiming that computers were not designed by engineers, but came into being by metals and plastics combining haphazardly together. A more consistent, logical approach would be to accept that since computers must have designers, then the brain’s infinitely superior design must have been designed, too. The evident truth is that the brain’s design is Allah’s creation.
Chance Cannot Ensure the Protection of the Brain
Since the brain controls our entire body, the slightest damage that might occur to it could give rise to irreparable consequences. Since a millimetric amount of damage can harm an enormous number of cells and connections, there would be serious repercussions in such fundamental processes as movement, perception and memory.
In the face of such possible dangers, however, the necessary precautions have been taken. The task of protecting the brain has been assumed by the skull of the required hardness, wholly surrounding the brain. No other organ in the body has been given its own separate protection in this way. Thanks to this effective precaution against possible blows, the brain can perform its vital functions perfectly. There can only be one explanation for the way that the bone cells are aware of the brain’s vital importance to the body, and come together to enfold the brain without inflicting pressure on it: intelligent Creation. Any rational person knows that such a design cannot be the work of blind coincidences.
Our brain’s very delicate system consists of nerve cells that function with electrical signals, support cells that harbor and feed these nerve cells, and blood vessels. These vessels filter serum from the blood, filling the spaces in the brain with that liquid.
From one point of view, the brain is swimming in fluid. Thus the weight of the brain falls to 50 grams (0.1102 pounds), 1/30 of its own weight (approximately 1,500 grams, or 3.307 pounds). This fluid in the brain is in a constant circulation, which also permits the pressure of the fluid to be controlled. Any rise in pressure means a rise in pressure on the brain, and thus to possible brain damage. However, the brain, which has both a very delicate structure and vitally important responsibilities, is protected by a variety of means within the body.
If the brain were not cushioned by this fluid but instead made direct contact with the skull, it would be crushed under its own weight, pressure would rise to very high levels and severely affect its functioning. Indeed, death could even result when pressure forms in one of the brain’s vital centers. Yet with the exception of incidences of sickness, we never encounter such a problem. In the condition known as hydrocephalus, for example, fluid in the brain starts to accumulate as a result of a circulatory defect, and the resulting pressure impacts on brain function. Unless this fluid is drained off through surgery, the increasing pressure results in mental retardation, problems of coordination, blindness, or even death. Conversely, when the pressure of the fluid in the brain falls to below-normal levels, this causes intense headaches, and the brain again starts to suffer damage.
Another example of this protection is the system that meets the brain’s requirements for blood. Since the brain controls all the processes in the body, it therefore requires a steady supply of blood. Its blood flow must be maintained at no matter what cost, and this vital need is met with an extraordinary supervision. Even if the blood supply to all other organs is cut off as a result of hemorrhaging, various nerves go into operation to transmit blood to the brain, and the diameters of the blood vessels are adjusted accordingly. Blood vessels leading to a number of organs are temporarily shut down, and the blood flow is redirected to those arteries leading to the brain.
Faced with these miraculous facts, evolutionists cannot offer any consistent explanation for their claims that the brain developed gradually. They therefore expand on their fairy tale-like explanations, uttering hints that the brain needed to be protected and that coincidence responded to that need. It’s of course impossible for unconscious coincidences to determine any such need and to give rise to such an extraordinary solution as a protective skull. Evolutionists who maintain that the skull emerged by chance for protective purposes also need to explain how it was protected until such time as the skull came into being. It is out of question for a brain without a skull to survive or to fulfill its many functions.
Assume that the opposite was actually the case: that according to the evolutionary scenario, first the skull formed and then a brain formed by chance inside it. As we know, evolution maintains that everything is determined by needs, and that these needs are met by chance. It is impossible for an organ or system with no function to come into being. That being so, chance must have seen into the future and anticipated the brain’s delicate nature and the protective skull must therefore have come into being at the same time. No logical person could ever believe such a thing.
No matter how impossible it might be, according to evolutionists’ imaginary scenarios, the brain developed in stages. One would therefore expect the skull to develop in accord with those stages. Yet all the fossil skulls in the world exhibit their most fully advanced states. No partly formed or semi-developed skull has ever been excavated.
In order for evolutionist hypotheses to be valid, we must assume that coincidences could think, take precautions and plan ahead, and that they constitute a superior power in their own right. Despite having come into being at random, evolutionists’ coincidences must be literally conscious, and everything they do is planned. These coincidences can think of details even beyond the abilities of human beings, and act with foresight. Moreover, the coincidences in evolutionists’ dreams generally never make mistakes.
The world’s most eminent scientists and technicians cannot invent a device with working capabilities anywhere approaching those of the brain, even with all the 21st-century technology at their disposal. But evolutionists’ coincidences managed to build a communication network among billions of cells. It’s of course impossible to attach any credence to that claim.
Yet we are still being told tall tales about coincidences acting in a conscious manner, even though the invalidity of the theory of evolution has been demonstrated many times. Those who spin these yarns look completely ridiculous. It is impossible for the detailed creation of the brain to have arisen by chance. It is Allah, the Creator of all things, Who created these delicate balances within a flawless order.
We are reminded of this in the verses of the Qur’an:
O man! What has deluded you in respect of your Noble Lord? He Who created you and formed you and proportioned you and assembled you in whatever way He willed. (Surat al-Infitar: 6-8)