Muhammed Asadi

(C) Copyright 1997

Please note that this paper DOES NOT present in any way the Christian Creationists position on humankind's origin. The Koran does not set a time of 6000 years for the creation of the world, neither does it support the unscientific ideas in the Bible.This analysis is not creationist propaganda. It is based on established scientific facts and critical rationalism. The experts cited are authorities in their field and NONE of them with the exception of one, is a Muslim. Propaganda, like Richard Dawkins presents, in his books fits in the same category as creationism, which is pseudo-science!It does more harm to science and the scientific system than good. As the Koran states, "Truth is clear from falsehood", consider the contents with an open mind!

"Say: travel in the earth and see how God [Allah] originated creation..." Koran 29:20

To date:

I) No unequivocal scientific evidence exists in favor of evolution by natural selection changing specie types on a grand scale.

II) Darwin himself in his letters confessed that his theory cannot be demonstrated scientifically in any case [i.e. one species evolving into another] but it helps explain a lot of things [even the explanations he sought in the light of modern discovery are faulty especially concerning rudimentary organs].

Evolution is a pseudoscientific and not a scientific theory according to the very definition of a scientific theory. According to the Oxford Dictionary, for a theory to be classified as scientific, it must embody in itself facts within a framework of general laws.

The History:

In the 6^th Century B.C., Anaximander of Miletus introduced the notion of evolution in the Animal Kingdom. In the century after, Lucretius, in his book, "On Nature," seemed to favor a notion of natural selection that preserves the strongest species. Buffon (1707-1788) supported evolution but being afraid of challenging the established ideas of the day retracted. Lamarck in 1801, before Darwin, outlined his theory of evolution in his book, "Zoological Philosophy [La Philosophie zoologique] (Bucaille 1987)."

Lamarck theorized that the environment has a tremendous influence on living organisms as a result of which they change to adapt. The change he said is hereditary and is passed on to the next generation. The change would be of growing complexity when it was favorable and when an organ was not used it would atrophy (Bucaille 1987).

Lamarck was incorrect in his theorizing about the hereditary nature of newly acquired characteristics, however, his ideas provided Darwin with something to work on. Thus, Lamarck and not Darwin is the actual "Father of Natural [materialistic] Evolution [as against directed evolution] ." Darwin was also influenced by Malthus and bought into the theory of geometric increase in population. He makes mention of it in the introduction to the second edition (1860) of, On the Origin of Species (Bucaille 1987).

Biologists long before Darwin grouped animals together according to some similarity and relationship. Taxonomists, for example, before Darwin classified whales and bats as mammals and not fish and bird because in "essence" they had features of mammals. The difference between pre-Darwinian taxonomists and Darwin was that they attributed the similarity to a "blue print" existing with God and Darwin attributed it to a natural gradual change from one to the other. Thus Darwin’s theory explained (without empirical evidence) the similar structures employed for classification i.e. homology (Johnson 1993).

Evolution by Natural Selection happens in slow steps?

A slow mechanism of evolution as envisioned by the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection necessitates innumerable transitional forms. This was acknowledged by Darwin:

That natural selection generally acts with extreme slowness, I duly admit.... As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps (Darwin).

When objections arose as to why we don't find the intermediary forms in fossil records, the only answer Darwin and his supporters could give was that they are present but haven't been dug up yet. While it might have carried some weight in his day but today with so much paleontological excavations, whenever a new find is unearthed it belongs to a well developed isolated class or a class we are already well aware of, and can in not even one instance be classified as an intermediary that the theory of evolution would predict.

The isolation of classes in all of paleontology and in the observable natural world are absolute and transitions to particular characteristic traits are abrupt and the phenomena of discontinuity is universal throughout the living kingdom. Darwin's theory of Evolution failed in its attempt to predict reality.

Darwin's theory can’t be termed as a scientific fact. It deals with unique events, i.e. the origin of life, the origin of intelligence, the origin of higher species etc. Unique events like the ones evolutionary theory deals with are unrepeatable and therefore can never be subject to scientific experimentation.

However when theories like evolution become the "in-thing" in society they are given a very high "status" and it is expected that people accept them just at "face-value" even though empirical proof has never been presented or substantiated. The theory as such becomes a metaphysical dogma, an ideological norm. Questioning such a theory becomes akin to apostasy and is met with hate and emotion rather than scientific evidence. Consider for example the faith that Dawkins, the author of The Blind Watchmaker, has in Darwin's "church":

The theory (of evolution) is about as much in doubt as the earth goes around the sun (The Selfish Gene, page 1, 1976).

This is an atrocious claim. Darwin acknowledged that empirical evidence did not exist in support of his theory whereas empirical evidence exists in support of the earth going around the sun.

Richard Dawkins, the author of The Blind Watchmaker, by playing with his 64K computer, envisions proving evolution. It is amazing to note his ideas about "biomorphs" producing figures, which to his mind resembled insects and bats (out of a million zillion garbage figures). I can find a bat or an insect in a blotch of ink too if I look close enough. Do you know about the Rosach Ink blot test? I can even see a man in a patch of ink. The imagination fills in the gaps. The only thing the whole discussion on "biomorphs" proves is a vivid imagination and a force fitting of it to a theory.

Dawkins also overlooked, rather conveniently, the fact that any program involves the existence of a programming intellect that provides the information necessary to operate the system. The laws of evolution could not have originated the laws of evolution since even according to the theory they require a specific order and entities governed by that order.

Evolutionists and Neo-Darwinians classify cells as evolved. This is not true: 99% of cellular structures all across the species are identical. This figure is 100% for DNA. The only difference between cells is the "program" which instructs them on how to function. Darwinists have not shown to date how the cell with its irreducibly complex features could have evolved through successive corrections. Thus evolutionary theory fails at the basic cell level.

Every cell is programmed to function in a specific way. Even the ordinary computer user knows that a computer, with all its complex structures [hardware], will only function if it has been programmed. A fact that implies the existence of a programming intellect that provides the information required to operate the system [software]. This should surely lead one to consider the role of the Creator in life's existence.

"He [Moses] said [to Pharaoh]: `Our Cherisher (God) is He who gave to everything its creation then guided it." Koran 20:5

There's a genuine enigma, an ignorance faced by the medical and biological community throughout the world, the origin of the genetic code. It has not been demonstrated yet how the "increase in data," contained in the genes leads to complex structures.

"Say: `Is there any of your associates [whom you hold equal to God], one who produces creation then reproduces it?' Say: `Allah (God) produces creation then reproduces it. How, then are you mislead." (Koran 10:34)

The One who originated the genetic code has the power to reproduce it, to add to it or take away from it, which can be defined as DIRECTED evolution, and not Natural Selection. Whereas "Micro-evolution" is seen to operate in nature and which Darwin documented in his voyage on the Beagle, it operates within the same species. For example the variation in Finches that Darwin documented as well as the darkening of the color of the wing of the moth after the industrial revolution (i.e. pollution) so that it can better escape predators.

However this small scale cannot be applied to the whole class of living organisms with the conclusion that everything in nature has a common ancestor, i.e. primitive soup cell which was created by chance with no intelligence involved. There is complete lack of empirical evidence to support the notion that Macro-evolution works in nature based solely on natural selection. There is no evidence whatsoever which can prove that Natural Selection has transformed one species into another on the "grand scale (bigger than the intelligently directed separation of fruit flies, which nature didn’t change but human intelligence did)" of the natural world.

The flaw in Darwin's conjecture was that he translated evolution working within species without empirical evidence, into the concept of his General Theory of Evolution by which he sought to explain the origin of life on this planet. The mechanism operating within birds, to change their beak sizes for example, or the color of the wing of the moth are minute and microscopic compared to a change, say in cell to form a human brain. Natural Selection could never have achieved that even by a wild swing of the imagination. In a letter to Asa Grey, which Darwin wrote on September 5, 1857, he says,

"Ones imagination must FILL UP the very wide blanks."

Another thing, which Darwin overlooked, being really impressed with the new theory in Geology, of gradual change in the surface of the earth, was that Micro changes don't always translate into Macro changes. For example, the days to day weather changes that we experience are caused by different reasons than the Macro changes in climate, caused by the earth's journey around the sun. Also consider Geology, the Micro changes caused by weathering, sedimentary deposition, volcanic activity are different to the Macro changes caused by Plate Tectonics.

Consider an argument from language: In order to change this simple word "SAT" into a fairly complex sentence, "HE **SAT** ON THE MAT," we need an addition to information which is not contained in the word SAT. Natural selection cannot explain the origin of the new information. The origin of the genetic code and how it increases in information is an enigma to all biologists, Darwinian or non-Darwinian ( and there are many modern biologists who don't buy Darwin's ideas but there are NO modern physicists who don't buy into the fact of the earth going around the sun).

Explaining the addition to the information needed to transform a simple word to a very simple sentence cannot be explained by Natural Selection. Even to change the sentence: "He sat on the mat," to "He stood on the mat," we would need not a step by step change but a simultaneous change to keep the sentence stable given the criteria of English.

Step by Step Change:

He **SAT** on the mat

He **ST** on the mat

He **STO**on the mat

He *STOO**on the mat

He *STOOD**on the mat

Now count the transitory unstable "species" in the transformation. They come to a minimum of 3. Note also that sentence 2-4 are non-functional compared to sentence 1 and 5. According to the very definition of Natural Selection, which is supposed to preserve beneficial changes, the transitory forms don't work. Further in all the excavations of paleontology there is no shred of evidence of numerous intermediary forms, the number of which should be millions of times more than stable species according to the theory.

The facts support a simultaneous and coordinated change, the addition in information coming from an "intelligent" source, the originator of the Genetic code. As an example consider the evolution of the horse which took place on different continents under different conditions which would have yielded different results according to Natural Selection and not the uniform result we see.

Consider what the natural world shows:

Biologists today know that every organized being forms as a whole, by itself a unique and perfect system the parts of which correspond and function mutually. None of the parts can change one at a time as Natural Selection predicts without the whole changing or there is no harmony, the kind of harmony we see in nature. The isolation and distinctiveness of species and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature are self-evident. Paleontology doesn't find any evidence of innumerable intermediaries between species leading up to the perfectly adapted final. All they find is thousands of identical individuals that are distinct and isolated and functionally adapted and cannot be termed as intermediaries. Natural data supports the notion of gaps and jumps in the organization and complexity of species, and not unstable intermediaries.

The fossil record in the natural world consistently shows two things. Johnson quotes Harvard Professor Stephen J. Gould, a well-known evolutionist, when he explains this:

Stasis: Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited [like in microevolution] and directionless.

Sudden appearance [as against the gradual improvement and appearance]. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed. (As cited in Johnson 1993:50)"

Both these facts, well documented contradict evolution by natural selection. What keeps Darwinism alive and well in the hearts of modern day scientists is what keeps Christianity alive in the hearts of Christians, i.e. faith. There is no empirical evidence, no verification by scientific facts to back the theory.

Neo-Darwinians sometimes site the example of the Lung-Fish, which has the gill structure of the fish but a heart of an amphibian as an intermediary. This however is incorrect because of two reasons: i) Their theory doesn't point to just one but a million intermediaries. So there is not only one missing link but zillions of missing links ii) The lung fish cannot be termed as an intermediary because it is a perfect system: the gills/respiration works like a perfect fish and the heart like a perfect amphibian. There is no unstable intermediary "thing" in the lungfish which natural selection will correct via its zillions more intermediary stages. Neither do the gills show anything that is a transition between the fish and an amphibian.

Concerning the fish story, P.P Grasse, the eminent French Zoologist states:

What makes us particularly unwilling to accept the story of the little fish- the ‘Magellan of evolution’- is the fact that the boleophthalmidae and periophthalmidae (mud skippers) perform this very experiment [of trying to explore dry land, as the Darwinian story goes]. They scuttle across the mud, climb the roots of mangrove trees, and raise themselves on their pectoral fins, just as if the limbs were short limbs. They have lived in this way for millions of years, and although they never stop leaping about- awkwardly or not- their fins insist on remaining as they are, rather than transforming themselves into limbs. These animals are not really very understanding [of Darwin]" (as cited in Bucaille 1987: 56).

Consider the fact that nature's distinctions are clear. The group-type mammals for example, the Kangaroo, the mouse and the man all have the basic mammalian characteristics of hair and mammary glands and due to these and other common features stand distinct from other vertebrate (those having back bones) species. If Macroevolution were the case and a fact like Dawkins states then nature's divisions would not be so distinct but blurred just as evolutionary theory predicts. This is exactly what we don't find in nature or the fossil record.

How do you explain "Pan chronic" species:

If Natural Selection was a fact, just like the earth going around the sun, as Dawkins states, then how can you explain certain species which have failed to evolve at all even though they undergo mutations like all other species? The Pan chronic species stand as a challenge to Neo-Darwinism.

As examples:

1. Bees from the tertiary period are the same as today's bees. Consider the bee's sting which ensures its death (not survival). If Natural Selection was the law, why did not the bee sting evolve into something that did ensure survival and not death?

2. The coelacanth, caused great excitement when it was first discovered. It dates from the Cretaceous period, 130 million years back. They were thought to be extinct but one live specimen was discovered in 1938, which is the same as its ancestors. When it was dissected, its internal organs showed no sign of being pre-adapted to a land environment and gave no clue as to how it could develop into an amphibian (Johnson 1993: 76)

3. In plants, there is a living plant fossil known as gingko that has leaves unlike that of any modern tree.

4. The Lampreys are jaw-less fishes. If developing jaws was such a big advantage according to evolutionary theory, how come these jaw-less, lower stage fishes do so well? How come the intermediary stage between jaw-less and jawed fish died out (with no fossil evidence) but the original primitive jaw-less fish survived?

5. Bacteria although they reproduce and hence mutate faster should have evolved more if Natural Selection was the case. However fossil bacteria going back to 3.5 billion years are identical with today's modern forms.

6. Blue Algae, have been in existence for over one billion years, and are the same as today's algae. Also the opossum, which has been around for millions of years without evolving. Sponges and cockroaches, are good examples.

7. Fish lacking vision and also fish possessing sonar [sonic radar] systems and fish that "see" by electric fields live side by side at the bottom of the ocean. If evolutionist were correct then the blind fish should have been replaced long time ago by the other two yet they have survived side by side for millions of years.

"And how many an animal there is that bears not its own provision! Allah [God] provides for it and for you. He is the Hearer the Knower." Koran 29:60

Biologists state that evolution in fishes and humans have come to a stand still. If we seek an answer from Darwin's theory we fail to find one.

Excessive Evolution by Natural Selection?

If Natural Selection was a fact, then how come certain animals show excessive "evolutionary"

development if you accept the premise of evolutionary theory, that calls for better adaptation. For example:

i) The Irish elk with its excessive antlers which causes a hindrance rather than an advantage to the animal in question. Evolutionists say that the development of antlers was an "chance" benefit of Natural Selection. Why didn't Natural Selection correct it and prevent it from being excessive in the case of the Irish elk?

ii)There are Mollusks living on coral reefs the shells of which have become so over- thickened that they can hardly open them to feed.

It seems like in their case as in the many other cases that Natural Selection died as a natural law. However, the law that makes the earth go around the sun is uniform in all regions of the universe as regards bodies which move relative to each other. So much for Dawkins' physics.

Lack of Features?

Whereas the evolutionists are fast to explain why certain features appear in species, they never explain the lack of those features or why they don't appear in some. As examples, consider the cilia (motile hairs) which are absent in spiders and eel worms while they occur in a wide range of other creatures ranging from protozoan to man. Why are pigmented cells, which affect color changes to protect certain animals, absent from all warm-blooded animals. They would indeed be of as much advantage to them as to cold-blooded animals?

Variety:

If Natural Selection were the blind case then everything would have developed in one direction only. Just look at even the sizes of everything: Lizards- big like crocodiles and small; cats small and big like the lion; pigs, the guinea pig and the wild boar. Indeed the variety within species that doesn't serve any adaptive advantage has always proved challenging for evolutionists to explain away.

"And of His [God's] signs is the creation of the skies and the earth and all the variety of beasts that he has dispersed in them. And He is able to gather them whenever He wills." Koran 42:29

Variety suggests intelligently directed change:

That so many diverse forms of life and basically dissimilar body plans have in fact been actualized during the course of evolution on earth, supports the concept that the evolutionary tree of life on earth was generated from a unique PROGRAM embedded in the order of nature, and that was specifically arranged to generate through a myriad of unique and intricate transformations, the fullest possible plentitude of natural biological forms (Denton 1998:320)

Indeed, We created you according to the best organizational plan (taqweem) Koran 95:4

Artificial Selection is not the same as Natural Selection:

Darwin linked Natural Selection to artificial selection practiced by man, in influencing certain characteristics in farm or other animals [selective breeding]. Modern Neo-Darwinists use the same analogy. However there is are serious flaws in this analogy [as cited in Bucaille (1987) and Johnson (1993):

1.Artificial selection does not create new species, as is claimed for Natural Selection.

2.Artificial selection does not create new functional organs or a new organization or a new genus, as Natural Selection is supposed to in the "minds" of the Darwinists

3.Artificial Selection does not work using "blind" nature and chance but intelligence.

4.When animals altered by artificial selection are returned to the natural environment the "highly specialized breeds" die out and not the "weaker" ones that occur in nature.

Natural selection, which implies "Survival of the Fittest", is a circular argument that applies a tautology [a way of saying the same thing twice]. The theory predicts that the "fittest" will produce the most offspring, and the definition of "fittest" is the one that produces the most offspring. Thus what the theory is saying is: "The one that produces the most offspring [fittest] will produce the most offspring."

It is like asking someone, "Why does it rain," and the response being, "It rains because it rains." How this holds up as science is amazing!

Mathematical Challenges:

Mathematically: evolution via blind Natural Selection is an impossibility. For a worm to be formed from an amoeba, the alterations needed in its genetic code, would take 10 Trillion years to produce at the of 1 change per second (this is 500 times the age of the observable universe). The number of alterations in genetic code needed for an ape to evolve into a man amount to 3 X 10⁵²⁰changes. This is such a big impossibility that for example consider the volume of the entire universe in terms of the diameter of ONE ELECTRON-one tiny electron much smaller than an atom is 10¹²⁴ [Paul S Moorhead and Martin M Kaplan, Mathematical challenges to the Neo-Darwinian interpretations of evolution. Philadelphia, Wistar Institute Press].

The mathematician D.S Ulam argued that it was highly improbably that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations because the number of mutations would have to be so large and the time available not nearly long enough for them to appear…a French Mathematician named Schutzenberger concluded that " there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe the gap to be of such nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology (Johnson 1993:38-39)."

The Finch’s Beak:

A blind process like Natural Selection cannot explain adaptation itself. Any automatic system, which alters itself based on any stimuli, exists only if a need was previously recognized by a "recognizer" and apparatus to deal with it were provided. The ability to adapt is ingrained in the species by an intelligence that pre-recognized that such conditions could be faced by that species.

Go around a garden in the spring and see all the flowers growing and occupying the same niche. Some of them would have four or five or six petals. How can you prove the advantages of having four instead of five petals and so on? Why do they all flourish if natural selection ensures the survival of the fittest?

On one of the Hawaiian Islands, there are 300 species of Drosphilia, compared with only a half a dozen species in the neighboring Island. What this suggests is not slow sluggish natural selection but an "abrupt" genetic change quite different to the accumulation of minute changes as proposed by Darwin and his modern disciple Dawkins.

Competition or Non-competition:

The picture in nature of competition that Darwin envisioned is faulty also. His example of competition was that of a wolf. The wolf he said, that ran faster would kill more effectively and get the meat as compared to other wolves. Coming from a naturalist this conclusion is completely misleading. Wolves, it has been observed, hunt in packs and SHARE the meat. It is also a well known fact to naturalists that competition in the natural world is rare and animals have mechanisms like specialization of diet and defining of territories to avoid competition. Examples exist of fishes of various different species, recorded and video taped, which feed on the same coral reef in close proximity to each other without any conflict whatsoever. P.P Grasse, the French biologist studied butterflies and found no competition among them.

Evolutionists suggest that "wings" got developed as an advantage. If flight was such an advantage why do we see penguins trying to give up that advantage and return to its ancestral marine life, from which they emerged according to evolutionary theory?

Other valid questions that arise are: Who evolved from whom? In terms of color and art, the butterfly is much superior to the human. In terms of memory retention as a function of brain weight, the Dolphin exceeds all. The termite, smaller than an ant , in terms of warfare and the poison that it produces is much more effective than bigger-so called higher stage in evolution- animals. In terms of radar vision, the bat is unsurpassed.

"O humankind, an example is struck so pay attention to it: ` Those on whom you call besides God will never be able to create a fly even though they combine together for the purpose..... So weak are the seeker and the sought."
Koran 22:73

Self-destruct?

It is a well-known fact that certain conifer plants produce chemical compounds that irresistibly attract coleoptera which then devour them. The production of these chemical compounds is therefore responsible for the death of this plant. This process has been going on for millions of years. Where has natural selection vanished in the case of this poor plant. There are species of the antelope whose hoofs contain glands which secrete a particular odor, which as the antelope runs is left on the ground and makes the attacking carnivore track it. Thus, here is another case of Natural Selection taking a vacation.

Catastrophe or Gradual Extinction?

Evolution by Natural Selection implies a gradual extinction. The fittest survive and the weak are gradually wiped out. As a result it predicts the multiplicity of fossils showing intermediaries between the various stages of evolution [the famous "missing links"]. Not only does the fossil record not show gradual evolution as envisioned by Darwin, it shows sudden extinction that is a problem from Darwinism.

There appear to have been a number of mass extinctions in the history of the earth, and debate still continues about what caused them. Two catastrophes in particular stand out: the Permian extinction of about 245 million years ago, which exterminated half the families of marine invertebrates and probably more than 90% of all species; and the famous "K-T" extinction at the end of the Cretaceous era, about 65 million ago, which exterminated the dinosaurs and a great deal else besides, including those ammonites whose disappearance Darwin conceded to have been wonderfully sudden (Johnson 1993:57).

"If God wills He can destroy you and produce a new creation. That is not difficult for God (Koran)"

Homology as Proof of Macro-evolution: Not!

Darwin concluded that since similarities exist in organisms belonging to different species regardless of their habits of life, therefore all species MUST have a common ancestor. Indeed, homology, as he defined it, was what he took most comfort in defending his theory.

What he might not have realized is that the above is "his" interpretation of homology and not a strong scientific conclusion. If I see the Mercedes insignia on all different models of Mercedes, would I conclude that they all have a common ancestor? No, I would conclude that they have the same manufacturer, who builds them according to a blue print and leaves and signs his name. Darwin's conclusion was at best subjective. I could say that the Creator has a pattern or method of creation, his signature that proves one as against many creators. Why would my conclusion be wrong?

Invoking homology is taking refuge in a philosophical argument. If Darwinism is to be seen as a science, it has to provide empirical evidence. Long before Darwin, taxonomists had recognized the idea of homology, their philosophical explanation was different but philosophically it was as sound as Darwin’s explanation. We need empirical evidence to take a theory from the realm of philosophy to the level of science. Darwin acknowledged that empirical evidence was missing in the case of his theory but then when objections arose he resorted to rhetorical rebuttals, having nothing to do with empirical scientific evidence.

The homology that Darwin pointed out was based on the pentadectyl (5 fingers) pattern of the hind limb, showing similarities in the early embryo of the Kangaroo, who uses these for jumping, in the Koala who uses them for leaf eating and others. Darwin had no idea of genetics, advances in which were made much after his passing away. If it was shown that homologous genes specified homologous structures and if embryological research showed that homologous structures followed similar development patters then he might have had a case. However, it has been clearly shown today that homologous structures are inspired by non-homologous genetic systems. The origin of homologous structures is not homologous at all. In embryology the difference between the division of egg to the blastula and the blastula itself is very different when compared between amphibian, reptile and mammal. Also the way in which the gastrula gets formed. If classification was done solely on embryology then these structures could never have been termed homologous since they are arrived at by different routes.

Consider another example from botany: Conifers and Angiosperms are considered as homologous but they differ markedly in the way the ovule and the endosperm forms. Darwin was completely wrong when he suggested in his definition of homology as, "relationship between parts which result from their development from corresponding embryonic parts (The Origin of Species, 492)."

De Beer, British embryologist and the Director of the British Natural History Museum, in his article, Homology the Unresolved Problem (1971:15) writes:

Homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes and homology of phenotype doesn't imply similarity of genotype.

Almost every gene that has been studied in animals has been found to affect more than one organ system. A multiple effect known as PLEIOTROPY. What really kills Darwinism and his homology argument is that PLEIOTROPHIC effects are invariably SPECIES SPECIFIC. Also according to basic biochemical design no species can be thought of as being primitive and ancestral with respect to any other species. How biochemical systems evolved remains a mystery and a "area of silence" for Darwinians. There is almost complete silence in biochemical literature and journals discussing the evolutionary pathway leading to the development of biochemical systems (Behe 1996).

Although it is true that vertebrates all pass through an embryonic stage at which they resemble each other, in fact they develop to this stage very differently. After a vertebrate egg is fertilized, it undergoes cell divisions and cell movements characteristic of its class: fishes follow one pattern, amphibians another one, birds yet another, and mammals still another. The differences cannot be explained as larval adaptations, since these early stages occur before the larvae form and thus are apparently not exposed to natural selection (Johnson 1993:73)

Darwin's subjective argument concerning homology (which he considered one of his strongest cases for evolution by natural selection) is further disproved by the existence of homologous phenotypes that can by no stretch of the imagination be attributed to a common ancestor via Natural Selection. Consider the forelimb, which in the early development is also based on the pentadectyl patter and cannot be distinguished from the hind limb. Yet it cannot be said that the hind limb evolved from the fore or vice versa. According to evolutionary theory, the forelimb arose from the pectoral fin of the fish and the hind from the pelvic fin, and also the final structure in adults of the fore and the hind are markedly different.

Evolutionists tend to judge overall similarity on terms of skeletal anatomy [especially when they suggest the evolution of the mammals from reptiles, Therapsida]. This however is faulty. There is for example an almost identical convergence between the marsupial and the placental dogs of Australia. They are incredibly similar in gross appearance and skeletal structure, teeth, skull etc. So similar in fact that only a skilled zoologist can distinguish between them. Yet in terms of their soft anatomy, there is an enormous difference between the two. Also consider the case of the whales, fish and ichthyosaurs, the similarity of forelimb of mole and the insect mole cricket, the design of the eye of the invertebrates and cephalopods and the cochlea in birds and mammals. However these small similarities do not imply any close biological relationship at all!

There is not one iota of evidence to suggest that one species of hominid evolved into another via Natural Selection. The existence (of some hominid species) has been determined, one species disappears and the other SUCCEEDS it. There is however no scientific evidence to defend the theory that man [Homo Sapiens] are descended from the lineage of the great apes, via blind Natural Selection.

"If (God) wills, He destroys you and in your place appoints whom He wills as successors just as He brought you forth from the descendants of other peoples." Koran 6:133

"Indeed, We created them and strengthened them. And when We willed, We replaced them completely by people of the same kind." Koran 76:28

The waves of hominids appear as SUCCESSORS one of the other. They represent stages [or phases] in succession each one showing a progression in intelligence and psychical powers- an increasingly sophisticated organization of the brain.

"And He [God] created you in stages [or phases]." Koran 71:14

Neo-Darwinians claim that birds evolved from reptiles. However the facts point out that whenever we have ever uncovered the first representatives of a group for example the bird, the fossil records show a construction which is highly specialized and completely characteristic of the whole group. The fact is that every single flying bird from the Archaeopteryx on has possessed highly developed aerofoil (flight wings) containing fully developed flight feathers. It shows that the one who designed these has a full awareness of the laws of aerodynamics. Blind, natural selection based on survival of the fittest could never achieve this. The sudden origin of the angiosperm for example and the first animals in Cambrian rocks has baffled biologists.

So big is the gap between species, that not only is there no empirical evidence linking the species but also transitional hypothetical intermediary groups cannot even be constructed by Neo-Darwinians. Considering these facts it is a surprise that the scientific community even listens to them. But it has become a ideological matter to them, so they have to listen.

Evolutionists say that the purpose of evolution is to attain survival adaptation. Adaptation, without any intelligence involved, based on random chance doesn't make any sense at all. The concept of what is "functional" has to be defined [using intelligence] and then strides towards reaching that goal made. Without putting "intelligence" in the picture, this journey to perfect adaptation makes no sense at all.

As an example, take the claim that birds evolved from reptiles and the reptile scale led to the development of the highly specialized wing of the bird. Some Darwinians suggest that the wing developed out of an intermediary structure of "gliding" device. They don't realize however that according to their theory a need must be met for "further" improvement by natural selection to ensure survival. It was a gliding device, then to be a good gliding device it had to have as a principle air trapping by making the surface area big. Any fraying of the reptile scales in a move towards wings would make them pervious to the air and much less useful as gliding devices. Being aware of this problem some Darwinians have suggested that the wing developed out of insect eating reptiles having a need to "net" the insects with their scales, which led to the formation of wings. Any net however has to be pervious to air for it to be useful. Any wings pervious to air would be useless for flight. You cannot have it both ways.

Evolutionists pointed to organs, which they termed as useless in the human body as evidence of remains from a lower evolutionary form. However those same organs that they pointed to as being useless [Thymus, pineal gland, Tonsils, the appendix] have all been shown to be very useful in the human body according to modern research, playing a big role even in the human body's fight against cancer[For further information see Asadi 1992: 73-74].

Darwin Falsified:

On Page 182 of the Origin of Species, Darwin writes:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, MY THEORY WOULD ABSOLUTELY BREAK DOWN".

Consider a modern day disciple of Darwin, Dawkins, on page 91 of his book, "The Blind Watchmaker," writes,

"I do not believe that such a case (of a complex organ that can't be produced by slight modification) will ever be found. If it is..., I shall cease to believe in Darwinism.

Now consider these examples among the numerous that exist:

The flight feather of the Bird:

"Have you not seen the Birds that are subjected (to God's command) in the air of the sky? Surely in this are signs for a people who confirm." (Koran 16:79)

Each wing of every species of bird consists of a central shaft carrying a series of barbs, which are positioned at right angles to the shaft to form a vane. The wing is designed by someone who is well aware of the laws of aerodynamics and the problems that might arise during flight. One of the problems of all aerofoils is turbulence, which reduces lift and causes stalling. Turbulence is cut down by providing slots in the aerofoil to let through part of the air stream and smooth the flow. Aero-engineers use this same principle in designing airplanes. Surprisingly enough, the wings of the birds have this already built in. Consider the flight of the hummingbird to appreciate how complex the properties of the feathered aerofoil really is.

Just how the scales of reptiles led to the development via blind natural selection, to such a complex structure as the wing remains an enigma to biologists. No one has come close even to describing the stages (intermediary) and what functionality they would serve and how they would arise. We are thus at an absence of even a theoretic basis for such a 'fantastic' idea.

Bird Respiration

Not only is the wing that is unique and uniform throughout all species of birds, they have another unique feature and that is their respiratory system. In all vertebrates (those having backbones), air is drawn into the lungs via branching tubes which end in air sacs. Therefore air flows in and out through the same passage. In birds however, the flow of air is unidirectional. The bronchi break down into para-bronchi, which permeate the whole lung and reconnect again to form a complete circulatory system. How such a system could have evolved via natural selection is simply impossible. The slightest alteration in functioning of respiration leads to immediate death. The system appears uniform in all birds in a fully functional form. We have yet to see any Darwinian set up a theory even of how this modification took place from the reptile. In the absence of even a theory on how it happened and absolutely no empirical evidence, we are justified to state that Darwin and Dawkins have been falsified.

The Bones:

Consider the construction of bones. Without them many terrestrial creatures couldn't support themselves against the drag of gravity. Their construction shows a unique design of spaces left for blood vessels and bone making cells. The major bones contain a cavity lined with a sheath, which generates blood cells. Without newer cells being made all the time we would die, as human blood cells have a life of only 120 days. The joints are another wonder with a lubricant, the synovial fluid. Nothing as complex as this structure can arise due to accumulation of chance mutations. It would require a burst of DIRECTED mutations, all integrated to a single end. Natural Selection cannot explain this or any other similar complex structure.

Immune and Blood Clotting Systems:

The immune and blood clotting mechanisms in organisms whereby foreign intruders are detected and the organism is saved from bleeding to death respectively, can truly be defined as "Irreducibly complex" systems. Just like a mouse trap wont work if any one of its parts is missing or is improperly placed, the system of chain reactions in blood clotting for example wont work if any part of the mechanism is crude.

Blood clotting works by turning on and off of proteins at precisely the correct spot at the correct time. If anything goes wrong in the process if the proteins are crudely made or improper inhibitors present, the organism would either bleed to death or his whole blood would clot and kill him or the clot would form at the wrong spot and block circulation and cause heart failure. How such a system could have arisen out of blind natural selection remains an enigma to this date to biochemists.

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, integrating parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning (Behe 1996:39)

Transcription System:

The protein manufacturing system of all cells requires the integrated activity of nearly 100

different proteins, all carrying out different but specific steps in the assembly of a new protein molecule. If only a small proportion of these were "crudely made" as evolutionists would suggests in the earlier stages of the cell, it is practically impossible for any protein to ever be manufactured let alone with a specific configuration of molecules capable of performing specific functions.

The translation system in a cell is completely dependent on accurately made proteins and an imperfect protein synthetic system is hard even to theorize. It would sound like an unintelligent and absurd hypothesis to a geneticist. Just how efficient enzymes could have been manufactured before an efficient translation system (as evolutionists claim) remains an enigma to them to this day and sounds like gibberish to the objective geneticist.

The bigger problem, even bigger than the one above is that the protein synthetic system cannot work in isolation but only in conjunction with other complex subsystems of the cell. Thus the origin of the replication mechanism cannot be envisioned via natural selection.

Behe concludes (1996):

Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature- in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books- that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred…., absolutely NONE are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations… (Behe 1996:185)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Asadi, Muhammed A. Koran: A Scientific Analysis. Lahore, Pakistan 1992

Behe, Michael.Darwin’s Black Box. 1996. The Free Press.

Bucaille, Maurice. What is the Origin of Man. Seghers. Paris 1987.

Coon, Dennis. Introduction to Psychology. 5th Ed, West Publishing Co. 1989.

Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.1984: The Free Press

Denton, Michael J. Nature’s Destiny. 1998. New York: The Free Press.

Darwin: The Origin of Species.

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. W.W Norton & Co. 1996.

Johnson. Phillip. Darwin on Trial. 2^nd ed.1993. Inter-varsity Press: Illinois.

Nurbaki, Haluk Dr. Verses from the Koran & Facts of Science. Ankara, Turkey 1989

Taylor, Gordon Rattray. The Great Evolutionary Mystery. Harper & Row, NY 1983

Koran- Translation from the original Arabic.

Encyclopedia Americana, vol 7, 1993.

CLAY: THE BEGINNING OF HUMANKIND

".....Indeed we created them (humankind) of BINDING (laazib in Arabic) CLAY." Koran 37:11

"...We BEGAN (emphasis-mine) the creation of humankind from clay (Koran 32:7).

"...We created humankind of dry clay of altered black mud (Koran 15:26)

Only in the presence of clay which is alternately dried and then becomes moist again (Koran 15:26) do long chains of organic molecules combine with each other to form nucleic acids.

Clay also acts like a binding magnet (Koran 37:11); clay ions attract matter and incite it to react. The trace elements we see today are the result of the evolution of just such ions. In clay and binding sticky mud, carbon and nitrogen atoms have negative valences C-4 and N-3. Oxygen, phosphorous and hydrogen occurring naturally in the soil can only combine with negatively charged carbon and nitrogen to form the basic constituents of the human body.

Clay also acts as a desiccator, removing water so that large organic molecules can be formed. Via God's will intelligent life evolved out of clay (Koran 32:7)

Acknowledgements:

1.Hubert Reeves. Professor at University of Montreal.

2.Joel De Rosnay. Ex-Director of Pasteur Institute in France.

3.Yves Coppens. Professor, College de France (co-discoverer of Lucy)

4.Dr. Haluk Nurbaki. Oncologist.

5.Dr. Maurice Bucaille. Surgeon, French Academy of Medicine.

JANUARY 1998

Muhammed Asadi

http://www.rationalreality.com

Artikel / English Articles
Halaman Utama   Terkini   Perpustakaan   Bacaan   E-Mail   Hiasan   Kalimat Pilihan   Keratan Akhbar
Penemuan   Soalan Lazim   Sudut Pelajar

Tulis kepada Pengurus Laman