Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (2024)


Log in Upload File

  • Most Popular
  • Study
  • Business
  • Design
  • Technology
  • Travel
  • Explore all categories
  • Home
  • Spiritual
  • Darwinism refuted


Upload: noor-al-islam

Post on 04-Jul-2015




0 download


  • Download
Facebook Twitter E-Mail LinkedIn Pinterest


Darwinism refuted


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (3)

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (4)

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (5)

IInn tthhee nnaammee ooff GGoodd,, MMoosstt GGrraacciioouuss,, MMoosstt MMeerrcciiffuull

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (6)

About The AuthorAbout The Author

The author, who writes under the pen-name HARUN YAHYA, was born in Ankara in 1956.Having completed his primary and secondary education in Ankara, he then studied arts atIstanbul's Mimar Sinan University and philosophy at Istanbul University. Since the 1980s, the authorhas published many books on political, faith-related and scientific issues. Harun Yahya is well-known as an author who has written very important works disclosing the imposture ofevolutionists, the invalidity of their claims and the dark liaisons between Darwinism and bloodyideologies such as fascism and communism.

His pen-name is made up of the names "Harun" (Aaron) and "Yahya" (John), in memory ofthe two esteemed prophets who fought against lack of faith. The Prophet's seal on the cover of theauthor's books has a symbolic meaning linked to the their contents. This seal represents the Qur'an,the last Book and the last word of God, and our Prophet, the last of all the prophets. Under theguidance of the Qur'an and Sunnah, the author makes it his main goal to disprove each one of thefundamental tenets of godless ideologies and to have the "last word", so as to completely silence theobjections raised against religion. The seal of the Prophet, who attained ultimate wisdom and moralperfection, is used as a sign of his intention of saying this last word.

All these works by the author centre around one goal: to convey the message of the Qur'an topeople, thus encouraging them to think about basic faith-related issues, such as the existence of God,His unity and the hereafter, and to display the decrepit foundations and perverted works of godlesssystems.

Harun Yahya enjoys a wide readership in many countries, from India to America, England toIndonesia, Poland to Bosnia, and Spain to Brazil. Some of his books are available in English, French,German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Urdu, Arabic, Albanian, Russian, Serbo-Croat (Bosnian),Polish, Malay, Uygur Turkish, and Indonesian, and they have been enjoyed by readers all over theworld.

Greatly appreciated all around the world, these works have been instrumental in manypeople putting their faith in God and in many others gaining a deeper insight into their faith. Thewisdom, and the sincere and easy-to-understand style employed give these books a distinct touchwhich directly strikes any one who reads or examines them. Immune to objections, these works arecharacterised by their features of rapid effectiveness, definite results and irrefutability. It is unlikelythat those who read these books and give a serious thought to them can any longer sincerelyadvocate the materialistic philosophy, atheism and any other perverted ideology or philosophy.Even if they continue to advocate, this will be only a sentimental insistence since these books haverefuted these ideologies from their very basis. All contemporary movements of denial areideologically defeated today, thanks to the collection of books written by Harun Yahya.

There is no doubt that these features result from the wisdom and lucidity of the Qur'an. Theauthor certainly does not feel proud of himself; he merely intends to serve as a means in one's searchfor God's right path. Furthermore, no material gain is sought in the publication of these works.

Considering these facts, those who encourage people to read these books, which open the"eyes" of the heart and guide them in becoming more devoted servants of God, render an invaluableservice.

Meanwhile, it would just be a waste of time and energy to propagate other books which createconfusion in peoples' minds, lead man into ideological chaos, and which, clearly have no strong andprecise effects in removing the doubts in peoples' hearts, as also verified from previous experience.It is apparent that it is impossible for books devised to emphasize the author's literary power ratherthan the noble goal of saving people from loss of faith, to have such a great effect. Those who doubtthis can readily see that the sole aim of Harun Yahya's books is to overcome disbelief and todisseminate the moral values of the Qur'an. The success, impact and sincerity this service hasattained are manifest in the reader's conviction.

One point needs to be kept in mind: The main reason for the continuing cruelty and conflict,and all the ordeals the majority of people undergo is the ideological prevalence of disbelief. These

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (7)

things can only come to an end with the ideological defeat of disbelief and by ensuring thateverybody knows about the wonders of creation and Qur'anic morality, so that people can live by it.Considering the state of the world today, which forces people into the downward spiral of violence,corruption and conflict, it is clear that this service has to be provided more speedily and effectively.Otherwise, it may be too late.

It is no exaggeration to say that the collection of books by Harun Yahya have assumed thisleading role. By the Will of God, these books will be the means through which people in the 21stcentury will attain the peace and bliss, justice and happiness promised in the Qur'an.

The works of the author include The New Masonic Order, Judaism and Freemasonry, GlobalFreemasonry, Islam Denounces Terrorism, Terrorism: The Ritual of the Devil, The Disasters DarwinismBrought to Humanity, Communism in Ambush, Fascism: The Bloody Ideology of Darwinism, The 'SecretHand' in Bosnia, Behind the Scenes of The Holocaust, Behind the Scenes of Terrorism, Israel's Kurdish Card,The Oppression Policy of Communist China and Eastern Turkestan, Solution: The Values of the Qur'an, TheWinter of Islam and Its Expected Spring, Articles 1-2-3, A Weapon of Satan: Romanticism, Signs from theChapter of the Cave to the Last Times, Signs of the Last Day, The Last Times and The Beast of the Earth, Truths1-2, The Western World Turns to God, The Evolution Deceit, Precise Answers to Evolutionists, The Blundersof Evolutionists, Confessions of Evolutionists, The Qur'an Denies Darwinism, Perished Nations, For Men ofUnderstanding, The Prophet Musa, The Prophet Yusuf, The Prophet Muhammad (saas), The ProphetSulayman, The Golden Age, Allah's Artistry in Colour, Glory is Everywhere, The Importance of the Evidencesof Creation, The Truth of the Life of This World, The Nightmare of Disbelief, Knowing the Truth, Eternity HasAlready Begun, Timelessness and the Reality of Fate, Matter: Another Name for Illusion, The Little Man inthe Tower, Islam and the Philosophy of Karma, The Dark Magic of Darwinism, The Religion of Darwinism,The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution in 20 Questions, Allah is Known Through Reason, The Qur'an Leadsthe Way to Science, The Real Origin of Life, Consciousness in the Cell, A String of Miracles, The Creation ofthe Universe, Miracles of the Qur'an, The Design in Nature, Self-Sacrifice and Intelligent Behaviour Modelsin Animals, The End of Darwinism, Deep Thinking, Never Plead Ignorance, The Green Miracle:Photosynthesis, The Miracle in the Cell, The Miracle in the Eye, The Miracle in the Spider, The Miracle in theG nat, The Miracle in the Ant, The Miracle of the Immune System, The Miracle of Creation in Plants, TheMiracle in the Atom, The Miracle in the Honeybee, The Miracle of Seed, The Miracle of Hormone, The Miracleof the Termite, The Miracle of the Human Body, The Miracle of Man's Creation, The Miracle of Protein, TheMiracle of Smell and Taste, The Secrets of DNA.

The author's childrens books are: Wonders of Allah's Creation, The World of Animals, TheSplendour in the Skies, Wonderful Creatures, Let's Learn Our Islam, The World of Our Little Friends: TheAnts, Honeybees That Build Perfect Combs, Skillful Dam Builders: Beavers.

The author's other works on Quranic topics include: The Basic Concepts in the Qur'an, The MoralValues of the Qur'an, Quick Grasp of Faith 1-2-3, Ever Thought About the Truth?, Crude Understanding ofDisbelief, Devoted to Allah, Abandoning the Society of Ignorance, The Real Home of Believers: Paradise,Knowledge of the Qur'an, Qur'an Index, Emigrating for the Cause of Allah, The Character of the Hypocritein the Qur'an, The Secrets of the Hypocrite, The Names of Allah, Communicating the Message and Disputingin the Qur'an, Answers from the Qur'an, Death Resurrection Hell, The Struggle of the Messengers, TheAvowed Enemy of Man: Satan, The Greatest Slander: Idolatry, The Religion of the Ignorant, The Arroganceof Satan, Prayer in the Qur'an, The Theory of Evolution, The Importance of Conscience in the Qur'an, TheDay of Resurrection, Never Forget, Disregarded Judgements of the Qur'an, Human Characters in the Societyof Ignorance, The Importance of Patience in the Qur'an, General Information from the Qur'an, The MatureFaith, Before You Regret, Our Messengers Say, The Mercy of Believers, The Fear of Allah, Jesus Will Return,Beauties Presented by the Qur'an for Life, A Bouquet of the Beauties of Allah 1-2-3-4, The Iniquity Called"Mockery," The Mystery of the Test, The True Wisdom According to the Qur'an, The Struggle with theReligion of Irreligion, The School of Yusuf, The Alliance of the Good, Slanders Spread Against MuslimsThroughout History, The Importance of Following the Good Word, Why Do You Deceive Yourself?, Islam: TheReligion of Ease, Enthusiasm and Excitement in the Qur'an, Seeing Good in Everything, How do the UnwiseInterpret the Qur'an?, Some Secrets of the Qur'an, The Courage of Believers, Being Hopeful in the Qur'an,Justice and Tolerance in the Qur'an, Basic Tenets of Islam, Those Who do not Listen to the Qur'an, Takingthe Qur'an as a Guide, A Lurking Threat: Heedlessness, Sincerity in the Qur'an.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (8)


In all the books by the author, faith-related issues areexplained in the light of Qur'anic verses, and people areinvited to learn God's words and to live by them. All thesubjects that concern God's verses are explained in such away as to leave no room for doubt or question marks in thereader's mind. The sincere, plain and fluent style employedensures that everyone of every age and from every socialgroup can easily understand the books. This effective andlucid narrative makes it possible to read them in a singlesitting. Even those who rigorously reject spirituality areinfluenced by the facts recounted in these books and cannotrefute the truthfulness of their contents.

This book and all the other works by Harun Yahya can beread individually or discussed in a group. Those readers whoare willing to profit from the books will find discussion veryuseful in that they will be able to relate their own reflectionsand experiences to one another.

In addition, it is a great service to the religion to contribute tothe presentation and circulation of these books, which arewritten solely for the good pleasure of God. All the books ofthe author are extremely convincing, so, for those who wantto communicate the religion to other people, one of the mosteffective methods is to encourage them to read these books.

It is hoped that the reader will take time to look through thereview of other books on the final pages of the book, andappreciate the rich source of material on faith-related issues,which are very useful and a pleasure to read.

In them, one will not find, as in some other books, thepersonal views of the author, explanations based on dubioussources, styles unobservant of the respect and reverence dueto sacred subjects, or hopeless, doubt-creating, andpessimistic accounts that create deviations in the heart.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (9)

HARUN YAHYANovember, 2002


How the Theory of EvolutionBreaks Down in the Light of

Modern Science

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (10)

First published 2000© Goodword Books 2002

ISBN 81-7898-134-3

Translated byCarl Nino Rossini

Edited byJames Barham

Goodword Books Pvt. Ltd.1, Nizamuddin West Market,

New Delhi-110 013Tel. 435 5454, 435 6666

Fax. 9111-435 7333, 435 7980e-mail: [emailprotected]


w w w . h a r u n y a h y a . c o m

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (11)

ContentsFOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

A SHORT HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12The Birth of Darwinism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13The Problem of The Origin of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14The Problem of Genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15The Efforts of Neo-Darwinism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17A Theory in Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

THE MECHANISMS OF DARWINISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Natural Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21A Struggle for Survival? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Observation and Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23The True Story of Industrial Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Why Natural Selection Cannot Explain Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Mutations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27The Pleiotropic Effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

THE TRUE ORIGIN OF SPECIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35The Meaning of Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Confessions About "Microevolution" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38The Origin of Species in the Fossil Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40The Question of Transitional Forms and Statis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43The Adequacy of the Fossil Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45The Truth Revealed by the Fossil Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

TRUE NATURAL HISTORY -I- (FROM INTERVERTEBRATES TO REPTILES) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

The Classification of Living Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Fossils Reject the "Tree of Life" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52The Burgess Shale Fossils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Molecular Comparisons Deepen Evolution's Cambrian Impasse . . . . . . . . . . . 59Trilobites vs. Darwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60The Origin of Vertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63The Origin of Tetrapods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Speculations About Cœlacanth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Physical Obstacles to Transition from Water to Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74The Origin of Reptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Snakes and Turtles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Flying Reptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Marine Reptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (12)

TRUE NATURAL HISTORY -II- (BIRDS AND MAMMALS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

The Origin of Flight According to Evolutionists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Birds and Dinosaur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89The Unique Structure of Avian Lungs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Bird Feathers and Reptile Scales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97The Design of Feathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98The Archaeopteryx Misconception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100The Teeth and Claws of Archaeopteryx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Archaeopteryx and Other Ancient Bird Fossils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Archaeoraptor: The Dino-Bird Hoax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106The Origin of Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111The Origin of Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113The Myth of Horse Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117The Origin of Bats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120The Origin of Marine Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122The Myth of the Walking Whale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123Problems With Superficial Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127The Surprisingly Lamarckian Superstitions of Evolutionists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128The Unique Structures of Marine Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130The Marine Mammal Scenario Itself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

THE INVALIDITY OF PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139The Mechanism of Punctuated Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141The Misconception About Macromutations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141The Misconception About Restricted Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

THE ORIGIN OF MAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147The Imaginary Family Tree of Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149Australopithecus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150hom*o habilis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154The Misconception about hom*o rudolfensis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156hom*o erectus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Neanderthals: Their Anatomy and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164Archaic hom*o sapiens, hom*o heidelbergensis and Cro-Magnon Man . . . . . . . . . . 169The Collapse of the Family Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170Latest Evidence: Sahelanthropus tchadensisand The Missing Link That Never Was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 The Secret History of hom*o sapiens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173Huts and Footprints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175The Bipedalism Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180Evolution: An Unscientific Faith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182Deceptive Reconstructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183The Piltdown Man Scandal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (13)

The Nebraska Man Scandal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189An Example of the Logic of "Chance" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190The Complex Structure and Systems in the Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192The Problem of the Origin of Proteins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195Left-handed Proteins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198The Indispensability of the Peptide Link. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Zero Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Is There a Trial-and-Error Mechanism in Nature? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203The Evolutionary Argument about the Origin of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205Miller's Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207Four Facts That Invalidate Miller's Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208The Primordial Atmosphere and Proteins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212The Problem of Protein Synthesis in Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213Fox's Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214The Origin of the DNA Molecule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216DNA Cannot Be Explained by Non-Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217The Invalidity of the RNA World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221Can Design Be Explained by Coincidence? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

THE MYTH OF hom*oLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228The Invalidity of Morphological hom*ology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229The Genetic and Embryological Impasse of hom*ology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233The Fall of the hom*ology in Tetrapod Limbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235The Invalidity of Molecular hom*ology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237The "Tree of Life" is Collapsing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

IMMUNITY, "VESTIGIAL ORGANS" AND EMBRYOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . 246Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246The Myth of Vestigial Organs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250Yet Another Blow To "Vestigial Organs": The Leg of the Horse. . . . . . . . . . . . 253The Recapitulation Misconception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

THE ORIGIN OF PLANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259The Origin of the Plant Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259The Endosymbiosis Hypothesis and Its Invalidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263The Origin of Photosynthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265The Origin of Algae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267The Origin of Angiosperms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273The Bacterial Flagellum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275The Design of the Human Eye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (14)


The Irreducible Structure of the "Primitive" Eye. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279The Chemistry of Sight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280The Lobster Eye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282The Design in the Ear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285The Inner Ear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287The Origin of the Ear According to Evolutionists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289The Reproduction of Rheobatrachus Silus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

EVOLUTION AND THERMODYNAMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294The Misconception About Open Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297Ilya Prigogine and the Myth of the "Self-Organization of Matter" . . . . . . . . . 298The Difference Between Organized and Ordered Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301Self Organization: A Materialist Dogma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304

INFORMATION THEORY AND THE END OF MATERIALISM. . . . . . . . . . 306The Difference between Matter and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307The Origin of the Information in Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309Materialist Admissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SCIENCE AND MATERIALISM . . . . . . . . . 311The Definition of the "Scientific Cause" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314Coming to Terms with the Shocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317Man's Duty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

THE SECRET BEYOND MATTER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321The Long Discussed Question: What is the Real Nature of Matter? . . . . . . . . 321We Live in a Universe Presented to Us by Our Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324How Do Our Sense Organs Work?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326Do We Spend Our Entire Life in Our Brains? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330Is the Existence of the "External World" Indispensable?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333Who is the Perceiver? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335The Real Absolute Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

TIMELESSNESS AND THE REALITY OF FATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343The Perception of Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343The Scientific Explanation of Timelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344Relativity in the Qur'an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347Destiny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349

NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352

INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (15)

nyone who seeks an answer to the question of how living things,including himself, came into existence, will encounter two distinctexplanations. The first is "creation," the idea that all living thingscame into existence as a consequence of an intelligent design. The

second explanation is the theory of "evolution," which asserts that livingthings are not the products of an intelligent design, but of coincidentalcauses and natural processes.

For a century and a half now, the theory of evolution has receivedextensive support from the scientific community. The science of biology isdefined in terms of evolutionist concepts. That is why, between the twoexplanations of creation and evolution, the majority of people assume theevolutionist explanation to be scientific. Accordingly, they believeevolution to be a theory supported by the observational findings ofscience, while creation is thought to be a belief based on faith. As a matterof fact, however, scientific findings do not support the theory of evolution.Findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict thebasic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science, such aspaleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomyand biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effectscannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes.

In this book, we will analyze this scientific crisis faced by the theoryof evolution. This work rests solely upon scientific findings. Thoseadvocating the theory of evolution on behalf of scientific truth shouldconfront these findings and question the presumptions they have so farheld. Refusal to do this would mean openly accepting that their adherenceto the theory of evolution is dogmatic rather than scientific.




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (16)


espite having its roots in ancient Greece, the theory of evolution wasfirst brought to the attention of the scientific world in the nineteenthcentury. The most thoroughly considered view of evolution wasexpressed by the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, in hisZoological Philosophy (1809). Lamarck thought that all living things

were endowed with a vital force that drove them to evolve toward greatercomplexity. He also thought that organisms could pass on to their offspringtraits acquired during their lifetimes. As an example of this line ofreasoning, Lamarck suggested that the long neck of the giraffe evolvedwhen a short-necked ancestor took to browsing on the leaves of treesinstead of on grass.

This evolutionary model of Lamarck's was invalidated by thediscovery of the laws of genetic inheritance. In the middle of the twentiethcentury, the discovery of the structure of DNA revealed that the nuclei ofthe cells of living organisms possess very special genetic information, andthat this information could not be altered by "acquired traits." In otherwords, during its lifetime, even though a giraffe managed to make its necka few centimeters longer by extending its neck to upperbranches, this trait would not pass to its offspring. In brief, theLamarckian view was simply refuted by scientific findings, andwent down in history as a flawed assumption.

However, the evolutionary theory formulated by anothernatural scientist who lived a couple of generations afterLamarck proved to be more influential. This natural scientistwas Charles Robert Darwin, and the theory he formulated isknown as "Darwinism."



Jean-B. Lamarck

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (17)

The Birth of Darwinism

Charles Darwin based his theory on various observations he made asa young naturalist on board the H.M.S Beagle, which sailed in late 1831 ona five-year official voyage around the world. Young Darwin was heavilyinfluenced by the diversity of species he observed, especially of thedifferent Galapagos Island finches. The differences in the beaks of thesebirds, Darwin thought, were a result of their adaptation to their differentenvironments.

After this voyage, Darwin started to visit animal markets in England.He observed that breeders produced new breeds of cow by matinganimals with different characteristics. This experience, together with thedifferent finch species he observed in the Galapagos Islands, contributedto the formulation of his theory. In 1859, he published his views in his bookThe Origin of Species. In this book, he postulated that all species haddescended from a single ancestor, evolving from one another over time byslight variations.

What made Darwin's theory different from Lamarck's was hisemphasis on "natural selection." Darwin theorized that there is a strugglefor survival in nature, and that natural selection is the survival of strongspecies, which can adapt to their environment. Darwin adopted thefollowing line of reasoning:

Within a particular species, there are natural and coincidentalvariations. For instance some cows are bigger than others, while somehave darker colors. Natural selection selects the favorable traits. Theprocess of natural selection thus causes an increase of favorable geneswithin a population, which results in the features of that population beingbetter adapted to local conditions. Over time these changes may be


Charles Darwindeveloped his theorywhen science was stillin a primitive state.Under primitivemicroscopes likethese, life appearedto have a very simplestructure. This errorformed the basis ofDarwinism.

A Short History

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (18)

significant enough to cause a new species to arise. However, this "theory of evolution by natural selection" gave rise to

doubts from the very first: 1- What were the "natural and coincidental variations" referred to by

Darwin? It was true that some cows were bigger than others, while somehad darker colors, yet how could these variations provide an explanationfor the diversity in animal and plant species?

2- Darwin asserted that "Living beings evolved gradually." In thiscase, there should have lived millions of "transitional forms." Yet there wasno trace of these theoretical creatures in the fossil record. Darwin gaveconsiderable thought to this problem, and eventually arrived at theconclusion that "further research would provide these fossils."

3- How could natural selection explain complex organs, such as eyes,ears or wings? How can it be advocated that these organs evolvedgradually, bearing in mind that they would fail to function if they had evena single part missing?

4- Before considering these questions, consider the following: Howdid the first organism, the so-called ancestor of all species according toDarwin, come into existence? Could natural processes give life tosomething which was originally inanimate?

Darwin was, at least, aware of some these questions, as can be seenfrom the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory." However, the answers heprovided had no scientific validity. H.S. Lipson, a British physicist, makesthe following comments about these "difficulties" of Darwin's:

On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less surehimself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled "Difficulties ofthe Theory" for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I wasparticularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen.1

Darwin invested all his hopes in advanced scientific research, whichhe expected to dispel the "difficulties of the theory." However, contrary tohis expectations, more recent scientific findings have merely increasedthese difficulties.

The Problem of the Origin of Life

In his book, Darwin never mentioned the origin of life. The primitiveunderstanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (19)

things had very simple structures. Since mediaevaltimes, spontaneous generation, the theory that non-living matter could come together to form livingorganisms, had been widely accepted. It was believedthat insects came into existence from leftover bits offood. It was further imagined that mice came intobeing from wheat. Interesting experiments wereconducted to prove this theory. Some wheat wasplaced on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believedthat mice would emerge in due course.

Similarly, the fact that maggots appeared inmeat was believed to be evidence for spontaneousgeneration. However, it was only realized some timelater that maggots did not appear in meatspontaneously, but were carried by flies in the form of larvae, invisible tothe naked eye.

Even in the period when Darwin's Origin of Species was written, thebelief that bacteria could come into existence from inanimate matter waswidespread.

However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, LouisPasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, whichdisproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. Inhis triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said, "Never will thedoctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struckby this simple experiment."2

Advocates of the theory of evolution refused to accept Pasteur'sfindings for a long time. However, as scientific progress revealed thecomplex structure of the cell, the idea that life could come into beingcoincidentally faced an even greater impasse. We shall consider thissubject in some detail in this book.

The Problem of Genetics

Another subject that posed a quandary for Darwin's theory wasinheritance. At the time when Darwin developed his theory, the questionof how living beings transmitted their traits to other generations—that is,how inheritance took place—was not completely understood. That is why


Louis Pasteur destroyedthe belief that life could be

created from inanimatesubstances.

A Short History

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (20)

the naive belief that inheritance was transmitted through blood wascommonly accepted.

Vague beliefs about inheritance led Darwin to base his theory oncompletely false grounds. Darwin assumed that natural selection was the"mechanism of evolution." Yet one question remained unanswered: Howwould these "useful traits" be selected and transmitted from one generationto the next? At this point, Darwin embraced the Lamarckian theory, that is,"the inheritance of acquired traits." In his book The Great Evolution Mystery,Gordon R. Taylor, a researcher advocating the theory of evolution, expressesthe view that Darwin was heavily influenced by Lamarck:

Lamarckism... is known as the inheritance of acquired characteristics...Darwin himself, as a matter of fact, was inclined to believe that suchinheritance occurred and cited the reported case of a man who had lost hisfingers and bred sons without fingers... [Darwin] had not, he said, gained asingle idea from Lamarck. This was doubly ironical, for Darwin repeatedlytoyed with the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics and, if it isso dreadful, it is Darwin who should be denigrated rather than Lamarck... Inthe 1859 edition of his work, Darwin refers to 'changes of external conditions'causing variation but subsequently these conditions are described asdirecting variation and cooperating with natural selection in directing it...Every year he attributed more and more to the agency of use or disuse... By1868 when he published Varieties of Animals and Plants under Domestication hegave a whole series of examples of supposed Lamarckian inheritance: suchas a man losing part of his little finger and all his sons being born withdeformed little fingers, and boys born with foreskins much reduced in lengthas a result of generations of circumcision.3

However, Lamarck's thesis, as we have seen above, was disproved bythe laws of genetic inheritance discovered by the Austrian monk andbotanist, Gregor Mendel. The concept of "useful traits" was therefore leftunsupported. Genetic laws showed that acquired traits are not passed on,and that genetic inheritance takes place according to certain unchanginglaws. These laws supported the view that species remain unchanged. Nomatter how much the cows that Darwin saw in England's animal fairs bred,the species itself would never change: cows would always remain cows.

Gregor Mendel announced the laws of genetic inheritance that hediscovered as a result of long experiment and observation in a scientific



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (21)


paper published in 1865. But this paper only attractedthe attention of the scientific world towards the endof the century. By the beginning of the twentiethcentury, the truth of these laws had been accepted bythe whole scientific community. This was a seriousdead-end for Darwin's theory, which tried to base theconcept of "useful traits" on Lamarck.

Here we must correct a generalmisapprehension: Mendel opposed not onlyLamarck's model of evolution, but also Darwin's. Asthe article "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and toDarwin," published in the Journal of Heredity, makesclear, "he [Mendel] was familiar with The Origin of Species ...and he wasopposed to Darwin's theory; Darwin was arguing for descent withmodification through natural selection, Mendel was in favor of theorthodox doctrine of special creation."4

The laws discovered by Mendel put Darwinism in a very difficultposition. For these reasons, scientists who supported Darwinism tried todevelop a different model of evolution in the first quarter of the twentiethcentury. Thus was born "neo-Darwinism."

The Efforts of Neo-Darwinism

A group of scientists who were determined to reconcile Darwinismwith the science of genetics, in one way or another, came together at ameeting organized by the Geological Society of America in 1941. Afterlong discussion, they agreed on ways to create a new interpretation ofDarwinism and over the next few years, specialists produced a synthesisof their fields into a revised theory of evolution.

The scientists who participated in establishing the new theoryincluded the geneticists G. Ledyard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky,the zoologists Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, the paleontologists GeorgeGaylord Simpson and Glenn L. Jepsen, and the mathematical geneticistsSir Ronald A. Fisher and Sewall Wright.5

To counter the fact of "genetic stability" (genetic homeostasis), thisgroup of scientists employed the concept of "mutation," which had beenproposed by the Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries at the beginning of the 20th

The genetic lawsdiscovered by Mendel

proved very damaging tothe theory of evolution.

A Short History

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (22)

century. Mutations were defects that occurred, for unknown reasons, inthe inheritance mechanism of living things. Organisms undergoingmutation developed some unusual structures, which deviated from thegenetic information they inherited from their parents. The concept of"random mutation" was supposed to provide the answer to the questionof the origin of the advantageous variations which caused livingorganisms to evolve according to Darwin's theory—a phenomenon thatDarwin himself was unable to explain, but simply tried to side-step byreferring to Lamarck. The Geological Society of America group named thisnew theory, which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation toDarwin's natural selection thesis, the "synthetic theory of evolution" orthe "modern synthesis." In a short time, this theory came to be known as"neo-Darwinism" and its supporters as "neo-Darwinists."

Yet there was a serious problem: It was true that mutations changedthe genetic data of living organisms, yet this change always occurred tothe detriment of the living thing concerned. All observed mutations endedup with disfigured, weak, or diseased individuals and, sometimes, led tothe death of the organism. Hence, in an attempt to find examples of "usefulmutations" which improve the genetic data in living organisms, neo-Darwinists conducted many experiments and observations. For decades,they conducted mutation experiments on fruit flies and various otherspecies. However, in none of these experiments could a mutation whichimproved the genetic data in a living being be seen.

Today the issue of mutation is still a great impasse for Darwinism.Despite the fact that the theory of natural selection considers mutations tobe the unique source of "useful changes," no mutations of any kind havebeen observed that are actually useful (that is, that improve the geneticinformation). In the following chapter, we will consider this issue in detail.


The architects of Neo-Darwinism: Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky, andJulian Huxley.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (23)

Another impasse for neo-Darwinists came from the fossil record.Even in Darwin's time, fossils were already posing an important obstacleto the theory. While Darwin himself accepted the lack of fossils of"intermediate species," he also predicted that further research wouldprovide evidence of these lost transitional forms. However, despite all thepaleontologists' efforts, the fossil record continued to remain a seriousobstacle to the theory. One by one, concepts such as "vestigial organs,""embryological recapitulation" and "hom*ology" lost all significance in thelight of new scientific findings. All these issues are dealt with more fully inthe remaining chapters of this book.

A Theory in Crisis

We have just reviewed in summary form the impasse Darwinismfound itself in from the day it was first proposed. We will now start toanalyze the enormous dimensions of this deadlock. In doing this, ourintention is to show that the theory of evolution is not indisputablescientific truth, as many people assume or try to impose on others. On thecontrary, there is a glaring contradiction when the theory of evolution iscompared to scientific findings in such diverse fields as the origin of life,population genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology, andbiochemistry. In a word, evolution is a theory in "crisis."

That is a description by Prof. Michael Denton, an Australianbiochemist and a renowned critic of Darwinism. In his book Evolution: ATheory in Crisis (1985), Denton examined the theory in the light of differentbranches of science, and concluded that the theory of natural selection isvery far from providing an explanation for life on earth.6 Denton'sintention in offering his criticism was not to show the correctness ofanother view, but only to compare Darwinism with the scientific facts.During the last two decades, many other scientists have publishedsignificant works questioning the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution.

In this book, we will examine this crisis. No matter how muchconcrete evidence is provided, some readers may be unwilling to abandontheir positions, and will continue to adhere to the theory of evolution.However, reading this book will still be of use to them, since it will helpthem to see the real situation of the theory they believe in, in the light ofscientific findings.


A Short History

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (24)

ccording to the theory of evolution, living things came into existenceby means of coincidences, and developed further as a consequenceof coincidental effects. Approximately 3.8 billion years ago, when noliving organisms existed on earth, the first simple single-celled

organisms (prokaryotes) emerged. Over time, more complex cells(eukaryotes) and multicellular organisms came into being. In other words,according to Darwinism, the forces of nature built simple inanimateelements into highly complex and flawless designs.

In evaluating this claim, one should first consider whether suchforces in fact exist in nature. More explicitly, are there really naturalmechanisms which can accomplish evolution according to the Darwinianscenario?

The neo-Darwinist model, which we shall take as the mainstreamtheory of evolution today, argues that life has evolved through two naturalmechanisms: natural selection and mutation. The theory basically assertsthat natural selection and mutation are two complementary mechanisms.The origin of evolutionary modifications lies in random mutations thattake place in the genetic structures of living things. The traits broughtabout by mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural selection,and by this means living things evolve. However, when we look furtherinto this theory, we find that there is no such evolutionary mechanism.Neither natural selection nor mutations can cause different species toevolve into one another, and the claim that they can is completelyunfounded.




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (25)

Natural Selection

The concept of natural selection was the basis of Darwinism. Thisassertion is stressed even in the title of the book in which Darwinproposed his theory: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection…

Natural selection is based on the assumption that in nature there is aconstant struggle for survival. It favors organisms with traits that bestenable them to cope with pressures exerted by the environment. At theend of this struggle, the strongest ones, the ones most suited to naturalconditions, survive. For example, in a herd of deer under threat frompredators, those individuals that can run fastest will naturally survive. Asa consequence, the herd of deer will eventually consist of only fast-running individuals.

However, no matter how long this process goes on, it will nottransform those deer into another species. The weak deer are eliminated,the strong survive, but, since no alteration in their genetic data takes place,no transformation of a species occurs. Despite the continuous processes ofselection, deer continue to exist as deer.

The deer example is true for all species. In any population, naturalselection only eliminates those weak, or unsuited individuals who areunable to adapt to the natural conditions in their habitat. It does notproduce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, itcannot cause anything to evolve. Darwin, too, accepted this fact, statingthat "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individualdifferences or variations occur."7 That is why neo-Darwinism had to addthe mutation mechanism as a factor altering genetic information to theconcept of natural selection.

We will deal with mutations next. But before proceeding, we need tofurther examine the concept of natural selection in order to see thecontradictions inherent in it.

A Struggle for Survival?

The essential assumption of the theory of natural selection holds thatthere is a fierce struggle for survival in nature, and every living thing caresonly for itself. At the time Darwin proposed this theory, the ideas ofThomas Malthus, the British classical economist, were an important

The Mechanisms Of Darwinism


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (26)

influence on him. Malthus maintained that humanbeings were inevitably in a constant struggle forsurvival, basing his views on the fact that population,and hence the need for food resources, increasesgeometrically, while food resources themselves increaseonly arithmetically. The result is that population size isinevitably checked by factors in the environment, suchas hunger and disease. Darwin adapted Malthus'svision of a fierce struggle for survival among humanbeings to nature at large, and claimed that "naturalselection" is a consequence of this struggle.

Further research, however, revealed that there wasno struggle for life in nature as Darwin had postulated.As a result of extensive research into animal groups inthe 1960s and 1970s, V. C. Wynne-Edwards, a Britishzoologist, concluded that living things balance theirpopulation in an interesting way, which prevents competition for food.Animal groups were simply managing their population on the basis oftheir food resources. Population was regulated not by elimination of theweak through factors like epidemics or starvation, but by instinctivecontrol mechanisms. In other words, animals controlled their numbers notby fierce competition, as Darwin suggested, but by limiting reproduction.8

Even plants exhibited examples of population control, whichinvalidated Darwin's suggestion of selection by means of competition.The botanist A. D. Bradshaw's observations indicated that duringreproduction, plants behaved according to the "density" of the planting,and limited their reproduction if the area was highly populated withplants.9 On the other hand, examples of sacrifice observed in animals suchas ants and bees display a model completely opposed to the Darwiniststruggle for survival.

In recent years, research has revealed findings regarding self-sacrificeeven in bacteria. These living things without brains or nervous systems,totally devoid of any capacity for thought, kill themselves to save otherbacteria when they are invaded by viruses.10

These examples surely invalidate the basic assumption of naturalselection—the absolute struggle for survival. It is true that there is



Darwin had beeninfluenced by Thomas

Malthus when hedeveloped his thesis of

the struggle for life.But observations and

experiments provedMalthus wrong.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (27)

competition in nature; however, there are clear models of self-sacrifice andsolidarity, as well.

Observation and Experiments

Apart from the theoretical weaknesses mentioned above, the theoryof evolution by natural selection comes up against a fundamental impassewhen faced with concrete scientific findings. The scientific value of atheory must be assessed according to its success or failure in experimentand observation. Evolution by natural selection fails on both counts.

Since Darwin's time, there has not been a single shred of evidence putforward to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve.Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum ofNatural History in London and a prominent evolutionist, stresses thatnatural selection has never been observed to have the ability to causethings to evolve:

No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of naturalselection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument inneo-Darwinism is about this question.11

Pierre-Paul Grassé, a well-known French zoologist and critic ofDarwinism, has these words to say in "Evolution and Natural Selection,"a chapter of his book The Evolution of Living Organisms.

The "evolution in action" of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply theobservation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes,geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remainedpractically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result ofcirc*mstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not implyevolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species[i.e. living fossils that remain unchanged for millions of years].12

A close look at a few "observed examples of natural selection"presented by biologists who advocate the theory of evolution, wouldreveal that, in reality, they do not provide any evidence for evolution.

The True Story of Industrial Melanism

When evolutionist sources are examined, one inevitably sees that theexample of moths in England during the Industrial Revolution is cited as

The Mechanisms Of Darwinism


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (28)



an example of evolution by natural selection. This is put forward as themost concrete example of evolution observed, in textbooks, magazines,and even academic sources. In actuality, though, that example has nothingto do with evolution at all.

Let us first recall what is actually said: According to this account,around the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the color of treebarks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-coloredmoths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fedon them, and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty yearslater, in woodlands where industrial pollution has killed the lichens, thebark of the trees had darkened, and now the light-colored moths becamethe most hunted, since they were the most easily noticed. As a result, theproportion of light-colored to dark-colored moths decreased. Evolutionistsbelieve this to be a great piece of evidence for their theory. They takerefuge and solace in window-dressing, showing how light-colored moths"evolved" into dark-colored ones.

However, although we believe these facts to be correct, it should bequite clear that they can in no way be used as evidence for the theory ofevolution, since no new form arose that had not existed before. Darkcolored moths had existed in the moth population before the IndustrialRevolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties inthe population changed. The moths had not acquired a new trait or organ,which would cause "speciation."13 In order for one moth species to turn

The top picture shows trees withmoths on them before the IndustrialRevolution, and the bottom pictureshows them at a later date. Becausethe trees had grown darker, birdswere able catch light-colored mothsmore easily and their numbersdecreased. However, this is not anexample of "evolution," because nonew species emerged; all thathappened was that the ratio of thetwo already existing types in analready existing species changed.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (29)

into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would havehad to be made to its genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic programwould have had to be loaded so as to include information about thephysical traits of the bird.

This is the answer to be given to the evolutionist story of IndustrialMelanism. However, there is a more interesting side to the story: Not justit* interpretation, but the story itself is flawed. As molecular biologistJonathan Wells explains in his book Icons of Evolution, the story of thepeppered moths, which is included in every evolutionary biology bookand has therefore, become an "icon" in this sense, does not reflect the truth.Wells discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell's experiment, which isknown as the "experimental proof" of the story, is actually a scientificscandal. Some basic elements of this scandal are:

• Many experiments conducted after Kettlewell's revealed that onlyone type of these moths rested on tree trunks, and all other types preferredto rest beneath small, horizontal branches. Since 1980 it has become clearthat peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. In 25 years offieldwork, many scientists such as Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, MichaelMajerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield concluded that in Kettlewell'sexperiment, moths were forced to act atypically, therefore, the test resultscould not be accepted as scientific.14

• Scientists who tested Kettlewell's conclusions came up with an evenmore interesting result: Although the number of light moths would beexpected to be larger in the less polluted regions of England, the darkmoths there numbered four times as many as the light ones. This meantthat there was no correlation between the moth population and the treetrunks as claimed by Kettlewell and repeated by almost all evolutionistsources.

• As the research deepened, the scandal changed dimension: "Themoths on tree trunks" photographed by Kettlewell, were actually deadmoths. Kettlewell used dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks andthen photographed them. In truth, there was little chance of taking such apicture as the moths rested not on tree trunks but underneath the leaves.15

These facts were uncovered by the scientific community only in thelate 1990s. The collapse of the myth of Industrial Melanism, which hadbeen one of the most treasured subjects in "Introduction to Evolution"

The Mechanisms Of Darwinism


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (30)

courses in universities for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists.One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked:

My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age ofsix, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents onChristmas Eve.16

Thus, "the most famous example of natural selection" was relegatedto the trash-heap of history as a scientific scandal—which was inevitable,because natural selection is not an "evolutionary mechanism," contrary towhat evolutionists claim.

In short, natural selection is capable neither of adding a new organ toa living organism, nor of removing one, nor of changing an organism ofone species into that of another. The "greatest" evidence put forward sinceDarwin has been able to go no further than the "industrial melanism" ofmoths in England.

Why Natural Selection Cannot Explain Complexity

As we showed at the beginning, the greatest problem for the theoryof evolution by natural selection, is that it cannot enable new organs ortraits to emerge in living things. Natural selection cannot develop aspecies' genetic data; therefore, it cannot be used to account for theemergence of new species. The greatest defender of the theory ofpunctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refer to this impasse ofnatural selection as follows;

The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is thecreative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will playa negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that itcreate the fit as well.17

Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on theissue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as anintelligent designer. However, natural selection has no intelligence. Itdoes not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad forliving things. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biologicalsystems and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity."These systems and organs are composed of a great number of parts



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (31)

cooperating together, and are of no use if even one of these parts is missingor defective. (For example, the human eye does not function unless itexists with all its components intact).

Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be ableto foresee the future and aim directly at the advantage that is to beacquired at the final stage. Since natural selection has no consciousness orwill, it can do no such thing. This fact, which demolishes the foundationsof the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin, who wrote: "If it could bedemonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possiblyhave been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, mytheory would absolutely break down."18


Mutations are defined as breaks orreplacements taking place in the DNA molecule,which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a livingorganism and which contains all its geneticinformation. These breaks or replacements are theresult of external effects such as radiation orchemical action. Every mutation is an "accident,"and either damages the nucleotides making up theDNA or changes their locations. Most of the time,they cause so much damage and modification thatthe cell cannot repair them.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hidebehind, is not a magic wand that transforms livingorganisms into a more advanced and perfect form.The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected bymutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima,Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure,and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutationsare harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in thestructure of genes; any random change in a highy ordered system will be

The Mechanisms Of Darwinism


A deformedfoot, the

product ofmutation.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (32)

for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were toshake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be arandom change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability,would not be an improvement.19

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. Allmutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist WarrenWeaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on GeneticEffects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigatemutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used inthe Second World War:

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutantgenes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process ofevolution. How can a good effect—evolution to higher forms of life—resultfrom mutations practically all of which are harmful?20

Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted infailure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments toproduce mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidlyand so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation ofthese flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. Theevolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:



Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionary biologists have sought

examples of useful mutations by creating mutant flies. But these efforts have

always resulted in sick and deformed creatures. The top picture shows the head of

a normal fruit fly, and the picture on the right shows the head of fruit fly with legs

coming out of it, the result of mutation.





Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (33)

It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists havebeen breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have neveryet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.21

Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of theexperiments carried out on fruitflies:

Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller,and other geneticists havesubjected generations of fruitflies to extreme conditions ofheat, cold, light, dark, andtreatment by chemicals andradiation. All sorts ofmutations, practically all trivialor positively deleterious, havebeen produced. Man-madeevolution? Not really: Few ofthe geneticists' monsters couldhave survived outside thebottles they were bred in. Inpractice mutants die, are

The Mechanisms Of Darwinism


A mutantfly with


Mutant frogs born with crippled legs.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (34)

sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.22

The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observedin human beings have had deleterious results. All mutations that takeplace in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such asmongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. Needless tosay, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "anevolutionary mechanism"—evolution is supposed to produce forms thatare better fitted to survive.

The American pathologist David A. Demick notes the following in ascientific article about mutations:

Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutationshave been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually.A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 differentgenetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in

the days before molecular genetic analysis (such asMarfan's syndrome) are now being shown to beheterogeneous; that is, associated with many differentmutations... With this array of human diseases that arecaused by mutations, what of positive effects? Withthousands of examples of harmful mutations readilyavailable, surely it should be possible to describe somepositive mutations if macroevolution is true. Thesewould be needed not only for evolution to greatercomplexity, but also to offset the downward pull of themany harmful mutations. But, when it comes toidentifying positive mutations, evolutionaryscientists are strangely silent.23

The only instance evolutionary biologistsgive of "useful mutation" is the disease known assickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobinmolecule, which serves to carry oxygen in theblood, is damaged as a result of mutation, andundergoes a structural change. As a result of this,the hemoglobin molecule's ability to carryoxygen is seriously impaired. People with sicklecell anemia suffer increasing respiratory



The shape and functionsof red corpuscles arecompromised in sickle-cell anemia. For thisreason, their oxygen-carrying capacities areweakened.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (35)

difficulties for this reason. However, this example of mutation, which isdiscussed under blood disorders in medical textbooks, is strangelyevaluated by some evolutionary biologists as a "useful mutation." Theysay that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a "gift"of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people bornwith genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from beingkilled in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a "useful geneticfeature." This logic is clearly totally unfounded.

It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism.Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, isquite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassécompared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying awritten text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise toany information, but merely damage such information as already exists.Grassé explained this fact in this way:

Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to oneanother, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a givendirection. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matterhow…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being,sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between thephenomenon of life and anarchy.24

So for that reason, as Grassé puts it, "No matter how numerous theymay be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."25

The Pleiotropic Effect

The most important proof that mutations lead only to damage, is theprocess of genetic coding. Almost all of the genes in a fully developedliving thing carry more than one piece of information. For instance, onegene may control both the height and the eye color of that organism.Microbiologist Michael Denton explains this characteristic of genes inhigher organisms such as human beings, in this way:

The effects of genes on development are often surprisingly diverse. In thehouse mouse, nearly every coat-colour gene has some effect on body size.Out of seventeen x-ray induced eye colour mutations in the fruit flyDrosophila melanogaster, fourteen affected the shape of the sex organs of the

The Mechanisms Of Darwinism


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (36)

female, a characteristic that one would have thought was quite unrelated toeye colour. Almost every gene that has been studied in higher organisms hasbeen found to effect more than one organ system, a multiple effect which isknown as pleiotropy. As Mayr argues in Population, Species and Evolution: "Itis doubtful whether any genes that are not pleiotropic exist in higherorganisms."26





1. The wings do not


2. The hind limbs

reach full length,

but the digits do

not fully develop.

3. There is no soft

fur covering

4. Although there is

a respiratory

passage, lungs

and air sacs are


5. The urinary tract

does not grow,

and does not

induce the

development of

the kidney.

On the left we can see the normal development of a domesticated

fowl, and on the right the harmful effects of a mutation in the

pleiotropic gene. Careful examination shows that a mutation in just

one gene damages many different organs. Even if we hypothesize that

mutation could have a beneficial effect, this "pleiotropic effect" would

remove the advantage by damaging many more organs.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (37)

Because of this characteristic of the genetic structure of living things,any coincidental change because of a mutation, in any gene in the DNA,will affect more than one organ. Consequently, this mutation will not berestricted to one part of the body, but will reveal more of its destructiveimpact. Even if one of these impacts turns out to be beneficial, as a resultof a very rare coincidence, the unavoidable effects of the other damage itcauses will more than outweigh those benefits.

To summarize, there are three main reasons why mutations cannotmake evolution possible:

l- The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occurrandomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoesthem. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect andcomplex structure will not improve that structure, but will rather impairit. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.

2- Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: Theparticles making up the genetic information are either torn from theirplaces, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot makea living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only causeabnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from theabdomen.

3- In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequentgeneration, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of theorganism: A random change that occurs in a cell or organ of the bodycannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eyealtered by the effects of radiation, or by other causes, will not be passed onto subsequent generations.

All the explanations provided above indicate that natural selectionand mutation have no evolutionary effect at all. So far, no observableexample of "evolution" has been obtained by this method. Sometimes,evolutionary biologists claim that "they cannot observe the evolutionaryeffect of natural selection and mutation mechanisms since thesemechanisms take place only over an extended period of time." However,this argument, which is just a way of making themselves feel better, isbaseless, in the sense that it lacks any scientific foundation. During hislifetime, a scientist can observe thousands of generations of living thingswith short life spans such as fruit flies or bacteria, and still observe no

The Mechanisms Of Darwinism


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (38)

"evolution." Pierre-Paul Grassé states the following about the unchangingnature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution:

Bacteria ...are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, producethe most mutants. [B]acteria ...exhibit a great fidelity to their species. Thebacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, isthe best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least,to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then tochoose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized abillion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they donot [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria andviruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swingto the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. co*ckroaches,which are one of the most venerable living insect groups, have remainedmore or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as manymutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect.27

Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, becausethere exists no mechanism in nature that can cause evolution.Furthermore, this conclusion agrees with the evidence of the fossil record,which does not demonstrate the existence of a process of evolution, butrather just the contrary.



The Escherichiacoli bacterium is

no different fromspecimens a

billion years old.Countless

mutations overthis long periodhave not led to

any structuralchanges.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (39)

hen Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859, it wasbelieved that he had put forward a theory that could account forthe extraordinary variety of living things. He had observed thatthere were different variations within the same species. For

instance, while wandering through England's animal fairs, he noticed thatthere were many different breeds of cow, and that stockbreedersselectively mated them and produced new breeds. Taking that as hisstarting point, he continued with the logic that "living things can naturallydiversify within themselves," which means that over a long period of timeall living things could have descended from a common ancestor.

However, this assumption of Darwin's about "the origin of species"was not actually able to explain their origin at all. Thanks to developmentsin genetic science, it is now understood that increases in variety within onespecies can never lead to the emergence of another new species. WhatDarwin believed to be "evolution," was actually "variation."

The Meaning of Variations

Variation, a term used in genetics, refers to a genetic event that causesthe individuals or groups of a certain type or species to possess differentcharacteristics from one another. For example, all the people on earth carrybasically the same genetic information, yet some have slanted eyes, somehave red hair, some have long noses, and others are short of stature, alldepending on the extent of the variation potential of this geneticinformation.




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (40)

Variation does not constitute evidence for evolution becausevariations are but the outcomes of different combinations of alreadyexisting genetic information, and they do not add any new characteristicto the genetic information. The important thing for the theory of evolution,however, is the question of how brand-new information to make a brand-new species could come about.

Variation always takes place within the limits of genetic information.In the science of genetics, this limit is called the "gene pool." All of thecharacteristics present in the gene pool of a species may come to light invarious ways due to variation. For example, as a result of variation,varieties that have relatively longer tails or shorter legs may appear in acertain species of reptile, since information for both long-legged and short-legged forms may exist in the gene pool of that species. However,variations do not transform reptiles into birds by adding wings or feathersto them, or by changing their metabolism. Such a change requires anincrease in the genetic information of the living thing, which is certainlynot possible through variations.

Darwin was not aware of this fact when he formulated his theory. Hethought that there was no limit to variations. In an article he wrote in 1844he stated: "That a limit to variation does exist in nature is assumed by mostauthors, though I am unable to discover a single fact on which this beliefis grounded."28 In The Origin of Species he cited different examples ofvariations as the most important evidence for his theory.

For instance, according to Darwin, animal breeders who mateddifferent varieties of cattle in order to bring about new varieties thatproduced more milk, were ultimately going to transform them into adifferent species. Darwin's notion of "unlimited variation" is best seen inthe following sentence from The Origin of Species:

I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection,more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and largermouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.29

The reason Darwin cited such a far-fetched example was theprimitive understanding of science in his day. Since then, in the 20thcentury, science has posited the principle of "genetic stability" (genetichomeostasis), based on the results of experiments conducted on livingthings. This principle holds that, since all mating attempts carried out to



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (41)

transform a species into another have been inconclusive, there are strictbarriers among different species of living things. This meant that it wasabsolutely impossible for animal breeders to convert cattle into a differentspecies by mating different variations of them, as Darwin had postulated.

Norman Macbeth, who disproved Darwinism in his book DarwinRetried, states:

The heart of the problem is whether living things do indeed vary to anunlimited extent... The species look stable. We have all heard of disappointedbreeders who carried their work to a certain point only to see the animals orplants revert to where they had started. Despite strenuous efforts for two orthree centuries, it has never been possible to produce a blue rose or a blacktulip.30

Luther Burbank, considered the most competent breeder of all time,expressed this fact when he said, "there are limits to the developmentpossible, and these limits follow a law."31 In his article titled "SomeBiological Problems With the Natural Selection Theory," Jerry Bergmancomments by quoting from biologist Edward Deevey who explains thatvariations always take place within strict genetic boundaries:

Deevey concludes, "Remarkable things have been done by cross-breeding ...but wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit. We can no moregrow wings on pigs than hens can make cylindrical eggs." A morecontemporary example is the average increase in male height that hasoccurred the past century. Through better health care (and perhaps also somesexual selection, as some women prefer taller men as mates) males havereached a record adult height during the last century, but the increase israpidly disappearing, indicating that we have reached our limit.32

In short, variations only bring about changes which remain withinthe boundaries of the genetic information of species; they can never addnew genetic data to them. For this reason, no variation can be consideredan example of evolution. No matter how often you mate different breedsof dogs or horses, the end result will still be dogs or horses, with no newspecies emerging. The Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen sums the matterup this way:

The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace placed their emphasiscannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variabilitydoes not contain the secret of 'indefinite departure'.33

The True Origin of Species


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (42)

Confessions About ""Microevolution""

As we have seen, genetic science has discovered that variations,which Darwin thought could account for "the origin of species," actuallydo no such thing. For this reason, evolutionary biologists were forced todistinguish between variation within species and the formation of newones, and to propose two different concepts for these differentphenomena. Diversity within a species—that is, variation—they called"microevolution," and the hypothesis of the development of new specieswas termed "macroevolution."

These two concepts have appeared in biology books for quite sometime. But there is actually a deception going on here, because the examplesof variation that evolutionary biologists have called "microevolution"actually have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The theory ofevolution proposes that living things can develop and take on new geneticdata by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. However, aswe have just seen, variations can never create new genetic information,and are thus unable to bring about "evolution." Giving variations the nameof "microevolution" is actually an ideological preference on the part ofevolutionary biologists.

The impression that evolutionary biologists have given by using theterm "microevolution" is the false logic that over time variations can formbrand new classes of living things. And many people who are not alreadywell-informed on the subject come away with the superficial idea that "asit spreads, microevolution can turn into macroevolution." One can oftensee examples of that kind of thinking. Some "amateur" evolutionists putforward such examples of logic as the following: since human beings'average height has risen by two centimeters in just a century, this meansthat over millions of years any kind of evolution is possible. However, ashas been shown above, all variations such as changes in average heighthappen within specific genetic bounds, and are trends that have nothingto do with evolution.

In fact, nowadays even evolutionist experts accept that the variationsthey call "microevolution" cannot lead to new classes of living things—inother words, to "macroevolution." In a 1996 article in the leading journalDevelopmental Biology, the evolutionary biologists S.F. Gilbert, J.M. Opitz,and R.A. Raff explained the matter this way:



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (43)

The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explainingevolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, butmicroevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn areptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolutionlooks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not thearrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species—Darwin's problem—remains unsolved.34

The fact that "microevolution" cannot lead to "macroevolution," inother words that variations offer no explanation of the origin of species,has been accepted by other evolutionary biologists, as well. The notedauthor and science expert Roger Lewin describes the result of a four-daysymposium held in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of NaturalHistory, in which 150 evolutionists participated:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanismsunderlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena ofmacroevolution. …The answer can be given as a clear, No.35

We can sum up the situation like this: Variations, which Darwinismhas seen as "evidence of evolution" for some hundred years, actually havenothing to do with "the origin of species." Cows can be mated together formillions of years, and different breeds of cows may well emerge. But cowscan never turn into a different species—giraffes or elephants for instance.In the same way, the different finches that Darwin saw on the GalapagosIslands are another example of variation that is no evidence for"evolution." Recent observations have revealed that the finches did notundergo an unlimited variation as Darwin's theory presupposed.


Finch beaks, whichDarwin saw in theGalapagos Islandsand thought wereevidence for histheory, are actuallyan example ofgenetic variation,and not evidencefor macroevolution.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (44)

Moreover, most of the different types of finches which Darwin thoughtrepresented 14 distinct species actually mated with one another, whichmeans that they were variations that belonged to the same species.Scientific observation shows that the finch beaks, which have beenmythicized in almost all evolutionist sources, are in fact an example of"variation"; therefore, they do not constitute evidence for the theory ofevolution. For example, Peter and Rosemary Grant, who spent yearsobserving the finch varieties in the Galapagos Islands looking for evidencefor Darwinistic evolution, were forced to conclude that "the population,subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth," a fact whichimplied that no "evolution" that leads to the emergence of new traits evertakes place there.36

So for these reasons, evolutionists are still unable to resolve Darwin'sproblem of the "origin of species."

The Origin of Species in the Fossil Record

The evolutionist assertion is that each species on earth came from asingle common ancestor through minor changes. In other words, thetheory considers life as a continuous phenomenon, without anypreordained or fixed categories. However, the observation of natureclearly does not reveal such a continuous picture. What emerges from theliving world is that life forms are strictly separated in very distinctcategories. Robert Carroll, an evolutionist authority, admits this fact in hisPatterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution:

Although an almost incomprehensible number of species inhabit Earthtoday, they do not form a continuous spectrum of barely distinguishableintermediates. Instead, nearly all species can be recognized as belonging to arelatively limited number of clearly distinct major groups, with very fewillustrating intermediate structures or ways of life.37

Therefore, evolutionists assume that "intermediate" life forms thatconstitute links between living organisms have lived in the past. This iswhy it is considered that the fundamental science that can shed light onthe matter is paleontology, the science of the study of fossils. Evolution isalleged to be a process that took place in the past, and the only scientificsource that can provide us with information on the history of life is fossil



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (45)

discoveries. The well-known French paleontologist Pierre-Paul Grassé hasthis to say on the subject:

Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed onlythrough fossil forms... only paleontology can provide them with the evidenceof evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms.38

In order for the fossil record to shed any light on the subject, we shallhave to compare the hypotheses of the theory of evolution with fossildiscoveries.

According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged froma predecessor. One species which existed previously turned intosomething else over time, and all species have come into being in this way.According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually overmillions of years.

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species shouldhave lived during the immense period of time when these transformations

Darwinizm'in Mekanizmalar›


The most important branch of science for shedding light on the origin of life on earth ispaleontology, the study of fossils. Fossil beds, studied with great intensity for the lasttwo hundred years, reveal a picture totally at odds with Darwin's theory. Species did

not emerge through small cumulative changes, they appeared quite suddenly, andfully-formed.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (46)

were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in thepast some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired somereptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or thereshould have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquiredsome avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed.Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe tohave lived in the past, as "transitional forms."

If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions,even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creaturesshould be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitionalforms should have been even greater than that of present animal species,and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin ofSpecies, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closelyall of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed...Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found onlyamongst fossil remains.39

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitionalforms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite hisoptimism, he realized that these missing intermediate forms were thebiggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the followingin the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of theTheory":

…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, dowe not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not allnature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, welldefined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must haveexisted, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in thecrust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediateconditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediatevarieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.40

The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter thisobjection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far wasinadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied indetail, the missing links would be found.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (47)

The Question of Transitional Forms and Stasis

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionary paleontologists havebeen digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the worldsince the middle of the nineteenth century. Despite their best efforts, notransitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed inexcavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, lifeappeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.

Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and acommitted evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has notbeen satisfied with fossil discoveries:

Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the timeof Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitelynumerous transitional links that he expected.41

Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that newgroups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record:

When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, itseems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen inrelated, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphologyand function appear to arise very quickly…42

Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: WhereDarwin Went Wrong, states:

If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what therock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group ofcreatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readilypreserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact,the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerabletransitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find themembedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin feltthough that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply amatter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up,it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close tocurrent living animals.43

The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and withtotally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longestgeological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist

The True Origin of Species


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (48)

and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s:

The history of most fossil species include two features particularlyinconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directionalchange during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record lookingmuch the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usuallylimited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a speciesdoes not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; itappears all at once and 'fully formed'.44

Further research only strengthened the facts of stasis and suddenappearance. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge write in 1993 that"most species, during their geological history, either do not change in anyappreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with noapparent direction."45 Robert Carroll is forced to agree in 1997 that "Mostmajor groups appear to originate and diversify over geologically veryshort durations, and to persist for much longer periods without majormorphological or trophic change."46

At this point, it is necessary to clarify just what the concept of"transitional form" means. The intermediate forms predicted by the theoryof evolution are living things falling between two species, but whichpossess deficient or semi-developed organs. But sometimes the concept ofintermediate form is misunderstood, and living structures which do notpossess the features of transitional forms are seen as actually doing so. Forinstance, if one group of living things possesses features which belong toanother, this is not an intermediate form feature. The platypus, a mammalliving in Australia, reproduces by laying eggs just like reptiles. In addition,it has a bill similar to that of a duck. Scientists describe such creatures asthe platypus as "mosaic creatures." That mosaic creatures do not count as


There is no gradualdevelopment in thefossil record such as

Darwin hadpredicted. Differentspecies emerged allat once, with their

own peculiar bodilystructures.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (49)

intermediate forms is also accepted by such foremost paleontologists asStephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.47

The Adequacy of the Fossil Record

Some 140 years ago Darwin put forward the following argument:"Right now there are no transitional forms, yet further research willuncover them." Is this argument still valid today? In other words,considering the conclusions from the entire fossil record, should we acceptthat transitional forms never existed, or should we wait for the results ofnew research?

The wealth of the existing fossil record will surely answer thisquestion. When we look at the paleontological findings, we come acrossan abundance of fossils. Billions of fossils have been uncovered all aroundthe world.48 Based on these fossils, 250,000 distinct species have beenidentified, and these bear striking similarities to the 1.5 million identifiedspecies currently living on earth.49 (Of these 1.5 million species, 1 millionare insects.) Despite the abundance of fossil sources, not a singletransitional form has been uncovered, and it is unlikely that anytransitional forms will be found as a result of new excavations.

A professor of paleontology from Glasgow University, T. NevilleGeorge, admitted this fact years ago:

There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record.In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery isoutpacing integration… The fossil record nevertheless continues to becomposed mainly of gaps.50

And Niles Eldredge, the well-known paleontologist and curator ofthe American Museum of Natural History, expresses as follows theinvalidity of Darwin's claim that the insufficiency of the fossil record is thereason why no transitional forms have been found:

The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gapswe see reflect real events in life's history – not the artifact of a poor fossilrecord.51

Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 bookBeyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real andmeaningful." He elaborates this claim in this way:

The True Origin of Species


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (50)

Ammonites emerged some 350 millionyears ago, and became extinct 65million years ago. The structure seen inthe fossil above never changed duringthe intervening 300 million years.

A 100-150 million-year-old starfish fossilHorseshoe crab"fossil from theOrdovician Age.This 450-million-year-old fossil isno differentfrom specimensliving today.

1.9-million-year-old fossilbacteria from Western Ontarioin the United States. They havethe same structures as bacterialiving today.


Oyster fossils from the Ordovician Age, nodifferent from modern oysters.

If evolution had really happened, then

living things should have emerged by

gradual changes, and have continued to

change over time, whereas the fossil record

shows the exact opposite. Different groups

of living things suddenly emerged with no

similar ancestors behind them, and

remained static for millions of years,

undergoing no changes at all.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (51)

140-million-year-old dragonflyfossil found inBavaria inGermany. It isidentical to livingdragonflies.

The oldest known fossilscorpion, found in East Kirktonin Scotland. This species, knownas Pulmonoscorpiuskirktoniensis, is 320 millionyears old, and no differentfrom today's scorpions.

An insect fossil in amber, some 170million years old, found on the BalticSea coast. It is no different from itsmodern counterparts.

35-million-year-oldflies. They have thesame bodilystructure as fliestoday.

170-million-year-old fossil shrimp fromthe Jurassic Age. It is no differentfrom living shrimps.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (52)

The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of anyimportant branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, ornearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolutioninto new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change ismore or less abrupt.52

This situation invalidates the above argument, which has been statedby Darwinism for 140 years. The fossil record is rich enough for us tounderstand the origins of life, and explicitly reveals that distinct speciescame into existence on earth all of a sudden, with all their distinct forms.

The Truth Revealed by the Fossil Record

But where does the "evolution-paleontology" relationship, which hastaken subconscious root in society over many decades, actually stemfrom? Why do most people have the impression that there is a positiveconnection between Darwin's theory and the fossil record whenever thelatter is mentioned? The answer to these questions is supplied in an articlein the leading journal Science:

A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology andpaleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is farmore Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplificationinevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles,and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In theyears after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. Ingeneral these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and somepure fantasy has crept into textbooks.53

N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall also make an important comment:

That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughoutthe length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known topaleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself,...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in thesegaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontologicalresearch later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will notconfirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserablypoor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (53)

throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's newclothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced

with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted

pattern, simply looked the other way.54

Likewise, the American paleontologist Steven M. Stanley describeshow the Darwinist dogma, which dominates the world of science, hasignored this reality demonstrated by the fossil record:

The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with

gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical

circ*mstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured. ... 'The

majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's

stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species

transformation.' ... their story has been suppressed.55

Let us now examine the facts of the fossil record, which have beensilenced for so long, in a bit more detail. In order to do this, we shall haveto consider natural history from the most remote ages to the present, stageby stage.

The True Origin of Species


25-million-year-oldtermite fossils in amber.

They are identical totermites living today.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (54)

or some people, the very concept of natural history implies thetheory of evolution. The reason for this is the heavy propagandathat has been carried out. Natural history museums in mostcountries are under the control of materialist evolutionary

biologists, and it is they who describe the exhibits in them. They invariablydescribe creatures that lived in prehistory and their fossil remains in termsof Darwinian concepts. One result of this is that most people think thatnatural history is equivalent to the concept of evolution.

However, the facts are very different. Natural history reveals thatdifferent classes of life emerged on the earth not through any evolutionaryprocess, but all at once, and with all their complex structures fullydeveloped right from the start. Different living species appearedcompletely independently of one another, and with no "transitional forms"between them.

In this chapter, we shall examine real natural history, taking the fossilrecord as our basis.

The Classification of Living Things

Biologists place living things into different classes. This classification,known as "taxonomy," or "systematics," goes back as far as the eighteenth-century Swedish scientist Carl von Linné, known as Linnaeus. The systemof classification established by Linnaeus has continued and beendeveloped right up to the present day.

There are hierarchical categories in this classificatory system. Living




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (55)

things are first divided into kingdoms, such as the plant and animalkingdoms. Then these kingdoms are sub-divided into phyla, or categories.Phyla are further divided into subgroups. From top to bottom, theclassification is as follows:

KingdomPhylum (plural Phyla)ClassOrderFamilyGenus (plural Genera)SpeciesToday, the great majority of biologists accept that there are five (or

six) separate kingdoms. As well as plants and animals, they considerfungi, protista (single-celled creatures with a cell nucleus, such as amoebaeand some primitive algae), and monera (single-celled creatures with nocell nucleus, such as bacteria), as separate kingdoms. Sometimes thebacteria are subdivided into eubacteria and archaebacteria, for sixkingdoms, or, on some accounts, three "superkingdoms" (eubacteria,archaebacteria and eukarya). The most important of all these kingdoms iswithout doubt the animal kingdom. And the largest division within theanimal kingdom, as we saw earlier, are the different phyla. Whendesignating these phyla, the fact that each one possesses completelydifferent physical structures should always be borne in mind. Arthropoda(insects, spiders, and other creatures with jointed legs), for instance, are aphylum by themselves, and all the animals in the phylum have the samefundamental physical structure. The phylum called Chordata includesthose creatures with the notochord, or, most commonly, a spinal column.All the animals with the spinal column such as fish, birds, reptiles, andmammals that we are familiar with in daily life are in a subphylum ofChordata known as vertebrates.

There are around 35 different phyla of animals, including theMollusca, which include soft-bodied creatures such as snails andoctopuses, or the Nematoda, which include diminutive worms. The mostimportant feature of these categories is, as we touched on earlier, that theypossess totally different physical characteristics. The categories below thephyla possess basically similar body plans, but the phyla are very different

True Natural History I


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (56)

from one another.After this general information about biological classification, let us

now consider the question of how and when these phyla emerged onearth.

Fossils Reject the "Tree of Life"

Let us first consider the Darwinist hypothesis. As we know,Darwinism proposes that life developed from one single commonancestor, and took on all its varieties by a series of tiny changes. In thatcase, life should first have emerged in very similar and simple forms. And

according to the same theory, thedifferentiation between, and growingcomplexity in, living things must havehappened in parallel over time.

In short, according to Darwinism, lifemust be like a tree, with a common root,subsequently splitting up into differentbranches. And this hypothesis is constantlyemphasized in Darwinist sources, where theconcept of the "tree of life" is frequentlyemployed. According to this tree concept,phyla—the fundamental units ofclassification between living things—cameabout by stages, as in the diagram to the left.According to Darwinism, one phylum mustfirst emerge, and then the other phyla mustslowly come about with minute changes oververy long periods of time. The Darwinisthypothesis is that the number of animal phyla

must have gradually increased in number. The diagram to the left showsthe gradual increase in the number of animal phyla according to theDarwinian view.

According to Darwinism, life must have developed in this way. But isthis really how it happened?

Definitely not. Quite the contrary: animals have been very differentand complex since the moment they first emerged. All the animal phyla



The "tree of life" drawn bythe evolutionary biologistErnst Haeckel in 1866.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (57)


The theory of evolution maintains that different groups of living things (phyla)developed from a common ancestor and grew apart with the passing of time.The diagram above states this claim: According to Darwinism, living things grewapart from one another like the branches on a tree.But the fossil record shows just the opposite. As can be seen from the diagrambelow, different groups of living things emerged suddenly with their differentstructures. Some 100 phyla suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age.Subsequently, the number of these fell rather than rose (because some phylabecame extinct).(From www.arn.org)












Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (58)

known today emerged at the same time, in the middle of the geologicalperiod known as the Cambrian Age. The Cambrian Age is a geologicalperiod estimated to have lasted some 65 million years, approximatelybetween 570 to 505 million years ago. But the period of the abruptappearance of major animal groups fit in an even shorter phase of theCambrian, often referred to as the "Cambrian explosion." Stephen C.Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, in a 2001 article based on a detailedliterature survey, dated 2001, note that the "Cambrian explosion occurredwithin an exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no morethan 5 million years."56

Before then, there is no trace in the fossil record of anything apartfrom single-celled creatures and a few very primitive multicellular ones.All animal phyla emerged completely formed and all at once, in the veryshort period of time represented by the Cambrian explosion. (Five millionyears is a very short time in geological terms!)

The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belong to very differentcreatures, such as snails, trilobites, sponges, jellyfish, starfish, shellfish, etc.Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems and advancedstructures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same asthose in modern specimens. These structures are at one and the same timevery advanced, and very different.


This illustration portrays living things with complex structuresfrom the Cambrian Age. The emergence of such different

creatures with no preceding ancestors completely invalidatesDarwinist theory.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (59)

Richard Monastersky, a staff writer at Science News magazine statesthe following about the "Cambrian explosion," which is a deathtrap forevolutionary theory:

A half-billion years ago, ...the remarkably complex forms of animals we seetoday suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth'sCambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionaryexplosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures.57

The same article also quotes Jan Bergström, a paleontologist whostudied the early Cambrian deposits in Chengjiang, China, as saying, "The

Chengyiang fauna demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present

already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as

they are today."58

How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animalspecies all of a sudden, and how these distinct types of species with nocommon ancestors could have emerged, is a question that remainsunanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford University zoologist RichardDawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in theworld, comments on this reality that undermines the very foundation ofall the arguments he has been defending:

For example the Cambrian strata of rocks… are the oldest ones in which wefind most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them

True Natural History I

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (60)

already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It isas though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.59

Phillip Johnson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeleywho is also one of the world's foremost critics of Darwinism, describes thecontradiction between this paleontological truth and Darwinism:

Darwinian theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first livingorganism, or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified tocreate the higher levels of taxonomic order. The animal fossil record moreresembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at thestart and thereafter decreasing.60

As Phillip Johnson has revealed, far from its being the case that phylacame about by stages, in reality they all came into being at once, and someof them even became extinct in later periods. The diagrams on page 53reveal the truth that the fossil record has revealed concerning the origin ofphyla.

As we can see, in the Precambrian Age there were three differentphyla consisting of single-cell creatures. But in the Cambrian Age, some 60to 100 different animal phyla emerged all of a sudden. In the age thatfollowed, some of these phyla became extinct, and only a few have comedown to our day.

The well-known paleontologist Roger Lewin discusses thisextraordinary fact, which totally demolishes all the Darwinistassumptions about the history of life:

Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during theentire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually


A fossilfrom the


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (61)

all the major animal body forms — Baupläne or phyla — that would exist

thereafter, including many that were "weeded out" and became extinct.

Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the

Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.61

The Burgess Shale Fossils

Lewin continues to call this extraordinary phenomenon from theCambrian Age an "evolutionary event," because of the loyalty he feels toDarwinism, but it is clear that the discoveries so far cannot be explainedby any evolutionary approach.

What is interesting is that the new fossil findings make the CambrianAge problem all the more complicated. In its February 1999 issue, Trendsin Genetics (TIG), a leading science journal, dealt with this issue. In anarticle about a fossil bed in the Burgess Shale region of British Colombia,Canada, it confessed that fossil findings in the area offer no support for thetheory of evolution.

The Burgess Shale fossil bed is accepted as one of the most importantpaleontological discoveries of our time. The fossils of many differentspecies uncovered in the Burgess Shale appeared on earth all of a sudden,without having been developed from any pre-existing species found inpreceding layers. TIG expresses this important problem as follows:


INTERESTING SPINES: One of the creatures which suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Agewas Hallucigenia, seen at top left. And as with many other Cambrian fossils, like the one atthe right it has spines or a hard shell to protect it from attack by enemies. The question thatevolutionists cannot answer is, "How could they have come by such an effective defensesystem at a time when there were no predators around?" The lack of predators at the timemakes it impossible to explain the matter in terms of natural selection.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (62)

It might seem odd that fossils from one small locality, no matter howexciting, should lie at the center of a fierce debate about such broad issues inevolutionary biology. The reason is that animals burst into the fossil recordin astonishing profusion during the Cambrian, seemingly from nowhere.Increasingly precise radiometric dating and new fossil discoveries have onlysharpened the suddenness and scope of this biological revolution. Themagnitude of this change in Earth's biota demands an explanation. Althoughmany hypotheses have been proposed, the general consensus is that none iswholly convincing.62

These "not wholly convincing" hypotheses belong to evolutionarypaleontologists. TIG mentions two important authorities in this context,Stephen Jay Gould and Simon Conway Morris. Both have written books toexplain the "sudden appearance of living beings" from the evolutioniststandpoint. However, as also stressed by TIG, neither Wonderful Life byGould nor The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animalsby Simon Conway Morris has provided an explanation for the BurgessShale fossils, or for the fossil record of the Cambrian Age in general.

Deeper investigation into the Cambrian Explosion shows what agreat dilemma it creates for the theory of evolution. Recent findingsindicate that almost all phyla, the most basic animal divisions, emergedabruptly in the Cambrian period. An article published in the journalScience in 2001 says: "The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record ofalmost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biotatoday."63 The same article notes that for such complex and distinct livinggroups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very richfossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been


Marrella: Oneof the

interestingfossil creatures

found in theBurgess Shale

fossil bed.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (63)

found, but this has not yet proved possible:

This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previoushistory of the group for which there is no fossil record.64

The picture presented by the Cambrian fossils clearly refutes theassumptions of the theory of evolution, and provides strong evidence forthe involvement of a "supernatural" being in their creation. DouglasFutuyma, a prominent evolutionary biologist, admits this fact:

Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. Ifthey did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by someprocess of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, theymust indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.65

The fossil record clearly indicates that living things did not evolvefrom primitive to advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden ina fully formed state. This provides evidence for saying that life did notcome into existence through random natural processes, but through an actof intelligent creation. In an article called "the Big Bang of AnimalEvolution" in the leading journal Scientific American, the evolutionarypaleontologist Jeffrey S. Levinton accepts this reality, albeit unwillingly,saying "Therefore, something special and very mysterious — some highlycreative "force" — existed then."66

Molecular Comparisons Deepen Evolution's Cambrian Impasse

Another fact that puts evolutionists into a deep quandary about theCambrian Explosion is comparisons between different living taxa. Theresults of these comparisons reveal that animal taxa considered to be"close relatives" by evolutionists until quite recently, are in fact geneticallyvery different, which makes the "intermediate form" hypothesis—whichonly exists theoretically—even more dubious. An article published in theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, in 2000 reports thatrecent DNA analyses have rearranged taxa that used to be considered"intermediate forms" in the past:

DNA sequence analysis dictates new interpretation of phylogenic trees. Taxathat were once thought to represent successive grades of complexity at thebase of the metazoan tree are being displaced to much higher positions

True Natural History I


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (64)

inside the tree. This leaves no evolutionary ''intermediates'' and forces us torethink the genesis of bilaterian complexity.67

In the same article, evolutionist writers note that some taxa whichwere considered "intermediate" between groups such as sponges,cnidarians and ctenophores, can no longer be considered as such becauseof these new genetic findings. These writers say that they have "lost hope"of constructing such evolutionary family trees:

The new molecular based phylogeny has several important implications.Foremost among them is the disappearance of "intermediate" taxa betweensponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor ofbilaterians or "Urbilateria."...A corollary is that we have a major gap in thestem leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in olderevolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomateancestor" through a scenario involving successive grades of increasingcomplexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages.68

Trilobites vs. Darwin

One of the most interesting of the many different species thatsuddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age is the now-extinct trilobites.Trilobites belonged to the Arthropoda phylum, and were very complicatedcreatures with hard shells, articulated bodies, and complex organs. The




showingliving things

from theCambrian


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (65)

fossil record has made it possible to carry out very detailed studies oftrilobites' eyes. The trilobite eye is made up of hundreds of tiny facets, andeach one of these contains two lens layers. This eye structure is a realwonder of design. David Raup, a professor of geology at Harvard,Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says, "the trilobites 450 million yearsago used an optimal design which would require a well trained andimaginative optical engineer to develop today."69

The extraordinarily complex structure even in trilobites is enough toinvalidate Darwinism on its own, because no complex creatures withsimilar structures lived in previous geological periods, which goes toshow that trilobites emerged with no evolutionary process behind them. A2001 Science article says:

Cladistic analyses of arthropod phylogeny revealed that trilobites, likeeucrustaceans, are fairly advanced "twigs" on the arthropod tree. But fossilsof these alleged ancestral arthropods are lacking. ...Even if evidence for anearlier origin is discovered, it remains a challenge to explain why so manyanimals should have increased in size and acquired shells within so short atime at the base of the Cambrian.70

Very little was known about this extraordinary situation in theCambrian Age when Charles Darwin was writing The Origin of Species.Only since Darwin's time has the fossil record revealed that life suddenlyemerged in the Cambrian Age, and that trilobites and other invertebrates

True Natural History I


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (66)


came into being all at once. For this reason, Darwin was unable to treat thesubject fully in the book. But he did touch on the subject under the heading"On the sudden appearance of groups of allied species in the lowestknown fossiliferous strata," where he wrote the following about theSilurian Age (a name which at that time encompassed what we now callthe Cambrian):

For instance, I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descendedfrom some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurianage, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal…Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowestSilurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probablyfar longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day;and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the worldswarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find recordsof these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.71

Darwin said "If my theory be true, [the Cambrian] Age must havebeen full of living creatures." As for the question of why there were nofossils of these creatures, he tried to supply an answer throughout his book,using the excuse that "the fossil record is very lacking." But nowadays thefossil record is quite complete, and it clearly reveals that creatures from theCambrian Age did not have ancestors. This means that we have to rejectthat sentence of Darwin's which begins "If my theory be true." Darwin'shypotheses were invalid, and for that reason, his theory is mistaken.

The record from the Cambrian Age demolishes Darwinism, both with

Trilobite eyes, with their doubletstructure and hundreds of tiny lensedunits, were a wonder of design.


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (67)

the complex bodies of trilobites, and with theemergence of very different living bodies at thesame time. Darwin wrote "If numerous species,belonging to the same genera or families, havereally started into life all at once, the fact wouldbe fatal to the theory of descent with slowmodification through natural selection."72—thatis, the theory at the heart of in his book. But as wesaw earlier, some 60 different animal phylastarted into life in the Cambrian Age, all togetherand at the same time, let alone small categoriessuch as species. This proves that the picturewhich Darwin had described as "fatal to thetheory" is in fact the case. This is why the Swissevolutionary paleoanthropologist StefanBengtson, who confesses the lack of transitionallinks while describing the Cambrian Age, makesthe following comment: "Baffling (and

embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us."73

Another matter that needs to be dealt with regarding trilobites is thatthe 530-million-year-old compound structure in these creatures' eyes hascome down to the present day completely unchanged. Some insects today,such as bees and dragonflies, possess exactly the same eye structure.74 Thisdiscovery deals yet another "fatal blow" to the theory of evolution's claimthat living things develop from the primitive to the complex.

The Origin of Vertebrates

As we said at the beginning, one of the phyla that suddenly emergedin the Cambrian Age is the Chordata, those creatures with a central nervoussystem contained within a braincase and a notochord or spinal column.Vertebrates are a subgroup of chordates. Vertebrates, divided into suchfundamental classes as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, areprobably the most dominant creatures in the animal kingdom.

Because evolutionary paleontologists try to view every phylum as theevolutionary continuation of another phylum, they claim that the Chordataphylum evolved from another, invertebrate one. But the fact that, as with

True Natural History I


Darwin said that if histheory was correct, thelong periods before thetrilobites should havebeen full of theirancestors. But not oneof these creaturespredicted by Darwinhas ever been found.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (68)

all phyla, the members of the Chordata emerged in the Cambrian Ageinvalidates this claim right from the very start. The oldest member of theChordata phylum identified from the Cambrian Age is a sea-creature calledPikaia, which with its long body reminds one at first sight of a worm.75

Pikaia emerged at the same time as all the other species in the phylumwhich could be proposed as its ancestor, and with no intermediate formsbetween them. Professor Mustafa Kuru, a Turkish evolutionary biologist,says in his book Vertebrates:

There is no doubt that chordates evolved from invertebrates. However, thelack of transitional forms between invertebrates and chordates causespeople to put forward many assumptions.76

If there is no transitional form between chordates and invertebrates,then how can one say "there is no doubt that chordates evolved frominvertebrates?" Accepting an assumption which lacks supportingevidence, without entertaining any doubts, is surely not a scientificapproach, but a dogmatic one. After this statement, Professor Kurudiscusses the evolutionist assumptions regarding the origins ofvertebrates, and once again confesses that the fossil record of chordatesconsists only of gaps:


The two distinct fish species of the Cambrian, Haikouichthys ercaicunensisand Myllokunmingia fengjiaoa.

THE FISH OF THE CAMBRIANUntil 1999, the question of whether any vertebrates were present inthe Cambrian was limited to the discussion about Pikaia. But thatyear a stunning discovery deepened the evolutionary impasseregarding the Cambrian explosion: Chinese paleontologists atChengjiang fauna discovered the fossils of two fish species that wereabout 530 million years old, a period known as the Lower Cambrian.Thus, it became crystal clear that along with all other phyla, thesubphylum Vertebrata (Vertebrates) was also present in theCambrian, without any evolutionary ancestors.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (69)

The views stated above about the origins of chordates and evolution arealways met with suspicion, since they are not based on any fossil records.77

Evolutionary biologists sometimes claim that the reason why thereexist no fossil records regarding the origin of vertebrates is becauseinvertebrates have soft tissues and consequently leave no fossil traces.However this explanation is entirely unrealistic, since there is anabundance of fossil remains of invertebrates in the fossil record. Nearly allorganisms in the Cambrian period were invertebrates, and tens ofthousands of fossil examples of these species have been collected. Forexample, there are many fossils of soft-tissued creatures in Canada'sBurgess Shale beds. (Scientists think that invertebrates were fossilized,and their soft tissues kept intact in regions such as Burgess Shale, by beingsuddenly covered in mud with a very low oxygen content.78)

The theory of evolution assumes that the first Chordata, such as Pikaia,evolved into fish. However, just as with the case of the supposed evolutionof Chordata, the theory of the evolution of fish also lacks fossil evidence tosupport it. On the contrary, all distinct classes of fish emerged in the fossilrecord all of a sudden and fully-formed. There are millions of invertebratefossils and millions of fish fossils; yet there is not even one fossil that ismidway between them.

Robert Carroll admits the evolutionist impasse on the origin ofseveral taxa among the early vertebrates:

We still have no evidence of the nature of the transition betweencephalochordates and craniates. The earliest adequately known vertebratesalready exhibit all the definitive features of craniates that we can expect tohave preserved in fossils. No fossils are known that document the origin ofjawed vertebrates.79

Another evolutionary paleontologist, Gerald T. Todd, admits asimilar fact in an article titled "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin ofBony Fishes":

All three subdivisions of bony fishes first appear in the fossil record atapproximately the same time. They are already widely divergentmorphologically, and are heavily armored. How did they originate? Whatallowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavyarmor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?80

True Natural History I


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (70)


THE ORIGIN OF FISHThe fossil record shows that fish, like other kinds of living things, also

emerged suddenly and already in possession of all their unique structures.

In other words, fish were created, not evolved.

Fossil shark of the Stethacanthus genus, some 330 million years old.

Fossil fish called Birkenia from Scotland. Thiscreature, estimated to be some 420 million yearsold, is about 4 cm. long.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (71)


Fossil fish approximately 360 millionyears old from the Devonian Age.Called Osteolepis panderi, it is about20 cm. long and closely resemblespresent-day fish.

110-million-year-old fossilfish from the Santana fossilbed in Brazil.

Group of fossil fish from the Mesozoic Age.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (72)

The Origin of Tetrapods

Quadrupeds (or Tetrapoda) is the general name given to vertebrateanimals dwelling on land. Amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals areincluded in this class. The assumption of the theory of evolution regardingquadrupeds holds that these living things evolved from fish living in thesea. However, this claim poses contradictions, in terms of both physiologyand anatomy. Furthermore, it lacks any basis in the fossil record.

A fish would have to undergo great modifications to adapt to land.Basically, its respiratory, excretory and skeletal systems would all have tochange. Gills would have to change into lungs, fins would have to acquirethe features of feet so that they could carry the weight of the body, kidneysand the whole excretory system would have to be transformed to work ina terrestrial environment, and the skin would need to acquire a newtexture to prevent water loss. Unless all these things happened, a fishcould only survive on land for a few minutes.

So, how does the evolutionist view explain the origin of land-dwelling animals? Some shallow comments in evolutionist literature aremainly based on a Lamarckian rationale. For instance, regarding thetransformation of fins into feet, they say, "Just when fish started to creepon land, fins gradually became feet." Even Ali Demirsoy, one of theforemost authorities on evolution in Turkey, writes the following: "Maybethe fins of lunged fish changed into amphibian feet as they crept throughmuddy water."81

As mentioned earlier, these comments are based on a Lamarckianrationale, since the comment is essentially based on the improvement of anorgan through use and the passing on of this trait to subsequentgenerations. It seems that the theory postulated by Lamarck, whichcollapsed a century ago, still has a strong influence on the subconsciousminds of evolutionary biologists today.

If we set aside these Lamarckist, and therefore unscientific, scenarios,we have to turn our attention to scenarios based on mutation and naturalselection. However, when these mechanisms are examined, it can be seenthat the transition from water to land is at a complete impasse.

Let us imagine how a fish might emerge from the sea and adapt itselfto the land: If the fish does not undergo a rapid modification in terms of



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (73)

its respiratory, excretory and skeletal systems, it will inevitably die. Thechain of mutations that needs to come about has to provide the fish with alung and terrestrial kidneys, immediately. Similarly, this mechanismshould transform the fins into feet and provide the sort of skin texture thatwill hold water inside the body. What is more, this chain of mutations hasto take place during the lifespan of one single animal.

No evolutionary biologist would ever advocate such a chain ofmutations. The implausible and nonsensical nature of the very idea isobvious. Despite this fact, evolutionists put forward the concept of"preadaptation," which means that fish acquire the traits they will needwhile they are still in the water. Put briefly, the theory says that fishacquire the traits of land-dwelling animals before they even feel the needfor these traits, while they are still living in the sea.

Nevertheless, such a scenario is illogical even when viewed from thestandpoint of the theory of evolution. Surely, acquiring the traits of a land-dwelling living animal would not be advantageous for a marine animal.Consequently, the proposition that these traits occurred by means ofnatural selection rests on no rational grounds. On the contrary, naturalselection should eliminate any creature which underwent "preadaptation,"since acquiring traits which would enable it to survive on land wouldsurely place it at a disadvantage in the sea.

In brief, the scenario of "transition from sea to land" is at a completeimpasse. It is accepted by evolutionists as a miracle of nature that cannot

True Natural History I


The "transition from water to land" scenario, often maintained in evolutionistpublications in imaginary diagrams like the one above, is often presented with aLamarckian rationale, which is clearly pseudoscience.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (74)

be re-examined. This is why Henry Gee, the editor of Nature, considers thisscenario as an unscientific story:

Conventional stories about evolution, about 'missing links', are not inthemselves testable, because there is only one possible course of events —the one implied by the story. If your story is about how a group of fishescrawled onto land and evolved legs, you are forced to see this as a once-onlyevent, because that's the way the story goes. You can either subscribe to thestory or not — there are no alternatives.82

The impasse does not only come from the alleged mechanisms ofevolution, but also from the fossil record or the study of living tetrapods.Robert Carroll has to admit that "neither the fossil record nor study ofdevelopment in modern genera yet provides a complete picture of howthe paired limbs in tetrapods evolved…"83

The classical candidates for transitional forms in alleged fish-tetrapodevolution have been several fish and amphibian genera.

Evolutionist natural historians traditionally refer to coelacanths (and



There was no "evolutionary" process in the originof frogs. The oldest known frogs were completelydifferent from fish, and emerged with all theirown peculiar features. Frogs in our time possessthe same features. There is no difference betweenthe frog found preserved in amber in theDominican Republic and specimens living today.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (75)

the closely-related, extinct Rhipidistians) as themost probably ancestors of quadrupeds.These fish come under the Crossopterygiansubclass. Evolutionists invest all theirhopes in them simply because their finshave a relatively "fleshy" structure. Yetthese fish are not transitional forms;there are huge anatomical andphysiological differences between thisclass and amphibians.

In fact, the alleged "transitionalforms" between fish and amphibians are not transitional in the sense thatthey have very small differences, but in the sense that they can be the bestcandidates for an evolutionary scenario. Huge anatomical differences existbetween the fish most likely to be taken as amphibian ancestors and theamphibians taken to be their descendants. Two examples areEusthenopteron (an extinct fish) and Acanthostega (an extinct amphibian),the two favorite subjects for most of the contemporary evolutionaryscenarios regarding tetrapod origins. Robert Carroll, in his Patterns andProcesses of Vertebrate Evolution, makes the following comment about theseallegedly related forms:

Eusthenopteron and Acanthostega may be taken as the end points in thetransition between fish and amphibians. Of 145 anatomical features thatcould be compared between these two genera, 91 showed changes associatedwith adaptation to life on land… This is far more than the number of changesthat occurred in any one of the transitions involving the origin of the fifteenmajor groups of Paleozoic tetrapods.84

Ninety-one differences over 145 anatomical features… Andevolutionists believe that all these were redesigned through a process ofrandom mutations in about 15 million years.85 To believe in such a scenariomay be necessary for the sake of evolutionary theory, but it is notscientifically and rationally sound. This is true for all other versions of thefish-amphibian scenario, which differ according to the candidates that arechosen to be the transitional forms. Henry Gee, the editor of Nature, makesa similar comment on the scenario based on Ichthyostega, another extinctamphibian with very similar characteristics to Acanthostega:

True Natural History I


An Eusthenopteron foordifossil from the Later

Devonian Age found inCanada.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (76)

A statement that Ichthyostega is a missing link between fishes and latertetrapods reveals far more about our prejudices than about the creature weare supposed to be studying. It shows how much we are imposing arestricted view on reality based on our own limited experience, when realitymay be larger, stranger, and more different than we can imagine.86

Another remarkable feature of amphibian origins is the abruptappearance of the three basic amphibian categories. Carroll notes that "Theearliest fossils of frogs, caecilians, and salamanders all appear in the Earlyto Middle Jurassic. All show most of the important attributes of their livingdescendants."87 In other words, these animals appeared abruptly and didnot undergo any "evolution" since then.

Speculations About Coelacanths

Fish that come under the coelacanth family were once accepted asstrong evidence for transitional forms. Basing their argument on


When they only had fossils of coelacanths, evolutionary paleontologists put forward anumber of Darwinist assumptions regarding them; however, when living exampleswere found, all these assumptions were shattered.Below, examples of living coelacanths. The picture on the right shows the latestspecimen of coelacanth, found in Indonesia in 1998.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (77)

coelacanth fossils, evolutionary biologists proposed that this fish had aprimitive (not completely functioning) lung. Many scientific publicationsstated the fact, together with drawings showing how coelacanths passedto land from water. All these rested on the assumption that the coelacanthwas an extinct species.

However on December 22, 1938, a very interesting discovery wasmade in the Indian Ocean. A living member of the coelacanth family,previously presented as a transitional form that had become extinct 70million years ago, was caught! The discovery of a "living" prototype of thecoelacanth undoubtedly gave evolutionists a severe shock. Theevolutionary paleontologist J. L. B. Smith said, "If I'd meet a dinosaur inthe street I wouldn't have been more astonished."88 In the years to come,200 coelacanths were caught many times in different parts of the world.

Living coelacanths revealed how groundless the speculationregarding them was. Contrary to what had been claimed, coelacanths had

True Natural History I

The fundamental reason why evolutionists imagine coelacanths and similar fish to be "theancestor of land animals" is that they have bony fins. They imagine that these graduallyturned into feet. However, there is a fundamental difference between fish bones and thefeet of land animals such as Ichthyostega: As shown in Picture 1, the bones of thecoelacanth are not attached to the backbone; however, those of Ichthyostega are, asshown in Picture 2. For this reason, the claim that these fins gradually developed into feetis quite unfounded. Furthermore, the structure of the bones in coelacanth fins is verydifferent from that in the bones in Ichthyostega feet, as seen in Pictures 3 and 4.

bones arenot attachedto thebackbone

bones areattached tothe backbone










Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (78)

neither a primitive lung nor a large brain. The organ that evolutionistresearchers had proposed as a primitive lung turned out to be nothing buta fat-filled swimbladder.89 Furthermore, the coelacanth, which wasintroduced as "a reptile candidate preparing to pass from sea to land," wasin reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans and neverapproached nearer than 180 meters from the surface.90

Following this, the coelacanth suddenly lost all its popularity inevolutionist publications. Peter Forey, an evolutionary paleontologist, saysin an article of his in Nature:

The discovery of Latimeria raised hopes of gathering direct information onthe transition of fish to amphibians, for there was then a long-held belief thatcoelacanths were close to the ancestry of tetrapods. ...But studies of theanatomy and physiology of Latimeria have found this theory of relationshipto be wanting and the living coelacanth's reputation as a missing link seemsunjustified.91

This meant that the only serious claim of a transitional form betweenfish and amphibians had been demolished.

Physical Obstacles to Transition from Water to Land

The claim that fish are the ancestors of land-dwelling creatures isinvalidated by anatomical and physiological observations as much as bythe fossil record. When we examine the huge anatomical and physiologicaldifferences between water- and land-dwelling creatures, we can see thatthese differences could not have disappeared in an evolutionary processwith gradual changes based on chance. We can list the most evident ofthese differences as follows

1- Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem inbearing their own weight in the sea, although the structures of their bodiesare not made for such a task on land. However, most land-dwellingcreatures consume 40 percent of their energy just in carrying their bodiesaround. Creatures making the transition from water to land would at thesame time have had to develop new muscular and skeletal systems tomeet this energy need, and this could not have come about by chancemutations.

The basic reason why evolutionists imagine the coelacanth and



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (79)

similar fish to be the ancestors of land-dwelling creatures is that their fins

contain bones. It is assumed that over time these fins turned into load-

bearing feet. However, there is a fundamental difference between these

fish's bones and land-dwelling creatures' feet. It is impossible for the

former to take on a load-bearing function, as they are not linked to the

backbone. Land-dwelling creatures' bones, in contrast, are directly

connected to the backbone. For this reason, the claim that these fins slowly

developed into feet is unfounded.

2- Heat retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and

fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical

mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However,


THE KIDNEY PROBLEMFish remove harmful substances from their bodies directly into the water, but land animalsneed kidneys. For this reason, the scenario of transition from water to the land requireskidneys to have developed by chance.However, kidneys possess an exceedingly complex structure and, what is more, the kidneyneeds to be 100 percent present and in complete working order in order to function. Akidney developed 50, or 70, or even 90 percent will serve no function. Since the theory ofevolution depends on the assumption that "organs that are not used disappear," a 50percent-developed kidney will disappear from the body in the first stage of evolution.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (80)


Frogs are born in water, live there for a

while, and finally emerge onto land in a

process known as "metamorphosis." Some

people think that metamorphosis is evidence

of evolution, whereas the two actually have

nothing to do with one another.

The sole innovative mechanism proposed by

evolution is mutation. However,

metamorphosis does not come about by

coincidental effects like mutation does. On

the contrary, this change is written in frogs'

genetic code. In other words, it is already

evident when a frog is first born that it will

have a type of body that allows it to live on

land. Research carried out in recent years has

shown that metamorphosis is a complex

process governed by different genes. For

instance, just the loss of the tail during this

process is governed, according to Science

News magazine, by more than a dozen genes

(Science News, July 17, 1999, page 43).

The evolutionists' claim of transition from

water to land says that fish, with a genetic

code completely designed to allow them to

live in water, turned into land creatures as a

result of chance mutations. However, for this

reason metamorphosis actually tears

evolution down, rather than shoring it up,

because the slightest error in the process of

metamorphosis means the creature will die or

be deformed. It is essential that

metamorphosis should happen perfectly. It is

impossible for such a complex process, which

allows no room for error, to have come about

by chance mutations, as is claimed by


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (81)

in the sea, the temperature changes slowly, and within a narrower range.A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constanttemperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensureminimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterousto claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon asthey stepped onto land.

3- Water: Essential to metabolism, water needs to be usedeconomically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance, the skin hasto be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventingexcessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experiencethirst, something that sea-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason,the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.

4- Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials,especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment: In freshwaterfish, most of the nitrogenous wastes (including large amounts ofammonia, NH3) leave by diffusion out of the gills. The kidney is mostly adevice for maintaining water balance in the animal, rather than an organof excretion. Marine fish have two types. Sharks, skates, and rays maycarry very high levels of urea in their blood. Shark's blood may contain2.5% urea in contrast to the 0.01-0.03% in other vertebrates. The other type,i. e., marine bony fish, are much different. They lose water continuouslybut replace it by drinking seawater and then desalting it. They rely moreon tubular secretion for eliminating excess or waste solutes.

Each of these different excretory systems is very different from thoseof terrestrial vertebrates. Therefore, in order for the passage from water toland to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had todevelop a kidney system all at once.

5- Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolvedin water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than afew minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have toacquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.

It is most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiologicalchanges could have happened in the same organism at the same time, andall by chance.

True Natural History I


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (82)

The Origin of Reptiles

Dinosaur, lizard, turtle, crocodile—all these fall under the class of

reptiles. Some, such as dinosaurs, are extinct, but the majority of these

species still live on the earth. Reptiles possess some distinctive features.

For example, their bodies are covered with scales, and they are cold-

blooded, meaning they are unable to regulate their body temperatures

physiologically (which is why they expose their bodies to sunlight in order

to warm up). Most of them reproduce by laying eggs.

Regarding the origin of these creatures, evolution is again at an

impasse. Darwinism claims that reptiles evolved from amphibians.

However, no discovery to verify such a claim has ever been made. On the

contrary, comparisons between amphibians and reptiles reveal that there

are huge physiological gaps between the two, and a "half reptile-half



One of the inconsistencies in the amphibian-

reptile evolution scenario is the structure of

the eggs. Amphibian eggs, which develop in

water, have a jelly-like structure and a

porous membrane, whereas reptile eggs, as shown in the reconstruction of a

dinosaur egg on the right, are hard and impermeable, in order to conform to

conditions on land. In order for an amphibian to become a reptile, its eggs

would have to have coincidentally turned into perfect reptile eggs, and yet

the slightest error in such a process would lead to the extinction of the


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (83)

amphibian" would have no chance of survival. One example of the physiological gaps between these two groups is

the different structures of their eggs. Amphibians lay their eggs in water,and their eggs are jelly-like, with a transparent and permeable membrane.Such eggs possess an ideal structure for development in water. Reptiles,on the other hand, lay their eggs on land, and consequently their eggs aredesigned to survive there. The hard shell of the reptile egg, also known asan "amniotic egg," allows air in, but is impermeable to water. In this way,the water needed by the developing animal is kept inside the egg.

If amphibian eggs were laid on land, they would immediately dry out,killing the embryo. This cannot be explained in terms of evolution, whichasserts that reptiles evolved gradually from amphibians. That is because,for life to have begun on land, the amphibian egg must have changed intoan amniotic one within the lifespan of a single generation. How such aprocess could have occurred by means of natural selection and mutation—the mechanisms of evolution—is inexplicable. Biologist Michael Dentonexplains the details of the evolutionist impasse on this matter:

Every textbook of evolution asserts that reptiles evolved from amphibia butnone explains how the major distinguishing adaptation of the reptiles, theamniotic egg, came about gradually as a result of a successive accumulationof small changes. The amniotic egg of the reptile is vastly more complex andutterly different to that of an amphibian. There are hardly two eggs in thewhole animal kingdom which differ more fundamentally… The origin of theamniotic egg and the amphibian – reptile transition is just another of themajor vertebrate divisions for which clearly worked out evolutionaryschemes have never been provided. Trying to work out, for example, howthe heart and aortic arches of an amphibian could have been graduallyconverted to the reptilian and mammalian condition raises absolutelyhorrendous problems.92

Nor does the fossil record provide any evidence to confirm theevolutionist hypothesis regarding the origin of reptiles.

Robert L. Carroll, an evolutionary paleontologist and authority onvertebrate paleontology, is obliged to accept this. He has written in hisclassic work, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, that "The early amniotesare sufficiently distinct from all Paleozoic amphibians that their specificancestry has not been established."93 In his newer book, Patterns and

True Natural History I


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (84)

Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, published in 1997, he admits that "Theorigin of the modern amphibian orders, (and) the transition between earlytetrapods" are "still poorly known" along with the origins of many othermajor groups.94

The same fact is also acknowledged by Stephen Jay Gould:

No fossil amphibian seems clearly ancestral to the lineage of fullyterrestrial vertebrates (reptiles, birds, and mammals).95

So far, the most important animal put forward as the "ancestor ofreptiles" has been Seymouria, a species of amphibian. However, the factthat Seymouria cannot be a transitional form was revealed by the discoverythat reptiles existed on earth some 30 million years before Seymouria firstappeared on it. The oldest Seymouria fossils are found in the LowerPermian layer, or 280 million years ago. Yet the oldest known reptilespecies, Hylonomus and Paleothyris, were found in lower Pennsylvanianlayers, making them some 315-330 million years old.96 It is surelyimplausible, to say the least, that the "ancestor of reptiles" lived much laterthan the first reptiles.

In brief, contrary to the evolutionist claim that living beings evolvedgradually, scientific facts reveal that they appeared on earth suddenly andfully formed.


THE SEYMOURIA MISTAKEEvolutionists at one time claimed that

the Seymouria fossil on the left wasa transitional form between

amphibians and reptiles.According to this scenario,

Seymouria was "the primitiveancestor of reptiles." However,

subsequent fossil discoveriesshowed that reptiles were living

on earth some 30 million yearsbefore Seymouria. In the light ofthis, evolutionists had to put an

end to their comments regardingSeymouria.


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (85)

Snakes and Turtles

Furthermore, there are impassable boundaries between very differentorders of reptiles such as snakes, crocodiles, dinosaurs, and lizards. Eachone of these different orders appears all of a sudden in the fossil record,and with very different structures. Looking at the structures in these verydifferent groups, evolutionists go on to imagine the evolutionaryprocesses that might have happened. But these hypotheses are notreflected in the fossil record. For instance, one widespread evolutionaryassumption is that snakes evolved from lizards which gradually lost theirlegs. But evolutionists are unable to answer the question of what"advantage" could accrue to a lizard which had gradually begun to lose itslegs, and how this creature could be "preferred" by natural selection.

It remains to say that the oldest known snakes in the fossil recordhave no "intermediate form"characteristics, and are no differentfrom snakes of our own time. Theoldest known snake fossil is Dinilysia,found in Upper Cretaceous rocks inSouth America. Robert Carroll acceptsthat this creature "shows a fairlyadvanced stage of evolution of thesefeatures [the specialized features ofthe skull of snakes],"97 in other wordsthat it already possesses all thecharacteristics of modern snakes.

Another order of reptile isturtles, which emerge in the fossilrecord together with the shells whichare so characteristic of them.Evolutionist sources state that "Unfortunately, the origin of this highlysuccessful order is obscured by the lack of early fossils, although turtlesleave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates. By themiddle of the Triassic Period (about 200,000,000 years ago) turtles werenumerous and in possession of basic turtle characteristics… Intermediatesbetween turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which turtlesprobably sprang, are entirely lacking."98

True Natural History I


An approximately 50 million-year-oldpython fossil of the genus Palaeopython.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (86)

Thus Robert Carroll is also forced to mention the origin of turtlesamong the "important transitions and radiations still poorly known."99

All these types of living things emerged suddenly and independently.This fact is a scientific proof that they were created.

Flying Reptiles

One interesting group within the reptile class are flying reptiles.These first emerged some 200 million years ago in the Upper Triassic, butsubsequently became extinct. These creatures were all reptiles, becausethey possessed all the fundamental characteristics of the reptile class. Theywere cold-blooded (i.e., they could not regulate their own internal heat)and their bodies were covered in scales. But they possessed powerfulwings, and it is thought that these allowed them to fly.

Flying reptiles are portrayed in some popular evolutionistpublications as paleontological discoveries that support Darwinism—atleast, that is the impression given. However, the origin of flying reptiles is



Above, a freshwater turtle, some 45million years old, found in Germany. On

the right the remains of the oldestknown marine turtle. This 110-million-

year-old fossil, found in Brazil, isidentical to specimens living today.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (87)

actually a real problem for the theory of evolution. The clearest indicationof this is that flying reptiles emerged suddenly and fully formed, with nointermediate form between them and terrestrial reptiles. Flying reptilespossessed very well designed wings, which no terrestrial reptile possesses.No half-winged creature has ever been encountered in the fossil record.

In any case, no half-winged creature could have lived, because ifthese imaginary creatures had existed, they would have been at a gravedisadvantage compared to other reptiles, having lost their front legs butbeing still unable to fly. In that event, according to evolution's own rules,they would have been eliminated and become extinct.

In fact, when flyingreptiles' wings are examined,they have such a flawlessdesign that this could neverbe accounted for by evolution.Just as other reptiles have fivetoes on their front feet, flyingreptiles have five digits ontheir wings. But the fourthfinger is some 20 times longerthan the others, and the wingstretches out under thatfinger. If terrestrial reptileshad evolved into flyingreptiles, then this fourth fingermust have grown gradually step by step, as time passed. Not just thefourth finger, but the whole structure of the wing, must have developedwith chance mutations, and this whole process would have had to bringsome advantage to the creature. Duane T. Gish, one of the foremost criticsof the theory of evolution on the paleontological level, makes thiscomment:

The very notion that a land reptile could have gradually been converted intoa flying reptile is absurd. The incipient, part-way evolved structures, ratherthan conferring advantages to the intermediate stages, would have been agreat disadvantage. For example, evolutionists suppose that, strange as itmay seem, mutations occurred that affected only the fourth fingers a little bit

True Natural History I


A Eudimorphodon fossil, one of theoldest species of flying reptiles. Thisspecimen, found in northern Italy, is

some 220 million years old.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (88)

at a time. Of course, other random mutations occurring concurrently,

incredible as it may seem, were responsible for the gradual origin of the wing

membrane, flight muscles, tendons, nerves, blood vessels, and other

structures necessary to form the wings. At some stage, the developing flying

reptile would have had about 25 percent wings. This strange creature would

never survive, however. What good are 25 percent wings? Obviously the

creature could not fly, and he could no longer run…100

In short, it is impossible to account for the origin of flying reptileswith the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. And in fact the fossil recordreveals that no such evolutionary process took place. Fossil layers containonly land reptiles like those we know today, and perfectly developedflying reptiles. There is no intermediate form. Carroll, who is one of themost respected names in the world in the field of vertebrate paleontology,makes the following admission as an evolutionist:

...all the Triassic pterosaurs were highly specialized for flight... They provide

little evidence of their specific ancestry and no evidence of earlier stages inthe origin of flight.101

Carroll, more recently, in his Patterns and Processes of VertebrateEvolution, counts the origin of pterosaurs among the important transitionsabout which not much is known.102



A fossil flyingreptile of thespeciesPterodactyluskochi. Thisspecimen, foundin Bavaria, isabout 240 millionyears old.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (89)

To put it briefly, there is no evidence for the evolution of flyingreptiles. Because the term "reptile" means only land-dwelling reptiles formost people, popular evolutionist publications try to give the impressionregarding flying reptiles that reptiles grew wings and began to fly.However, the fact is that both land-dwelling and flying reptiles emergedwith no evolutionary relationship between them.

Marine Reptiles

Another interesting category in the classification of reptiles is marinereptiles. The great majority of these creatures have become extinct,although turtles are an example of one group that survives. As with flyingreptiles, the origin of marine reptiles is something that cannot be explainedwith an evolutionary approach. The most important known marine reptileis the creature known as the ichthyosaur. In their book Evolution of theVertebrates, Edwin H. Colbert and Michael Morales admit the fact that noevolutionary account of the origin of these creatures can be given:

The ichthyosaurs, in many respects the most highly specialized of the marinereptiles, appeared in early Triassic times. Their advent into the geologichistory of the reptiles was sudden and dramatic; there are no clues in pre-Triassic sediments as to the possible ancestors of the ichthyosaurs… Thebasic problem of ichthyosaur relationships is that no conclusive evidence canbe found for linking these reptiles with any other reptilian order.103

True Natural History I


The wings of flying reptiles extend alonga "fourth finger" some 20 times longerthan the other fingers. The importantpoint is that this interesting wingstructure emerges suddenly and fullyformed in the fossil record. There are noexamples indicating that this "fourthfinger" grew gradually—in other words,that it evolved.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (90)

Similarly, Alfred S. Romer, another expert on the natural history ofvertebrates, writes:

No earlier forms [of ichthyosaurs] are known. The peculiarities ofichthyosaur structure would seemingly require a long time for theirdevelopment and hence a very early origin for the group, but there are noknown Permian reptiles antecedent to them.104

Carroll again has to admit that the origin of ichthyosaurs andnothosaurs (another family of aquatic reptiles) are among the many"poorly known" cases for evolutionists.105

In short, the different creatures that fall under the classification ofreptiles came into being on the earth with no evolutionary relationshipbetween them. As we shall see in due course, the same situation appliesto mammals: there are flying mammals (bats) and marine mammals(dolphins and whales). However, these different groups are far from beingevidence for evolution. Rather, they represent seriousdifficulties that evolution cannot account for, sincein all cases the different taxonomical categoriesappeared on earth suddenly, with nointermediate forms between them, and withall their different structures already intact.

This is clear scientific proof that allthese creatures were actually created.



Fossil ichthyosaur of the genus Stenopterygius, about 250 million years old.

200-million-year-oldichthyosaur fossil.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (91)

here are thousands of bird species on the earth. Every one of thempossesses distinct features. For example, falcons have acute vision,wide wings and sharp talons, while hummingbirds, with their longbeaks, suck the nectar of flowers.

Others migrate over long distances to very specific places in theworld. But the most important feature distinguishing birds from otheranimals is flight. Most birds have the ability to fly.

How did birds come into existence? The theory of evolution tries toprovide an answer with a long scenario. According to this story, reptilesare the ancestors of birds. Approximately 150-200 million years ago, birdsevolved from their reptile ancestors. The first birds had very poor flyingskills. Yet, during the evolution process, feathers replaced the thick skinsof these ancient birds, which were originally covered with scales. Theirfront legs were also completely covered by feathers, and changed intowings. As a result of gradual evolution, some reptiles adapted themselvesto flight, and thus became the birds of today.

This scenario is presented in evolutionary sources as an establishedfact. However, an in-depth study of the details and the scientific dataindicates that the scenario is based more on imagination than reality.

The Origin of Flight According to Evolutionists

How reptiles, as land-dwelling creatures, ever came to fly, is an issuewhich has stirred up considerable speculation among evolutionists. Thereare two main theories. The first argues that the ancestors of birds




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (92)

descended to the ground from the trees. As a result, these ancestors arealleged to be reptiles that lived in the treetops and came to possess wingsgradually as they jumped from one branch to another. This is known as thearboreal theory. The other, the cursorial (or "running") theory, suggeststhat birds progressed to the air from the land.

Yet both of these theories rest upon speculative interpretations, andthere is no evidence to support either of them. Evolutionists have deviseda simple solution to the problem: they simply imagine that the evidenceexists. Professor John Ostrom, head of the Geology Department at YaleUniversity, who proposed the cursorial theory, explains this approach:

No fossil evidence exists of any pro-avis. It is a purely hypothetical pre-bird,but one that must have existed.106

However, this transitional form, which the arboreal theory assumes"must have lived," has never been found. The cursorial theory is evenmore problematic. The basic assumption of the theory is that the front legsof some reptiles gradually developed into wings as they waved their armsaround in order to catch insects. However, no explanation is provided ofhow the wing, a highly complex organ, came into existence as a result ofthis flapping.

One huge problem for the theory of evolution is the irreduciblecomplexity of wings. Only a perfect design allows wings to function, a"half-way developed" wing cannot function. In this context, the "gradualdevelopment" model—the unique mechanism postulated by evolution—makes no sense. Thus Robert Carroll is forced to admit that, "It is difficultto account for the initial evolution of feathers as elements in the flightapparatus, since it is hard to see how they could function until theyreached the large size seen in Archaeopteryx."107 Then he argues thatfeathers could have evolved for insulation, but this does not explain theircomplex design which is specifically shaped for flying.

It is essential that wings should be tightly attached to the chest, andpossess a structure able to lift the bird up and enable it to move in alldirections, as well as allowing it to remain in the air. It is essential thatwings and feathers possess a light, flexible and well proportionedstructure. At this point, evolution is again in a quandary. It fails to answerthe question of how this flawless design in wings came about as the resultof accumulative random mutations. Similarly, it offers no explanation of



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (93)

how the foreleg of a reptile came to change into a perfect wing as a resultof a defect (mutation) in the genes.

A half-formed wing cannot fly. Consequently, even if we assume thatmutation did lead to a slight change in the foreleg, it is still entirelyunreasonable to assume that further mutations contributed coincidentallyto the development of a full wing. That is because a mutation in theforelegs will not produce a new wing; on the contrary, it will just cause theanimal to lose its forelegs. This would put it at a disadvantage comparedto other members of its own species. According to the rules of the theoryof evolution, natural selection would soon eliminate this flawed creature.

According to biophysical research, mutations are changes that occurvery rarely. Consequently, it is impossible that a disabled animal couldwait millions of years for its wings to fully develop by means of slightmutations, especially when these mutations have damaging effects overtime…

Birds and Dinosaurs

The theory of evolution holds that birds evolved from carnivoroustheropods. However, a comparison between birds and reptiles reveals thatthe two have very distinct features, making it unlikely that one evolvedfrom the other.

There are various structural differences between birds and reptiles,


IIMMAAGGIINNAARRYY TTHHEEOORRIIEESS,, IIMMAAGGIINNAARRYY CCRREEAATTUURREESSThe first theory put forward by evolutionists to account for theorigin of flight claimed that reptiles developed wings as theyhunted flies (above); the second theory was that they turnedinto birds as they jumped from branch to branch (side).However, there are no fossils of animals which graduallydeveloped wings, nor any discovery to show that such a thingcould even be possible.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (94)

one of which concerns bone structure. Due to their bulky natures,dinosaurs—the ancestors of birds according to evolutionists—had thick,solid bones. Birds, in contrast, whether living or extinct, have hollowbones that are very light, as they must be in order for flight to take place.

Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolicstructure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animalkingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolismremains a speculation.) Birds, on the other hand, are at the opposite end ofthe metabolic spectrum. For instance, the body temperature of a sparrowcan rise to as much as 48°C due to its fast metabolism. On the other hand,reptiles lack the ability to regulate their body temperature. Instead, theyexpose their bodies to sunlight in order to warm up. Put simply, reptilesconsume the least energy of all animals and birds the most.

One of the best-known ornithologists in the world, Alan Feducciafrom the University of North Carolina, opposes the theory that birds arerelated to dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself.Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird evolution:

Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similaritieswhatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion,will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.108

Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University ofKansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs.Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, hestates:

To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds withthose characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk aboutit.109

Yet, despite all the scientific findings, the groundless scenario of"dinosaur-bird evolution" is still insistently advocated. Popularpublications are particularly fond of the scenario. Meanwhile, conceptswhich provide no backing for the scenario are presented as evidence for"dinosaur-bird evolution."

In some evolutionist publications, for instance, emphasis is laid onthe differences among dinosaur hip bones to support the thesis that birdsare descended from dinosaurs. These so-called differences exist between



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (95)

Dinosaur bones are thickand solid because of theirmassive structure, whereasthe bones of living andextinct birds are hollow,and thus very light.


Unlike dinosaur and reptile bones, bird bones are hollow. This gives the bodystability and lightness. Birds' skeletal structure is employed in designingairplanes, bridges and modern structures.


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (96)

dinosaurs classified as Saurischian (reptile-like, hip-girdled species) andOrnithischian (bird-like, hip-girdled species). This concept of dinosaurshaving hip girdles similar to those of birds is now and then taken asevidence for the alleged dinosaur–bird link. However, the difference in hipgirdles is no evidence at all for the claim that birds evolved fromdinosaurs. That is because Ornithischian dinosaurs do not resemble birdswith respect to other anatomical features. For instance, Ankylosaurus is adinosaur classified as Ornithischian, with short legs, a giant body, and skincovered with scales resembling armor. On the other hand, Struthiomimus,which resembles birds in some of its anatomical features (long legs, shortforelegs, and thin structure), is actually a Saurischian.110

In short, the structure of the hip girdle is no evidence for anevolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs. The claim thatdinosaurs resemble birds because their hip girdles are similar ignoresother significant anatomical differences between the two species whichmake any evolutionary link between them untenable from the evolutionistviewpoint.

The Unique Structure of Avian Lungs

Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-birdevolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot beaccounted for by evolution.

In land-dwelling creatures, air flow is bidirectional. Upon inhaling,the air travels through the passages in the lungs (bronchial tubes), endingin tiny air sacs (alveoli). The exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takesplace here. Then, upon exhaling, this used air makes its way back andfinds its way out of the lung by the same route.

In birds however, air is unidirectional. New air comes in one end, andthe used air goes at the other end. Thanks to special air sacs all along thepassages between them, air always flows in one direction through theavian lung. In this way, birds are able to take in air nonstop. This satisfiesbirds' high energy requirements. This highly specialized respiratorysystem is explained by Michael Denton in his book A Theory in Crisis:

In the case of birds, the major bronchi break down into tiny tubes whichpermeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi eventually join up



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (97)

together again, forming a true circulatory system so that air flows in one

direction through the lungs. ...[T]he structure of the lung in birds and the

overall functioning of the respiratory system is quite unique. No lung in any

other vertebrate species is known which in any way approaches the avian

system. Moreover, it is identical in all essential details in birds as diverse as

humming birds, ostriches and hawks.111

The important thing is that the reptile lung, with its bidirectional airflow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its unidirectionalflow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediatemodel between them. In order for a creature to live, it has to keepbreathing, and a reversal of the structure of its lungs with a change ofdesign would inevitably end in death. According to evolution, this changemust happen gradually over millions of years, whereas a creature whoselungs do not work will die within a few minutes.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton, from the University of Otago inNew Zealand, states that it is impossible to give an evolutionary accountof the avian lung:

Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved

gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to

True Natural History II


Bird lungs function in a way that is completely contrary to the way the lungs ofland animals function. The latter inhale and exhale through the same passages.The air in bird lungs, in contrast, passes continuously through the lung in onedirection. This is made possible by special air sacs throughout the lung. Thanks tothis system, whose details can be seen overleaf, birds breathe nonstop. This designis peculiar to birds, which need high levels of oxygen during flight. It is impossiblefor this structure to have evolved from reptile lungs, because any creature with an"intermediate" form between the two types of lung would be unable to breathe.





air flow

air flows in

air flows out

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (98)


BREATHING OUT: When a birdbreathes out, the fresh air in therear air sacs goes into the lungs.With this system, the bird is ableto enjoy a constant supply offresh air to its lungs.There are many details in thislung system, which is shown invery simplified form in thesediagrams. For instance, there arespecial valves where the sacs jointhe lungs, which enable the air toflow in the right direction. All ofthese show that there is a cleardesign at work here. This designnot only deals a death blow tothe theory of evolution, it is alsoclear proof of creation.

BREATHING IN: The airwhich enters birds'respiratory passages goesto the lungs, and to airsacs behind them. The airwhich is used istransferred to air sacs atthe front.

front air sacs


rear air sacs


Fresh air

Stale air

Fresh air

Fresh airdoes notpass throughflont air sacs


Rear air sacs arefilled with fresh air

Front airsacs arefilled withthe stale aircoming fromthe lungs


Stale air

Fresh air moves outof the rear air sacsto the lungs.


Stale air isexpelled fromthe front airsacs.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (99)

envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratoryfunction is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that theslightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feathercannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules arecoadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as anorgan of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and theair sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are bothhighly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integratedmanner.112

In brief, the passage from a terrestrial lung to an avian lung isimpossible, because an intermediate form would serve no purpose.

Another point that needs to be mentioned here is that reptiles have adiaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal airsac system instead of a diaphragm. These different structures also makeany evolution between the two lung types impossible, as John Ruben, anacknowledged authority in the field of respiratory physiology, observes inthe following passage:

The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac systemfrom a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection fora diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between theropods and birds.Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised theentire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been ofany selective advantage.113

Another interesting structural design of the avian lung which defiesevolution is the fact that it is never empty of air, and thus never in dangerof collapse. Michael Denton explains the position:

Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved graduallyfrom the standard vertebrate design without some sort of direction is, again,very difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance ofrespiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of the organism. Moreover,the unique function and form of the avian lung necessitates a number ofadditional unique adaptations during avian development. As H. R. Dunker,one of the world's authorities in this field, explains, because first, the avianlung is fixed rigidly to the body wall and cannot therefore expand in volumeand, second, because of the small diameter of the lung capillaries and theresulting high surface tension of any liquid within them, the avian lungcannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as happens in all other vertebrates

True Natural History II


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (100)

after birth. The air capillaries are never collapsed as are the alveoli of other

vertebrate species; rather, as they grow into the lung tissue, the parabronchi

are from the beginning open tubes filled with either air or fluid.114

In other words, the passages in birds' lungs are so narrow that the airsacs inside their lungs cannot fill with air and empty again, as with land-dwelling creatures.

If a bird lung ever completely deflated, the bird would never be ableto re-inflate it, or would at the very least have great difficulty in doing so.For this reason, the air sacs situated all over the lung enable a constantpassage of air to pass through, thus protecting the lungs from deflating.

Of course this system, which is completely different from the lungs ofreptiles and other vertebrates, and is based on the most sensitiveequilibrium, cannot have come about with unconscious mutations, stageby stage, as evolution maintains. This is how Denton describes thisstructure of the avian lung, which again invalidates Darwinism:

The avian lung brings us very close to answering Darwin's challenge: "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."115


Parabronchial tubes, which enable air to circulate in the right direction in birds' lungs.Each of these tubes is just 0.5 mm. in diameter.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (101)

Bird Feathers and Reptile Scales

Another impassable gulf between birds and reptiles is feathers, whichare peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, and those ofbirds with feathers. The hypothesis that bird feathers evolved from reptilescales is completely unfounded, and is indeed disproved by the fossilrecord, as the evolutionary paleontologist Barbara Stahl admits:

How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defiesanalysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that theirevolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period oftime and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossilrecord does not bear out that supposition.116

A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at theUniversity of Connecticut, accepts this reality, although he is himself anevolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, todevelopment, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [infeathers and scales]."117 Moreover, Professor Brush examines the proteinstructure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique amongvertebrates."118

There is no fossil evidence to prove that birdfeathers evolved from reptile scales. On thecontrary, feathers appear suddenly in thefossil record, Professor Brush observes, asan "undeniably unique" characterdistinguishing birds.119 Besides, in reptiles,no epidermal tissue has yet been detectedthat provides a starting point for birdfeathers.120

True Natural History II


REPTILE SCALESThe scales that cover reptiles' bodies are totally differentfrom bird feathers. Unlike feathers, scales do not extendunder the skin, but are merely a hard layer on the surfaceof the animal's body. Genetically, biochemically andanatomically, scales bear no resemblance to feathers. Thisgreat difference between the two again shows that thescenario of evolution from reptiles to birds is unfounded.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (102)

Many fossils have so far been thesubject of "feathered dinosaur"speculation, but detailed study hasalways disproved it. The prominentornithologist Alan Feduccia writesthe following in an article called "OnWhy Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers":

Feathers are features unique tobirds, and there are no knownintermediate structures betweenreptilian scales and feathers.Notwithstanding speculations onthe nature of the elongated scalesfound on such forms asLongisquama ... as being featherlikestructures, there is simply nodemonstrable evidence that they infact are.121

The Design of Feathers

On the other hand, there is such a complex design in bird feathersthat the phenomenon can never be accounted for by evolutionaryprocesses. As we all know, there is a shaft that runs up the center of thefeather. Attached to the shaft are the vanes. The vane is made up of smallthread-like strands, called barbs. These barbs, of different lengths andrigidity, are what give the bird its aerodynamic nature. But what is evenmore interesting is that each barb has thousands of even smaller strandsattached to them called barbules. The barbules are connected to barbicels,with tiny microscopic hooks, called hamuli. Each strand is hooked to anopposing strand, much like the hooks of a zipper.

Just one crane feather has about 650 barbs on each of side of the shaft.About 600 barbules branch off the barbs. Each one of these barbules arelocked together with 390 hooklets. The hooks latch together as do the teethon both sides of a zip. If the hooklets come apart for any reason, the birdcan easily restore the feathers to their original form by either shaking itselfor by straightening its feathers out with its beak.



The Sinosauropteryx fossil,announced by evolutionarypaleontologists to be a "feathereddinosaur," but which subsequentlyturned out to be no such thing.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (103)



When bird feathers are studied closely, avery delicate design emerges. There areeven tinier hairs on every tiny hair, and

these have special hooks, allowing themto hold onto each other. The pictures

show progressively enlarged bird feathers.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (104)

To claim that the complex design in feathers could have come aboutby the evolution of reptile scales through chance mutations is quite simplya dogmatic belief with no scientific foundation. Even one of the doyens ofDarwinism, Ernst Mayr, made this confession on the subject some yearsago:

It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balancedsystems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird'sfeather) could be improved by random mutations.122

The design of feathers also compelled Darwin to ponder them.Moreover, the perfect aesthetics of the peaco*ck's feathers had made him"sick" (his own words). In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray on April 3, 1860,he said, "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made mecold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint..." And thencontinued: "... and now trifling particulars of structure often make me veryuncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peaco*ck's tail, whenever I gazeat it, makes me sick!"123

In short, the enormous structural differences between bird feathersand reptile scales, and the unbelievably complex design of feathers, clearlydemonstrate the baselessness of the claim that feathers evolved fromscales.

The Archaeopteryx Misconception

In response to the question whether there is any fossil evidence for"reptile-bird evolution," evolutionists pronounce the name of one singlecreature. This is the fossil of a bird called Archaeopteryx, one of the mostwidely known so-called transitional forms among the very few thatevolutionists still defend.

Archaeopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according toevolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holdsthat some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolvedby acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is assumedto be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors andstarted to fly for the first time.

However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that thisexplanation lacks any scientific foundation. This is absolutely not a



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (105)

transitional form, but an extinct species of bird,having some insignificant differences frommodern birds.

The thesis that Archaeopteryx was a "half-bird"that could not fly perfectly was popular amongevolutionist circles until not long ago. The absenceof a sternum (breastbone) in this creature was heldup as the most important evidence that this birdcould not fly properly. (The sternum is a bonefound under the thorax to which the musclesrequired for flight are attached. In our day, thisbreastbone is observed in all flying and non-flyingbirds, and even in bats, a flying mammal whichbelongs to a very different family.) However, theseventh Archaeopteryx fossil, which was found in1992, disproved this argument. The reason wasthat in this recently discovered fossil, thebreastbone that was long assumed byevolutionists to be missing was discovered to haveexisted after all. This fossil was described in thejournal Nature as follows:

The recently discovered seventh specimen of theArchaeopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected butnever previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles, but itscapacity for long flights is questionable.124

This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the claims thatArchaeopteryx was a half-bird that could not fly properly.

Morevoer, the structure of the bird's feathers became one of the mostimportant pieces of evidence confirming that Archaeopteryx was a flyingbird in the true sense. The asymmetric feather structure of Archaeopteryx isindistinguishable from that of modern birds, and indicates that it could flyperfectly well. As the eminent paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states,"Because of its feathers, [Archaeopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as abird."125 Paleontologist Robert Carroll further explains the subject:

The geometry of the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx is identical with that ofmodern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers.

True Natural History II

One of the importantpieces of evidence thatArchaeopteryx was aflying bird is itsasymmetric featherstructure. Above, oneof the creature's fossilfeathers.


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (106)

The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within therange of modern birds… According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative sizeand shape of the wing of Archaeopteryx are similar to that of birds that movethrough restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves,woodco*cks, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds… The flight feathershave been in stasis for at least 150 million years…126

Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archaeopteryx'sfeathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. As was discussed above,reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heatfluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather than beinghomeostatically regulated. A very important function of the feathers onbirds is the maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact thatArchaeopteryx had feathers shows that it was a real, warm-blooded birdthat needed to retain its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs.

The Teeth and Claws of ArchaeopteryxTwo important points evolutionary biologists rely on when claiming

Archaeopteryx was a transitional form, are the claws on its wings and itsteeth.

It is true that Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in itsmouth, but these traits do not imply that the creature bore any kind ofrelationship to reptiles. Besides, two bird species living today, the touracoand the hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto branches.These creatures are fully birds, with no reptilian characteristics. That iswhy it is completely groundless to assert that Archaeopteryx is atransitional form just because of the claws on its wings.

Neither do the teeth in Archaeopteryx's beak imply that it is atransitional form. Evolutionists are wrong to say that these teeth arereptilian characteristics, since teeth are not a typical feature of reptiles.Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not. Moreover,Archaeopteryx is not the only bird species to possess teeth. It is true thatthere are no toothed birds in existence today, but when we look at thefossil record, we see that both during the time of Archaeopteryx andafterwards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct group of birds existedthat could be categorised as "birds with teeth."

The most important point is that the tooth structure of Archaeopteryx



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (107)

and other birds with teeth is totally different from that of their allegedancestors, the dinosaurs. The well-known ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D.Stewart, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archaeopteryx and othersimilar birds have unserrated teeth with constricted bases and expandedroots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of thesebirds, had serrated teeth withstraight roots.127 These researchersalso compared the ankle bones ofArchaeopteryx with those of theiralleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, andobserved no similarity betweenthem.128

Studies by anatomists such as S.Tarsitano, M.K. Hecht, and A.D.Walker have revealed that some ofthe similarities that John Ostrom andothers have seen between the limbsof Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs werein reality misinterpretations.129 Forexample, A.D. Walker has analyzedthe ear region of Archaeopteryx andfound that it is very similar to that ofmodern birds.130

Furthermore, J. RichardHinchliffe, from the Institute ofBiological Sciences of the University of Wales, studied the anatomies ofbirds and their alleged reptilian ancestors by using modern isotopictechniques and discovered that the three forelimb digits in dinosaurs areI-II-III, whereas bird wing digits are II-III-IV. This poses a big problem forthe supporters of the Archaeopteryx-dinosaur link.131 Hinchliffe publishedhis studies and observations in Science in 1997, where he wrote:

Doubts about hom*ology between theropods and bird digits remind us ofsome of the other problems in the "dinosaur-origin" hypothesis. Theseinclude the following: (i) The much smaller theropod forelimb (relative tobody size) in comparison with the Archaeopteryx wing. Such small limbs arenot convincing as proto-wings for a ground-up origin of flight in the


Just like Archaeopteryx, there areclaw-like nails on the wings of thebird Opisthocomus hoazin, which

lives in our own time.

True Natural History II

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (108)

relatively heavy dinosaurs. (ii) The rarity in theropods of the semilunatewrist bone, known in only four species (including Deinonychus). Mosttheropods have relatively large numbers of wrist elements, difficult tohom*ologize with those of Archaeopteryx. (iii) The temporal paradox that mosttheropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all verymuch later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx.

As Hinchliffe notes, the "temporal paradox" is one of the facts thatdeal the fatal blow to the evolutionist allegations about Archaeopteryx. Inhis book Icons of Evolution, American biologist Jonathan Wells remarks thatArchaeopteryx has been turned into an "icon" of the theory of evolution,whereas evidence clearly shows that this creature is not the primitiveancestor of birds. According to Wells, one of the indications of this is thattheropod dinosaurs—the alleged ancestors of Archaeopteryx—are actuallyyounger than Archaeopteryx: "Two-legged reptiles that ran along theground, and had other features one might expect in an ancestor ofArchaeopteryx, appear later."132

All these findings indicate that Archaeopteryx was not a transitionallink but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called "toothedbirds." Linking this creature to theropod dinosaurs is completely invalid.In an article headed "The Demise of the 'Birds Are Dinosaurs' Theory," theAmerican biologist Richard L. Deem writes the following aboutArchaeopteryx and the bird-dinosaur evolution claim:

The results of the recent studies show that the hands of the theropoddinosaurs are derived from digits I, II, and III, whereas the wings of birds,although they look alike in terms of structure, are derived from digits II, III,and IV... There are other problems with the "birds are dinosaurs" theory. Thetheropod forelimb is much smaller (relative to body size) than that ofArchaeopteryx. The small "proto-wing" of the theropod is not very convincing,especially considering the rather hefty weight of these dinosaurs. The vastmajority of the theropod lack the semilunate wrist bone, and have a largenumber of other wrist elements which have no hom*ology to the bones ofArchaeopteryx. In addition, in almost all theropods, nerve V1 exits thebraincase out the side, along with several other nerves, whereas in birds, itexits out the front of the braincase, though its own hole. There is also theminor problem that the vast majority of the theropods appeared after theappearance of Archaeopteryx.133



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (109)

Archaeopteryx and Other Ancient Bird Fossils

Some recently found fossils also invalidate the evolutionist scenarioregarding Archaeopteryx in other respects.

Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, two paleontologists at the ChineseInstitute of Vertebrate Paleontology, discovered a new bird fossil in 1995,and named it Confuciusornis. This fossil is almost the same age asArchaeopteryx (around 140 million years), but has no teeth in its mouth. Inaddition, its beak and feathers share the same features as today's birds.Confuciusornis has the same skeletal structure as modern birds, but alsohas claws on its wings, just like Archaeopteryx. Another structure peculiarto birds called the "pygostyle," which supports the tail feathers, was alsofound in Confuciusornis.134 In short, this fossil—which is the same age asArchaeopteryx, which was previously thought to be the earliest bird andwas accepted as a semi-reptile—looks very much like a modern bird. Thisfact has invalidated all the evolutionist theses claiming Archaeopteryx to bethe primitive ancestor of all birds.

Another fossil unearthed in China caused even greater confusion. InNovember 1996, the existence of a 130-million-year-old bird namedLiaoningornis was announced in Science by L. Hou, L. D. Martin, and AlanFeduccia. Liaoningornis had a breastbone to which the muscles for flightwere attached, just as in modern birds.135 This bird was indistinguishablefrom modern birds in other respects, too. The only difference was the teethin its mouth. This showed that birds with teeth did not possess theprimitive structure alleged by evolutionists. That Liaoningornis had thefeatures of a modern bird was stated in an article in Discover, which said,"Whence came the birds? This fossil suggests that it was not from dinosaurstock."136

Another fossil that refuted the evolutionist claims regardingArchaeopteryx was Eoalulavis. The wing structure of Eoalulavis, which wassaid to be some 25 to 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, was alsoobserved in modern slow-flying birds.137 This proved that 120 millionyears ago, there were birds indistinguishable from modern birds in manyrespects, flying in the skies.

These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archaeopteryxnor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The fossils do

True Natural History II


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (110)

not indicate that different bird species evolved from each other. On thecontrary, the fossil record proves that today's modern birds and somearchaic birds such as Archaeopteryx actually lived together at the sametime. It is true that some of these bird species, such as Archaeopteryx andConfuciusornis, have become extinct, but the fact that only some of thespecies that once existed have been able to survive down to the presentday does not in itself support the theory of evolution.

Archaeoraptor: The Dino-Bird Hoax

Unable to find what they were looking for in Archaeopteryx, theadvocates of the theory of evolution pinned their hopes on some otherfossils in the 1990s and a series of reports of so-called "dino-bird" fossilsappeared in the world media. Yet it was soon discovered that these claimswere simply misinterpretations, or, even worse, forgeries.

The first dino-bird claim was the story of "feathered dinosaur fossilsunearthed in China," which was put forward in 1996 with a great mediafanfare. A reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found, but somepaleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had bird feathers,unlike modern reptiles. Examinations conducted one year later, however,showed that the fossil actually had no structure similar to a bird's feather.A Science article titled "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur" stated that the



Confuciusornis,which lived at thesame time asArchaeopteryx, hasmany similarities tomodern birds.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (111)

structures named as "feathers" by evolutionary paleontologists definitelyhad nothing to do with feathers:

Exactly 1 year ago, paleontologists were abuzz about photos of a so-called"feathered dinosaur," which were passed around the halls at the annualmeeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The Sinosauropteryxspecimen from the Yixian Formation in China made the front page of TheNew York Times, and was viewed by some as confirming the dinosaurianorigins of birds. But at this year's vertebrate paleontology meeting inChicago late last month, the verdict was a bit different: The structures are notmodern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists whohave seen the specimens. ...Paleontologist Larry Martin of Kansas University,Lawrence, thinks the structures are frayed collagenous fibers beneath theskin—and so have nothing to do with birds.138

A yet more sensational case of dino-bird hype broke out in 1999. In itsNovember 1999 issue, National Geographic published an article about afossil specimen unearthed in China which was claimed to bear both birdand dinosaur features. National Geographic writer Christopher P. Sloan, theauthor of the article, went so far as to claim, "we can now say that birds aretheropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals." Thisspecies, which was said to have lived 125 million years ago, wasimmediately given the scientific name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.139

However, the fossil was a fake and was skillfully constructed from fiveseparate specimens. A group of researchers, among whom were also threepaleontologists, proved the forgery one year later with the help of X-raycomputed tomography. The dino-bird was actually the product of aChinese evolutionist. Chinese amateurs formed the dino-bird by using glueand cement from 88 bones and stones. Research suggests that Archaeoraptorwas built from the front part of the skeleton of an ancient bird, and that itsbody and tail included bones from four different specimens.

The interesting thing is that National Geographic published a high-profile article about such a crude forgery—and, moreover, used it as thebasis for claiming that "bird evolution" scenarios had been verified—without expressing any doubts or caution in the article at all. Dr. StorrsOlson, of the famous Smithsonian Institute Natural History Museum inthe USA, later said that he warned National Geographic beforehand that thisfossil was a fake, but that the magazine management totally ignored him.

True Natural History II


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (112)

According to Olson, "National Geographic has reached an all-time low forengaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism."140

In a letter he wrote to Peter Raven of National Geographic, Olsondescribes the real story of the "feathered dinosaur" hype since its launchwith a previous National Geographic article published in 1998 in a verydetailed way:

Prior to the publication of the article "Dinosaurs Take Wing" in the July 1998National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan's article,invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs ofChinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At thattime, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpointsexisted to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventuallybecame clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anythingother than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Sloan's article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists inlarge part of unverifiable or undocumented information that "makes" thenews rather than reporting it. His bald statement that "we can now say thatbirds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals"is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or groupof scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing.This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies ofembryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are nevermentioned.

More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan's



National Geographic'sgreat hit, the perfect"dino-bird."Archaeoraptor soonturned out to be a hoax.All other "dino-bird"candidates remainspeculative.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (113)

article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to befeathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that hasbeen presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that "hollow, hairlikestructures characterize protofeathers" is nonsense considering thatprotofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internalstructure of one is even more hypothetical.

The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at theNational Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claimthat there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurshad feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus andillustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which issimply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.


Storrs L. Olson

Curator of Birds

National Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian Institution141

This revealing case demonstrates two important facts. First, there arepeople who have no qualms about resorting to forgery in an effort to findevidence for the theory of evolution. Second, some highly reputablepopular science journals, which have assumed the mission of imposingthe theory of evolution on people, are perfectly willing to disregard anyfacts that may be inconvenient or have alternative interpretations. That is,they have become little more than propaganda tools for propagating thetheory of evolution. They take not a scientific, but a dogmatic, stance andknowingly compromise science to defend the theory of evolution to whichthey are so strongly devoted.

Another important aspect of the matter is that there is no evidence forthe thesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Because of the lack ofevidence, either fake evidence is produced, or actual evidence ismisinterpreted. In truth, there is no evidence that birds have evolved fromanother living species. On the contrary, all discoveries show that birdsemerged on the earth already in full possession of their distinctive bodystructures.

True Natural History II


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (114)


The latest blow to the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory came from a study made

on the embryology of ostriches.

Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

studied a series of live ostrich eggs and, once again, concluded that there cannot be an

evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. EurekAlert, a scientific portal held by the

American Association for the The Advancement of Science (AAAS), reports the following:

Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill...

opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of

development and found what they believe is pprrooooff tthhaatt

bbiirrddss ccoouulldd nnoott hhaavvee ddeesscceennddeedd ffrroomm ddiinnoossaauurrss......

Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five

fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod

dinosaurs," Feduccia said... "Scientists agree that dinosaurs

developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three... Our

studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively

that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which

correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers,

develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia,

professor and former chair of biology at UNC. "TThhiiss ccrreeaatteess

aa nneeww pprroobblleemm ffoorr tthhoossee wwhhoo iinnssiisstt tthhaatt ddiinnoossaauurrss wweerree

aanncceessttoorrss ooff mmooddeerrnn bbiirrddss.. How can a bird hand, for

example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a

dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? TThhaatt wwoouulldd bbee aallmmoosstt iimmppoossssiibbllee.." 1

In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the invalidity-and

the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory:

"There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia] said. "Beyond what

we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs

occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150

million years old."

If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear

similar, but cclloossee aanndd ddeettaaiilleedd eexxaammiinnaattiioonn rreevveeaallss mmaannyy ddiiffffeerreenncceess, Feduccia said.

Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had

straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation

and replacement."2

This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird" hype is just another "icon" of

Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake of a dogmatic faith in the theory.

1 - David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird 'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs,"

EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php

2 - David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird 'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs,"

EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php

Dr. Feduccia: His new studyis enough to bury the 'dino-

bird" myth

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (115)

The Origin of Insects

While discussing the origin of birds, we mentioned the cursorialtheory that evolutionary biologists propose. As we made clear then, thequestion of how reptiles grew wings involves speculation about "reptilestrying to catch insects with their front legs." According to this theory, thesereptiles' forefeet slowly turned into wings over time as they hunted forinsects.

We have already stressed that this theory is based on no scientificdiscoveries whatsoever. But there is another interesting side to it, whichwe have not yet touched on. Flies can already fly. So how did they acquirewings? And generally speaking, what is the origin of insects, of which fliesare just one class?

In the classification of living things, insects make up a subphylum,Insecta, of the phylum Arthropoda. The oldest insect fossils belong to theDevonian Age (410 to 360 million years ago). In the Pennsylvanian Agewhich followed (325 to 286 millionyears ago), there emerged a greatnumber of different insect species.For instance, co*ckroaches emerge allof a sudden, and with the samestructure as they have today. BettyFaber, of the American Museum ofNatural History, reports that fossilco*ckroaches from 350 million yearsago are exactly the same as those oftoday.142

Creatures such as spiders, ticks,and millipedes are not insects, butrather belong to other subphyla ofArthropoda. Important fossildiscoveries of these creatures werecommunicated to the 1983 annualmeeting of the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement ofScience. The interesting thing about

True Natural History II


There is no difference betweenthis 320-million-year-old fossil

co*ckroach and specimens livingtoday.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (116)

these 380-million-year-old spider, tick, and centipede fossils is the fact thatthey are no different from specimens alive today. One of the scientists whoexamined the fossils remarked that, "they looked like they might havedied yesterday."143

Winged insects also emerge suddenly in the fossil record, and with allthe features peculiar to them. For example, a large number of dragonflyfossils from the Pennsylvanian Age have been found. And these


Winged insects emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record, and from that momentthey have possessed the same flawless structures as today. The 320-million-yearfossil dragonfly above is the oldest known specimen and is no different fromdragonflies living today. No "evolution" has taken place.

This Acantherpestes major millipede, found in thestate of Kansas in the United States, is some 300million years old, and no different from millipedestoday.

145-million-year-old fossilfly. This fossil, found inLiaoning in China, is thesame as flies of the samespecies living today.


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (117)

dragonflies have exactly the same structures as their counterparts today.One interesting point here is the fact that dragonflies and flies emerge

all of a sudden, together with wingless insects. This disproves the theorythat wingless insects developed wings and gradually evolved into flyingones. In one of their articles in the book Biomechanics in Evolution, RobinWootton and Charles P. Ellington have this to say on the subject:

When insect fossils first appear, in the Middle and Upper Carboniferous,they are diverse and for the most part fully winged. There are a fewprimitively wingless forms, but no convincing intermediates are known.144

One major characteristic of flies, which emerge all of a sudden in thefossil record, is their amazing flying technique. Whereas a human being isunable to open and close his arms even 10 times a second, an average flyflaps its wings 500 times in that space of time. Moreover, it moves both itswings simultaneously. The slightest dissonance in the vibration of itswings would cause the fly to lose balance, but this never happens.

In an article titled "The Mechanical Design of Fly Wings," Woottonfurther observes:

The better we understand the functioning of insect wings, the more subtleand beautiful their designs appear … Structures are traditionally designed todeform as little as possible; mechanisms are designed to move componentparts in predictable ways. Insect wings combine both in one, usingcomponents with a wide range of elastic properties, elegantly assembled toallow appropriate deformations in response to appropriate forces and tomake the best possible use of the air. They have few if any technologicalparallels – yet.145

Of course the sudden emergence of living things with such a perfectdesign as this cannot be explained by any evolutionist account. That iswhy Pierre-Paul Grassé says, "We are in the dark concerning the origin ofinsects."146 The origin of insects clearly proves the fact of creation.

The Origin of Mammals

As we have stated before, the theory of evolution proposes that someimaginary creatures that came out of the sea turned into reptiles, and thatbirds evolved from reptiles. According to the same scenario, reptiles arethe ancestors not only of birds, but also of mammals. However, there are

True Natural History II


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (118)

A fossilized fly, trapped in amber 35

million years ago. This fossil, found

on the Baltic coast, is again no

different from those living in our

own time.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (119)

great differences between these two classes. Mammals are warm-bloodedanimals (this means they can generate their own heat and maintain it at asteady level), they give live birth, they suckle their young, and their bodiesare covered in fur or hair. Reptiles, on the other hand, are cold-blooded(i.e., they cannot generate heat, and their body temperature changesaccording to the external temperature), they lay eggs, they do not suckletheir young, and their bodies are covered in scales.

Given all these differences, then, how did a reptile start to regulate itsbody temperature and come by a perspiratory mechanism to allow it tomaintain its body temperature? Is it possible that it replaced its scales withfur or hair and started to secrete milk? In order for the theory of evolutionto explain the origin of mammals, it must first provide scientific answersto these questions.

Yet, when we look at evolutionist sources, we either find completelyimaginary and unscientific scenarios, or else a profound silence. One ofthese scenarios is as follows:

Some of the reptiles in the colder regions began to develop a method ofkeeping their bodies warm. Their heat output increased when it was coldand their heat loss was cut down when scales became smaller and morepointed, and evolved into fur. Sweating was also an adaptation to regulatethe body temperature, a device to cool the body when necessary byevaporation of water. But incidentally the young of these reptiles began tolick the sweat of the mother for nourishment. Certain sweat glands began tosecrete a richer and richer secretion, which eventually became milk. Thus theyoung of these early mammals had a better start in life.147

The above quotation is nothing more than a figment of theimagination. Not only is such a fantastic scenario unsupported by theevidence, it is clearly impossible. It is quite irrational to claim that a livingcreature produces a highly complex nutrient such as milk by licking itsmother's body sweat.

The reason why such scenarios are put forward is the fact that thereare huge differences between reptiles and mammals. One example of thestructural barriers between reptiles and mammals is their jaw structure.Mammal jaws consist of only one mandibular bone containing the teeth.In reptiles, there are three little bones on both sides of the mandible.Another basic difference is that all mammals have three bones in their

True Natural History II


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (120)

middle ear (hammer, anvil, and stirrup). Reptiles have but a single bone inthe middle ear. Evolutionists claim that the reptile jaw and middle eargradually evolved into the mammal jaw and ear. The question of how anear with a single bone evolved into one with three bones, and how thesense of hearing kept on functioning in the meantime can never beexplained. Not surprisingly, not one single fossil linking reptiles andmammals has been found. This is why the renowned evolutionist sciencewriter Roger Lewin was forced to say, "The transition to the firstmammal, ...is still an enigma."148

George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most important evolutionaryauthorities and a founder of the neo-Darwinist theory, makes thefollowing comment regarding this perplexing difficulty for evolutionists:

The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from theMesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtainwere rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles weretaken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewilderingvariety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirelynew cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles aresupernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sortsbarely hinted at in the preceding acts.149

Furthermore, when mammals suddenly made their appearance, they



There is nodifferencebetween fossilmammals dozensof millions ofyears old innatural historymuseums andthose livingtoday.Furthermore,these fossilsemergesuddenly, withno connection tospecies that hadgone before.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (121)

were already very different from each other. Such dissimilar animals asbats, horses, mice, and whales are all mammals, and they all emergedduring the same geological period. Establishing an evolutionaryrelationship among them is impossible even by the broadest stretch of theimagination. The evolutionist zoologist R. Eric Lombard makes this pointin an article that appeared in the leading journal Evolution:

Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogeniesof mammalian taxa will be disappointed.150

In short, the origin of mammals, like that of other groups, fails toconform to the theory of evolution in any way. George Gaylord Simpsonadmitted that fact many years ago:

This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals ... The earliest and mostprimitive known members of every order [of mammals] already have thebasic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuoussequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is sosharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative andmuch disputed ... This regular absence of transitional forms is not confinedto mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been notedby paleontologists. It is true of almost all classes of animals, both vertebrateand invertebrate...it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, andit is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.151

The Myth of Horse Evolution

One important subject in the origin of mammals is the myth of the"evolution of the horse," also a topic to which evolutionist publicationshave devoted a considerable amount of space for a long time. This is amyth, because it is based on imagination rather than scientific findings.

Until recently, an imaginary sequence supposedly showing theevolution of the horse was advanced as the principal fossil evidence forthe theory of evolution. Today, however, many evolutionists themselvesfrankly admit that the scenario of horse evolution is bankrupt. In 1980, afour-day symposium was held at the Field Museum of Natural History inChicago, with 150 evolutionists in attendance, to discuss the problemswith the gradualistic evolutionary theory. In addressing this meeting,evolutionist Boyce Rensberger noted that the scenario of the evolution of

True Natural History II


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (122)

the horse has no foundation in the fossil record, and that no evolutionaryprocess has been observed that would account for the gradual evolution ofhorses:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradualsequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long beenknown to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediatespecies appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct.Transitional forms are unknown.152

While discussing this important dilemma in the scenario of theevolution of the horse in a particularly honest way, Rensberger broughtthe transitional form difficulty onto the agenda as the greatest difficulty ofall.

The well-known paleontologist Colin Patterson, a director of theNatural History Museum in London, where "evolution of the horse"diagrams were on public display at that time on the ground floor of themuseum, said the following about the exhibition:

There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative thanothers, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The mostfamous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolutionprepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truthin textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly whenthe people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware ofthe speculative nature of some of that stuff.153

Then what is the basis for the scenario of the evolution of the horse?This scenario was formulated by means of the deceitful charts devised bythe sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastlydifferent periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe, solelyin accordance with the rich power of evolutionists' imaginations. Morethan 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which by the way are totallydifferent from each other, have been proposed by various researchers.Thus, it is obvious that evolutionists have reached no common agreementon these family trees. The only common feature in these arrangements isthe belief that a dog-sized creature called Eohippus (Hyracotherium), whichlived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of thehorse. However, the fact is that Eohippus, which became extinct millions of



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (123)

years ago, is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal whichstill lives in Africa and has nothing whatsoever to do with the horse.154

The inconsistency of the theory of the evolution of the horse becomesincreasingly apparent as more fossil findings are gathered. Fossils ofmodern horse species (Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis) have beendiscovered in the same layer as Eohippus.155 This is an indication that themodern horse and its so-called ancestor lived at the same time.

The evolutionist science writer Gordon R. Taylor explains this little-acknowledged truth in his book The Great Evolution Mystery:

But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure ofpaleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organismsdemonstrating major evolutionary change... The horse is often cited as theonly fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippusto Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, butthe truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger.Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged inthis order in time.156

All these facts are strong evidence that the charts of horse evolution,

True Natural History II


The Evolution of the Horse exhibition in London's Natural History Museum.This and other "evolution of the horse" diagrams show independent specieswhich lived at different times and in different places, lined up one after theother in a very subjective presentation. In reality, there are no scientificdiscoveries regarding the evolution of the horse.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (124)

which are presented as one of the most solid pieces of evidence forDarwinism, are nothing but fantastic and implausible fairy tales. Likeother species, horses, too, came into existence without ancestors in theevolutionary sense.

The Origin of Bats

One of the most interesting creatures in the mammalian class iswithout doubt the flying mammal, the bat.

Topping the list of the characteristics of bats is the complex "sonar"system they possess. Thanks to this, bats can fly in the pitch dark, unableto see anything, but performing the most complicated maneuvers. Theycan even sense and catch a caterpillar on the floor of a dark room.

Bat sonar works in the following way. The animal emits a continuousstream of high-frequency sonic signals, analyses the echoes from these,and as a result forms a detailed image of its surroundings. What is more,it manages to do all of this at an incredible speed, continually andunerringly, while it is flying through the air.

Research into the bat sonar system has produced even moresurprising results. The range of frequencies the animal can perceive is verynarrow; in other words it can only hear sounds of certain frequencies,which raises a very important point. Since sounds which strike a body inmotion change their frequency (the well-known "Doppler effect"), as a batsends out signals to a fly, say, that is moving away from it, the soundwaves reflected from the fly should be at a different frequency that the batis unable to perceive. For this reason, the bat should have great difficultyin sensing moving bodies.

But this is not the case. The bat continues to catch all kinds of small,fast-moving creatures with no difficulty at all. The reason is that the batadjusts the frequency of the sound waves it sends out toward the movingbodies in its environment as if it knew all about the Doppler effect. Forinstance, it emits its highest-frequency signal toward a fly that is movingaway from it, so that when the signal comes back, its frequency has notdropped below the threshold of the animal's hearing.

So how does this adjustment take place?There are two groups of neurons (nerve cells) in the bat's brain which



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (125)

control the sonar system. One of these perceives the echoed ultrasound,and the other gives instructions to the muscles to produce echolocationcalls. These regions in the brain work in tandem, in such a way that whenthe frequency of the echo changes, the first region perceives this, and

warns the second one, enabling it to modify the frequency of thesound emitted in accordance with that of the echo. As a

result, the pitch of the bat's ultrasound changes accordingto its surroundings, and sonar system as a whole is

used in the most efficient manner.It is impossible to be blind to the mortal blow

that the bat sonar system deals to the theory ofgradual evolution through chance mutations. It is anextremely complex structure, and can in no way be

accounted for by chance mutations. Inorder for the system to function at all, all of

its components have to work togetherperfectly as an integrated whole. It is absurd to

believe that such a highly integrated system can beexplained by chance; on the contrary, it actuallydemonstrates that the bat is flawlessly created.

In fact, the fossil record also confirms that batsemerged suddenly and with today's complexstructures. In their book Bats: A Natural History, theevolutionary paleontologists John E. Hill and James D.

Smith reveal this fact in the form of the following admission:

The fossil record of bats extends back to the early Eocene ... and has beendocumented ... on five continents ... [A]ll fossil bats, even the oldest, areclearly fully developed bats and so they shed little light on the transitionfrom their terrestrial ancestor.157

And the evolutionary paleontologist L. R. Godfrey has this to say onthe same subject:

There are some remarkably well preserved early Tertiary fossil bats, such asIcaronycteris index, but Icaronycteris tells us nothing about the evolution offlight in bats because it was a perfectly good flying bat.158

Evolutionist scientist Jeff Hecht confesses the same problem in a 1998

True Natural History II


Bats' sonar systemis more sensitiveand efficient thanany technologicalsonar systems sofar constructed.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (126)

New Scientist article:

[T]he origins of bats have been a puzzle. Even the earliest bat fossils, from

about 50 million years ago, have wings that closely resemble those of

modern bats.159

In short, bats' complex bodily systems cannot have emerged throughevolution, and the fossil record demonstrates that no such thinghappened. On the contrary, the first bats to have emerged in the world areexactly the same as those of today. Bats have always existed as bats.

The Origin of Marine Mammals

Whales and dolphins belong to the order of marine mammals knownas Cetacea. These creatures are classified as mammals because, just like land-dwelling mammals, they give live birth to their young and nurse them, theyhave lungs to breathe with, and they regulate their body temperature. Forevolutionists, the origin of marine mammals has been one of the mostdifficult issues to explain. In many evolutionist sources, it is asserted thatthe ancestors of cetaceans left the land and evolved into marine mammalsover a long period of time. Accordingly, marine mammals followed a pathcontrary to the transition from water to land, and underwent a secondevolutionary process, returning to the water. This theory both lackspaleontological evidence and is self-contradictory. Thus, evolutionists havebeen silenced on this issue for a long time.

However, an evolutionist hype about the origin of marine mammalsbroke out in the 90's, argued to be based on some new fossil findings of the80's like Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. These evidently quadrupedal and


The oldest knownfossil bat, found in

Wyoming in theUnited States. 50million years old,

there is nodifference betweenthis fossil and bats

alive today.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (127)

terrestrial extinct mammals werealleged to be the ancestors of whalesand thus many evolutionist sourcesdid not hesitate to call them "walkingwhales." (In fact the full name,Ambulocetus natans, means "walkingand swimming whale.") Popularmeans of evolutionist indoctrinationfurther vulgarized the story. NationalGeographic in its November 2001 issue,finally declared the full evolutionistscenario on the "Evolution of Whales."

Nevertheless, the scenario wasbased on evolutionist prejudice, notscientific evidence.

The Myth of the Walking Whale

Fossil remains of the extinct mammal Pakicetus inachus, to give it itsproper name, first came onto the agenda in 1983. P. D. Gingerich and hisassistants, who found the fossil, had no hesitation in immediately claimingthat it was a "primitive whale," even though they actually only found askull.

Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale. Itsskeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that ofcommon wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containingfossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises, and crocodiles. Inother words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one.

So, why was a quadrupedal land dweller announced to be a"primitive whale" and why is it still presented as such by evolutionistsources like National Geographic? The magazine gives the following reply:

What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues incombination—the arrangement of cusps on the molar teeth, a folding in a boneof the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull—areabsent in other land mammals but a signature of later Eocene whales.160

In other words, based on some details in its teeth and ear bones,

True Natural History II


Marine mammals possess systemswhich are entirely peculiar to

themselves. These are designed inthe best way for the environment

they live in.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (128)

National Geographic felt able to describe this quadrupedal, wolf-like land

dweller as a "walking whale." These features, however, are not compelling

evidence on which to base a link between Pakicetus and the whale:

• As National Geographic also indirectly stated while writing "subtle

clues in combination," some of these features are actually found in

terrestrial animals as well.


Distortions in the Reconstructions ofNational Geographic

Pakicetus reconstructionby National Geographic

Paleontologists believe thatPakicetus was a quadrupedalmammal. The skeletal structureon the left, published in theNature magazine clearlydemonstrates this. Thus thereconstruction of Pakicetus(below left) by Carl Buell, whichwas based on that structure, isrealistic.National Geographic, however,opted to use a picture of a"swimming" Pakicetus (below) inorder to portray the animal as a"walking whale" and to imposethat image on its readers. Theinconsistencies in the picture,intended to make Pakicetus seemmore "whale-like," areimmediately obvious: The animalhas been portrayed in a"swimming" position. Its hindlegs are shown stretching outbackwards, and an impression of"fins" has been given.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (129)

• None of the features in question are any evidence of anevolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of thetheoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similaritiesbetween animals are completely untrustworthy. If the marsupialTasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct fora long time, then there is no doubt that evolutionists would picture themin the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. However, weknow that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in theiranatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree oflife. (In fact their similarity indicates common design—not commondescent.) Pakicetus, which evolutionists declare to be a "walking whale,"was a unique species harboring different features in its body. In fact,Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes theMesonychid family, of which Pakicetus should be a member, as "exhibitingan odd combination of characters."161

In his article "The Overselling of Whale Evolution," the creationistwriter Ashby L. Camp reveals the total invalidity of the claim that theMesonychid class, which should include land mammals such as Pakicetus,could have been the ancestors of Archaeocetea, or extinct whales, in thesewords:

The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise toarchaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actuallineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities.These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry,especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of suchcomparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and evenreptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales.162

The second fossil creature after Pakicetus in the scenario on whaleorigins is Ambulocetus natans. It is actually a land creature thatevolutionists have insisted on turning into a whale.

The name Ambulocetus natans comes from the Latin words "ambulare"(to walk), "cetus" (whale) and "natans" (swimming), and means "a walkingand swimming whale." It is obvious the animal used to walk because ithad four legs, like all other mammals, and even wide claws on its feet andpaws on its hind legs. Apart from evolutionists' prejudice, however, thereis absolutely no basis for the claim that it swam in water, or that it lived on

True Natural History II


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (130)

land and in water (like an amphibian).After Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, the evolutionist plan moves on to so-

called sea mammals and sets out (extinct whale) species such as Procetus,Rodhocetus, and Archaeocetea. The animals in question were mammals thatlived in the sea and which are now extinct. (We shall be touching on thismatter later.) However, there are considerable anatomical differencesbetween these and Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. When we look at the fossils,it is clear they are not "transitional forms" linking each other:

• The backbone of the quadrupedal mammal Ambulocetus ends at thepelvis, and powerful rear legs then extend from it. This is typical land-mammal anatomy. In whales, however, the backbone goes right down tothe tail, and there is no pelvic bone at all. In fact, Basilosaurus, believed tohave lived some 10 million years after Ambulocetus, possesses the latter


National Geographic's Ambulocetus: The animal's rear legs are shown not with feetthat would help it to walk, but as fins that would assist it to swim. However,Carroll, who examines the animal's leg bones, says that it possessed the ability tomove powerfully on land.

The real Ambulocetus : The legs are real legs, not "fins," and there are no imaginarywebs between its toes such as National Geographic had added. (Picture fromCarroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, p. 335)

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (131)

anatomy. In other words, it is a typical whale. There is no transitional formbetween Ambulocetus, a typical land mammal, and Basilosaurus, a typicalwhale.

• Under the backbone of Basilosaurus and the sperm whale, there aresmall bones independent of it. National Geographic claims these to bevestigial legs. Yet that same magazine mentions that these bones actuallyhad another function. In Basilosaurus, these bones functioned as copularyguides and in sperm whales "[act] as an anchor for the muscles of thegenitalia."163 To describe these bones, which actually carry out importantfunctions, as "vestigial organs" is nothing but Darwinistic prejudice.

In conclusion, despite evolutionist propaganda, the fact that therewere no transitional forms between land and sea mammals and that theyboth emerged with their own particular features has not changed. There isno evolutionary link. Robert Carroll accepts this, albeit unwillingly and inevolutionist language: "It is not possible to identify a sequence ofmesonychids leading directly to whales."164

Although he is an evolutionist, the famous Russian whale expert G.A. Mchedlidze, too, does not support the description of Pakicetus,Ambulocetus natans, and similar four-legged creatures as "possibleancestors of the whale," and describes them instead as a completelyisolated group.165

Problems With Superficial Sequences

Alongside the facts we have discussed above, the dates ascribed byNational Geographic to the species in question have been selected in linewith Darwinist prejudices. The animals are shown as following each otherin a geological line, whereas these are questionable. Ashby L. Campclarifies the situation, based on paleontological data:

In the standard scheme, Pakicetus inachus is dated to the late Ypresian, butseveral experts acknowledge that it may date to the early Lutetian. If theyounger date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus is nearly, if notactually, contemporaneous with Rodhocetus, an early Lutetian fossil fromanother formation in Pakistan. Moreover, the date of Ambulocetus, which wasfound in the same formation as Pakicetus but 120 meters higher, would haveto be adjusted upward the same amount as Pakicetus. This would make

True Natural History II


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (132)

Ambulocetus younger than Rodhocetus and possibly younger than Indocetusand even Protocetus.166

In brief, there are two different views of when the animals thatNational Geographic chronologically sets out one after the other really lived.If the second view is accepted, then Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, whichNational Geographic portrays as "the walking whale," are of the same age as,or even younger than, true whales. In other words, no "evolutionary line"is possible.

The Surprisingly Lamarckian Superstitions

of Evolutionists

Another very important issue on the origin of marine mammals is thegreat anatomical and physiological differences between them and theiralleged terrestrial ancestors. Evolutionists assume that step-by-stepprocesses were at work for all the necessary transitions, but this is anabsurd idea since many of the systems in discussion are irreduciblycomplex structures that could not form by successive stages.

Let us consider just one case: the ear structure. Like us, landmammals trap sounds from the outside world in the outer ear, amplifythem with the bones in the middle ear, and turn them into signals in theinner ear. Marine mammals have no outer ear. They hear sounds by meansof vibration-sensitive receptors in their lower jaws. The crucial point isthat any evolution by stages between one perfect aural system to acompletely different one is impossible. The transitional phases would notbe advantageous. An animal that slowly loses its ability to hear with itsears, but has still not developed the ability to hear through its jaw, is at adisadvantage.

The question of how such a "development" could come about is aninsoluble dilemma for evolutionists. The mechanisms evolutionists putforward are mutations and these have never been seen to addunequivocally new and meaningful information to animals' geneticinformation. It is unreasonable to suggest that the complex hearing systemin sea mammals could have emerged as the result of mutations.

But evolutionists do believe in this unreasonable scenario and thisproblem stems from a kind of superstition about the origin of living



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (133)

things. This superstition is the magical "natural force" that allows livingthings to acquire the organs, biological changes, or anatomical featuresthat they need. Let us have a look at a few interesting passages fromNational Geographic's article "Evolution of Whales":

…I tried to visualize some of the varieties of whale ancestors that had beenfound here and nearby... As the rear limbs dwindled, so did the hip bonesthat supported them. That made the spinal column more flexible to powerthe developing tail flukes. The neck shortened, turning the leading end of thebody into more of a tubular hull to plow through the water with minimumdrag, while arms assumed the shape of rudders. Having little need for outerears any longer, some whales were receiving waterborne sounds directlythrough their lower jawbones and transmitting them to the inner ears viaspecial fat pads. Each whale in the sequence was a little more streamlinedthan earlier models and roamed farther from shore.167

On close inspection, in this whole account the evolutionist mentalitysays that living things feel changing needs according to the changingenvironment they live in, and this need is perceived as an "evolutionarymechanism." According to this logic, less needed organs disappear, andneeded organs appear of their own accord!

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of biology will know that ourneeds do not shape our organs. Ever since Lamarck's theory of the transferof acquired characteristics to subsequent generations was disproved, inother words for a century or so, that has been a known fact. Yet when onelooks at evolutionist publications, they still seem to be thinking alongLamarckian lines. If you object, they will say: "No, we do not believe inLamarck. What we say is that natural conditions put evolutionarypressure on living things, and that as a result of this, appropriate traits areselected, and in this way species evolve." Yet here lies the critical point:What evolutionists call "evolutionary pressure" cannot lead to livingthings acquiring new characteristics according to their needs. That isbecause the two so-called evolutionary mechanisms that supposedlyrespond to this pressure, natural selection and mutation, cannot providenew organs for animals:

• Natural selection can only select characteristics that already exist,it cannot create new ones.

• Mutations cannot add to the genetic information, they can only

True Natural History II


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (134)

destroy the existing one. No mutation that adds unequivocally new,meaningful information to the genome (and which thus forms a neworgan or new biochemical structure) has ever been observed.

If we look at the myth of National Geographic's awkwardly movingwhales one more time in the light of this fact, we see that they are actuallyengaging in a rather primitive Lamarckism. On close inspection, NationalGeographic writer Douglas H. Chadwick "visualizes" that "Each whale inthe sequence was a little more streamlined than earlier models." Howcould a morphological change happen in a species over generations in oneparticular direction? In order for that to happen, representatives of thatspecies in every "sequence" would have to undergo mutations to shortentheir legs, that mutation would have to cause the animals no harm, thosethus mutants would have to enjoy an advantage over normal ones, thenext generations, by a great coincidence, would have to undergo the samemutation at the same point in its genes, this would have to carry onunchanged for many generations, and all of the above would have tohappen by chance and quite flawlessly.

If the National Geographic writers believe that, then they will alsobelieve someone who says: "My family enjoys flying. My son underwent amutation and a few structures like bird feathers developed under his arms.My grandson will undergo the same mutation and the feathers willincrease. This will go on for generations, and eventually my descendantswill have wings and be able to fly." Both stories are equally ridiculous.

As we mentioned at the beginning, evolutionists display thesuperstition that living things' needs can be met by a magical force innature. Ascribing consciousness to nature, a belief encountered in animistcultures, is interestingly rising up before our eyes in the 21st centuryunder a "scientific" cloak. Henry Gee, the editor of Nature and anundisputedly prominent evolutionist, points to the same fact and admitsthat explaining the origin of an organ by its necessity is like saying;

... our noses were made to carry spectacles, so we have spectacles. Yetevolutionary biologists do much the same thing when they interpret anystructure in terms of adaptation to current utility while failing toacknowledge that current utility needs tell us nothing about how a structureevolved, or indeed how the evolutionary history of a structure might itselfhave influenced the shape and properties of that structure.168



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (135)

The Unique Structures of Marine Mammals

To see the impossibility of the evolutionist scenario on the marinemammals, let us briefly examine some other unique features of theseanimals. When the adaptations a land-dwelling mammal has to undergoin order to evolve into a marine mammal are considered, even the word"impossible" seems inadequate. During such a transition, if even of one ofthe intermediary stages failed to happen, the creature would be unable tosurvive, which would put an end to the entire process. The adaptationsthat marine mammals must undergo during the transition to water are asfollows:

1- Water-retention: Unlike other marine animals, marine mammalscannot use sea water to meet their water needs. They need fresh water tosurvive. Though we have limited information about the freshwaterresources of marine mammals, it is believed that they feed on organismscontaining a relatively low proportion of salt (about one third that of seawater). Thus, for marine mammals the retention of water in their bodies iscrucial. That is why they have a water retention mechanism similar to thatof camels. Like camels, marine mammals do not sweat; however, theirkidneys are perfectly functional, producing highly concentrated urine thatenables the animal to save water. In this way, water loss is reduced to aminimum.

Design for water retention can be seen even in minor details. Forinstance, the mother whale feeds her baby with a concentrated form ofmilk similar to cheese. This milk contains ten times more fat than humanmilk. There are a number of chemical reasons why this milk is so rich infat. Water is released as the young whale digests the milk. In this way, themother meets the young whale's water needs with minimum water loss.

2- Sight and communication: The eyes of dolphins and whalesenable them to have acute eyesight in different environments. They haveperfect eyesight in water as well as out. Yet most living things, includingman, have poor eyesight out of their natural environments.

The eyes of marine and land-dwelling mammals are astonishinglyelaborate. On land, the eyes face a number of potential dangers. That iswhy the eyes of land-dwelling animals have lids to protect them. In theocean, the greatest threats to the eye come from the high level of salt andthe pressure from currents. To avoid direct contact with the currents, the

True Natural History II


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (136)

eyes are located on the sides of the head. In addition to this, a hard layerprotects the eyes of creatures which dive to great depths. The eyes ofmarine mammals are equipped with elaborate features enabling them tosee at depths where there is little light. For example, their lenses areperfectly circular in shape, while in their retinas, rods (the cells sensitive tolight) outnumber cones (the cells sensitive to colours and details).Furthermore, the eyes of cetaceans also contain a phosphorus layer, whichalso helps them see particularly well in the dark.

Even so, however, sight is not most important sensory modality ofmarine mammals. They rely more on their sense of hearing than istypically the case with land-dwelling mammals. Light is essential forsight, whereas hearing requires no such assistance. Many whales anddolphins hunt at a depth where it is completely dark, by means of a sonarmechanism they possess. Toothed whales, in particular, "see" by means ofsound waves. Just as happens with light waves in the visual system, soundwaves are focused and then analyzed and interpreted in the brain. Thisgives the cetacean accurate information regarding the shape, size, speedand position of the object in front of it. This sonic system is extremelysensitive—for instance, a dolphin can sense a person jumping into the sea.Sound waves are also used for determining direction and forcommunication. For example, two whales hundreds of kilometers apartcan communicate via sound.

The question of how these animals produce the sounds that enablethem to determine direction or to communicate is still largely unresolved.As far as we know, one particular feature in the dolphin's body deservesparticular attention: namely, the animal's skull is insulated against sound,a feature that protects the brain from continuous and intensive noisebombardment.

Let us now consider the question: Is it possible that all theseastonishing features in marine mammals came into existence by means ofnatural selection and mutation? What mutation could result in thedolphin's body's coming to possess a sonar system and a brain insulatedfrom sound? What kind of mutation could enable its eye to see in darkwater? What mutation could lead to the mechanism that allows the mosteconomic use of water?



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (137)

There is no end to such questions, and evolution has no answer to anyof them. Instead, the theory of evolution makes do with an unbelievablestory. Consider all the coincidences that this story involves in the case ofmarine mammals. First of all, fish just happened to come into existence inthe water. Next, they made the transition to land by pure chance.Following this, they evolved on the land into reptiles and mammals, alsoby chance alone. Finally, it just so happened that some of these creaturesreturned to the water where by chance they acquired all the features theywould need to survive there.

Can the theory of evolution prove even a single one of these stages?Certainly not. Far from being able to prove the claim as a whole, the theoryof evolution is unable to demonstrate how even one of these differentsteps could have happened.

The Marine Mammal Scenario Itself

We have so far examined the evolutionist scenario that marinemammals evolved from terrestrial ones. Scientific evidence shows norelationship between the two terrestrial mammals (Pakicetus andAmbulocetus) that evolutionists put at the beginning of the story. So whatabout the rest of the scenario? The theory of evolution is again in a greatdifficulty here. The theory tries to establish a phylogenetic link betweenArchaeocetea (archaic whales), sea mammals known to be extinct, andliving whales and dolphins. However, evolutionary paleontologistBarbara J. Stahl admits that; "the serpentine form of the body and thepeculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes couldnot possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."169

The evolutionist account of the origin of marine mammals faces ahuge impasse in the form of discoveries in the field of molecular biology.The classical evolutionist scenario assumes that the two major whalegroups, the toothed whales (Odontoceti) and the baleen whales (Mysticeti),evolved from a common ancestor. Yet Michel Milinkovitch of theUniversity of Brussels has opposed this view with a new theory. Hestresses that this assumption, based on anatomical similarities, isdisproved by molecular discoveries:

Evolutionary relationships among the major groups of cetaceans is more

True Natural History II


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (138)

problematic since morphological and molecular analyses reach verydifferent conclusions. Indeed, based on the conventional interpretation of themorphological and behavioral data set, the echolocating toothed whales(about 67 species) and the filter-feeding baleen whales (10 species) areconsidered as two distinct monophyletic groups... On the other hand,phylogenetic analysis of DNA... and amino acid... sequences contradict thislong-accepted taxonomic division. One group of toothed whales, the spermwhales, appear to be more closely related to the morphologically highlydivergent baleen whales than to other odontocetes.170

In short, marine mammals defy the evolutionary scenarios whichthey are being forced to fit.

Contrary to the claims of the paleontologist Hans Thewissen, whoassumes a major role in evolutionist propaganda on the origin of marinemammals, we are dealing not with an evolutionary process backed up byempirical evidence, but by evidence coerced to fit a presupposedevolutionary family tree, despite the many contradictions between thetwo.

What emerges, if the evidence is looked at more objectively, is thatdifferent living groups emerged independently of each other in the past.This is compelling empirical evidence for accepting that all of thesecreatures were created.


All the findings we have examined so far reveal that species appearedon earth suddenly and fully formed, with no evolutionary process prior tothem. If this is so, then this is concrete evidence that living things arecreated, as evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma has acknowledged.Recall that he wrote: "If they did appear in a fully developed state, theymust indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."171

Evolutionists, on the other hand, try to interpret the sequence by whichliving things appeared on earth as evidence for evolution. However, sinceno such evolutionary process ever took place, this sequence can only bethe sequence of creation. Fossils reveal that living things appeared onearth first in the sea, and then on land, followed by the appearance of man,who possesses a flawless and superior design.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (139)

So far, we have seen that different species emerged on earth with noevolutionary "intermediate forms" between them. They appear in thefossil record with such great differences that it is impossible to establishany evolutionary connection between them.

When we compare their skeletal structures, this fact can once againclearly be seen. Animals which are alleged to be evolutionary relativesdiffer enormously. We shall now examine some examples of these. All thedrawings have been taken from evolutionist sources by experts onvertebrates. (As also contrasted by Michael Denton in his Evolution: ATheory in Crisis, 1986)

Two different species of marine reptiles, and the land animal that evolutionists claim is theirnearest ancestor. Take note of the great differences between them.

Hylonomus, the oldest knownmarine reptile.

The marine reptile Mesosaurus, allegedto have evolved from Hylonomus.

The marine reptile Ichthyosaurus,alleged to have evolved fromHylonomus.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (140)

An early whale and what evolutionists claim to be its closest ancestor. Note that thereis no resemblance between them. Even the best candidate that evolutionists have foundfor being the ancestor of whales has nothing to do with them.

The ancestors ofthe whale are asubject of debateamongevolutionistauthorities, butsome of themhave decided onAmbulocetus. Tothe side isAmbulocetus, atypical tetrapod.

A typical example of the oldest knownwhales, Zygorhiza kochii, from the Eocene.

The oldest knownPlesiosaurus skeleton

Skeleton of Araeoscelis, aLower Permian reptile.

Plesiosaurus, the oldest known marine reptile, and its nearest terrestrial relativeaccording to evolutionists. There is no resemblance between the two.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (141)

The skeleton of theoldest known bat(Icaronycteris) from theEocene.

The land reptile Euparkeria, claimed bymany evolutionist authorities to be theancestor of birds and flying reptiles.

Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird.

Dimorphodon, one ofthe oldest knownflying reptiles, atypical representativeof this group.

The oldest known bird (Archaeopteryx), a flying reptile, and a land reptile thatevolutionists claim to have been these creatures' closest ancestor. The differencesbetween them are very great.

The oldest known bat, and what evolutionists claim is its closest ancestor. Note the greatdifference between the bat and its so-called ancestor.

A modern shrew, whichclosely resembles theancient insectivoresclaimed to be theancestors of bats.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (142)

Skeleton of modernseal, virtually identicalto the earliest knownseals of the Miocene


Halitherium, an early seacow from the Oligocene

Hyrax, which isconsidered to be thenearest terrestrialancestor of thesirenian aquaticmammals which alsoinclude sea cows.

Cynodictis gregarius, theland-dwelling carnivorousmammal whichevolutionists believe tohave been seals' closestancestor.

A typical seal skeleton, and what evolutionists believe to be its nearest land-dwelling ancestor.Again, there is a huge difference between the two.

A sea cow, and what evolutionists call its nearest terrestrial ancestor.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (143)

n an earlier chapter, we examined how the fossil record clearlyinvalidates the hypotheses of the Darwinist theory. We saw that thedifferent living groups in the fossil record emerged suddenly, andstayed fixed for millions of years without undergoing any changes.This great discovery of paleontology shows that living species exist

with no evolutionary processes behind them.This fact was ignored for many years by paleontologists, who kept

hoping that imaginary "intermediate forms" would one day be found. Inthe 1970s, some paleontologists accepted that this was an unfounded hopeand that the "gaps" in the fossil record had to be accepted as a reality.However, because these paleontologists were unable to relinquish thetheory of evolution, they tried to explain this reality by modifying thetheory. And so was born the "punctuated equilibrium" model ofevolution, which differs from neo-Darwinism in a number of respects.

This model began to be vigorously promoted at the start of the 1970sby the paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and NilesEldredge of the American Museum of Natural History. They summarizedthe evidence presented by the fossil record as revealing two basiccharacteristics:

1. Stasis2. Sudden appearance 172




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (144)

In order to explain these two facts within the theory of evolution,Gould and Eldredge proposed that living species came about not througha series of small changes, as Darwin had maintained, but by sudden, largeones.

This theory was actually a modified form of the "Hopeful Monster"theory put forward by the German paleontologist Otto Schindewolf in the1930s. Schindewolf suggested that living things evolved not, as neo-Darwinism had proposed, gradually over time through small mutations,but suddenly through giant ones. When giving examples of his theory,Schindewolf claimed that the first bird in history had emerged from areptile egg by a huge mutation—in other words, through a giant,coincidental change in genetic structure.173 According to this theory, someland animals might have suddenly turned into giant whales through acomprehensive change that they underwent. This fantastic theory ofSchindewolf's was taken up and defended by the Berkeley Universitygeneticist Richard Goldschmidt. But the theory was so inconsistent that itwas quickly abandoned.

The factor that obliged Gould and Eldredge to embrace this theoryagain was, as we have already established, that the fossil record is at oddswith the Darwinistic notion of step by step evolution through minorchanges. The fact of stasis and sudden emergence in the record was soempirically well supported that they had to resort to a more refinedversion of the "hopeful monster" theory again to explain the situation.Gould's famous article "Return of the Hopeful Monster" was a statementof this obligatory step back.174

Gould and Eldredge did not just repeat Schindewolf's fantastictheory, of course. In order to give the theory a "scientific" appearance, theytried to develop some kind of mechanism for these sudden evolutionaryleaps. (The interesting term, "punctuated equilibrium," they chose for thistheory is a sign of this struggle to give it a scientific veneer.) In the yearsthat followed, Gould and Eldredge's theory was taken up and expandedby some other paleontologists. However, the punctuated equilibriumtheory of evolution was based on even more contradictions andinconsistencies than the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (145)

The Mechanism of Punctuated Equilibrium

The punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution, in its present state,holds that living populations show no changes over long periods of time,but stay in a kind of equilibrium. According to this viewpoint,evolutionary changes take place in short time frames and in very restrictedpopulations—that is, the equilibrium is divided into separate periods or,in other words, "punctuated." Because the population is very small, largemutations are chosen by natural selection and thus enable a new speciesto emerge.

For instance, according to this theory, a species of reptile survives formillions of years, undergoing no changes. But one small group of reptilessomehow leaves this species and undergoes a series of major mutations,the reason for which is not made clear. Those mutations which areadvantageous quickly take root in this restricted group. The group evolvesrapidly, and in a short time turns into another species of reptile, or even amammal. Because this process happens very quickly, and in a smallpopulation, there are very few fossils of intermediate forms left behind, ormaybe none.

On close examination, this theory was actually proposed to developan answer to the question, "How can one imagine an evolutionary periodso rapid as not to leave any fossils behind it?" Two basic hypotheses areaccepted while developing this answer:

1. that macromutations—wide-ranging mutations leading to largechanges in living creatures' genetic make-up—bring advantages andproduce new genetic information; and

2. that small animal populations have greater potential for geneticchange.

However, both of these hypotheses are clearly at odds with scientificknowledge.

The Misconception About Macromutations

The first hypothesis—that macromutations occur in large numbers,making the emergence of new species possible—conflicts with knownfacts of genetics.

One rule, put forward by R. A. Fisher, one of the last century's best

The Invalidity Of Punctuated Equilibrium


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (146)

known geneticists, and based on observations, clearly invalidates thishypothesis. Fisher states in his book The Genetical Theory of NaturalSelection that the likelihood that a particular mutation will become fixed ina population is inversely proportional to its effect on the phenotype.175 Or,to put it another way, the bigger the mutation, the less chance it has ofbecoming a permanent trait within the group.

It is not hard to see the reason for this. Mutations, as we have seen inearlier chapters, consist of chance changes in genetic codes, and neverhave a beneficial influence on organisms' genetic data. Quite the contrary:individuals affected by mutation undergo serious illnesses anddeformities. For this reason, the more an individual is affected bymutation, the less chance it has of surviving.

Ernst Mayr, the doyen of Darwinism, makes this comment on thesubject:

The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation … is well substantiated,but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated onlyas 'hopeless'. They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have theslightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection … themore drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is toreduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce aviable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent tobelieving in miracles … The finding of a suitable mate for the 'hopelessmonster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation from the normalmembers of the parental population seem to me insurmountabledifficulties.176

It is obvious that mutations cannot bring about evolutionarydevelopment, and this fact places both neo-Darwinism and thepunctuated equilibrium theory of evolution in a terrible difficulty. Sincemutation is a destructive mechanism, the macromutations that proponentsof the punctuated equilibrium theory talk about must have "macro"destructive effects. Some evolutionists place their hopes in mutations inthe regulatory genes in DNA. But the feature of destructiveness whichapplies to other mutations, applies to these, as well. The problem is thatmutation is a random change: any kind of random change in a structure ascomplex as genetic data will lead to harmful results.

In their book The Natural Limits to Biological Change, the geneticist



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (147)

Lane Lester and the population biologist Raymond Bohlin describe theblind alley represented by the notion of macromutation:

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.177

Observation and experiment both show that mutations do notenhance genetic data, but rather damage living things. Therefore, it isclearly irrational for proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory toexpect greater success from "mutations" than the mainstream neo-Darwinists have found.

The Invalidity Of Punctuated Equilibrium


Two famous proponents of the punctuated evolution model: Stephen Jay Gould andNiles Eldredge.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (148)

The Misconception About Restricted Populations The second concept stressed by the proponents of punctuated

equilibrium theory is that of "restricted populations." By this, they meanthat the emergence of new species comes about in communities containingvery small numbers of plants or animals. According to this claim, largepopulations of animals show no evolutionary development and maintaintheir "stasis." But small groups sometimes become separated from thesecommunities, and these "isolated" groups mate only amongst themselves.(It is hypothesized that this usually stems from geographical conditions.)Macromutations are supposed to be most effective within such small,inbreeding groups, and that is how rapid "speciation" can take place.

But why do proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory insistso much on the concept of restricted populations? The reason is clear:Their aim is provide an explanation for the absence of intermediate formsin the fossil record.

However, scientific experiments and observations carried out inrecent years have revealed that being in a restricted population is not anadvantage from the genetic point of view, but rather a disadvantage. Farfrom developing in such a way as to give rise to new species, smallpopulations give rise to serious genetic defects. The reason for this is thatin restricted populations individuals must continually mate within anarrow genetic pool. For this reason, normally heterozygous individualsbecome increasingly hom*ozygous. This means that defective genes whichare normally recessive become dominant, with the result that geneticdefects and sickness increase within the population.178

In order to examine this matter, a 35-year study of a small, inbredpopulation of chickens was carried out. It was found that the individualchickens became progressively weaker from the genetic point of view overtime. Their egg production fell from 100 to 80 percent of individuals, andtheir fertility declined from 93 to 74 percent. But when chickens from otherregions were added to the population, this trend toward geneticweakening was halted and even reversed. With the infusion of new genesfrom outside the restricted group, eventually the indicators of the healthof the population returned to normal.179

This and similar discoveries have clearly revealed that the claim bythe proponents of punctuated equilibrium theory that small populationsare the source of evolution has no scientific validity.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (149)


Scientific discoveries do not support the claims of the punctuatedequilibrium theory of evolution. The claim that organisms in smallpopulations can swiftly evolve with macromutations is actually even lessvalid than the model of evolution proposed by the mainstream neo-Darwinists.

So, why has this theory become so popular in recent years? Thisquestion can be answered by looking at the debates within the Darwinistcommunity. Almost all the proponents of the punctuated equilibriumtheory of evolution are paleontologists. This group, led by such famouspaleontologists as Steven Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, and Steven M.Stanley, clearly see that the fossil record disproves the Darwinist theory.However, they have conditioned themselves to believe in evolution, nomatter what. So for this reason they have resorted to the punctuatedequilibrium theory as the only way of accounting even in part for the factsof the fossil record.

On the other hand, geneticists, zoologists, and anatomists see thatthere is no mechanism in nature which can give rise to any "punctuations,"and for this reason they insist on defending the gradualistic Darwinistmodel of evolution. TheOxford University zoologistRichard Dawkins fiercelycriticizes the proponents ofthe punctuated equilibriummodel of evolution, andaccuses them of "destroyingthe theory of evolution'scredibility."

The result of thisdialogue of the deaf is thescientific crisis the theory ofevolution now faces. We aredealing with an evolutionmyth which agrees with noexperiments or observations,and no paleontological

The Invalidity Of Punctuated Equilibrium


Richard Dawkins, busyindoctrinating the young through

Darwinist propaganda.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (150)

discoveries. Every evolutionist theoreticiantries to find support for the theory from hisown field of expertise, but then enters intoconflict with discoveries from otherbranches of science. Some people try togloss over this confusion with superficialcomments such as "science progresses bymeans of academic disputes of this kind."However, the problem is not that themental gymnastics in these debates arebeing carried out in order to discover acorrect scientific theory; rather, theproblem is that speculations are being

advanced dogmatically and irrationally inorder to stubbornly defend a theory that is demonstrably false.

However, the theoreticians of punctuated equilibrium have madeone important, albeit unwitting, contribution to science: They have clearlyshown that the fossil record conflicts with the concept of evolution. PhillipJohnson, one of the world's foremost critics of the theory of evolution, hasdescribed Stephen Jay Gould, one of the most important punctuatedequilibrium theoreticians, as "the Gorbachev of Darwinism."180

Gorbachev thought that there were defects in the Communist state systemof the Soviet Union and tried to "reform" that system. However, theproblems which he thought were defects were in fact fundamental to thenature of the system itself. That is why Communism melted away in hishands.

The same fate will soon await Darwinism and the other models ofevolution.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (151)

arwin put forward his claim that human beings and apes descendedfrom a common ancestor in his book The Descent of Man, publishedin 1871. From that time until now, the followers of Darwin's pathhave tried to support this claim. But despite all the research that has

been carried out, the claim of "human evolution" has not been backed upby any concrete scientific discovery, particularly in the fossil field.

The man in the street is for the most part unaware of this fact, andthinks that the claim of human evolution is supported by a great deal offirm evidence. The reason for this incorrect opinion is that the subject isfrequently discussed in the media and presented as a proven fact. But realexperts on the subject are aware that there is no scientific foundation forthe claim of human evolution. David Pilbeam, a Harvard Universitypaleoanthropologist, says:

If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed himthe meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enoughto go on."181

And William Fix, the author of an important book on the subject ofpaleoanthropology, makes this comment:

As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today whohave the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. Ifonly they had the evidence...182




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (152)

This claim of evolution, which "lacks any evidence," starts the humanfamily tree with a group of apes that have been claimed to constitute adistinct genus, Australopithecus. According to the claim, Australopithecusgradually began to walk upright, his brain grew, and he passed through aseries of stages until he arrived at man's present state (hom*o sapiens). Butthe fossil record does not support this scenario. Despite the claim that allkinds of intermediate forms exist, there is an impassable barrier betweenthe fossil remains of man and those of apes. Furthermore, it has beenrevealed that the species which are portrayed as each other's ancestors areactually contemporary species that lived in the same period. Ernst Mayr,one of the most important proponents of thetheory of evolution in the twentieth century,contends in his book One Long Argumentthat "particularly historical [puzzles] suchas the origin of life or of hom*o sapiens, areextremely difficult and may even resist afinal, satisfying explanation."183

But what is the basis for the humanevolution thesis put forward byevolutionists? It is the existence of plenty offossils on which evolutionists are able tobuild imaginary interpretations.Throughout history, more than 6,000 speciesof ape have lived, and most of them havebecome extinct. Today, only 120 species liveon the earth. These 6,000 or so species ofape, most of which are extinct, constitute arich resource for the evolutionists.

On the other hand, there areconsiderable differences in the anatomic makeup of the various humanraces. Furthermore, the differences were even greater between prehistoricraces, because as time has passed the human races have to some extentmixed with each other and become assimilated. Despite this, importantdifferences are still seen between different population groups living in theworld today, such as, for example, Scandinavians, African pygmies, Inuits,native Australians, and many others.



There is no scientificevidence for the claim that

man evolved. What is putforward as "proof" is

nothing but one-sidedcomment on a few fossils.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (153)

There is no evidence to show that the fossils called hominid byevolutionary paleontologists do not actually belong to different species ofape or to vanished races of humans. To put it another way, no example ofa transitional form between mankind and apes has been found.

After these general explanations, let us now examine the humanevolution hypothesis together.

The Imaginary Family Tree of Man

The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from some kindof ape-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, which issupposed to have started from 5 to 6 million years ago, it is claimed thatthere existed some transitional forms between modern man and hisancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, the followingfour basic categories are listed:

1. Australophithecines (any of the various forms belonging to thegenus Australophithecus)

2. hom*o habilis3. hom*o erectus4. hom*o sapiensEvolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of

man belonged Australopithecus, which means "southern ape."Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old type of ape that has becomeextinct, is found in various different forms. Some of them are larger andstrongly built ("robust"), while others are smaller and delicate ("gracile").

Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as the genushom*o, that is "man." According to the evolutionist claim, the living thingsin the hom*o series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not verydifferent from modern man. The modern man of our day, that is, thespecies hom*o sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of theevolution of this genus hom*o. Fossils like "Java man," "Peking man," and"Lucy," which appear in the media from time to time and are to be foundin evolutionist publications and textbooks, are included in one of the fourgroups listed above. Each of these groupings is also assumed to branchinto species and sub-species, as the case may be. Some suggestedtransitional forms of the past, such as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded

The Origin Of Man


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (154)

from the imaginary human family tree after it was realised that they wereordinary apes.184

By outlining the links in the chain as "australopithecines > hom*ohabilis > hom*o erectus > hom*o sapiens," the evolutionists imply that each ofthese types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings bypaleoanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, hom*o habilisand hom*o erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time.Moreover, some of those humans classified as hom*o erectus probably livedup until very modern times. In an article titled "Latest hom*o erectus of Java:Potential Contemporaneity with hom*o sapiens in Southeast Asia," it wasreported in the journal that hom*o erectus fossils found in Java had "meanages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this "raise[s] thepossibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modernhumans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia"185

Furthermore, hom*o sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man) andhom*o sapiens sapiens (modern man) also clearly co-existed. This situationapparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor ofthe other.

Intrinsically, all the findings and scientific research have revealed thatthe fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionistspropose. The fossils, which evolutionists claim to be the ancestors ofhumans, in fact belong either to different human races, or else to species ofape.

Then which fossils are human and which ones are apes? Is it everpossible for any one of them to be considered a transitional form? In orderto find the answers, let us have a closer look at each category.


The first category, the genus Australopithecus, means "southern ape,"as we have said. It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africaabout 4 million years ago, and lived until 1 million years ago. There are anumber of different species among the australopithecines. Evolutionistsassume that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. afarensis. After thatcomes A. africanus, and then A. robustus, which has relatively bigger bones.As for A. Boisei, some researchers accept it as a different species, and others



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (155)

as a sub-species of A. Robustus. All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the

apes of today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than thechimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feetwhich they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and theirfeet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. Many othercharacteristics—such as the details in their skulls, the closeness of theireyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms,and their short legs—constitute evidence that these creatures were nodifferent from today's ape. However, evolutionists claim that, althoughaustralopithecines have the anatomy of apes, unlike apes, they walkedupright like humans.

This claim that australopithecines walked upright is a view that hasbeen held by paleoanthropologists such as Richard Leakey and Donald C.Johanson for decades. Yet many scientists who have carried out a greatdeal of research on the skeletal structures of australopithecines haveproved the invalidity of that argument. Extensive research done on

The Origin Of Man


An Australopithecus robustus skull. Itbears a close resemblance to that ofmodern apes.

Australopithecus skullsand skeletons closely

resemble those ofmodern apes. The

drawing to theside shows a

chimpanzee onthe left, and an


skeleton on theright. AdrienneL. Zhilman, the

professor ofanatomy who

did the drawing,stresses that thestructures of the

two skeletons arevery similar.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (156)

various Australopithecus specimens by twoworld-renowned anatomists from Englandand the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof.Charles Oxnard, showed that these creaturesdid not walk upright in human manner.Having studied the bones of these fossils for aperiod of 15 years thanks to grants from theBritish government, Lord Zuckerman and histeam of five specialists reached the conclusionthat australopithecines were only an ordinaryspecies of ape, and were definitely notbipedal, although Zuckerman is anevolutionist himself.186 Correspondingly,Charles E. Oxnard, who is anotherevolutionary anatomist famous for his researchon the subject, also likened the skeletalstructure of australopithecines to that ofmodern orangutans.187

That Australopithecus cannot be countedan ancestor of man has recently been acceptedby evolutionist sources. The famous Frenchpopular scientific magazine Science et Vie madethe subject the cover of its May 1999 issue.Under the headline "Adieu Lucy"—Lucy beingthe most important fossil example of the species Australopithecusafarensis—the magazine reported that apes of the species Australopithecuswould have to be removed from the human family tree. In this article,based on the discovery of another Australopithecus fossil known simply asSt W573, the following sentences appear:

A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of thehuman race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized toexamine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind'sancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, consideredthe ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this familytree… Australopithecus and hom*o (human) species do not appear on the samebranch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered.188



"GOODBYE, LUCY"Scientific discoveries have left

evolutionist assumptions regarding"Lucy," once considered the most

important example of theAustralopithecus genus, completely

unfounded. The famous Frenchscientific magazine, Science et Vie,

accepted this truth under theheadline "Goodbye, Lucy," in its

February 1999 issue, and confirmedthat Australopithecus cannot beconsidered an ancestor of man.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (157)


On top is the AL 444-2 Australopithecus afarensisskull, and on the bottom a skull of a modernchimpanzee. The clear resemblance between them isan evident sign that A. afarensis is an ordinaryspecies of ape, with no human characteristics.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (158)

hom*o Habilis

The great similarity between the skeletal and cranial structures ofaustralopithecines and chimpanzees, and the refutation of the claim thatthese creatures walked upright, have caused great difficulty forevolutionary paleoanthropologists. The reason is that, according to theimaginary evolution scheme, hom*o erectus comes after Australopithecus. Asthe genus name hom*o (meaning "man") implies, hom*o erectus is a humanspecies, and its skeleton is straight. Its cranial capacity is twice as large asthat of Australopithecus. A direct transition from Australopithecus, which isa chimpanzee-like ape, to hom*o erectus, which has a skeleton no differentfrom modern man's, is out of the question, even according to evolutionisttheory. Therefore, "links"— that is, transitional forms—are needed. Theconcept of hom*o habilis arose from this necessity.

The classification of hom*o habilis was put forward in the 1960s by theLeakeys, a family of "fossil hunters." According to the Leakeys, this newspecies, which they classified as hom*o habilis, had a relatively large cranialcapacity, the ability to walk upright and to use stone and wooden tools.Therefore, it could have been the ancestor of man.

New fossils of the same species unearthed in the late 1980s were tocompletely change this view. Some researchers, such as Bernard Wood andC. Loring Brace, who relied on those newly-found fossils, stated that hom*ohabilis (which means "skillful man," that is, man capable of using tools),should be classified as Australopithecus habilis, or "skillful southern ape,"because hom*o habilis had a lot of characteristics in common with theaustalopithecine apes. It had long arms, short legs and an ape-like skeletalstructure just like Australopithecus. Its fingers and toes were suitable forclimbing. Their jaw was very similar to that of today's apes. Their 600 ccaverage cranial capacity is also an indication of the fact that they wereapes. In short, hom*o habilis, which was presented as a different species bysome evolutionists, was in reality an ape species just like all the otheraustralopithecines.

Research carried out in the years since Wood and Brace's work hasdemonstrated that hom*o habilis was indeed no different fromAustralopithecus. The skull and skeletal fossil OH62 found by Tim Whiteshowed that this species had a small cranial capacity, as well as long arms



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (159)

and short legs, which enabled them to climb trees just like modern apes do.The detailed analyses conducted by American anthropologist Holly

Smith in 1994 indicated that hom*o habilis was not hom*o, in other words,human, at all, but rather unequivocally an ape. Speaking of the analysesshe made on the teeth of Australopithecus, hom*o habilis, hom*o erectus andhom*o neanderthalensis, Smith stated the following;

Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, patternsof dental development of gracile australopithecines and hom*o Habilisremain classified with African apes. Those of hom*o erectus andNeanderthals are classified with humans.189

Within the same year, Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and FransZonneveld, all specialists on anatomy, reached a similar conclusionthrough a totally different method. This method was based on thecomparative analysis of the semicircular canals in the inner ear ofhumans and apes, which allow them to maintain their balance.Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld concluded that:

Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate themodern human morphology is hom*o erectus. In contrast, the semi-circular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed toAustralopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant greatapes.190

Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld also studied a hom*o habilisspecimen, namely Stw 53, and found out that "Stw 53 reliedless on bipedal behavior than the australopithecines." Thismeant that the H. habilis specimen was even more ape-like thanthe Australopithecus species. Thus they concluded that "Stw 53represents an unlikely intermediate between the morphologies

The Origin Of Man


Femur KNM-ER 1472. This femur is no different from that ofmodern man. The finding of this fossil in the same layer as hom*ohabilis fossils, although a few kilometers away, gave rise toincorrect opinions, such as that hom*o habilis was bipedal. FossilOH 62, found in 1987, showed that hom*o habilis was not bipedal,as had been believed. Many scientists today accept that hom*ohabilis was a species of ape very similar to Australopithecus.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (160)

seen in the australopithecines and H. erectus."191

This finding yielded two important results:1. Fossils referred to as hom*o habilis did not actually belong to the

genus hom*o, i.e., humans, but to that of Australopithecus, i.e., apes. 2. Both hom*o habilis and Australopithecus were creatures that walked

stooped forward—that is to say, they had the skeleton of an ape. Theyhave no relation whatsoever to man.

The Misconception about hom*o rudolfensisThe term hom*o rudolfensis is the name given to a few fossil fragments

unearthed in 1972. The species supposedly represented by this fossil wasdesignated hom*o rudolfensis because these fossil fragments were found inthe vicinity of Lake Rudolf in Kenya. Most paleoanthropologists acceptthat these fossils do not belong to a distinct species, but that the creaturecalled hom*o rudolfensis is in fact indistinguishable from hom*o habilis.

Richard Leakey, who unearthed the fossils, presented the skulldesignated KNM-ER 1470, which he said was 2.8 million years old, as thegreatest discovery in the history of anthropology. According to Leakey,this creature, which had a small cranial capacity like that ofAustralopithecus together with a face similar to that of present-day humans,was the missing link between Australopithecus and humans. Yet, after a


The claim that Australopithecus and hom*o habilis walked upright wasdisproved by inner ear analyses carried out by Fred Spoor. He and his teamcompared the centers of balances in the inner ears, and showed that bothmoved in a similar way to apes of our own time.

Fred Spoor

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (161)

short while, it was realized that the human-like face ofthe KNM-ER 1470 skull, which frequently appeared onthe covers of scientific journals and popular sciencemagazines, was the result of the incorrect assembly ofthe skull fragments, which may have been deliberate.Professor Tim Bromage, who conducts studies onhuman facial anatomy, brought this to light by the helpof computer simulations in 1992:

When it [KNM-ER 1470] was first reconstructed, theface was fitted to the cranium in an almost verticalposition, much like the flat faces of modern humans.But recent studies of anatomical relationships show thatin life the face must have jutted out considerably,creating an ape-like aspect, rather like the faces of Australopithecus.192

The evolutionary paleoanthropologist J. E. Cronin states thefollowing on the matter:

... its relatively robustly constructed face, flattish naso-alveolar clivus,(recalling australopithecine dished faces), low maximum cranial width (onthe temporals), strong canine juga and large molars (as indicated byremaining roots) are all relatively primitive traits which ally the specimenwith members of the taxon A. africanus.193

C. Loring Brace from Michigan University came to the sameconclusion. As a result of the analyses he conducted on the jaw and toothstructure of skull 1470, he reported that "from the size of the palate and theexpansion of the area allotted to molar roots, it would appear that ER 1470retained a fully Australopithecus-sized face and dentition."194

Professor Alan Walker, a paleoanthropologist from Johns HopkinsUniversity who has done as much research on KNM-ER 1470 as Leakey,maintains that this creature should not be classified as a member ofhom*o—i.e., as a human species—but rather should be placed in theAustralopithecus genus.195

In summary, classifications like hom*o habilis or hom*o rudolfensis,which are presented as transitional links between the australopithecinesand hom*o erectus, are entirely imaginary. It has been confirmed by manyresearchers today that these creatures are members of the Australopithecusseries. All of their anatomical features reveal that they are species of apes.

The Origin Of Man


Richard Leakey misledboth himself and the

world of paleontologyabout hom*orudolfensis.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (162)

This fact has been further established by two evolutionistanthropologists, Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, whose research waspublished in 1999 in Science. Wood and Collard explained that the hom*ohabilis and hom*o rudolfensis (Skull 1470) taxa are imaginary, and that thefossils assigned to these categories should be attributed to the genusAustralopithecus:

More recently, fossil species have been assigned to hom*o on the basis ofabsolute brain size, inferences about language ability and hand function, andretrodictions about their ability to fashion stone tools. With only a fewexceptions, the definition and use of the genus within human evolution, andthe demarcation of hom*o, have been treated as if they are unproblematic. But... recent data, fresh interpretations of the existing evidence, and thelimitations of the paleoanthropological record invalidate existing criteria forattributing taxa to hom*o....in practice fossil hominin species are assigned tohom*o on the basis of one or more out of four criteria. ... It is now evident,however, that none of these criteria is satisfactory. The Cerebral Rubicon isproblematic because absolute cranial capacity is of questionable biologicalsignificance. Likewise, there is compelling evidence that language functioncannot be reliably inferred from the gross appearance of the brain, and thatthe language-related parts of the brain are not as well localized as earlierstudies had implied......

...In other words, with the hypodigms of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis assignedto it, the genus hom*o is not a good genus. Thus, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis(or hom*o habilis sensu lato for those who do not subscribe to the taxonomicsubdivision of "early hom*o") should be removed from hom*o. The obvioustaxonomic alternative, which is to transfer one or both of the taxa to one ofthe existing early hominin genera, is not without problems, but werecommend that, for the time being, both H. habilis and H. rudolfensis shouldbe transferred to the genus Australopithecus.196

The conclusion of Wood and Collard corroborates the conclusion thatwe have maintained here: "Primitive human ancestors" do not exist inhistory. Creatures that are alleged to be so are actually apes that ought tobe assigned to the genus Australopithecus. The fossil record shows thatthere is no evolutionary link between these extinct apes and hom*o, i.e.,human species that suddenly appears in the fossil record.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (163)

hom*o erectus

According to the fanciful scheme suggested by evolutionists, theinternal evolution of the hom*o genus is as follows: First hom*o erectus, thenso-called "archaic" hom*o sapiens and Neanderthal man (hom*o sapiensneanderthalensis), and finally, Cro-Magnon man (hom*o sapiens sapiens).However all these classifications are really only variations and uniqueraces in the human family. The difference between them is no greater thanthe difference between an Inuit and an African, or a pygmy and aEuropean.

Let us first examine hom*o erectus, which is referred to as the mostprimitive human species. As the name implies, hom*o erectus means "manwho walks upright." Evolutionists have had to separate these fossils fromearlier ones by adding the qualification of "erectness," because all the

The Origin Of Man


The large eyebrow protrusions on hom*oerectus skulls, and features such as thebackward-sloping forehead, can be seen ina number of races in our own day, as inthe Malaysian native shown here.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (164)

available hom*o erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in anyof the australopithecines or so-called hom*o habilis specimens. There is nodifference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that ofhom*o erectus.

The primary reason for evolutionists' defining hom*o erectus as"primitive" is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which issmaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections.However, there are many people living today in the world who have thesame cranial capacity as hom*o erectus (pygmies, for instance) and otherraces have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance). It is acommonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity do notnecessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligencedepends on the internal organization of the brain, rather than on itsvolume.197

The fossils that have made hom*o erectus known to the entire world arethose of Peking man and Java man in Asia. However, in time it was realizedthat these two fossils are not reliable. Peking man consists of some elementsmade of plaster whose originals have been lost, and Java man is composedof a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was found yards away from itwith no indication that these belonged to the same creature. This is why thehom*o erectus fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance.(It should also be noted that some of the fossils said to be hom*o erectus wereincluded under a second species named hom*o ergaster by someevolutionists. There is disagreement among the experts on this issue. Wewill treat all these fossils under the classification of hom*o erectus.)

The most famous of the hom*o erectus specimens found in Africa is thefossil of "Narikotome hom*o erectus," or the "Turkana Boy," which wasfound near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was thatof a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in adolescence.The upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that ofmodern man. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that hedoubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between thefossil skeleton and that of a modern human." Concerning the skull, Walkerwrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like aNeanderthal."198 As we will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are amodern human race. Therefore, hom*o erectus is also a modern human race.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (165)

Alan Thorne and Phillip Macumber,

who discovered the skulls,

interpreted them both as hom*osapiens skulls, whereas they actually

contained many features reminiscent

of hom*o erectus. The only reason

they were treated as hom*o sapienswas the fact that they were

calculated to be 10,000 years old.

Evolutionists did not wish to accept

the fact that hom*o erectus, which

they considered a "primitive" species

and which lived 500,000 years before

modern man, was a human race

which had lived 10,000 years ago.


discovered on October 10,1967, in the Kow Swamp

in Victoria, Australia, werenamed Kow Swamp I and

Kow Swamp V.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (166)

Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differencesbetween hom*o erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:

One would also see differences: in the shape of the skull, in the degree ofprotrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. Thesedifferences are probably no more pronounced than we see today betweenthe separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biologicalvariation arises when populations are geographically separated from eachother for significant lengths of time.199



hom*o ERECTUS AND THE ABORIGINESThe Turkana Boy skeleton shown at theside is the best preserved example ofhom*o erectus that has so far beendiscovered. The interesting thing is thatthere is no major difference betweenthis 1.6 million-year-old-fossil andpeople of our day. The Australianaboriginal skeleton above particularlyresembles Turkana Boy. This situationreveals once again that hom*o erectuswas a genuine human race, with no"primitive" features.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (167)

Professor William Laughlin from the University of Connecticut madeextensive anatomical examinations of Inuits and the people living on theAleut islands, and noticed that these people were extraordinarily similarto hom*o erectus. The conclusion Laughlin arrived at was that all thesedistinct races were in fact different races of hom*o sapiens (modern man):

When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groupssuch as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong to the singlespecies of hom*o sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [anerectus specimen] belongs within this same diverse species.200

It is now a more pronounced fact in the scientific community thathom*o erectus is a superfluous taxon, and that fossils assigned to the hom*oerectus class are actually not so different from hom*o sapiens as to beconsidered a different species. In American Scientist, the discussions overthis issue and the result of a conference held on the subject in 2000 weresummarized in this way:

Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into aflaming debate over the taxonomic status of hom*o erectus started by MilfordWolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University ofCanberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that hom*o erectus hadno validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members ofthe genus hom*o, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one


hom*o ERECTUS'S SAILING CULTURE"Ancient mariners: Early humans were much smarter than we suspected" According tothis article in the March 14, 1998, issue of New Scientist, the people that evolutionists callhom*o erectus were sailing 700,000 years ago. It is impossible, of course, to think ofpeople who possessed the knowledge, technology and culture to go sailing as primitive.

The Origin Of Man

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (168)

highly variable, widely spread species, hom*o sapiens, with no natural breaksor subdivisions. The subject of the conference, hom*o erectus, didn't exist.201

The conclusion reached by the scientists defending theabovementioned thesis can be summarized as "hom*o erectus is not adifferent species from hom*o sapiens, but rather a race within hom*o sapiens."On the other hand, there is a huge gap between hom*o erectus, a humanrace, and the apes that preceded hom*o erectus in the "human evolution"scenario (Australopithecus, hom*o Habilis, and hom*o rudolfensis). This meansthat the first men appeared in the fossil record suddenly and without anyprior evolutionary history.

Neanderthals: Their Anatomy and Culture

Neanderthals (hom*o neanderthalensis) were human beings whosuddenly appeared 100,000 years ago in Europe, and who disappeared, orwere assimilated by mixing with other races, quietly but quickly 35,000years ago. Their only difference from modern man is that their skeletonsare more robust and their cranial capacity slightly bigger.

Neanderthals were a human race, a fact which is admitted by almosteverybody today. Evolutionists have tried very hard to present them as a"primitive species," yet all the findings indicate that they were no differentfrom a "robust" man walking on the street today. A prominent authority onthe subject, Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist from New MexicoUniversity, writes:

Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modernhumans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy thatconclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguisticabilities inferior to those of modern humans.202

Many contemporary researchers define Neanderthal man as asubspecies of modern man, and call him hom*o sapiens neanderthalensis.

On the other hand, the fossil record shows that Neanderthalspossessed an advanced culture. One of the most interesting examples ofthis is a fossilized flute made by Neanderthal people. This flute, madefrom the thighbone of a bear, was found by the archaeologist Ivan Turk ina cave in northern Yugoslavia in July 1995. Musicologist Bob Fink thenanalyzed it. Fink proved that this flute, thought by radio-carbon testing to



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (169)


To the side is shown the

hom*o sapiens

neanderthalensis Amud I

skull, found in Israel. The

owner is estimated to have

been 1.80 meters tall. Its

brain capacity is as big as

that found today: 1,740 cc.

Beneath, are shown a fossil

skeleton from the

Neanderthal race, and a

stone tool believed to have

been used by its owner. This

and similar discoveries show

that Neanderthals were a

genuine human race who

vanished over time.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (170)


26,000-year-old needle: This

interesting find shows that

Neanderthals had the

knowledge to make clothing

tens of thousands of years ago

(D. Johanson, B. Edgar, From

Lucy to Language, page 99).


A Neanderthal flute made from bone.

Calculations made from this artifact

have shown that the holes were

made to produce correct notes, in

other words that this was an expertly

designed instrument.

Above can be seen researcher Bob

Fink's calculations regarding the flute.

Contrary to evolutionist propaganda,

discoveries such as this show that

Neanderthal people were civilized,

not primitive cavemen (The AAAS

Science News Service, "Neanderthals

Lived Harmoniously," April 3, 1997).

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (171)

be between 43,000 and 67,000 years old, produced four notes, and that ithad half and full tones. This discovery shows that Neanderthals used theseven-note scale, the basic formula of western music. Fink, who examinedthe flute, states that "the distance between the second and third holes onthe old flute is double that between the third and fourth." This means thatthe first distance represents a full note, and the distance next to it a halfnote. Fink says, "These three notes … are inescapably diatonic and willsound like a near-perfect fit within any kind of standard diatonic scale,modern or antique," thus revealing that Neanderthals were people withan ear for and knowledge of music.203

Some other fossil discoveries show that Neanderthals buried theirdead, looked after their sick, and used necklaces and similaradornments.204

A 26,000-year-old sewing needle, proved to have been used by

The Origin Of Man


CCOOUUNNTTEERRFFAACCTTUUAALLPPRROOPPAAGGAANNDDAAAlthough fossil discoveriesshow that Neanderthals hadno "primitive" features ascompared to us and were ahuman race, the evolutionistprejudices regarding themcontinue unabated.Neanderthal man is stillsometimes described as an"ape man" in someevolutionist museums, asshown in the picture to theside. This is an indicationhow Darwinism rests onprejudice and propaganda,not on scientific discoveries.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (172)

Neanderthal people, was also found during fossil excavations. Thisneedle, which is made of bone, is exceedingly straight and has a hole forthe thread to be passed through.205 People who wear clothing and feel theneed for a sewing needle cannot be considered "primitive."

The best research into the Neanderthals' tool-making abilities is thatof Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner, professors of anthropology andarchaeology, respectively, at the University of New Mexico. Althoughthese two scientists are proponents of the theory of evolution, the resultsof their archaeological research and analyses show that the Neanderthalswho lived in caves on the coast of southwest Italy for thousands of yearscarried out activities that required as complex a capacity for thought asmodern-day human beings.206

Kuhn and Stiner found a number of tools in these caves. Thediscoveries were of sharp, pointed cutting implements, includingspearheads, made by carefully chipping away layers at the edges of theflint. Making sharp edges of this kind by chipping away layers is withouta doubt a process calling for intelligence and skill. Research has shownthat one of the most important problems encountered in that process isbreakages that occur as a result of pressure at the edge of the stones. Forthis reason, the individual carrying out the process has to make finejudgments of the amount of force to use in order to keep the edges straight,and of the precise angle to strike at, if he is making an angled tool.

Margaret Conkey from the University of California explains that toolsmade in periods before the Neanderthals were also made by communitiesof intelligent people who were fully aware of what they were doing:

If you look at the things archaic humans made with their hands, Levallois

cores and so on, that's not a bumbling king of thing. They had an

appreciation of the material they were working with, an understanding of

their world.207

In short, scientific discoveries show that Neanderthals were a humanrace no different from us on the levels of intelligence and dexterity. Thisrace either disappeared from history by assimilating and mixing withother races, or became extinct in some unknown manner. But they weredefinitely not "primitive" or "half-ape."



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (173)

Archaic hom*o sapiens, hom*o heidelbergensis and

Cro-Magnon Man

Archaic hom*o sapiens is the last step before contemporary man in theimaginary evolutionary scheme. In fact, evolutionists do not have much tosay about these fossils, as there are only very minor differences betweenthem and modern human beings. Some researchers even state thatrepresentatives of this race are still living today, and point to nativeAustralians as an example. Like hom*o sapiens (archaic), native Australiansalso have thick protruding eyebrows, an inward-inclined mandibularstructure, and a slightly smaller cranial capacity.

The group characterized as hom*o heidelbergensis in evolutionistliterature is in fact the same as archaic hom*o sapiens. The reason why twodifferent terms are used to define the same human racial type is thedisagreements among evolutionists. All the fossils included under the

The Origin Of Man


A typical Cro-magnon skull.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (174)

hom*o heidelbergensis classification suggest that people who wereanatomically very similar to modern Europeans lived 500,000 and even740,000 years ago, in England and in Spain.

It is estimated that Cro-Magnon man lived 30,000 years ago. He has adome-shaped cranium and a broad forehead. His cranium of 1,600 cc isabove the average for contemporary man. His skull has thick eyebrowprojections and a bony protrusion at the back that is characteristic of bothNeanderthal man and hom*o erectus.

Although the Cro-Magnon is considered to be a European race, thestructure and volume of Cro-Magnon's cranium look very much like thoseof some races living in Africa and the tropics today. Relying on thissimilarity, it is estimated that Cro-Magnon was an archaic African race.Some other paleoanthropological finds have shown that the Cro-Magnonand the Neanderthal races intermixed and laid the foundations for theraces of our day.

As a result, none of these human beings were "primitive species."They were different human beings who lived in earlier times and eitherassimilated and mixed with other races, or became extinct anddisappeared from history.

The Collapse of the Family Tree

What we have investigated so far forms a clear picture: The scenarioof "human evolution" is a complete fiction. In order for such a family treeto represent the truth, a gradual evolution from ape to man must havetaken place and a fossil record of this process should be able to be found.In fact, however, there is a huge gap between apes and humans. Skeletalstructures, cranial capacities, and such criteria as walking upright or bentsharply forward distinguish humans from apes. (We already mentionedthat on the basis of recent research done in 1994 on the inner ear,Australopithecus and hom*o habilis were reclassified as apes, while hom*oerectus was reclassified as a fully modern human.)

Another significant finding proving that there can be no family-treerelationship among these different species is that species that arepresented as ancestors of others in fact lived concurrently. If, asevolutionists claim, Australopithecus changed into hom*o habilis, which, in



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (175)

turn, turned into hom*o erectus, the periods they lived in should necessarilyhave followed each other. However, there is no such chronological orderto be seen in the fossil record.

According to evolutionist estimates, Australopithecus lived from 4million up until 1 million years ago. The creatures classified as hom*ohabilis, on the other hand, are thought to have lived until 1.7 to 1.9 millionyears ago. hom*o rudolfensis, which is said to have been more "advanced"than hom*o habilis, is known to be as old as from 2.5 to 2.8 million years!That is to say, hom*o rudolfensis is nearly 1 million years older than hom*ohabilis, of which it is alleged to have been the "ancestor." On the otherhand, the age of hom*o erectus goes as far back as 1.6-1.8 million years ago,which means that hom*o erectus appeared on the earth in the same timeframe as its so-called ancestor, hom*o habilis.

Alan Walker confirms this fact by stating that "there is evidence fromEast Africa for late-surviving small Australopithecus individuals that werecontemporaneous first with H. Habilis, then with H. erectus."208 LouisLeakey has found fossils of Australopithecus, hom*o habilis and hom*o erectusalmost next to each other in the Olduvai Gorge region of Tanzania, in theBed II layer.209

There is definitely no such family tree. Stephen Jay Gould, thepaleontologist from Harvard University, explains this deadlock faced byevolution, although he is an evolutionist himself:

What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages ofhominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), noneclearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display anyevolutionary trends during their tenure on earth.210

When we move on from hom*o erectus to hom*o sapiens, we again seethat there is no family tree to talk about. There is evidence showing thathom*o erectus and archaic hom*o sapiens continued living up to 27,000 yearsand even as recently as 10,000 years before our time. In the Kow Swampin Australia, some 13,000-year-old hom*o erectus skulls have been found.On the island of Java, hom*o erectus remains were found that are 27,000years old.211

One of the most surprising discoveries in this area was the 30,000-year-old hom*o erectus, Neanderthal, and hom*o sapiens fossils found in Javain 1996. The New York Times wrote in its cover story: "Until about a couple

The Origin Of Man


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (176)

of decades ago, scientists conceived of the human lineage as a neatprogression of one species to the next and generally thought it impossiblethat two species could have overlapped in place or time."212

This discovery reveals once again the invalidity of the "evolutionarytree" scenario regarding the origin of man.

Latest Evidence: Sahelanthropus tchadensis and

The Missing Link That Never Was

The latest evidence to shatter the evolutionary theory's claim aboutthe origin of man is the new fossil Sahelanthropus tchadensis unearthed inthe Central African country of Chad in the summer of 2002.

The fossil has set the cat among the pigeons in the world ofDarwinism. In its article giving news of the discovery, the world-renowned journal Nature admitted that "New-found skull could sink ourcurrent ideas about human evolution."213

Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University said that "This [discovery]will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb."214

The reason for this is that although the fossil in question is 7 millionyears old, it has a more "human-like" structure (according to the criteriaevolutionists have hitherto used) than the 5 million-year-oldAustralopithecus ape species that is alleged to be "mankind's oldestancestor." This shows that the evolutionary links established betweenextinct ape species based on the highly subjective and prejudiced criterionof "human similarity" are totally imaginary.

John Whitfield, in his article "Oldest Member of Human FamilyFound" published in Nature on July, 11, 2002, confirms this view quotingfrom Bernard Wood, an evolutionist anthropologist from GeorgeWashington University in Washington:

"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like aladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from monkey to manthrough a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than thelast. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossilhominids... How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, arehuman forebears is still debated.215

The comments of Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature and a leading



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (177)

paleoanthropologist, about the newly discovered ape fossil are verynoteworthy. In his article published in The Guardian, Gee refers to thedebate about the fossil and writes:

Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea ofa 'missing link' is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea ofthe missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.216

The Secret History of hom*o sapiens

The most interesting and significant fact that nullifies the very basisof the imaginary family tree of evolutionary theory is the unexpectedlyancient history of modern man. Paleoanthropological findings reveal thathom*o sapiens people who looked exactly like us were living as long as 1million years ago.

It was Louis Leakey, the famous evolutionary paleoanthropologist,who discovered the first findings on this subject. In 1932, in the Kanjeraregion around Lake Victoria in Kenya, Leakey found several fossils thatbelonged to the Middle Pleistocene and that were no different frommodern man. However, the Middle Pleistocene was a million years ago.217

Since these discoveries turned the evolutionary family tree upside down,they were dismissed by some evolutionary paleoanthropologists. YetLeakey always contended that his estimates were correct.


The Origin Of Man

A face bone discovered in Atapuercain Spain, showing that people withthe same facial structure as us wereliving 800,000 years ago.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (178)

Just when this controversy was about to be forgotten, a fossilunearthed in Spain in 1995 revealed in a very remarkable way that thehistory of hom*o sapiens was much older than had been assumed. The fossilin question was uncovered in a cave called Gran Dolina in the Atapuercaregion of Spain by three Spanish paleoanthropologists from the Universityof Madrid. The fossil revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who lookedentirely like modern man. Yet, it had been 800,000 years since the childdied. Discover magazine covered the story in great detail in its December1997 issue.

This fossil even shook the convictions of Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras,who lead the Gran Dolina excavation. Ferreras said:

We expected something big, something large, something inflated—you

know, something primitive… Our expectation of an 800,000-year-old boy

was something like Turkana Boy. And what we found was a totally modern

face.... To me this is most spectacular—these are the kinds of things that

shake you. Finding something totally unexpected like that. Not finding

fossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, and it's okay. But the most

spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged to the present,



The skull reconstructed from the Atapuerca fossil (left) bears an incredibleresemblance to that of modern man (right).

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (179)

in the past. It's like finding something like—like a tape recorder in GranDolina. That would be very surprising. We don't expect cassettes and taperecorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000 yearsago—it's the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it.218

The fossil highlighted the fact that the history of hom*o sapiens had tobe extended back to 800,000 years ago. After recovering from the initialshock, the evolutionists who discovered the fossil decided that it belongedto a different species, because according to the evolutionary family tree,hom*o sapiens did not live 800,000 years ago. Therefore, they made up animaginary species called hom*o antecessor and included the Atapuerca skullunder this classification.

Huts and Footprints

There have been many findings demonstrating that hom*o sapiensdates back even earlier than 800,000 years. One of them is a discovery byLouis Leakey in the early 1970s in Olduvai Gorge. Here, in the Bed II layer,Leakey discovered that Australopithecus, hom*o habilis and hom*o erectusspecies had co-existed at the same time. What is even more interesting wasa structure Leakey found in the same layer (Bed II). Here, he found theremains of a stone hut. The unusual aspect of the event was that thisconstruction, which is still used in some parts of Africa, could only havebeen built by hom*o sapiens! So, according to Leakey's findings,Australopithecus, hom*o habilis, hom*o erectus and modern man must haveco-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago.219 This discovery mustsurely invalidate the evolutionary theory that claims that modern manevolved from ape-like species such as Australopithecus.

Indeed, some other discoveries trace the origins of modern man backto 1.7 million years ago. One of these important finds is the footprintsfound in Laetoli, Tanzania, by Mary Leakey in 1977. These footprints werefound in a layer that was calculated to be 3.6 million years old, and moreimportantly, they were no different from the footprints that acontemporary man would leave.

The footprints found by Mary Leakey were later examined by anumber of famous paleoanthropologists, such as Donald Johanson andTim White. The results were the same. White wrote:

The Origin Of Man


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (180)

Make no mistake about it,... They are like modern human footprints. If one

were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were

asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there.

He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor

would you.220

After examining the footprints, Louis Robbins from the University ofNorth California made the following comments:

The arch is raised — the smaller individual had a higher arch than I do —

and the big toe is large and aligned with the second toe … The toes grip the

ground like human toes. You do not see this in other animal forms.221

Examinations of the morphological form of the footprints showedtime and again that they had to be accepted as the prints of a human, and


3.6-million-year-old humanfootprints in Laetoli, in Tanzania.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (181)

The AL 666-1, 2.3-million-year-old hom*o sapiens (human) jaw.

AL 222-1 fossil, an A. afarensis jawfrom the same period as AL 666-1.

AL 222-1 – a side view. The sideviews of the two jaws make thedifference between the twofossils clearer.The AL 222-1 jaw protrudesforwards. This is an ape-likefeature. But the AL 666-1 jawon top is a completely humanone.

Side view of AL 666-1


Fossil AL 666-1 was found in Hadar inEthiopia, together with A. afarensisfossils. This 2.3-million-year-old jawbone had features identical to those ofhom*o sapiens.AL 666-1 resembled neither the A.afarensis jawbones that were foundwith it, nor a 1.75-million-year-old hom*ohabilis jaw. The jaws of these twospecies, with their narrow andrectangular shapes, resembled those of

present-day apes. Although there is no doubt that AL 666-1 belonged to a "hom*o" (human)species, evolutionary paleontologists donot accept this fact. They refrain frommaking any comment on this, becausethe jaw is calculated to be 2.3 millionyears old—in other words, much olderthan the age they allow for the hom*o,or human, race.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (182)

Evolutionary paleontologists portray

different hom*o erectus, hom*o sapiensneanderthalensis, and archaic hom*o sapienshuman fossils as indicating different species

or subspecies on the evolutionary path. They

base this on the differences between these

fossil skulls. However, these differences

actually consist of variations among

different human races that have existed,

some of which have become extinct or have

been assimilated. These differences have

grown less pronounced as human races have

intermixed over time.

Despite this, quite striking differences can

still be observed between human races

living today. The skulls in these pages, all

belonging to modern human beings (hom*osapiens sapiens), are all examples of these

differences. To show similar structural

differences between races that lived in the

past as evidence for evolution is quite

simply bias.

German male aged 25-30.

Middle-aged Bengali.

Male Inuit aged 35-40.Male Congolese aged 35-40.

Male from the Solomon Islands(Melanesia) who died in 1893.

Native Peruvian from the fifteenthcentury.


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (183)

moreover, a modern human (hom*o sapiens). Russell Tuttle, who alsoexamined the footprints, wrote:

A small barefoot hom*o sapiens could have made them... In all discerniblemorphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails areindistinguishable from those of modern humans.222

Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners.In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilized footprints of a 10-year-old modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger one. They werecertainly modern people like us.

This situation put the Laetoli footprints at the center of discussionsfor years. Evolutionary paleoanthropologists desperately tried to come upwith an explanation, as it was hard for them to accept the fact that amodern man had been walking on the earth 3.6 million years ago. Duringthe 1990s, the following "explanation" started to take shape: Theevolutionists decided that these footprints must have been left by anAustralopithecus, because according to their theory, it was impossible for ahom*o species to have existed 3.6 years ago. However, Russell H. Tuttlewrote the following in an article in 1990:

In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemblethose of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggestthat the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the Gfootprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude thatthere had been made by a member of our genus, hom*o... In any case, weshould shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made byLucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis.223

To put it briefly, these footprints that were supposed to be 3.6 millionyears old could not have belonged to Australopithecus. The only reasonwhy the footprints were thought to have been left by members ofAustralopithecus was the 3.6-million-year-old volcanic layer in which thefootprints were found. The prints were ascribed to Australopithecus purelyon the assumption that humans could not have lived so long ago.

These interpretations of the Laetoli footprints demonstrate oneimportant fact. Evolutionists support their theory not based on scientificfindings, but in spite of them. Here we have a theory that is blindlydefended no matter what, with all new findings that cast the theory intodoubt being either ignored or distorted to support the theory.

The Origin Of Man

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (184)

Briefly, the theory of evolution is not science, but a dogma kept alivedespite science.

The Bipedalism Problem

Apart from the fossil record that we have dealt with so far,unbridgeable anatomical gaps between men and apes also invalidate thefiction of human evolution. One of these has to do with the manner ofwalking.

Human beings walk upright on two feet. This is a very special formof locomotion not seen in any other mammalian species. Some otheranimals do have a limited ability to move when they stand on their twohind feet. Animals like bears and monkeys can move in this way onlyrarely, such as when they want to reach a source of food, and even thenonly for a short time. Normally, their skeletons lean forward and theywalk on all fours.

Well, then, has bipedalism evolved from the quadrupedal gait ofapes, as evolutionists claim?

Of course not. Research has shown that the evolution of bipedalism


The human skeleton is designed to walk upright. Ape skeletons, however, withtheir forward-leaning stance, short legs, and long arms, are suited to walking onfour legs. It is not possible for there to be an "intermediate form" between them,because this would be extremely unproductive.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (185)

never occurred, nor is it possible for it tohave done so. First of all, bipedalism is notan evolutionary advantage. The way inwhich apes move is much easier, faster, andmore efficient than man's bipedal stride.Man can neither move by jumping fromtree to tree without descending to theground, like a chimpanzee, nor run at aspeed of 125 km per hour, like a cheetah.On the contrary, since man walks on twofeet, he moves much more slowly on theground. For the same reason, he is one ofthe most unprotected of all species innature in terms of movement and defence.According to the logic of evolution, apesshould not have evolved to adopt a bipedalstride; humans should instead haveevolved to become quadrupedal.

Another impasse of the evolutionary claim is that bipedalism does notserve the "gradual development" model of Darwinism. This model, whichconstitutes the basis of evolution, requires that there should be a "compound"stride between bipedalism and quadrupedalism. However, with thecomputerized research he conducted in 1996, Robin Crompton, seniorlecturer in anatomy at Liverpool University, showed that such a "compound"stride was not possible. Crompton reached the following conclusion: Aliving being can either walk upright, or on all fours.224 A type of stridebetween the two is impossible because it would involve excessive energyconsumption. This is why a half-bipedal being cannot exist.

The immense gap between man and ape is not limited solely tobipedalism. Many other issues still remain unexplained, such as braincapacity, the ability to talk, and so on. Elaine Morgan, an evolutionarypaleoanthropologist, makes the following confession in relation to thismatter:

Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are: 1) why do theywalk on two legs? 2) why have they lost their fur? 3) why have theydeveloped such large brains? 4) why did they learn to speak?

The Origin Of Man


Apes' hands and feet arecurled in a manner suited to

living in trees.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (186)

The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) 'We do not yet know;' 2) 'Wedo not yet know;' 3) 'We do not yet know;' 4) 'We do not yet know.' The listof questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting themonotony of the answers.225

Evolution: An Unscientific Faith

Lord Solly Zuckerman is one of the most famous and respectedscientists in the United Kingdom. For years, he studied the fossil recordand conducted many detailed investigations. He was elevated to thepeerage for his contributions to science. Zuckerman is an evolutionist.Therefore, his comments on evolution cannot be regarded as ignorant orprejudiced. After years of research on the fossils included in the humanevolution scenario however, he reached the conclusion that there is notruth to the family tree that is put forward.

Zuckerman also advanced an interesting concept of the "spectrum ofthe sciences," ranging from those he considered scientific to those heconsidered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most"scientific"—that is, dependent on concrete data—fields are chemistry andphysics. After them come the biological sciences and then the socialsciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to bemost "unscientific," are extra-sensory perception—concepts such astelepathy and the "sixth sense"—and finally human evolution. Zuckermanexplains his reasoning as follows:

We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields ofpresumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or theinterpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything ispossible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believeseveral contradictory things at the same time.226

Robert Locke, the editor of Discovering Archeology, an importantpublication on the origins of man, writes in that journal, "The search forhuman ancestors gives more heat than light," quoting the confession of thefamous evolutionary paleoantropologist Tim White:

We're all frustrated by "all the questions we haven't been able to answer."227

Locke's article reviews the impasse of the theory of evolution onthe origins of man and the groundlessness of the propaganda spread



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (187)

about this subject:

Perhaps no area of science is more contentious than the search for humanorigins. Elite paleontologists disagree over even the most basic outlines ofthe human family tree. New branches grow amid great fanfare, only towither and die in the face of new fossil finds.228

The same fact was also recently accepted by Henry Gee, the editor ofthe well-known journal Nature. In his book In Search of Deep Time,published in 1999, Gee points out that all the evidence for humanevolution "between about 10 and 5 million years ago-several thousandgenerations of living creatures-can be fitted into a small box." Heconcludes that conventional theories of the origin and development ofhuman beings are "a completely human invention created after the fact,shaped to accord with human prejudices," and adds:

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not ascientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the samevalidity as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but notscientific.229

As we have seen, there is no scientific discovery supporting orpropping up the theory of evolution, just some scientists who blindlybelieve in it. These scientists both believe in the myth of evolutionthemselves, although it has no scientific foundation, and also make otherpeople believe it by using the media, which cooperate with them. In thepages that follow, we shall examine a few examples of this deceptivepropaganda carried out in the name of evolution.

Deceptive Reconstructions

Even if evolutionists are unsuccessful in finding scientific evidence tosupport their theories, they are very successful at one thing: propaganda.The most important element of this propaganda is the practice of creatingfalse designs known as "reconstructions."

Reconstruction can be explained as drawing a picture or constructinga model of a living thing based on a single bone—sometimes only afragment—that has been unearthed. The "ape-men" we see in newspapers,magazines, and films are all reconstructions.

Since fossils are usually fragmented and incomplete, any conjecture

The Origin Of Man


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (188)



Reconstruction drawings reflect only evolutionists' imaginations, not scientific discoveries.

based on them is likely to be completely speculative. As a matter of fact,the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by evolutionists based onfossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate theevolutionary thesis. David R. Pilbeam, an eminent anthropologist fromHarvard, stresses this fact when he says: "At least in paleoanthropology,data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations.Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies insteadof the actual data."230 Since people are highly affected by visualinformation, these reconstructions best serve the purpose of evolutionists,which is to convince people that these reconstructed creatures reallyexisted in the past.

At this point, we have to highlight one particular point:Reconstructions based on bone remains can only reveal the most generalcharacteristics of the creature, since the really distinctive morphologicalfeatures of any animal are soft tissues which quickly vanish after death.Therefore, due to the speculative nature of the interpretation of the softtissues, the reconstructed drawings or models become totally dependent onthe imagination of the person producing them. Earnst A. Hootenfrom Harvard University explains the situation like this:

To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even morehazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (189)

ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You canwith equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of achimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorationsof ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likelyonly to mislead the public … So put not your trust in reconstructions.231

As a matter of fact, evolutionists invent such preposterous stories thatthey even ascribe different faces to the same skull. For example, the threedifferent reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecusrobustus (Zinjanthropus) are a famous example of such forgery.

The biased interpretation of fossils and outright fabrication of manyimaginary reconstructions are an indication of how frequentlyevolutionists have recourse to tricks. Yet these seem innocent whencompared to the deliberate forgeries that have been perpetrated in thehistory of evolution.

There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image,which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionistacademic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produceimaginary creatures; nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspondto no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One of theinteresting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to "produce"the fossils they cannot find. Piltdown man, which may be the biggestscandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.

The Piltdown Man Scandal

In 1912, a well-known doctor and amateur paleoanthropologistnamed Charles Dawson came out with the assertion that he had found ajawbone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England. Even thoughthe jawbone was more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man's.These specimens were labelled the "Piltdown man." Alleged to be 500,000years old, they were displayed as an absolute proof of human evolution inseveral museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific articles werewritten on "Piltdown man," many interpretations and drawings weremade, and the fossil was presented as important evidence for humanevolution. No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject.232

While visiting the British Museum in 1921, leading American

The Origin Of Man


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (190)

paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said "We have to be reminded overand over again that Nature is full of paradoxes" and proclaimed Piltdown"a discovery of transcendant importance to the prehistory of man."233

In 1949, Kenneth Oakley, from the British Museum's PaleontologyDepartment, attempted to use "fluorine testing," a new test used fordetermining the date of fossils. A trial was made on the fossil of Piltdownman. The result was astonishing. During the test, it was realized that thejawbone of Piltdown man did not contain any fluorine. This indicated thatit had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull, whichcontained only a small amount of fluorine, showed that it was only a fewthousand years old.

It was determined that the teeth in the jawbone, belonging to anorangutan, had been worn down artificially and that the "primitive" toolsdiscovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had beensharpened with steel implements. In the detailed analysis completed byJoseph Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skullbelonged to a 500-year-old man, and the jaw bone belonged to a recentlydeceased ape! The teeth had been specially arranged in a particular wayand added to the jaw, and the molar surfaces were filed in order toresemble those of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with


For 40 years, Piltdown manwas accepted as the greatest

evidence for humanevolution. Evolutionistfossil experts claimed tohave found a lot oftransitional features in

the skull. It onlyemerged later that the

fossil was a fake.


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (191)

potassium dichromate to give them an old appearance. These stains beganto disappear when dipped in acid. Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark, who was inthe team that uncovered the forgery, could not hide his astonishment atthis situation, and said: "The evidences of artificial abrasion immediatelysprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well beasked—how was it that they had escaped notice before?"234 In the wake ofall this, "Piltdown man" was hurriedly removed from the British Museumwhere it had been displayed for more than 40 years.

The Nebraska Man Scandal

In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the director of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molartooth belonging to the Pliocene period in western Nebraska near SnakeBrook. This tooth allegedly bore common characteristics of both man andape. An extensive scientific debate began surrounding this fossil, whichcame to be called "Nebraska man," in which some interpreted this tooth asbelonging to Pithecanthropus erectus, while others claimed it was closer tohuman beings. Nebraska man was also immediately given a "scientificname," Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.

Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this singletooth, reconstructions of Nebraska man's head and body were drawn.Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife andchildren, as a whole family in a natural setting.

All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth.Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when aresearcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusionsrelying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticized.

In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According tothese newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor toan ape. It was realized that it belonged to an extinct species of wildAmerican pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the articlepublished in Science in which he announced the truth, "HesperopithecusApparently Not an Ape Nor a Man."235 Then all the drawings ofHesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed fromevolutionary literature.

The Origin Of Man


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (192)


All the scientific deceptions and prejudiced evaluations made tosupport the theory of evolution show that the theory is a kind of ideology,and not at all a scientific account. Like all ideologies, this one too has itsfanatical supporters, who are desperate to prove evolution, at no matter whatcost. Or else they are so dogmatically bound to the theory that every newdiscovery is perceived as a great proof of the theory, even if it has nothing todo with evolution. This is really a very distressing picture for science,because it shows that science is being misdirected in the name of a dogma.

In his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, the Swedish scientistSoren Lovtrup has this to say on the subject:

I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entirebranch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what hashappened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionaryproblems in a peculiar "Darwinian" vocabulary—"adaptation," "selectionpressure," "natural selection," etc.—thereby believing that they contribute tothe explanation of natural events. They do not... I believe that one day theDarwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.236

Further proof that Darwinism is the greatest deception in the historyof science is provided by molecular biology.



Nebraska man, andHenry Fairfield Osborn,who named it.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (193)

n previous sections of this book, we have shown how the fossilrecord invalidates the theory of evolution. In point of fact, there wasno need for us to relate any of that, because the theory of evolutioncollapses long before one gets to any claims about the evidence offossils. The subject that renders the theory meaningless from the

very outset is the question of how life first appeared on earth. When it addresses this question, evolutionary theory claims that life

started with a cell that formed by chance. According to this scenario, fourbillion years ago various chemical compounds underwent a reaction in theprimordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thunderboltsand atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell.

The first thing that must be said is that the claim that nonlivingmaterials can come together to form life is an unscientific one that hasnot been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is onlygenerated from life. Each living cell is formed by the replication ofanother cell. No one in the world has ever succeeded in forming a livingcell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the mostadvanced laboratories.

The theory of evolution claims that a living cell—which cannot beproduced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge andtechnology are brought to bear—nevertheless managed to form by chanceunder primordial conditions on the earth. In the following pages, we willexamine why this claim is contrary to the most basic principles of scienceand reason.




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (194)

An Example of the Logic of "Chance"

If one believes that a living cell can come into existence by chance,then there is nothing to prevent one from believing a similar story that wewill relate below. It is the story of a town.

One day, a lump of clay, pressed between the rocks in a barren land,becomes wet after it rains. The wet clay dries and hardens when the sunrises, and takes on a stiff, resistant form. Afterwards, these rocks, whichalso served as a mould, are somehow smashed into pieces, and then a neat,well shaped, and strong brick appears. This brick waits under the samenatural conditions for years for a similar brick to be formed. This goes onuntil hundreds and thousands of the same bricks have been formed in thesame place. However, by chance, none of the bricks that were previouslyformed are damaged. Although exposed to storms, rain, wind, scorchingsun, and freezing cold for thousands of years, the bricks do not crack,break up, or get dragged away, but wait there in the same place with thesame determination for other bricks to form.

When the number of bricks is adequate, they erect a building bybeing arranged sideways and on top of each other, having been randomlydragged along by the effects of natural conditions such as winds, storms,or tornadoes. Meanwhile, materials such as cement or soil mixtures formunder "natural conditions," with perfect timing, and creep between thebricks to clamp them to each other. While all this is happening, iron oreunder the ground is shaped under "natural conditions" and lays thefoundations of a building that is to be formed with these bricks. At the endof this process, a complete building rises with all its materials, carpentry,and installations intact.

Of course, a building does not only consist of foundations, bricks, andcement. How, then, are the other missing materials to be obtained? Theanswer is simple: all kinds of materials that are needed for theconstruction of the building exist in the earth on which it is erected. Siliconfor the glass, copper for the electric cables, iron for the columns, beams,water pipes, etc. all exist under the ground in abundant quantities. It takesonly the skill of "natural conditions" to shape and place these materialsinside the building. All the installations, carpentry, and accessories areplaced among the bricks with the help of the blowing wind, rain, and



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (195)

earthquakes. Everything has gone so well that the bricks are arranged soas to leave the necessary window spaces as if they knew that somethingcalled glass would be formed later on by natural conditions. Moreover,they have not forgotten to leave some space to allow the installation ofwater, electricity and heating systems, which are also later to be formed bychance. Everything has gone so well that "coincidences" and "naturalconditions" produce a perfect design.

If you have managed to sustain your belief in this story so far, thenyou should have no trouble surmising how the town's other buildings,plants, highways, sidewalks, substructures, communications, andtransportation systems came about. If you possess technical knowledgeand are fairly conversant with the subject, you can even write an extremely"scientific" book of a few volumes stating your theories about "theevolutionary process of a sewage system and its uniformity with thepresent structures." You may well be honored with academic awards foryour clever studies, and may consider yourself a genius, shedding light onthe nature of humanity.

The theory of evolution, which claims that life came into existence bychance, is no less absurd than our story, for, with all its operationalsystems, and systems of communication, transportation and management,a cell is no less complex than a city. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,the molecular biologist Michael Denton discusses the complex structure ofthe cell:

To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, wemust magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers indiameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city likeLondon or New York. What we would then see would be an object ofunparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell wewould see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship,opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in andout. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in aworld of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it reallycredible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallestelement of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond ourown creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance,which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?237

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (196)

The Complex Structure and Systems in the Cell

The complex structure of the living cell was unknown in Darwin'sday and at the time, ascribing life to "coincidences and natural conditions"was thought by evolutionists to be convincing enough. Darwin hadproposed that the first cell could easily have formed "in some warm littlepond."238 One of Darwin's supporters, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel,examined under the microscope a mixture of mud removed from the seabed by a research ship and claimed that this was a nonliving substancethat turned into a living one. This so-called "mud that comes to life,"known as Bathybius haeckelii ("Haeckel's mud from the depths"), is anindication of just how simple a thing life was thought to be by thefounders of the theory of evolution.

The technology of the twentieth century has delved into the tiniestparticles of life, and has revealed that the cell is the most complex systemmankind has ever confronted. Today we know that the cell contains powerstations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factoriesmanufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databankwhere all the necessary information about all products to be produced is



In Darwin's time, it was thought thatthe cell had a very simple structure.Darwin's ardent supporter ErnstHaeckel suggested that the abovemud pulled up from the bottom ofthe sea could produce life by itself.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (197)

recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying rawmaterials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratoriesand refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useableparts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming andoutgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of thisincredibly complex system.

W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The mostelementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably morecomplex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, byman."239

A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attainedtoday cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever metwith success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned.

The theory of evolution claims that this system—which mankind,with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannotsucceed in reproducing—came into existence "by chance" under theconditions of the primordial earth. Actually, the probability of forming acell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of abook following an explosion in a printing house.

The English mathematician andastronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similarcomparison in an interview published inNature magazine on November 12, 1981.Although an evolutionist himself, Hoylestated that the chance that higher lifeforms might have emerged in this way iscomparable to the chance that a tornadosweeping through a junk-yard mightassemble a Boeing 747 from thematerials therein.240 This means that it isnot possible for the cell to have come intobeing by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been "created."

One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explainhow the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. Aliving cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of manyorganelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


Fred Hoyle

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (198)


DETAIL 1: Plasma Membrane (Lipid Bilayer)Controls exchange of materials betweeninside & outside of cell.

DETAIL 2: Nuclear EnvelopeDouble phospholipid bilayermembrane that segregates contentsof nucleus from cytoplasm.

Golgi Complex● Modifies, distributes&packagessecretory products. ● Distributes & recycles cellularmembrane.


TransmembraneChannel Protein

Centrioles● Organelles containing 9triplet bundles ofmicrotubules. ● Importantrole in cell division.

Nucleus● Contains chromosomal DNApackaged into chromation fiber. ● Plays central role in heredity.● Controls cellular activity.

Nucleolus● Site where ribosomal RNA isassembled, processed andpackaged with proteins intoribosomal subunits.

Nuclear Pore● Special permeable siteson nuclear surface whichallow certain macro-molecules to pass betweennucleus and cytoplasm.

Mitochondrion● Power plant of the cell● Provides energy in the formof ATP through oxidativephosphorylation.

Outer&Inner Membraneof Mitochondrion

Matrix Space


Basal Body of Flagellum● Identical in structure to acentriole.

Flagellum● Microtubular structurewhich grows from thebasal body. Used forlocomotion.

Plasma membrane

9+2 pairs ofmicrotubules

Dynein Arm● Enzymatic activityof dynein (protein)releases theenergy from ATPrequired formotility.

Rough EndoplasmicReticulum (RER)● Segregation,modification & trans-portation of proteins & lysosomal enzymes. ● Ribosome studdedmembrane.

Smooth EndoplasmicReticulum (SER)● Synthesis of lipids● Role in detoxification.● No ribosomes.

DETAIL 3:CytoskeletonProvides structuralorganization to thecell.

PlasmaMembrane (See DETAIL 1)

Cytosol● Gel-likeintracellular fluidwhere many ofcell's chemicalreactions occur.

Forming Face of Golgi Apparatus

Maturing Face of Golgi Apparatus

Golgi Saccule

Golgi Saccule

Nuclear Pore

Central Granule

Granules of Nuclear Pore

Ribosome● Contains highconcentration of RNA. ● Important role inprotein synthesis.





Nuclear Envelope(See DETAIL 2)




Transfer vesicle

Peripheral Proteins

Integral Protein

SurfaceMembraneProtein Secretory Granule


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (199)

remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconsciousmechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop.Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing allthe required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that thiscell had to have been created.

The Problem of the Origin of Proteins

So much for the cell, but evolution fails even to account for thebuilding-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of justone single protein out of the thousands of complex protein moleculesmaking up the cell is impossible.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called aminoacids that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities andstructures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein.The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are somethat contain thousands.

The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of asingle amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to becomea useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place andin the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emergedas a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is toowondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore, the theorycannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of aminoacids, as will be discussed later.)

The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure ofproteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simpleprobability calculations that anybody can understand.

For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can bearranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number,consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all of these possible sequences,only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless, or else potentially harmful toliving things.

In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (200)

molecule is "1 in 10300." The probability of this "1" actually occurring ispractically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 arethought of as "zero probability").

Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rathermodest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting ofthousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculationsto these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" isinsufficient to describe the true situation.

When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life,we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of thesmallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600types of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probabilitycalculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept ofimpossibility.

Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theoryof evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are


The complex 3-Dstructure of the

proteincytochrome-C.The slightestdifference inthe order ofthe aminoacids,represented by

little balls, willrender the proteinnonfunctional.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (201)

exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these aredefinite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers.

This situation is in fact acknowledged by many evolutionists. Forexample, Harold F. Blum, a prominent evolutionist scientist, states that"The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallestknown proteins seems beyond all probability."241

Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place over a verylong period of time and that this made the impossible possible.Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is notpossible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, anAmerican geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History,writing that the probability is so small "that it would not occur duringbillions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket ofconcentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids."242

So what does all this mean? Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry,answers the question:

When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could resultfrom a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporatingprimordial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could haveoriginated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a masterplan would be required for such a task.243

If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins isimpossible, it is billions of times "more impossible" for some one millionof those proteins to come together by chance and make up a completehuman cell. What is more, by no means does a cell consist of a mere heapof proteins. In addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids,carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals such aselectrolytes arranged in a specific proportion, equilibrium, and design interms of both structure and function. Each of these elements functions asa building block or co-molecule in various organelles.

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University anda DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation ofthe 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium (There are 200,000different types of proteins in a human cell.) The number that was foundwas 1 over 1040000.244 (This is an incredible number obtained by putting40,000 zeros after the 1)

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (202)

A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from UniversityCollege Cardiff, Wales, Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments:

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter isone to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to buryDarwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup,neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were notrandom, they must therefore have been the product of purposefulintelligence.245

Sir Fred Hoyle comments on these implausible numbers:

Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is soobvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.246

An article published in the January 1999 issue of Science Newsrevealed that no explanation had yet been found for how amino acidscould turn into proteins:

….no one has ever satisfactorily explained how the widely distributedingredients linked up into proteins. Presumed conditions of primordialEarth would have driven the amino acids toward lonely isolation.247

Left-handed Proteins

Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regardingthe formation of proteins is impossible.

Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enoughfor the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to theserequirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in thecomposition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different typesof amino acids—as of all organic molecules—called "left-handed" and"right-handed." The difference between them is the mirror-symmetrybetween their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of aperson's right and left hands.

Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with oneanother. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is thatall the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplestorganism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. Ifeven a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (203)

protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments,surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acidsimmediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components.

Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance asevolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed aminoacids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equalproportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right-and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it ispossible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other.However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all livingorganisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.

The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed onesfrom among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handedamino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still bafflesevolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of thegreatest impasses facing the theory of evolution.

Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facingevolutionists with respect to "chance" even worse. In order for a"meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acidsto be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combinedtogether in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


The same protein's left- (L) and right- (D) handed isomers. The proteins in livingcreatures consist only of left-handed amino acids.

L - Left-handed amino acid D - Right-handed amino acid

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (204)

amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identifythat a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence andrecognize that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situationonce more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.

The Britannica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defenderof evolution, states that the amino acids of all living organisms on earth,and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have thesame left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing acoin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaediastates that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to theorigin of life on earth.248

If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it morelogical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is consciousintervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obviousthough it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simplybecause they do not want to accept the existence of conscious intervention.

A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also existswith respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNAand RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acidsare chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of theirnucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact thatcan never be explained by chance.

In conclusion, it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by theprobabilities we have examined that the origin of life cannot be explainedby chance. If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average-sizedprotein consisting of 400 amino acids being selected only from left-handedamino acids, we come up with a probability of 1 in 2400, or 10120. Just for acomparison, let us remember that the number of electrons in the universeis estimated at 1079, which although vast, is a much smaller number. Theprobability of these amino acids forming the required sequence andfunctional form would generate much larger numbers. If we add theseprobabilities to each other, and if we go on to work out the probabilities ofeven higher numbers and types of proteins, the calculations becomeinconceivable.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (205)

The Indispensability of the Peptide Link

The difficulties the theory of evolution is unable to overcome withregard to the development of a single protein are not limited to those wehave recounted so far. It is not enough for amino acids to be arranged inthe correct numbers, sequences, and required three-dimensionalstructures. The formation of a protein also requires that amino acidmolecules with more than one arm be linked to each other only in certainways. Such a bond is called a "peptide bond." Amino acids can makedifferent bonds with each other; but proteins are made up of those—andonly those—amino acids which are joined by peptide bonds.

A comparison will clarify this point. Suppose that all the parts of a carwere complete and correctly assembled, with the sole exception that oneof the wheels was fastened in place not with the usual nuts and bolts, butwith a piece of wire, in such a way that its hub faced the ground. It wouldbe impossible for such a car to move even the shortest distance, no matterhow complex its technology or how powerful its engine. At first glance,everything would seem to be in the right place, but the faulty attachmentof even one wheel would make the entire car useless. In the same way, ina protein molecule the joining of even one amino acid to another with abond other than a peptide bond would make the entire molecule useless.

Research has shown that amino acids combining at random combinewith a peptide bond only 50 percent of the time, and that the rest of thetime different bonds that are not present in proteins emerge. To functionproperly, each amino acid making up a protein must be joined to othersonly with a peptide bond, in the same way that it likewise must be chosenonly from among left-handed forms.

The probability of this happening is the same as the probability ofeach protein's being left-handed. That is, when we consider a proteinmade up of 400 amino acids, the probability of all amino acids combiningamong themselves with only peptide bonds is 1 in 2399.

Zero Probability

If we add together the three probabilities (that of amino acids beinglaid out correctly, that of their all being left-handed, and that of their allbeing joined by peptide links), then we come face to face with the

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (206)

PROTEIN SYNTHESIS:The ribosome reads the messenger RNA,

and arranges the amino acids accordingto the information it receives there.

In the illustrations, the consecutiveorder of the [ val, cys, and ala

amino acids ], established bythe ribosome and transferRNA, can be seen. All proteinsin nature are produced by thiscomplex process. No proteincomes about by "accident."







protein sequence

amino acids

transfer RNA


messenger RNA


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (207)

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


astronomical figure of 1 in 10950. This is a probability only on paper.Practically speaking, there is zero chance of its actually happening. As wesaw earlier, in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 in 1050 isstatistically considered to have a "zero" probability of occurring.

Even if we suppose that amino acids have combined anddecomposed by a "trial and error" method, without losing any time sincethe formation of the earth, in order to form a single protein molecule, thetime that would be required for something with a probability of 10950 tohappen would still hugely exceed the estimated age of the earth.

The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that evolution falls into aterrible abyss of improbability even when it comes to the formation of asingle protein.

One of the foremost proponents of the theory of evolution, ProfessorRichard Dawkins, states the impossibility the theory has fallen into inthese terms:

So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbablethat the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be aslow as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on onlyone planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet—because here we are talking about it.249

This admission by one of evolution's foremost authorities clearlyreflects the logical muddle the theory of evolution is built on. The abovestatements in Dawkins's book Climbing Mount Improbable are a strikingexample of circular reasoning which actually explains nothing: "If we arehere, then that means that evolution happened."

As we have seen, even the most prominent of the proponents ofevolution confess that the theory is buried in impossibility when it comesto accounting for the first stage of life. But how interesting it is that, ratherthan accept the complete unreality of the theory they maintain, they preferto cling to evolution in a dogmatic manner! This is a completelyideological fixation.

Is There a Trial-and-Error Mechanism in Nature?

Finally, we may conclude with a very important point in relation tothe basic logic of probability calculations, of which we have already seensome examples. We indicated that the probability calculations made above

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (208)

reach astronomical levels, and that these astronomical odds have nochance of actually happening. However, there is a much more importantand damaging fact facing evolutionists here. This is that under naturalconditions, no period of trial and error can even start, despite theastronomical odds, because there is no trial-and-error mechanism innature from which proteins could emerge.

The calculations we gave above to demonstrate the probability of theformation of a protein molecule with 500 amino acids are valid only for anideal trial-and-error environment, which does not actually exist in real life.That is, the probability of obtaining a useful protein is "1" in 10950 only ifwe suppose that there exists an imaginary mechanism in which aninvisible hand joins 500 amino acids at random and then, seeing that thisis not the right combination, disentangles them one by one, and arrangesthem again in a different order, and so on. In each trial, the amino acidswould have to be separated one by one, and arranged in a new order. Thesynthesis should be stopped after the 500th amino acid has been added,and it must be ensured that not even one extra amino acid is involved. Thetrial should then be stopped to see whether or not a functional protein hasyet been formed, and, in the event of failure, everything should be split upagain and then tested for another sequence. Additionally, in each trial, noteven one extraneous substance should be allowed to become involved. Itis also imperative that the chain formed during the trial should not beseparated and destroyed before reaching the 499th link. These conditionsmean that the probabilities we have mentioned above can only operate ina controlled environment where there is a conscious mechanism directingthe beginning, the end, and each intermediate stage of the process, andwhere only "the selection of the amino acids" is left to chance. It is clearlyimpossible for such an environment to exist under natural conditions.Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logicallyand technically impossible.

Since some people are unable to take a broad view of these matters,but approach them from a superficial viewpoint and assume proteinformation to be a simple chemical reaction, they may make unrealisticdeductions such as "amino acids combine by way of reaction and thenform proteins." However, accidental chemical reactions taking place in anonliving structure can only lead to simple and primitive changes. The



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (209)

number of these is predetermined and limited. For a somewhat morecomplex chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, andlaboratories have to be involved. Medicines and many other chemicalmaterials that we use in our daily life are made in just this way. Proteinshave much more complex structures than these chemicals produced byindustry. Therefore, it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonderof design and engineering, in which every part takes its place in a fixedorder, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions.

Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have describedso far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolvedspontaneously "by accident." Even so, evolution again has no answers,because in order for this protein to survive, it would need to be isolatedfrom its natural habitat and be protected under very special conditions.Otherwise, it would either disintegrate from exposure to naturalconditions on earth, or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemicalcompounds, thereby losing its particular properties and turning into atotally different and useless substance.

What we have been discussing so far is the impossibility of just oneprotein's coming about by chance. However, in the human body alone thereare some 100,000 proteins functioning. Furthermore, there are about 1.5million species named, and another 10 million are believed to exist.Although many similar proteins are used in many life forms, it is estimatedthat there must be 100 million or more types of protein in the plant andanimal worlds. And the millions of species which have already becomeextinct are not included in this calculation. In other words, hundreds ofmillions of protein codes have existed in the world. If one considers that noteven one protein can be explained by chance, it is clear what the existenceof hundreds of millions of different proteins must mean.

Bearing this truth in mind, it can clearly be understood that suchconcepts as "coincidence" and "chance" have nothing to do with theexistence of living things.

The Evolutionary Argument about the Origin of Life

Above all, there is one important point to take into consideration: Ifany one step in the evolutionary process is proven to be impossible, this is

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (210)

sufficient to prove that the whole theory is totally false and invalid. Forinstance, by proving that the haphazard formation of proteins isimpossible, all other claims regarding the subsequent steps of evolutionare also refuted. After this, it becomes meaningless to take some humanand ape skulls and engage in speculation about them.

How living organisms came into existence out of nonliving matterwas an issue that evolutionists did not even want to mention for a longtime. However, this question, which had constantly been avoided,eventually had to be addressed, and attempts were made to settle it witha series of experiments in the second quarter of the twentieth century.

The main question was: How could the first living cell have appearedin the primordial atmosphere on the earth? In other words, what kind ofexplanation could evolutionists offer?

The first person to take the matter in hand was the Russian biologistAlexander I. Oparin, the founder of the concept of "chemical evolution."Despite all his theoretical studies, Oparin was unable to produce anyresults to shed light on the origin of life. He says the following in his bookThe Origin of Life, published in 1936:

Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps themost obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms.250

Since Oparin, evolutionists have performed countless experiments,conducted research, and made observations to prove that a cell could havebeen formed by chance. However, every such attempt only made thecomplex design of the cell clearer, and thus refuted the evolutionists'hypotheses even more. Professor Klaus Dose, the president of the Instituteof Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg, states:

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields ofchemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of theimmensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to itssolution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments inthe field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.251

In his book The End of Science, the evolutionary science writer JohnHorgan says of the origin of life, "This is by far the weakest strut of thechassis of modern biology."252

The following statement by the geochemist Jeffrey Bada, from the San



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (211)

Diego-based Scripps Institute, makes the helplessness of evolutionists clear:

Today, as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolvedproblem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did lifeoriginate on Earth?253

Let us now look at the details of the theory of evolution's "biggestunsolved problem". The first subject we have to consider is the famousMiller experiment.

Miller's Experiment

The most generally respected study on the origin of life is the Millerexperiment conducted by the American researcher Stanley Miller in 1953.(The experiment is also known as the "Urey-Miller experiment" because ofthe contribution of Miller's instructor at theUniversity of Chicago, Harold Urey.) Thisexperiment is the only "evidence" evolutionistshave with which to allegedly prove the"chemical evolution thesis"; they advance it asthe first stage of the supposed evolutionaryprocess leading to life. Although nearly half acentury has passed, and great technologicaladvances have been made, nobody has madeany further progress. In spite of this, Miller'sexperiment is still taught in textbooks as theevolutionary explanation of the earliestgeneration of living things. That is because,aware of the fact that such studies do notsupport, but rather actually refute, their thesis,evolutionist researchers deliberately avoidembarking on such experiments.

Stanley Miller's aim was to demonstrate by means of an experimentthat amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could have come intoexistence "by chance" on the lifeless earth billions of years ago. In hisexperiment, Miller used a gas mixture that he assumed to have existed onthe primordial earth (but which later proved unrealistic), composed ofammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor. Since these gases would

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


Stanley Miller with hisexperimental apparatus.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (212)

not react with each other under natural conditions, he added energy to themixture to start a reaction among them. Supposing that this energy couldhave come from lightning in the primordial atmosphere, he used anelectric current for this purpose.

Miller heated this gas mixture at 100°C for a week and added theelectrical current. At the end of the week, Miller analyzed the chemicalswhich had formed at the bottom of the jar, and observed that three out ofthe 20 amino acids which constitute the basic elements of proteins hadbeen synthesized.

This experiment aroused great excitement among evolutionists, andwas promoted as an outstanding success. Moreover, in a state ofintoxicated euphoria, various publications carried headlines such as"Miller creates life." However, what Miller had managed to synthesize wasonly a few inanimate molecules.

Encouraged by this experiment, evolutionists immediately producednew scenarios. Stages following the development of amino acids werehurriedly hypothesized. Supposedly, amino acids had later united in thecorrect sequences by accident to form proteins. Some of these proteinswhich emerged by chance formed themselves into cell membrane–likestructures which "somehow" came into existence and formed a primitivecell. These cells then supposedly came together over time to formmulticellular living organisms.

However, Miller's experiment has since proven to be false in manyrespects.

Four Facts That Invalidate Miller's Experiment

Miller's experiment sought to prove that amino acids could form ontheir own in primordial earth-like conditions, but it containsinconsistencies in a number of areas:

1- By using a mechanism called a "cold trap," Miller isolated theamino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had henot done so, the conditions in the environment in which the amino acidswere formed would immediately have destroyed these molecules.

Doubtless, this kind of conscious isolation mechanism did not existon the primordial earth. Without such a mechanism, even if one amino



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (213)

acid were obtained, it would immediately have been destroyed. Thechemist Richard Bliss expresses this contradiction by observing that"Actually, without this trap, the chemical products, would have beendestroyed by the energy source."254 And, sure enough, in his previousexperiments, Miller had been unable to make even one single amino acidusing the same materials without the cold trap mechanism.

2- The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to simulate in hisexperiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogenand carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environmentinstead of methane and ammonia.

So why did Miller insist on these gases? The answer is simple:without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesize any amino acid. KevinMc Kean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:

Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere on the Earth with a mixtureof methane and ammonia. ...However in the latest studies, it has beenunderstood that the Earth was very hot at those times, and that it wascomposed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere ofthat time should have been formedmostly of nitrogen (N2), carbondioxide (CO2) and water vapour(H2O). However these are not asappropriate as methane andammonia for the production oforganic molecules.255

The American scientists J. P.Ferris and C. T. Chen repeated Miller'sexperiment with an atmosphericenvironment that contained carbondioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, andwater vapor, and were unable toobtain even a single amino acidmolecule.256

3- Another important point thatinvalidates Miller's experiment is thatthere was enough oxygen to destroyall the amino acids in the atmosphere

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


The artificial atmosphere createdby Miller in his experiment

actually bore not the slightestresemblance to the primitive

atmosphere on earth.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (214)

at the time when they were thought to have been formed. This fact,overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidized iron found inrocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old.257

There are other findings showing that the amount of oxygen in theatmosphere at that time was much higher than originally claimed byevolutionists. Studies also show that the amount of ultraviolet radiation towhich the earth was then exposed was 10,000 times more thanevolutionists' estimates. This intense radiation would unavoidably havefreed oxygen by decomposing the water vapor and carbon dioxide in theatmosphere.

This situation completely negates Miller's experiment, in whichoxygen was completely neglected. If oxygen had been used in theexperiment, methane would have decomposed into carbon dioxide andwater, and ammonia into nitrogen and water. On the other hand, in anenvironment where there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layereither; therefore, the amino acids would have immediately beendestroyed, since they would have been exposed to the most intenseultraviolet rays without the protection of the ozone layer. In other words,

with or without oxygen in theprimordial world, the result wouldhave been a deadly environment forthe amino acids.

4- At the end of Miller'sexperiment, many organic acids hadalso been formed with characteristicsdetrimental to the structure andfunction of living things. If the aminoacids had not been isolated, and hadbeen left in the same environmentwith these chemicals, theirdestruction or transformation intodifferent compounds throughchemical reactions would have beenunavoidable.

Moreover, Miller's experimentalso produced right-handed amino



Today, Miller too accepts that his1953 experiment was very farfrom explaining the origin of life.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (215)

acids.258 The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even withinits own terms, because right-handed amino acids cannot function in thecomposition of living organisms. To conclude, the circ*mstances in whichamino acids were formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life.In truth, this medium took the form of an acidic mixture destroying andoxidizing the useful molecules obtained.

All these facts point to one firm truth: Miller's experiment cannotclaim to have proved that living things formed by chance underprimordial earth–like conditions. The whole experiment is nothing morethan a deliberate and controlled laboratory experiment to synthesizeamino acids. The amount and types of the gases used in the experimentwere ideally determined to allow amino acids to originate. The amount ofenergy supplied to the system was neither too much nor too little, butarranged precisely to enable the necessary reactions to occur. Theexperimental apparatus was isolated, so that it would not allow theleaking of any harmful, destructive, or any other kind of elements tohinder the formation of amino acids. No elements, minerals or compoundsthat were likely to have been present on the primordial earth, but whichwould have changed the course of the reactions, were included in theexperiment. Oxygen, which would have prevented the formation of aminoacids because of oxidation, is only one of these destructive elements. Evenunder such ideal laboratory conditions, it was impossible for the aminoacids produced to survive and avoid destruction without the "cold trap"mechanism.

In fact, by his experiment, Miller destroyed evolution's claim that "lifeemerged as the result of unconscious coincidences." That is because, if theexperiment proves anything, it is that amino acids can only be producedin a controlled laboratory environment where all the conditions arespecifically designed by conscious intervention.

Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionistscientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist sciencejournal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled "Life'sCrucible":

Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly ofcarbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used inthe 1953 experiment. And even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed,

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (216)

how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through thenecessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicatedcompounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up hishands at that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs withexasperation. "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."259

As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experimentdoes not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issueof National Geographic, in an article titled "The Emergence of Life on Earth,"the following comments appear:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different towhat Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide andnitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.

That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide andnitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules - the equivalent ofdissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientistsfind it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.260

In brief, neither Miller's experiment, nor any other similar one thathas been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth.All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life toemerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reasonevolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence toprejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey,who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller,made the following confession on this subject:

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 allbelieve as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on thisplanet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imaginethat it did.261

The Primordial Atmosphere and Proteins

Evolutionist sources use the Miller experiment, despite all of itsinconsistencies, to try to gloss over the question of the origin of aminoacids. By giving the impression that the issue has long since been resolved



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (217)

by that invalid experiment, they try to paper over the cracks in the theoryof evolution.

However, to explain the second stage of the origin of life,evolutionists faced an even greater problem than that of the formation ofamino acids—namely, the origin of proteins, the building blocks of life,which are composed of hundreds of different amino acids bonding witheach other in a particular order.

Claiming that proteins were formed by chance under naturalconditions is even more unrealistic and unreasonable than claiming thatamino acids were formed by chance. In the preceding pages we have seenthe mathematical impossibility of the haphazard uniting of amino acids inproper sequences to form proteins with probability calculations. Now, wewill examine the impossibility of proteins being produced chemicallyunder primordial earth conditions.

The Problem of Protein Synthesis in Water

As we saw before, when combining to form proteins, amino acidsform a special bond with one another called the peptide bond. A watermolecule is released during the formation of this peptide bond.

This fact definitely refutes the evolutionist explanation thatprimordial life originated in water, because, according to the "Le Châtelierprinciple" in chemistry, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water(a condensation reaction) to take place in a hydrous environment. Thechances of this kind of a reaction happening in a hydrate environment issaid to "have the least probability of occurring" of all chemical reactions.

Hence the ocean, which is claimed to be where life began and aminoacids originated, is definitely not an appropriate setting for amino acids toform proteins.262 On the other hand, it would be irrational for evolutioniststo change their minds and claim that life originated on land, because theonly environment where amino acids could have been protected fromultraviolet radiation is in the oceans and seas. On land, they would bedestroyed by ultraviolet rays. The Le Châtelier principle, on the otherhand, disproves the claim of the formation of life in the sea. This is anotherdilemma confronting evolution.

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (218)

Fox's Experiment

Challenged by the above dilemma, evolutionists began to inventunrealistic scenarios based on this "water problem" that so definitivelyrefuted their theories. Sydney Fox was one of the best known of theseresearchers. Fox advanced the following theory to solve the problem.According to him, the first amino acids must have been transported tosome cliffs near a volcano right after their formation in the primordialocean. The water contained in this mixture that included the amino acidsmust have evaporated when the temperature increased above boilingpoint on the cliffs. The amino acids which were "dried out" in this way,could then have combined to form proteins.

However this "complicated" way out was not accepted by manypeople in the field, because the amino acids could not have endured suchhigh temperatures. Research confirmed that amino acids are immediatelydestroyed at very high temperatures.

But Fox did not give up. He combined purified amino acids in thelaboratory, "under very special conditions," by heating them in a dryenvironment. The amino acids combined, but still no proteins wereobtained. What he actually ended up with was simple and disorderedloops of amino acids, arbitrarily combined with each other, and these


FOX'S "PROTEINOIDS"Sydney Fox, who was influenced by Miller's scenario, formed the abovemolecules, which he called "proteinoids," by joining amino acids together.However, these chains of nonfunctioning amino acids had no resemblance to thereal proteins that make up the bodies of living things. Actually, all these effortsshowed not only that life did not come about by chance, but also that it couldnot be reproduced in laboratory conditions.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (219)

loops were far from resembling any living protein. Furthermore, if Fox hadkept the amino acids at a steady temperature, then these useless loopswould also have disintegrated.

Another point that nullified the experiment was that Fox did not usethe useless end products obtained in Miller's experiment; rather, he usedpure amino acids from living organisms. This experiment, however, whichwas intended to be a continuation of Miller's experiment, should havestarted out from the results obtained by Miller. Yet neither Fox, nor anyother researcher, used the useless amino acids Miller produced.

Fox's experiment was not even welcomed in evolutionist circles,because it was clear that the meaningless amino acid chains that heobtained (which he termed "proteinoids") could not have formed undernatural conditions. Moreover, proteins, the basic units of life, still couldnot be produced. The problem of the origin of proteins remainedunsolved. In an article in the popular science magazine, ChemicalEngineering News, which appeared in the 1970s, Fox's experiment wasmentioned as follows:

Sydney Fox and the other researchers managed to unite the amino acids inthe shape of "proteinoids" by using very special heating techniques underconditions which in fact did not exist at all in the primordial stages of Earth.Also, they are not at all similar to the very regular proteins present in livingthings. They are nothing but useless, irregular chemical stains. It wasexplained that even if such molecules had formed in the early ages, theywould definitely be destroyed.263

Indeed, the proteinoids Fox obtained were totally different from realproteins, both in structure and function. The difference between proteinsand these proteinoids was as huge as the difference between a piece ofhigh-tech equipment and a heap of unprocessed iron.

Furthermore, there was no chance that even these irregular aminoacid chains could have survived in the primordial atmosphere. Harmfuland destructive physical and chemical effects caused by heavy exposure toultraviolet light and other unstable natural conditions would have causedthese proteinoids to disintegrate. Because of the Le Châtelier principle, itwas also impossible for the amino acids to combine underwater, whereultraviolet rays would not reach them. In view of this, the idea that theproteinoids were the basis of life eventually lost support among scientists.

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (220)

The Origin of the DNA Molecule

Our examinations so far have shown that the theory of evolution is ina serious quandary at the molecular level. Evolutionists have shed no lighton the formation of amino acids at all. The formation of proteins, on theother hand, is another mystery all its own.

Yet the problems are not even limited just to amino acids andproteins: These are only the beginning. Beyond them, the extremelycomplex structure of the cell leads evolutionists to yet another impasse.The reason for this is that the cell is not just a heap of amino-acid-structured proteins, but rather the most complex system man has everencountered.

While the theory of evolution was having such trouble providing acoherent explanation for the existence of the molecules that are the basis ofthe cell structure, developments in the science of genetics and thediscovery of nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) produced brand-newproblems for the theory. In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick launcheda new age in biology with their work on the structure of DNA.

The molecule known as DNA, which is found in the nucleus of eachof the 100 trillion cells in our bodies, contains the complete blueprint for



When Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, they revealedthat life was much more complicated than had previously been thought.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (221)

the construction of the human body. The information regarding all thecharacteristics of a person, from physical appearance to the structure of theinner organs, is recorded in DNA within the sequence of four special basesthat make up the giant molecule. These bases are known as A, T, G, and C,according to the initial letters of their names. All the structural differencesamong people depend on variations in the sequences of these letters. Inaddition to features such as height, and eye, hair and skin colors, the DNAin a single cell also contains the design of the 206 bones, the 600 muscles,the 100 billion nerve cells (neurons), 1.000 trillion connections between theneurons of the brain, 97,000 kilometers of veins, and the 100 trillion cellsof the human body. If we were to write down the information coded inDNA, then we would have to compile a giant library consisting of 900volumes of 500 pages each. But the information this enormous librarywould hold is encoded inside the DNA molecules in the cell nucleus,which is far smaller than the 1/100th-of-a-millimeter-long cell itself.

DNA Cannot Be Explained by Non-Design

At this point, there is an important detail that deserves attention. Anerror in the sequence of the nucleotides making up a gene would renderthat gene completely useless. When it is considered that there are 200,000genes in the human body, it becomes clearer how impossible it is for themillions of nucleotides making up these genes to have been formed, in theright sequence, by chance. The evolutionary biologist Frank Salisbury hascomments on this impossibility:

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA genecontrolling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since thereare four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 linkscould exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that41,000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.264

The number 41,000 is the equivalent of 10600. This means 1 followed by600 zeros. As 1 with 12 zeros after it indicates a trillion, 600 zerosrepresents an inconceivable number.

The impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by acoincidental accumulation of nucleotides is expressed by the French

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (222)

scientist Paul Auger in this way:

We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation ofcomplex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The productionof nucleotides one by one—which is possible—and the combination of thesewithin very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible.265

For many years, Francis Crick believed in the theory of molecularevolution, but eventually even he had to admit to himself that such acomplex molecule could not have emerged spontaneously by chance, as


DNA codes of the beta-globin gene. These codes make up one of the parts of thehaemoglobin that carry oxygen in the blood. The important thing is that if there is anerror in just one of these codes, the protein that is produced will be totally useless.


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (223)

the result of an evolutionary process:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, couldonly state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment tobe almost a miracle.266

The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to makethe following confession on the issue:

In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance ofthe emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be calledastronomic.267

A very interesting paradox emerges at this point: While DNA canonly replicate with the help of special proteins (enzymes), the synthesis ofthese proteins can only be realized by the information encoded in DNA.As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time forreplication. Science writer John Horgan explains the dilemma in this way:

DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help ofcatalyticproteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA,but neither can DNA form without proteins.268

This situation once againundermines the scenario that lifecould have come about byaccident. Homer Jacobson,Professor Emeritus of Chemistry,comments:

Directions for the reproductionof plans, for energy and theextraction of parts from thecurrent environment, for thegrowth sequence, and for theeffector mechanism translatinginstructions into growth—allhad to be simultaneouslypresent at that moment [whenlife began]. This combination ofevents has seemed an incrediblyunlikely happenstance...269

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


The extraordinary informationconcealed in DNA is clear proof

that life did not emerge bychance, but was deliberately

designed. No natural process canaccount for the origin of DNA.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (224)

The quotation above was written two years after the discovery of thestructure of DNA by Watson and Crick. But despite all the developmentsin science, this problem for evolutionists remains unsolved. This is whyGerman biochemist Douglas R. Hofstadter says:

'How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation(ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?' For the moment, we will haveto content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with ananswer.270

Stanley Miller and Francis Crick's close associate from the Universityof San Diego, California, the highly reputed evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgelsays in an article published in 1994:

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which arestructurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the sametime. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, atfirst glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, haveoriginated by chemical means.271

Alongside all of this, it is chemically impossible for nucleic acids suchas DNA and RNA, which possess a definite string of information, to haveemerged by chance, or for even one of the nucleotides which composethem to have come about by accident and to have survived andmaintained its unadulterated state under the conditions of the primordialworld. Even the famous journal Scientific American, which follows anevolutionist line, has been obliged to confess the doubts of evolutionistson this subject:

Even the simpler molecules are produced only in small amounts in realisticexperiments simulating possible primitive earth conditions. What is worse,these molecules are generally minor constituents of tars: It remainsproblematical how they could have been separated and purified throughgeochemical processes whose normal effects are to make organic mixturesmore and more of a jumble. With somewhat more complex molecules thesedifficulties rapidly increase. In particular a purely geochemical origin ofnucleotides (the subunits of DNA and RNA) presents great difficulties.272

Of course, the statement "it is quite impossible for life to haveemerged by chemical means" simply means that life is the product of anintelligent design. This "chemical evolution" that evolutionists have beentalking about since the beginning of the last century never happened, and



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (225)

is nothing but a myth.But most evolutionists believe in this and similar totally unscientific

fairy tales as if they were true, because accepting intelligent design meansaccepting creation—and they have conditioned themselves not to acceptthis truth. One famous biologist from Australia, Michael Denton, discussesthe subject in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:

To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higherorganisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits ofinformation, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricatealgorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth anddevelopment of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complexorganism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affrontto reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt- the paradigm takes precedence!273

The Invalidity of the RNA World

The discovery in the 1970s that the gases originally existing in theprimitive atmosphere of the earth would have rendered amino acidsynthesis impossible was a serious blow to the theory of molecularevolution. Evolutionists then had to face the fact that the "primitiveatmosphere experiments" by Stanley Miller, Sydney Fox, CyrilPonnamperuma and others were invalid. For this reason, in the 1980s theevolutionists tried again. As a result, the "RNA World" hypothesis wasadvanced. This scenario proposed that, not proteins, but rather the RNAmolecules that contained the information for proteins, were formed first.

According to this scenario, advanced by Harvard chemist WalterGilbert in 1986, inspired by the discovery about "ribozymes" by ThomasCech, billions of years ago an RNA molecule capable of replicating itselfformed somehow by accident. Then this RNA molecule started to produceproteins, having been activated by external influences. Thereafter, itbecame necessary to store this information in a second molecule, andsomehow the DNA molecule emerged to do that.

Made up as it is of a chain of impossibilities in each and every stage,this scarcely credible scenario, far from providing any explanation of theorigin of life, only magnified the problem, and raised many unanswerable

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (226)

questions:1. Since it is impossible to accept the coincidental formation of even

one of the nucleotides making up RNA, how can it be possible for theseimaginary nucleotides to form RNA by coming together in a particularsequence? Evolutionist John Horgan admits the impossibility of thechance formation of RNA;

As researchers continue to examine the RNA-World concept closely, moreproblems emerge. How did RNA initially arise? RNA and its components aredifficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much lessunder really plausible ones.274

2. Even if we suppose that it formed by chance, how could this RNA,consisting of just a nucleotide chain, have "decided" to self-replicate, andwith what kind of mechanism could it have carried out this self-replicatingprocess? Where did it find the nucleotides it used while self-replicating?Even evolutionist microbiologists Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel expressthe desperate nature of the situtation in their book In the RNA World:

This discussion… has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of randompolynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our currentunderstanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity ofeven an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential.275

3. Even if we suppose that there was self-replicating RNA in theprimordial world, that numerous amino acids of every type ready to beused by RNA were available, and that all of these impossibilities somehowtook place, the situation still does not lead to the formation of even onesingle protein. For RNA only includes information concerning thestructure of proteins. Amino acids, on the other hand, are raw materials.Nevertheless, there is no mechanism for the production of proteins. Toconsider the existence of RNA sufficient for protein production is asnonsensical as expecting a car to assemble itself by simply throwing theblueprint onto a heap of parts piled up on top of each other. A blueprintcannot produce a car all by itself without a factory and workers toassemble the parts according to the instructions contained in the blueprint;in the same way, the blueprint contained in RNA cannot produce proteinsby itself without the cooperation of other cellular components which



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (227)

follow the instructions contained in the RNA. Proteins are produced in the ribosome factory with the help of many

enzymes, and as a result of extremely complex processes within the cell.The ribosome is a complex cell organelle made up of proteins. This leads,therefore, to another unreasonable supposition—that ribosomes, too,should have come into existence by chance at the same time. Even NobelPrize winner Jacques Monod, who was one of the most fanatical defendersof evolution—and atheism—explained that protein synthesis can by nomeans be considered to depend merely on the information in the nucleicacids:

The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translatingmachinery consists of at least 50 macromolecular components, which arethemselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by productsof translation themselves. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo. Whenand how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult toimagine.276

How could an RNA chain in the primordial world have taken such adecision, and what methods could it have employed to make proteinproduction happen by doing the work of 50 specialized particles on itsown? Evolutionists have no answer to these questions. One article in thepreeminent scientific journal Nature makes it clear that the concept of "self-replicating RNA" is a complete product of fantasy, and that actually thiskind of RNA has not been produced in any experiment:

DNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of proteinenzymes to improve the copying fidelity of a gene-size piece of DNA."Catch-22" say Maynard Smith and Szathmary. So, wheel on RNA with itsnow recognized properties of carrying both informational and enzymaticactivity, leading the authors to state: "In essence, the first RNA molecules didnot need a protein polymerase to replicate them; they replicated themselves."Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for'biologists in general' that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to datefrom quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNAsequences.277

Dr. Leslie Orgel, one of the associates of Stanley Miller and FrancisCrick from the University of California at San Diego, uses the term"scenario" for the possibility of "the origination of life through the RNA

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (228)

World." Orgel described what kind of features this RNA would have hadto have and how impossible these would have been in his article "TheOrigin of Life," published in Scientific American in October 1994:

This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had twoproperties not evident today: A capacity to replicate without the help ofproteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.278

As should by now be clear, to expect these two complex andextremely essential processes from a molecule such as RNA is againtscientific thought. Concrete scientific facts, on the other hand, makes itexplicit that the RNA World hypothesis, which is a new model proposedfor the chance formation of life, is an equally implausible fable.

John Horgan, in his book The End of Science, reports that StanleyMiller viewed the theories subsequently put forward regarding the originof life as quite meaningless (It will be recalled that Miller was theoriginator of the famous Miller Experiment, which was later revealed to beinvalid.):

In fact, almost 40 years after his original experiment, Miller told me thatsolving the riddle of the origin of life had turned out to be more difficult thanhe or anyone else had envisioned… Miller seemed unimpressed with any ofthe current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as "nonsense" or"paper chemistry." He was so contemptuous of some hypotheses that, whenI asked his opinion of them, he merely shook his head, sighed deeply, andsnickered—as if overcome by the folly of humanity. Stuart Kauffman's theoryof autocatalysis fell into this category. "Running equations through acomputer does not constitute an experiment," Miller sniffed. Milleracknowledged that scientists may never know precisely where and when lifeemerged.279

This statement, by a pioneer of the struggle to find an evolutionaryexplanation for the origin of life, clearly reflects the despair felt byevolutionist scientists over the cul-de-sac they find themselves in.

Can Design Be Explained by Coincidence?

So far, we have examined how impossible the accidental formation oflife is. Let us again ignore these impossibilities for just a moment. Let ussuppose that millions of years ago a cell was formed which had acquired



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (229)

everything necessary for life, and that it duly "came to life." Evolutionagain collapses at this point. For even if this cell had existed for a while, itwould eventually have died and after its death, nothing would haveremained, and everything would have reverted to where it had started.This is because this first living cell, lacking any genetic information, wouldnot have been able to reproduce and start a new generation. Life wouldhave ended with its death.

The genetic system does not only consist of DNA. The followingthings must also exist in the same environment: enzymes to read the codeon the DNA, messenger RNA to be produced after reading these codes, aribosome to which messenger RNA will attach according to this code,transfer RNA to transfer the amino acids to the ribosome for use inproduction, and extremely complex enzymes to carry out numerousintermediary processes. Such an environment cannot exist anywhere apart

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


This illustration shows thesketch of the chemicalreactions taking place in asingle cell. These intricateactivities in the cell, whichcan only be viewed withan electron microscope,continue to take placeflawlessly and ceaselessly.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (230)

from a totally isolated and completely controlled environment such as thecell, where all the essential raw materials and energy resources exist.

As a result, organic matter can self-reproduce only if it exists as a fullydeveloped cell, with all its organelles. This means that the first cell onearth was formed "all of a sudden," together with its incredibly complexstructure.

So, if a complex structure came into existence all of a sudden, whatdoes this mean?

Let us ask this question with an example. Let us liken the cell to ahigh-tech car in terms of its complexity. (In fact, the cell is a much morecomplex and developed system than a car .) Now let us ask the followingquestion: What would you think if you went out hiking in the depths of athick forest and ran across a brand-new car among the trees? Would youimagine that various elements in the forest had come together by chanceover millions of years and produced such a vehicle? All the parts in the carare made of products such as iron, copper, and rubber—the rawingredients for which are all found on the earth—but would this fact leadyou to think that these materials had synthesized "by chance" and thencome together and manufactured such a car?

There is no doubt that anyone with a sound mind would realize thatthe car was the product of an intelligent design—in other words, afactory—and wonder what it was doing there in the middle of the forest.The sudden emergence of a complex structure in a complete form, quiteout of the blue, shows that this is the work of an intelligent design.

Believing that pure chance can produce perfect designs goes wellbeyond the bounds of reason. Yet every "explanation" put forward by thetheory of evolution regarding the origin of life is like that. One outspokenauthority on this issue is the famous French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé,the former president of the French Academy of Sciences. Grassé is anevolutionist, yet he acknowledges that Darwinist theory is unable toexplain life and makes a point about the logic of "coincidence," which isthe backbone of Darwinism:

The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants tomeet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is evenmore demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousandsand thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (231)

the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur…There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.280

All living things in the world, all of which are clear examples of theintelligent planning we have just been discussing, are at the same timeliving evidence that coincidence can have no role to play in their existence.Each of its component parts—never mind a whole living creature—contains structures and systems so complex that they cannot be the workof coincidence. We need go no further than our own bodies to findexamples of this.

One example of this is our eyes. The human eye sees by the workingtogether of some 40 separate parts. If one of these is not present, the eyewill be useless. Each of these 40 parts possesses complicated designswithin itself. The retina at the back of the eye, for instance, is made up of11 layers. Each layer has a different function. The chemical processes thatgo on inside the retina are so complex that they can only be explained withpages full of formulae and diagrams.

The theory of evolution is unable to account for the emergence ofeven such a flawless and complex structure as a single eye by means of"accident," let alone life itself, or mankind.

So, what does this extraordinary design in living things prove to usabout the origin of life? As we made clear in the opening part of this book,only two different accounts can be given regarding the origin of life. Oneis evolution, the other intelligent creation. Since the evolution claim isimpossible, scientific discoveries therefore prove the truth of creation. Thistruth may surprise some scientists, who from the nineteenth century to thepresent have seen the concept of "creation" as unscientific, but science canonly progress by overcoming shocks of this kind and accepting the truth.Chandra Wickramasinghe describes the reality he faced as a scientist whohad been told throughout his life that life had emerged as a result ofchance coincidences:

From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed tobelieve that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation.That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can't find anyrational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion toGod. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logicalanswer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling.281

Molecular Biology And The Origin Of Life


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (232)

nyone who studies the different living species in the world mayobserve that there are some similar organs and features among thesespecies. The first person to draw materialistic conclusions from thisfact, which has attracted scientists' attention since the eighteenth

century, was Charles Darwin.Darwin thought that creatures with similar (hom*ologous) organs had

an evolutionary relationship with each other, and that these organs musthave been inherited from a common ancestor. According to hisassumption, both pigeons and eagles had wings; therefore, pigeons, eaglesand indeed all other birds with wings were supposed to have evolvedfrom a common ancestor.

hom*ology is a tautological argument, advanced on the basis of noother evidence than an apparent physical resemblance. This argument hasnever once been verified by a single concrete discovery in all the yearssince Darwin's day. Nowhere in the world has anyone come up with afossil remain of the imaginary common ancestor of creatures withhom*ologous structures. Furthermore, the following issues make it clearthat hom*ology provides no evidence that evolution ever occurred.

1. One finds hom*ologous organs in creatures belonging to completelydifferent phyla, among which evolutionists have not been able to establishany sort of evolutionary relationship;

2. The genetic codes of some creatures that have hom*ologous organsare completely different from one another.




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (233)

3. The embryological development of hom*ologous organs in differentcreatures is completely different.

Let us now examine each of these points one by one.

The Invalidity of Morphological hom*ology

The hom*ology thesis of the evolutionists is based on the logic ofbuilding an evolutionary link between all living things with similarmorphologies (structures), whereas there are a number of hom*ologousorgans shared by different groups that are completely unrelated to eachother. Wings are one example. In addition to birds, we find wings on bats,which are mammals, and on insects and even on some dinosaurs, whichare extinct reptiles. Not even evolutionists posit an evolutionaryrelationship or kinship among those four different groups of animals.

Another striking example is the amazing resemblance and thestructural similarity observed in the eyes of different creatures. Forexample, the octopus and man are two extremely different species,between which no evolutionary relationship is likely even to be proposed,yet the eyes of both are very much alike in terms of their structure andfunction. Not even evolutionists try to account for the similarity of the

The Myth Of hom*ology


According to the "tree of life" proposed by evolutionists, octopuses are some ofthe remotest creatures from man. But the octopus eye has exactly the samestructure as ours. This is an indication that similarity of structure is no evidencefor evolution.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (234)

eyes of the octopus and man by positing a common ancestor. In response, evolutionists say that these

organs are not "hom*ologous" (in otherwords, from a common ancestor), but

that they are "analogous" (verysimilar to each other, although there

is no evolutionary connection between them). For example, intheir view, the human eye and the octopus eye are analogous organs.

However, the question of which category they will put an organ into,hom*ologous or analogous, is answered totally in

line with the theory of evolution'spreconceptions. And this shows thatthe evolutionist claim based on

resemblances is completely unscientific.The only thing evolutionists do is to try to interpret new

discoveries in accordance with a dogmatic evolutionarypreconception.

However, the interpretation they putforward is completely invalid. Because

organs which they have to consider"analogous" sometimes bear suchclose resemblance to one another,despite being exceedingly complex

structures, that it is totally inconsistent to proposethat this similarity was brought about thanks tocoincidental mutations. If an octopus eye emergedcompletely by coincidence, as evolutionists claim,then how is it that vertebrates' eyes can emerge bythe very same coincidences? The famousevolutionist Frank Salisbury, who got dizzy fromthinking about this question, writes:

Even something as complex as the eye has appearedseveral times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods.It's bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but thethought of producing them several times according to the modernsynthetic theory makes my head swim.282



The wings of aflying reptile, abird, and a bat.

These wings,between which no

evolutionaryrelationship can be

established, possesssimilar structures.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (235)

According to the theory of evolution, wingsemerged independently of each other four times:in insects, flying reptiles, birds, and flyingmammals (bats). The fact that wing with verysimilar structures developed four times—whichcannot be explained by the mechanisms of naturalselection/mutation—is yet another headache forevolutionary biologists.

One of the most concrete examples of suchan obstacle in the path of evolutionary theory canbe seen in mammals. According to the acceptedview of modern biology, all mammals belong toone of three basic categories: placentals,marsupials and monotremes. Evolutionistsconsider this distinction to have come about whenmammals first appeared, and that each grouplived its own evolutionary history totallyindependent of the other. But it is interesting thatthere are "pairs" in placentals and marsupialswhich are nearly the same. Placental wolves, cats,squirrels, anteaters, moles and mice all have their

marsupial counterparts with closely similar morphologies.283

In other words, according to the theory of evolution, mutationscompletely independent of each other must have produced these creatures"by chance" twice! This reality is a question that will give evolutionistsproblems even worse than dizzy spells.

One of the interesting similarities between placental and marsupialmammals is that between the North American wolf and the Tasmanianwolf. The former belongs to the placental class, the latter to the marsupials.Evolutionary biologists believe that these two different species havecompletely separate evolutionary histories.284 (Since the continent ofAustralia and the islands around it split off from Gondwanaland (thesupercontinent that is supposed to be the originator of Africa, Antarctica,Australia, and South America) the link between placental and marsupialmammals is considered to have been broken, and at that time there wereno wolves). But the interesting thing is that the skeletal structure of the

The Myth Of hom*ology


Starting with kangaroos,all mammals in thecontinent of Australiabelong to the "pouched"or marsupial subclass.According toevolutionists, they haveno evolutionaryrelationship withplacental mammals inthe other regions of theworld.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (236)

The presence of "twin" species between marsupialand placental mammals deals a serious blow to theclaim of hom*ology. For example, the marsupialTasmanian wolf (above) and the placental wolf foundin North America resemble each other to anextraordinary degree. To the side can be seen theskulls of these two highly similar animals. Such aclose resemblance between the two, which cannot besuggested to have any "evolutionary relationship,"completely invalidates the claim of hom*ology. Tasmanian wolf skull.


North Americanwolf skull.


Another example of extraordinary resemblance between placental and marsupial

mammal "twins," is that between the extinct mammals Smilodon (right) and

Thylacosmilus (left), both predators with enormous front teeth. The great degree of

resemblance between the skull and teeth structures of these two mammals, between

which no evolutionary relationship can be established, overturns the hom*ological

view that similar structures are evidence in favor of evolution.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (237)

Tasmanian wolf is nearly identical to that of the North American wolf.Their skulls in particular, as shown on the next page, bear an extraordinarydegree of resemblance to each other.

Extraordinary resemblances and similar organs like these, whichevolutionary biologists cannot accept as examples of "hom*ology," showthat hom*ology does not constitute any evidence for the thesis of evolutionfrom a common ancestor. What is even more interesting is that the exactopposite situation is to be observed in other living things. In other words,there are living things, some of whose organs have completely differentstructures, even though they are considered to be close relatives byevolutionists. For example, most crustaceans have eye structures of the"refracting lens" type. In only two species of crustacean—the lobster andthe shrimp—is the completely different "reflecting" type of eye seen. (Seethe chapter on Irreducible Complexity.)

The Genetic and Embryological Impasse of hom*ology

The discovery which really overthrew hom*ology is that organsaccepted as "hom*ologous" are almost all controlled by very differentgenetic codes. As we know, the theory of evolution proposes that livingthings developed through small, chance changes in their genes, in otherwords, mutations. For this reason, the genetic structures of living thingswhich are seen as close evolutionary relatives should resemble each other.And, in particular, similar organs should be controlled by similar geneticstructures. However, in point of fact, genetic researchers have madediscoveries which conflict totally with this evolutionary thesis.

Similar organs are usually governed by very different genetic (DNA)codes. Furthermore, similar genetic codes in the DNA of differentcreatures are often associated with completely different organs. Thechapter titled "The Failure of hom*ology" in Michael Denton's book,Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, gives several examples of this, and sums thesubject up in this way:

hom*ologous structures are often specified by non-hom*ologous geneticsystems and the concept of hom*ology can seldom be extended back intoembryology.285

This genetic question has also been raised by the well-known

The Myth Of hom*ology


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (238)

evolutionary biologist Gavin de Beer. In his book hom*ology: An UnsolvedProblem, published in 1971, de Beer put forward a very wide-ranginganalysis of this subject. He sums up why hom*ology is a problem for thetheory of evolution as follows:

What mechanism can it be that results in the production of hom*ologousorgans, the same 'patterns', in spite of their not being controlled by the samegenes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.286

Although some 30 years have passed since de Beer wrote thosewords, they have still received no answer.

A third proof which undermines the hom*ology claim is the questionof embryological development, which we mentioned at the start. In orderfor the evolutionary thesis regarding hom*ology to be taken seriously, theperiods of similar structures' embryological development—in otherwords, the stages of development in the egg or the mother's womb—would need to be parallel, whereas, in reality, these embryological periodsfor similar structures are quite different from each other in every livingcreature. Pere Alberch, an eminent developmental biologist, noted, it is"the rule rather than the exception" that "hom*ologous structures form fromdistinctly dissimilar initial states."287

The emergence of similar structures as the result of totally dissimilarprocesses is frequently seen in the latter stages of the development phase.As we know, many species of animal go through a stage known as"indirect development" (in other words the larva stage), on their way toadulthood. For instance, most frogs begin life as swimming tadpoles andturn into four-legged animals at the last stage of metamorphosis. Butalongside this there are several species of frog which skip the larva stageand develop directly. But the adults of most of these species that developdirectly are practically indistinguishable from those species which passthrough the tadpole stage. The same phenomenon is to be seen in waterchestnuts and some other similar species.288

To conclude, we can say that genetic and embryological research hasproven that the concept of hom*ology defined by Darwin as "evidence ofthe evolution of living things from a common ancestor" can by no meansbe regarded as any evidence at all. The inconsistency of hom*ology, whichlooks quite convincing on the surface, is clearly revealed when examinedmore closely.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (239)

The Fall of the hom*ology in Tetrapod Limbs

We have already examined hom*ology's morphological claim—inother words the invalidity of the evolutionist claim based on similarities ofform in living things—but it will be useful to examine one well-knownexample of this subject a little more closely. This is the "fore- andhindlimbs of quadrupeds," presented as a clear proof of hom*ology inalmost all books on evolution.

Quadrupeds, i.e., land-living vertebrates, have five digits on theirfore- and hindlimbs. Although these may not always look like fingers ortoes, they are all counted as "pentadactyl" (five-digit) due to their bonestructure. The hands and feet of a frog, a lizard, a squirrel, or a monkey allhave this same structure. Even the bone structures of birds and batsconform to this basic design.

The Myth Of hom*ology


The fact that almost all land-dwelling vertebrates have a five-toed or "pentadactyl"bone structure in their hands and feet has for years been presented as "strongevidence for Darwinism" in evolutionist publications. However, recent research hasrevealed that these bone structures are governed by quite different genes. For thisreason, the "hom*ology of pentadactylism" assumption has today collapsed.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (240)

Evolutionists claim that all living things descended from a commonancestor, and they have long cited pentadactyl limb as evidence of this.But they know that this claim actually possesses no scientific validity.

Even today, evolutionists accept the feature of pentadactylism inliving things among which they have been able to establish noevolutionary link. For example, in two separate scientific paperspublished in 1991 and 1996, evolutionary biologist M. Coates reveals thatpentadactylism emerged two separate times, each independently of theother. According to Coates, the pentadactyl structure emergedindependently in anthracosaurs and amphibians.289

This discovery is a sign that pentadactylism is no evidence for a"common ancestor."

Another matter which creates difficulties for the evolutionist thesis inthis respect is that these creatures have five digits on both their fore- andhindlimbs. It is not proposed in evolutionist literature that fore- andhindlimb descended from a "common limb"; rather, it is assumed that theydeveloped separately. For this reason, it should be expected that thestructure of the fore- and hindlimbs should be different, the result ofdifferent, chance mutations. Michael Denton has this to say on the subject:

[T]he forelimbs of all terrestrial vertebrates are constructed according to thesame pentadactyl design, and this is attributed by evolutionary biologists asshowing that all have been derived from a common ancestral source. But thehindlimbs of all vertebrates also conform to the pentadactyl pattern and arestrikingly similar to the forelimbs in bone structure and in their detailedembryological development. Yet no evolutionist claims that the hindlimbevolved from the forelimb, or that hindlimbs and forelimbs evolved from acommon source… Invariably, as biological knowledge has grown, commongenealogy as an explanation for similarity has tended to grow ever moretenuous… Like so much of the other circ*mstantial "evidence" forevolution, that drawn from hom*ology is not convincing because it entailstoo many anomalies, too many counter-instances, far too many phenomenawhich simply do not fit easily into the orthodox picture.290

But the real blow dealt to the evolutionist claim of the hom*ology ofpentadactylism came from molecular biology. The assumption of "thehom*ology of pentadactylism," which was long maintained in evolutionistpublications, was overturned when it was realized that the limb structures



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (241)

were controlled by totally different genes in different creatures possessingthis pentadactyl structure. Evolutionary biologist William Fix describesthe collapse of the evolutionist thesis regarding pentadactylism in thisway:

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of hom*ology,pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs ofdifferent animals. Thus the `pentadactyl' [five bone] limb pattern is found inthe arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is heldto indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures weretransmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time bymutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory wouldmake good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. hom*ologous organsare now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in thedifferent species. The concept of hom*ology in terms of similar genes handedon from a common ancestor has broken down.291

On closer examination, William Fix is saying that evolutionist claimsregarding "pentadactylism hom*ology" appeared in old textbooks, but thatthe claim was abandoned after molecular evidence emerged. But,unfortunately, some evolutionist sources still continue to put it forward asmajor evidence for evolution.

The Invalidity of Molecular hom*ology

Evolutionists' advancement of hom*ology as evidence for evolution isinvalid not only at the morphological level, but also at the molecular level.Evolutionists say that the DNA codes, or the corresponding proteinstructures, of different living species are similar, and that this similarity isevidence that these living species have evolved from common ancestors,or else from each other. For example, it is regularly stated in theevolutionist literature that "there is a great similarity between the DNA ofa human and that of an ape," and this similarity is presented as a proof forthe evolutionist claim that there is an evolutionary relationship betweenman and ape.

We must make it clear from the start that it is no surprise that livingcreatures on the earth should possess very similar DNA structures. Livingthings' basic life processes are the same, and since human beings possessa living body, they cannot be expected to have a different DNA structure

The Myth Of hom*ology


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (242)

to other creatures. Like other creatures, human beings develop byconsuming carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, oxygen circulates throughthe blood in their bodies, and energy is produced every second in each oftheir cells by the use of this oxygen.

For this reason, the fact that living things possess genetic similaritiesis no proof of the evolutionist claim that they evolved from a commonancestor. If evolutionists want to prove their theory of evolution from acommon ancestor, then they have to show that creatures alleged to be eachother's common ancestors have a direct line of descent in their molecularstructures; in fact, however, as we shall shortly be examining, there havebeen no concrete discoveries showing any such thing.

Let us first of all take the matter of "the similarity between humanand chimpanzee DNA." The latest studies on this issue have revealed thatevolutionist propaganda about a "98 %" or "99 %" similarity between manand chimp is totally erroneous.

If a slightly wider study is made of this subject, it can be seen that theDNA of much more surprising creatures resembles that of man. One ofthese similarities is between man and worms of the nematode phylum. Forexample, genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed that"nearly 75% of human genes have some counterpart in nematodes—millimeter-long soil-dwelling worms."292 This definitely does not meanthat there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms!According to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum,in which man is included, and the Nematoda phylum were different toeach other even 530 million years ago.

This situation clearly reveals that the similarity between the DNAstrands of these two different categories of life is no evidence for the claimthat these creatures evolved from a common ancestor.

In fact, when the results of DNA analyses from different species andclasses are compared, it is seen that the sequences clearly do not agreewith any evolutionist family tree. According to the evolutionist thesis,living things must have undergone a progressive increase in complexity,and, parallel to this, it is to be expected that the number of genes, whichmake up their genetic data, should also gradually increase. But the dataobtained show that this thesis is the work of fantasy.

The Russian scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the best-known



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (243)


FFFFoorr aa vveerryy lloonngg ttiimmee,, tthhee eevvoolluuttiioonniisstt cchhooiirr hhaadd bbeeeenn pprrooppaaggaattiinngg tthheeuunnssuubbssttaannttiiaatteedd tthheessiiss tthhaatt tthheerree iiss vveerryy lliittttllee ggeenneettiicc ddiiffffeerreennccee bbeettwweeeennhhuummaannss aanndd cchhiimmppss.. IInn eevveerryy ppiieeccee ooff eevvoolluuttiioonniisstt lliitteerraattuurree yyoouu ccoouulldd rreeaadd

sseenntteenncceess lliikkee ""wwee aarree 9999 ppeerrcceenntt eeqquuaall ttoo cchhiimmppss"" oorr ""tthheerree iiss oonnllyy 11 ppeerrcceenntt ooff DDNNAAtthhaatt mmaakkeess uuss hhuummaann.."" AAlltthhoouugghh nnoo ccoonncclluussiivvee ccoommppaarriissoonn bbeettwweeeenn hhuummaann aannddcchhiimmpp ggeennoommeess hhaass bbeeeenn mmaaddee,, DDaarrwwiinniisstt iiddeeoollooggyy lleedd tthheemm ttoo aassssuummee tthhaatt tthheerree iissvveerryy lliittttllee ddiiffffeerreennccee bbeettwweeeenn tthhee ttwwoo ssppeecciieess..

AA ssttuuddyy iinn OOccttoobbeerr 22000022 rreevveeaalleedd tthhaatt tthhee eevvoolluuttiioonniisstt pprrooppaaggaannddaa oonn tthhiissiissssuuee,, lliikkee mmaannyy ootthheerrss,, iiss ccoommpplleetteellyy ffaallssee.. HHuummaannss aanndd cchhiimmppss aarree nnoott ""9999%% ssiimmiillaarr""aass tthhee eevvoolluuttiioonniisstt ffaaiirryy ttaallee wwoouulldd hhaavvee iitt.. GGeenneettiicc ssiimmiillaarriittyy ttuurrnnss oouutt ttoo bbee lleessss tthhaann9955%%.. AA nneewwss ssttoorryy rreeppoorrtteedd bbyy CCNNNN..ccoomm,, eennttiittlleedd ""HHuummaannss,, cchhiimmppss mmoorree ddiiffffeerreenntttthhaann tthhoouugghhtt,,"" rreeppoorrttss tthhee ffoolllloowwiinngg::

TThheerree aarree mmoorree ddiiffffeerreenncceess bbeettwweeeenn aa cchhiimmppaannzzeeee aanndd aa hhuummaann bbeeiinngg tthhaannoonnccee bbeelliieevveedd,, aaccccoorrddiinngg ttoo aa nneeww ggeenneettiicc ssttuuddyy..

BBiioollooggiissttss hhaavvee lloonngg hheelldd tthhaatt tthhee ggeenneess ooff cchhiimmppss aanndd hhuummaannss aarree aabboouutt 9988..55ppeerrcceenntt iiddeennttiiccaall.. BBuutt RRooyy BBrriitttteenn,, aa bbiioollooggiisstt aatt tthhee CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa IInnssttiittuuttee ooffTTeecchhnnoollooggyy,, ssaaiidd iinn aa ssttuuddyy ppuubblliisshheedd tthhiiss wweeeekk tthhaatt aa nneeww wwaayy ooff ccoommppaarriinnggtthhee ggeenneess sshhoowwss tthhaatt tthhee hhuummaann aanndd cchhiimmpp ggeenneettiicc ssiimmiillaarriittyy iiss oonnllyy aabboouutt 9955ppeerrcceenntt..

BBrriitttteenn bbaasseedd tthhiiss oonn aa ccoommppuutteerr pprrooggrraamm tthhaatt ccoommppaarreedd 778800,,000000 ooff tthhee 33 bbiilllliioonnbbaassee ppaaiirrss iinn tthhee hhuummaann DDNNAA hheelliixx wwiitthh tthhoossee ooff tthhee cchhiimmpp.. HHee ffoouunndd mmoorreemmiissmmaattcchheess tthhaann eeaarrlliieerr rreesseeaarrcchheerrss hhaadd,, aanndd ccoonncclluuddeedd tthhaatt aatt lleeaasstt 33..99 ppeerrcceennttooff tthhee DDNNAA bbaasseess wweerree ddiiffffeerreenntt..

TThhiiss lleedd hhiimm ttoo ccoonncclluuddee tthhaatt tthheerree iiss aa ffuunnddaammeennttaall ggeenneettiicc ddiiffffeerreennccee bbeettwweeeenntthhee ssppeecciieess ooff aabboouutt 55 ppeerrcceenntt..11

NNeeww SScciieennttiisstt,, aa lleeaaddiinngg sscciieennccee mmaaggaazziinnee aanndd aa ssttrroonngg ssuuppppoorrtteerr ooffDDaarrwwiinniissmm,, rreeppoorrtteedd tthhee ffoolllloowwiinngg oonn tthhee ssaammee ssuubbjjeecctt iinn aann aarrttiiccllee ttiittlleedd""HHuummaann--cchhiimmpp DDNNAA ddiiffffeerreennccee ttrreebblleedd""::

WWee aarree mmoorree uunniiqquuee tthhaann pprreevviioouussllyy tthhoouugghhtt,, aaccccoorrddiinngg ttoo nneeww ccoommppaarriissoonnss ooffhhuummaann aanndd cchhiimmppaannzzeeee DDNNAA.. IItt hhaass lloonngg bbeeeenn hheelldd tthhaatt wwee sshhaarree 9988..55 ppeerr cceennttooff oouurr ggeenneettiicc mmaatteerriiaall wwiitthh oouurr cclloosseesstt rreellaattiivveess.. TThhaatt nnooww aappppeeaarrss ttoo bbeewwrroonngg.. IInn ffaacctt,, wwee sshhaarree lleessss tthhaann 9955 ppeerr cceenntt ooff oouurr ggeenneettiicc mmaatteerriiaall,, aa tthhrreeee--ffoolldd iinnccrreeaassee iinn tthhee vvaarriiaattiioonn bbeettwweeeenn uuss aanndd cchhiimmppss.. 22

BBiioollooggiisstt BBooyy BBrriitttteenn aanndd ootthheerr eevvoolluuttiioonniissttss ccoonnttiinnuuee ttoo aasssseessss tthhee rreessuulltt iinntteerrmmss ooff eevvoolluuttiioonnaarryy tthheeoorryy,, bbuutt iinn ffaacctt tthheerree iiss nnoo sscciieennttiiffiicc rreeaassoonn ttoo ddoo ssoo.. TThheetthheeoorryy ooff eevvoolluuttiioonn iiss ssuuppppoorrtteedd nneeiitthheerr bbyy tthhee ffoossssiill rreeccoorrdd nnoorr bbyy ggeenneettiicc oorrbbiioocchheemmiiccaall ddaattaa.. OOnn tthhee ccoonnttrraarryy,, tthhee eevviiddeennccee sshhoowwss tthhaatt ddiiffffeerreenntt lliiffee ffoorrmmssoonn EEaarrtthh aappppeeaarreedd qquuiittee aabbrruuppttllyy wwiitthhoouutt aannyy eevvoolluuttiioonnaarryy aanncceessttoorrss aanndd tthhaatttthheeiirr ccoommpplleexx ssyysstteemmss pprroovvee tthhee eexxiisstteennccee ooff aann ""iinntteelllliiggeenntt ddeessiiggnn..""

11.. hhttttpp::////wwwwww..ccnnnn..ccoomm//22000022//TTEECCHH//sscciieennccee//0099//2244//hhuummaannss..cchhiimmppss..aapp//iinnddeexx..hhttmmll

22.. hhttttpp::////wwwwww..nneewwsscciieennttiisstt..ccoomm//nneewwss//nneewwss..jjsspp??iidd==nnss9999999922883333

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (244)

theoreticians of evolution,once stated that this irregularrelationship between livingthings and their DNA is agreat problem that evolutioncannot explain:

More complex organismsgenerally have more DNAper cell than do simplerones, but this rule hasconspicuous exceptions.Man is nowhere near the topof the list, being exceededby Amphiuma (anamphibian), Protopterus (alungfish), and even ordinaryfrogs and toads. Why this should be so has long been a puzzle.293

Other comparisons on the molecular level produce other examples ofinconsistency which render evolutionist views meaningless. When theprotein strands of various living things are analysed in a laboratory,results emerge which are totally unexpected from the evolutionists' pointof view, and some of which are utterly astounding. For example, thecytochrome-C protein in man differs by 14 amino acids from that in ahorse, but by only eight from that in a kangaroo. When the same strand isexamined, turtles appear closer to man than to a reptile such as therattlesnake. When this situation is viewed from the evolutionist point ofview, a meaningless result will emerge, such as that turtles are moreclosely related to man than they are to snakes.

For instance, chickens and sea snakes differ by 17 amino acids in 100codons and horses and sharks by 16, which is a greater difference than thatbetween dogs and worm flies, which belong to different phyla even, andwhich differ by only 15 amino acids.

Similar facts have been discovered with respect to hemoglobin. Thehemoglobin protein found in human beings differs from that found inlemurs by 20 amino acids, but from that in pigs by only 14. The situationis more or less the same for other proteins.294



Comparisons of chromosome numbers andDNA structures show that there is no

evolutionary relationship betweendifferent living species.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (245)

The Myth Of hom*ology


This being the case, evolutionists should arrive at the conclusion that,in evolutionary terms, man is more closely related to the kangaroo than tothe horse, or to the pig than to the lemur. But these results conflict with allthe "evolutionary family tree" plans that have so far been accepted. Proteinsimilarities continue to produce astounding surprises. For example:

Adrian Friday and Martin Bishop of Cambridge have analyzed the availableprotein sequence data for tetrapods… To their surprise, in nearly all cases,man (the mammal) and chicken (the bird) were paired off as closestrelatives, with the crocodile as next nearest relative…295

Again, when these similarities are approached from the point of viewof evolutionist logic, they lead us to the ridiculous conclusion that man'sclosest evolutionary relative is the chicken. Paul Erbrich stresses the factthat molecular analyses produce results that show very different groups ofliving thing to be closely related in this way:

Proteins with nearly the same structure and function (hom*ologous proteins)are found in increasing numbers in phylogenetically different, even verydistinct taxa (e.g., hemoglobins in vertebrates, in some invertebrates, andeven in certain plants).296

Dr. Christian Schwabe, a biochemical researcher from the Universityof South Carolina's Faculty of Medicine, is a scientist who spent yearstrying to find evidence for evolution in the molecular field. He first triedto establish evolutionary relationships between living things by carryingout studies on proteins such as insulin and relaxin. But Schwabe hasseveral times been forced to admit that he has not been able to come byany evidence for evolution in his studies. He says the following in anarticle in Science:

Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior topaleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecularevolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that manyexceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined bymolecular hom*ologies: so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks,may carry the more important message.297

Schwabe's studies on relaxins produced rather interesting results:

Against this background of high variability between relaxins frompurportedly closely related species, the relaxins of pig and whale are all but

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (246)

identical. The molecules derived from rats, guinea-pigs, man and pigs are as

distant from each other (approximately 55%) as all are from the

elasmobranch's relaxin. ...Insulin, however, brings man and pigphylogenetically closer together than chimpanzee and man.298

Schwabe was faced by the same realities when he compared thearrangements of other proteins besides insulin and relaxin. Schwabe hasthis to say about these other proteins that constitute exceptions to theorderly molecular development proposed by evolutionists:

The relaxin and insulin families do not stand alone as exceptions to the

orderly interpretation of molecular evolution in conventional monophyletic

terms. It is instructive to look at additional examples of purportedlyanomalous protein evolution and note that the explanations permissible

under the molecular clock theories cover a range of ad hoc explanations

apparently limited only by imagination.299

Schwabe reveals that the comparison of the arrangement oflysosomes, cytochromes, and many hormones and amino acids show"unexpected results and anomalies" from the evolutionary point of view.Based on all this evidence, Schwabe maintains that all proteins had their

On the molecularlevel no organism is

the "ancestor" ofanother, or more

"primitive" or"advanced" than



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (247)

present forms right from the start, undergoing no evolution, and that nointermediate form has been found between molecules, in the same way aswith fossils.

Concerning these findings in the field of molecular biology, Dr.Michael Denton comments:

Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked byintermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusiveintermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology… At a molecularlevel, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" comparedwith its relatives… There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence hadbeen available a century ago… the idea of organic evolution might neverhave been accepted.300

The "Tree of Life" is Collapsing

In the 1990s, research into the genetic codes of living things worsenedthe quandary faced by the theory of evolution in this regard. In theseexperiments, instead of the earlier comparisons that were limited toprotein sequences, "ribosomal RNA" (rRNA) sequences were compared.From these findings, evolutionist scientists sought to establish an"evolutionary tree." However, they were disappointed by the results.

According to a 1999 article by French biologists Hervé Philippe andPatrick Forterre, "with more and more sequences available, it turned outthat most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNAtree."301

Besides rRNA comparisons, the DNA codes in the genes of livingthings were also compared, but the results have been the opposite of the"tree of life" presupposed by evolution. Molecular biologists James A.Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera elaborated on this in an article in 1999:

…[S]cientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organismsand found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionarytree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone.302

Neither the comparisons that have been made of proteins, nor thoseof rRNAs or of genes, confirm the premises of the theory of evolution. CarlWoese, a highly reputed biologist from the University of Illinois, admitsthat the concept of "phylogeny" has lost its meaning in the face of

The Myth Of hom*ology


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (248)

molecular findings in this way:

No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individualprotein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seeneverywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings withinand among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupingsthemselves.303

The fact that results of molecular comparisons are not in favor of, butrather opposed to, the theory of evolution is also admitted in an articlecalled "Is it Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" published in Science in 1999.This article by Elizabeth Pennisi states that the genetic analyses andcomparisons carried out by Darwinist biologists in order to shed light onthe "tree of life" actually yielded directly opposite results, and goes on tosay that "new data are muddying the evolutionary picture":

A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes from morethan a dozen microorganisms thought these data might support the acceptedplot lines of life's early history. But what they saw confounded them.Comparisons of the genomes then available not only didn't clarify thepicture of how life's major groupings evolved, they confused it. And now,with an additional eight microbial sequences in hand, the situation hasgotten even more confusing.... Many evolutionary biologists had thoughtthey could roughly see the beginnings of life's three kingdoms... When fullDNA sequences opened the way to comparing other kinds of genes,researchers expected that they would simply add detail to this tree. But"nothing could be further from the truth," says Claire Fraser, head of TheInstitute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead, thecomparisons have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ fromthe rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well...304

In short, as molecular biology advances, the hom*ology concept losesmore ground. Comparisons that have been made of proteins, rRNAs andgenes reveal that creatures which are allegedly close relatives according tothe theory of evolution are actually totally distinct from each other. A 1996study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with primates instead ofrodents; a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchinsamong the chordates; and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins putcows closer to whales than to horses.

As life is investigated on a molecular basis, the hom*ology hypotheses



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (249)

of the evolutionary theory collapse one by one. Molecular biologistJonathan Wells sums up the situation in 2000 in this way:

Inconsistencies among trees based on different molecules, and the bizarretrees that result from some molecular analyses, have now plunged molecularphylogeny into a crisis.305

But in that case what kind of scientific explanation can be given forsimilar structures in living things? The answer to that question was givenbefore Darwin's theory of evolution came to dominate the world ofscience. Men of science such as Carl Linnaeus and Richard Owen, whofirst raised the question of similar organs in living creatures, saw theseorgans as examples of "common design." In other words, similar organs orsimilar genes resemble each other not because they have evolved bychance from a common ancestor, but because they have been designeddeliberately to perform a particular function.

Modern scientific discoveries show that the claim that similarities inliving things are due to descent from a "common ancestor" is not valid,and that the only rational explanation for such similarities is "commondesign."


Comparisons that have been made ofproteins, rRNA and genes reveal thatcreatures which are allegedly closerelatives according to the theory ofevolution are actually totally distinct fromeach other. Various studies groupedrabbits with primates instead of rodents,and cows with whales instead of horses.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (250)

n the preceding sections, we examined the inconsistencies anddifficulties the theory of evolution finds itself in in the fields ofpaleontology and molecular biology in the light of scientific proofand discoveries. In this chapter, we shall be considering somebiological facts presented as evidence for the theory in evolutionist

sources. In contrast to widespread belief, these facts show that there isactually no scientific discovery that supports the theory of evolution.

Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics

One of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present asevidence for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Manyevolutionist sources mention antibiotic resistance as "an example of thedevelopment of living things by advantageous mutations." A similar claimis also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides such asDDT.

However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too. Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by

microorganisms to fight other microorganisms. The first antibiotic waspenicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realized thatmould produced a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, andthis discovery marked a turning point in the world of medicine.Antibiotics derived from microorganisms were used against bacteria and




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (251)

the results were successful. Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to

antibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportionof the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, whichare not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up thewhole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune toantibiotics.

Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria byadapting to conditions."

The truth, however, is very different from this superficialinterpretation. One of the scientists who has done the most detailedresearch into this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is alsoknown for his book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintainsthat the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms,but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. Thesetwo mechanisms are:

1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria. 2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because

of mutation. Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article

published in 2001:

Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to theseantibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibioticmolecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genescan transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Althoughthe resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, mostpathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genesgranting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.306

Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind thatcan serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account forEvolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must notonly add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add newinformation to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreadsaround genes that are already in some species.307

So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic

Immunity, "Vestigial Organs" And Embryology


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (252)

information is produced: genetic information that already exists is simplytransferred between bacteria.

The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result ofmutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes:

... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibioticthrough a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, whichwas discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in thisway. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial tothe microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as aprototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-DarwinianTheory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin ismanifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with theantibiotic molecule.308

In his book Not by Chance, Spetner likens this situation to the



Bacteria quickly become immune to antibiotics by transferring their resistance genes toone another. The picture above shows a colony of E. coli bacteria.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (253)

disturbance of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key thatperfectly fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium andinactivates it. Mutation, on the other hand, decomposes the ribosome, thuspreventing streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome. Although thisis interpreted as "bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin,"this is not a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes:

This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents thestreptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibioticfunction. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity andtherefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot beachieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are.Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degradespecificity.309

To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makesthat bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the"decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new geneticinformation is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of theribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled."(Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacteriumis less functional than that of a normal bacterium.) Since this "disability"prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibioticresistance" develops.

Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops the geneticinformation." Evolutionists, who want to present antibiotic resistance asevidence for evolution, treat the issue in a very superficial way and arethus mistaken.

The same situation holds true for the immunity that insects developto DDT and similar insecticides. In most of these instances, immunitygenes that already exist are used. The evolutionary biologist FranciscoAyala admits this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required for resistanceto the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in everyone of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds."310 Someother examples explained by mutation, just as with the ribosome mutationmentioned above, are phenomena that cause "genetic information deficit"in insects.

In this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity mechanisms in

Immunity, "Vestigial Organs" And Embryology


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (254)

bacteria and insects constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. That isbecause the theory of evolution is based on the assertion that living thingsdevelop through mutations. However, Spetner explains that neitherantibiotic immunity nor any other biological phenomena indicate such anexample of mutation:

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. Norandom mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level haveadded any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations thathave been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turnsout to be NO!311

The Myth of Vestigial Organs

For a long time, the concept of "vestigial organs" appeared frequentlyin evolutionist literature as "evidence" of evolution. Eventually, it wassilently put to rest when this was proved to be invalid. But someevolutionists still believe in it, and from time to time someone will try toadvance "vestigial organs" as important evidence of evolution.

The notion of "vestigial organs" was first put forward a century ago.As evolutionists would have it, there existed in the bodies of somecreatures a number of non-functional organs. These had been inheritedfrom progenitors and had gradually become vestigial from lack of use.

The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely oninsufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organswhose "functions had not yet been discovered." The best indication of thiswas the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list ofvestigial organs. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred withthis fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence forevolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, andsince the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I concludethat 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory ofevolution.3121

The list of vestigial organs that was made by the German AnatomistR. Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 organs, including the



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (255)

appendix and coccyx. As scienceprogressed, it was discovered that all ofthe organs in Wiedersheim's list in facthad very important functions. Forinstance, it was discovered that theappendix, which was supposed to be a"vestigial organ," was in fact a lymphoidorgan that fought infections in the body.This fact was made clear in 1997:

Other bodily organs and tissues—thethymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bonemarrow, and small collections oflymphatic tissue such as the tonsils inthe throat and Peyer's patch in thesmall intestine—are also part of thelymphatic system. They too help thebody fight infection.313

It was also discovered that thetonsils, which were included in thesame list of vestigial organs, had asignificant role in protecting the throat against infections, particularlyuntil adolescence. It was found that the coccyx at the lower end of thevertebral column supports the bones around the pelvis and is theconvergence point of some small muscles and for this reason, it would notbe possible to sit comfortably without a coccyx.

In the years that followed, it was realized that the thymus triggeredthe immune system in the human body by activating the T cells, that thepineal gland was in charge of the secretion of some important hormonessuch as melatonin, which inhibits secretion of luteinizing hormone, thatthe thyroid gland was effective in providing steady growth in babies andchildren and in metabolism and body activity, and that the pituitary glandcontrolled skeletal growth and the proper functioning of the thyroid,adrenals, and reproductive glands. All of these were once considered to be"vestigial organs." Finally, the semi-lunar fold in the eye, which wasreferred to as a vestigial organ by Darwin, has been found in fact to be incharge of cleansing and lubricating the eyeball.

Immunity, "Vestigial Organs" And Embryology


A scientific study of the myth ofvestigial organs: "Vestigial

Organs" Are Fully Functional.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (256)

There was a very important logical error in the evolutionist claimregarding vestigial organs. As we have just seen, this claim was that thevestigial organs in living things were inherited from their ancestors.However, some of the alleged "vestigial" organs are not found in thespecies alleged to be the ancestors of human beings! For example, theappendix does not exist in some ape species that are said to be ancestorsof man. The famous biologist H. Enoch, who challenged the theory ofvestigial organs, expressed this logical error as follows:

Apes possess an appendix, whereas their less immediate relatives, the lowerapes, do not; but it appears again among the still lower mammals such as theopossum. How can the evolutionists account for this?314

Beside all of this, the claim that an organ which is not used atrophiesand disappears over time carries a logical inconsistency within it. Darwinwas aware of this inconsistency, and made the following confession in TheOrigin of Species:



The appendix (above), which evolutioniststhought to be a vestigial organ, has now been

understood to play an important part in thebody's immune system. The coccyx at the lower

end of the vertebral column is also not avestigial organ but provides an attachment for

our pelvic organs so that they will not collapse.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (257)

There remains, however, this difficulty. After an organ has ceased being used,

and has become in consequence much reduced, how can it be still further

reduced in size until the merest vestige is left; and how can it be finally quite

obliterated? It is scarcely possible that disuse can go on producing any

further effect after the organ has once been rendered functionless. Some

additional explanation is here requisite which I cannot give.315

Simply put, the scenario of vestigial organs put forward byevolutionists contains a number of serious logical flaws, and has in anycase been proven to be scientifically untrue. There exists not one inheritedvestigial organ in the human body.

Yet Another Blow To "Vestigial Organs":

The Leg of the Horse

The latest blow to the myth of vestigial organs comes from a recentstudy on the leg of the horse. In an article in the 20-27 December 2001 issueof the journal Nature, titled "Biomechanics: Damper for bad vibrations," itis noted that "Some muscle fibres in the legs of horses seem to beevolutionary leftovers with no function. But in fact they may act to dampdamaging vibrations generated in the leg as the horse runs." The articlereads as follows:

Horses and camels have muscles in their legs with tendons more than 600

millimetres long connected to muscle fibres less than 6 millimetres long.

Such short muscles can change length only by a few millimetres as the

animal moves, and seem unlikely to be of much use to large mammals. The

tendons function as passive springs, and it has been assumed that the short

muscle fibres are redundant, the remnants of longer fibres that have lost their

function over the course of evolution. But Wilson and colleagues argue…

that these fibres might protect bones and tendons from potentially damaging


Their experiments show that short muscle fibers can damp the damaging

vibrations following the impact of a foot on the ground. When the foot of a

running animal hits the ground, the impact sets the leg vibrating; the

frequency of the vibrations is relatively high—for example, 30–40 Hz in

horses—so many cycles of vibration would occur while the foot was on the

ground if there were no damping.

Immunity, "Vestigial Organs" And Embryology


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (258)

The vibrations might cause damage, because bone and tendon aresusceptible to fatigue failure. Fatigue in bones and tendons is theaccumulation of damage resulting from repeated application of stresses.Bone fatigue is responsible for the stress fractures suffered by both humanathletes and racehorses, and tendon fatigue may explain at least some casesof tendonitis. Wilson et al. suggest that the very short muscle fibres protectboth bones and tendons from fatigue damage by damping outvibrations…316

In short, a closer loot at the anatomy of the horse revealed that thestructures that have been considered as nonfunctional by evolutionistshave very important functions.

In other words, scientific progress demonstrated that what wasconsidered to be evidence for evolution is in fact evidence for design.Evolutionists should take a hint from this fact, if they are willing to do so.The Nature commentator seems to be reasonable:

Wilson et al. have found an important role for a muscle that seemed to be therelic of a structure that had lost its function in the course of evolution. Theirwork makes us wonder whether other vestiges (such as the humanappendix) are as useless as they seem.317

This is not surprising. The more we learn about nature, the more wesee the evidence for creation. As Michael Behe notes, "the conclusion ofdesign comes not from what we do not know, but from what we havelearned over the past 50 years."318 And Darwinism turns out to be anargument from ignorance, or, in other words, an "atheism of the gaps."

The Recapitulation Misconception

What used to be called the "recapitulation theory" has long beeneliminated from scientific literature, but it is still being presented as ascientific reality by some evolutionist publications. The term"recapitulation" is a condensation of the dictum "ontogeny recapitulatesphylogeny," put forward by the evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel at theend of the nineteenth century.

This theory of Haeckel's postulates that living embryos re-experiencethe evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. Hetheorized that during its development in its mother's womb, the humanembryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish, and then those of a



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (259)

reptile, and finally those of a human.It has since been proven that this theory is completely bogus. It is

now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages ofthe human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal,parathyroid, and thymus. That part of the embryo that was likened to the"egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for theinfant. The part that was identified as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followersis in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shapebefore the legs do.

These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, andare accepted even by evolutionists themselves. Two leading neo-Darwinists, George Gaylord Simpson and W. Beck have admitted:

Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmlyestablished that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.319

The following was written in an article in New Scientist dated October16, 1999:

[Haeckel] called this the biogenetic law, and the idea became popularlyknown as recapitulation. In fact Haeckel's strict law was soon shown to be

Immunity, "Vestigial Organs" And Embryology


With his fakedembryodrawings,Ernst Haeckeldeceived theworld ofscience for acentury.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (260)

incorrect. For instance, the early human embryo never has functioning gillslike a fish, and never passes through stages that look like an adult reptileor monkey.320

In an article published in American Scientist, we read:

Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcisedfrom biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiryit was extinct in the twenties…321

Another interesting aspect of "recapitulation" was Ernst Haeckelhimself, a faker who falsified his drawings in order to support the theoryhe advanced. Haeckel's forgeries purported to show that fish and humanembryos resembled one another. When he was caught out, the onlydefense he offered was that other evolutionists had committed similaroffences:

After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged toconsider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation ofseeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow -culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemedbiologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biologicaltextbooks, treatises andjournals would incur in thesame degree the charge of'forgery,' for all of them areinexact, and are more or lessdoctored, schematised andconstructed.322

In the September 5, 1997,edition of the well-knownscientific journal Science, anarticle was published revealingthat Haeckel's embryodrawings were the product of adeception. The article, called"Haeckel's Embryos: FraudRediscovered," had this to say:

The impression they[Haeckel's drawings] give,



Haeckel's fake drawings.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (261)


Observations in recent years have revealed that embryos of different species do not resembleeach other, as Haeckel had attempted to show. The great differences between the mammal,reptile and bat embryos above are a clear instance of this.

In its September 5,1997, issue, thefamous journalScience publishedan article revealingthat Haeckel'sembryo drawingshad beenfalsified. Thearticle describedhow theembryos werein fact verydifferent fromone another.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (262)

that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, anembryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School in London… So he andhis colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining andphotographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with thoseHaeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos "often looked surprisinglydifferent," Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy andEmbryology.323

Science explained that, in order to be able to show the embryos assimilar, Haeckel deliberately removed some organs from his drawings orelse added imaginary ones. Later in this same article, the followinginformation was revealed:

Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleaguesreport, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species,even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurreddifferences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if onerepresentative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality,Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such asthose of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmentalpathway. "It (Haeckel's drawings) looks like it's turning out to be one of themost famous fakes in biology," Richardson concludes.324

The Science article goes on to discuss how Haeckel's confessions onthis subject were covered up from the beginning of the last century, andhow the fake drawings began to be presented in textbooks as scientificfact:

Haeckel's confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used ina 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely inEnglish language biology texts.325

In short, the fact that Haeckel's drawings were falsified had alreadyemerged in 1901, but the whole world of science continued to be deceivedby them for a century.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (263)

ife on earth is divided into five (or sometimes six) kingdoms byscientists. We have so far concentrated mainly on the greatestkingdom, that of animals. In the preceding chapters, we consideredthe origin of life itself, studying proteins, genetic information, cell

structure and bacteria, issues that are related with two other kingdoms,Prokaryotae and Protista. But at this point there is another importantmatter we need to concentrate on—the origin of the plant kingdom(Plantae).

We find the same picture in the origin of plants as we met whenexamining the origin of animals. Plants possess exceedingly complexstructures, and it is not possible for these to come about by chance effectsand for them to evolve into one another. The fossil record shows that thedifferent classes of plants emerged all of a sudden in the world, each withits own particular characteristics, and with no period of evolution behind it.

The Origin of the Plant Cell

Like animal cells, plant cells belong to the type known as"eukaryotic." The most distinctive feature of these is that they have a cellnucleus, and the DNA molecule in which their genetic information isencoded lies within this nucleus. On the other hand, some single-celledcreatures such as bacteria have no cell nucleus, and the DNA molecule isfree inside the cell. This second type of cell is called "prokaryotic." Thistype of cell structure, with free DNA unconfined within a nucleus, is an





Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (264)

ideal design for bacteria, as it makes possible the very important process—from the bacterial point of view—of plasmid transfer (that is, the transferof DNA from cell to cell).

Because the theory of evolution is obliged to arrange living things ina sequence "from primitive to complex," it assumes that prokaryotic cellsare primitive, and that eukaryotic cells evolved from them.

Before moving to the invalidity of this claim, it will be useful todemonstrate that prokaryotic cells are not at all "primitive." A bacteriumpossesses some 2,000 genes; each gene contains about 1,000 letters (links).This means that the information in a bacterium's DNA is some 2 millionletters long. According to this calculation, the information in the DNA ofone bacterium is equivalent to 20 novels, each of 100,000 words.326 Anychange in the information in the DNA code of a bacterium would be sodeleterious as to ruin the bacterium's entire working system. As we haveseen, a fault in a bacterium's genetic code means that the working systemwill go wrong—that is, the cell will die.

Alongside this sensitive structure, which defies chance changes, thefact that no "intermediate form" between bacteria and eukaryotic cells hasbeen found makes the evolutionist claim unfounded. For example, thefamous Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy confesses thegroundlessness of the scenario that bacterial cells evolved into eukaryoticcells, and then into complex organisms made up of these cells:

One of the most difficult stages to be explained in evolution is toscientifically explain how organelles and complex cells developed from theseprimitive creatures. No transitional form has been found between these twoforms. One- and multicelled creatures carry all this complicated structure,and no creature or group has yet been found with organelles of a simplerconstruction in any way, or which are more primitive. In other words, theorganelles carried forward have developed just as they are. They have nosimple and primitive forms.327

One wonders, what is it that encourages Professor Ali Demirsoy, aloyal adherent of the theory of evolution, to make such an open admission?The answer to this question can be given quite clearly when the greatstructural differences between bacteria and plant cells are examined.

These are:1- While the walls of bacterial cells are formed of polysaccharide and



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (265)

protein, the walls of plant cells are formed of cellulose, a totally differentstructure.

2- While plant cells possess many organelles, covered in membranesand possessing very complex structures, bacterial cells lack typicalorganelles. In bacterial cells there are just freely moving tiny ribosomes.But the ribosomes in plant cells are larger and are attached to the cellmembrane. Furthermore, protein synthesis takes place by different meansin the two types of ribosomes.

3- The DNA structures in plant and bacterial cells are different.4- The DNA molecule in plant cells is protected by a double-layered

membrane, whereas the DNA in bacterial cells stands free within the cell.5- The DNA molecule in bacterial cells resembles a closed loop; in

other words, it is circular. In plants, the DNA molecule is linear.6- The DNA molecule in bacterial cells carries information belonging

to just one cell, but in plant cells the DNA molecule carries informationabout the whole plant. For example, all the information about a fruit-bearing tree's roots, stem, leaves, flowers, and fruit are all found separatelyin the DNA in the nucleus of just one cell.

7- Some species of bacteria are photosynthetic, in other words, theycarry out photosynthesis. But unlike plants, in photosynthetic bacteria

The Origin Of Plants


Plants form thefundamental basis of

life on earth. Theyare an indispensablecondition for life, as

they provide foodand release oxygen

to the air.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (266)

(cyanobacteria, for instance), there is no chloroplast containing chlorophylland photosynthetic pigments. Rather, these molecules are buried invarious membranes all over the cell.

8- The biochemistry of messenger RNA formation in prokaryotic(bacterial) cells and in eukaryotic (including plant and animal) cells arequite different from one another.328

Messenger RNA plays a vital role for the cell to live. But althoughmessenger RNA assumes the same vital role in both prokaryotic cells andin eukaryotic cells, their biochemical structures are different. J. Darnellwrote the following in an article published in Science:

The differences in the biochemistry of messenger RNA formation ineukaryotes compared to prokaryotes are so profound as to suggest thatsequential prokaryotic to eukaryotic cell evolution seems unlikely.329

The structural differences between bacterial and plant cells, of whichwe have seen a few examples above, lead evolutionist scientists to anotherdead-end. Although plant and bacterial cells have some aspects incommon, most of their structures are quite different from one another. Infact, since there are no membrane-surrounded organelles or a cytoskeleton(the internal network of protein filaments and microtubules) in bacterialcells, the presence of several very complex organelles and cell organizationin plant cells totally invalidates the claim that the plant cell evolved fromthe bacterial cell.

Biologist Ali Demirsoy openly admits this, saying, "Complex cellsnever developed from primitive cells by a process of evolution."330



The evolutionist hypothesis that prokaryotic cells (left) turned into eukaryoticcells over time has no scientific basis to it.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (267)

The Endosymbiosis Hypothesis and Its Invalidity

The impossibility of plant cells' having evolved from a bacterial cellhas not prevented evolutionary biologists from producing speculativehypotheses. But experiments disprove these.331 The most popular of theseis the "endosymbiosis" hypothesis.

This hypothesis was put forward by Lynn Margulis in 1970 in herbook The Origin of Eukaryotic Cells. In this book, Margulis claimed that as aresult of their communal and parasitic lives, bacterial cells turned intoplant and animal cells. According to this theory, plant cells emerged whena photosynthetic bacterium was swallowed by another bacterial cell. Thephotosynthetic bacterium evolved inside the parent cell into a chloroplast.Lastly, organelles with highly complex structures such as the nucleus, theGolgi apparatus, the endoplasmic reticulum, and ribosomes evolved, insome way or other. Thus, the plant cell was born.

As we have seen, this thesis of the evolutionists is nothing but a workof fantasy. Unsurprisingly, it was criticized by scientists who carried outvery important research into the subject on a number of grounds: We cancite D. Lloyd332, M. Gray and W. Doolittle333, and R. Raff and H. Mahler asexamples of these.

The endosymbiosis hypothesis is based on the fact that themitochondria of animal cells and the chloroplasts of plant cells containtheir own DNA, separate from the DNA in the nucleus of the parent cell.So, on this basis, it is suggested that mitochondria and chloroplasts wereonce independent, free-living cells. However, when chloroplasts arestudied in detail, it can be seen that this claim is inconsistent.

A number of points invalidate the endosymbiosis hypothesis:1- If chloroplasts, in particular, were once independent cells, then there

could only have been one outcome if one were swallowed by a larger cell:namely, it would have been digested by the parent cell and used as food. Thismust be so, because even if we assume that the parent cell in question tooksuch a cell into itself from the outside by mistake, instead of intentionallyingesting it as food, nevertheless, the digestive enzymes in the parent cellwould have destroyed it. Of course, some evolutionists have gotten aroundthis obstacle by saying, "The digestive enzymes had disappeared." But this isa clear contradiction, because if the cell's digestive enzymes had disappeared,then the cell would have died from lack of nutrition.

The Origin Of Plants


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (268)

2- Again, let us assume that all the impossible happened and that thecell which is claimed to have been the ancestor of the chloroplast wasswallowed by the parent cell. In this case we are faced with anotherproblem: The blueprints of all the organelles inside the cell are encoded inthe DNA. If the parent cell were going to use other cells it swallowed asorganelles, then it would be necessary for all of the information aboutthem to be already present and encoded in its DNA. The DNA of theswallowed cells would have to possess information belonging to theparent cell. Not only is such a situation impossible, the two complementsof DNA belonging to the parent cell and the swallowed cell would alsohave to become compatible with each other afterwards, which is alsoclearly impossible.

3- There is great harmony within the cell which random mutationscannot account for. There are more than just one chloroplast and onemitochondrion in a cell. Their number rises or falls according to theactivity level of the cell, just like with other organelles. The existence ofDNA in the bodies of these organelles is also of use in reproduction. As thecell divides, all of the numerous chloroplasts divide too, and the celldivision happens in a shorter time and more regularly.

4- Chloroplasts are energy generators of absolutely vital importanceto the plant cell. If these organelles did not produce energy, many of thecell's functions would not work, which would mean that the cell could notlive. These functions, which are so important to the cell, take place withproteins synthesized in the chloroplasts. But the chloroplasts' own DNA isnot enough to synthesize these proteins. The greater part of the proteinsare synthesized using the parent DNA in the cell nucleus.334

While the situation envisioned by the endosymbiosis hypothesis isoccurring through a process of trial and error, what effects would this haveon the DNA of the parent cell? As we have seen, any change in a DNAmolecule definitely does not result in a gain for that organism; on thecontrary, any such mutation would certainly be harmful. In his book TheRoots of Life, Mahlon B. Hoagland explains the situation:

You'll recall we learned that almost always a change in an organism's DNAis detrimental to it; that is, it leads to a reduced capacity to survive. By wayof analogy, random additions of sentences to the plays of Shakespeare are notlikely to improve them! …The principle that DNA changes are harmful by



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (269)

virtue of reducing survival chances applies whether a change in DNA iscaused by a mutation or by some foreign genes we deliberately add to it.335

The claims put forward by evolutionists are not based on scientificexperiments, because no such thing as one bacterium swallowing anotherone has ever been observed. In his review of a later book by Margulis,Symbiosis in Cell Evolution, molecular biologist P. Whitfield describes thesituation:

Prokaryotic endocytosis is the cellular mechanism on which the whole ofS.E.T. (Serial Endosymbiotic Theory) presumably rests. If one prokaryotecould not engulf another it is difficult to imagine how endosymbioses couldbe set up. Unfortunately for Margulis and S.E.T., no modern examples ofprokaryotic endocytosis or endosymbiosis exist…336

The Origin of Photosynthesis

Another matter regarding the origin of plants which puts the theoryof evolution into a terrible quandary is the question of how plant cellsbegan to carry out photosynthesis.

Photosynthesis is one of the fundamental processes of life on earth.Thanks to the chloroplasts inside them, plant cells produce starch by usingwater, carbon dioxide and sunlight. Animals are unable to produce theirown nutrients and must use the starch from plants for food instead. Forthis reason, photosynthesis is a basic condition for complex life. An evenmore interesting side of the matter is the fact that this complex process ofphotosynthesis has not yet been fully understood. Modern technology hasnot yet been able to reveal all of its details, let alone reproduce it.

Is it possible for such a complex process as photosynthesis to be theproduct of natural processes, as the theory of evolution holds?

According to the evolution scenario, in order to carry outphotosynthesis, plant cells swallowed bacterial cells which couldphotosynthesize and turned them into chloroplasts. So, how did bacterialearn to carry out such a complicated process as photosynthesis? And whyhad they not begun to carry out such a process before then? As with otherquestions, the scenario has no scientific answer to give. Have a look at howan evolutionist publication answers the question:

The heterotroph hypothesis suggests that the earliest organisms were

The Origin Of Plants


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (270)

heterotrophs that fed on a soup of organic molecules in the primitive ocean.As these first heterotrophs consumed the available amino acids, proteins,fats, and sugars, the nutrient soup became depleted and could no longersupport a growing population of heterotrophs. …Organisms that could usean alternate source of energy would have had a great advantage. Considerthat Earth was (and continues to be) flooded with solar energy that actuallyconsists of different forms of radiation. Ultraviolet radiation is destructive,but visible light is energy-rich and undestructive. Thus, as organiccompounds became increasingly rare, an already-present ability to usevisible light as an alternate source of energy might have enabled suchorganisms and their descendents to survive.337

The book Life on Earth, another evolutionist source, tries to explain theemergence of photosynthesis:

The bacteria fed initially on the various carbon compounds that had taken so



Plant cells carry out a process that no modern laboratory can duplicate—photosynthesis.Thanks to the organelle called the "chloroplast" in the plant cell, plants use water,carbon dioxide and sunlight to create starch. This food product is the first step in theearth's food chain, and the source of food for all its inhabitants. The details of thisexceedingly complex process are still not fully understood today.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (271)

many millions of years to accumulate in the primordial seas. But as theyflourished, so this food must have become scarcer. Any bacterium that couldtap a different source of food would obviously be very successful andeventually some did. Instead of taking ready-made food from theirsurroundings, they began to manufacture their own within their cell walls,drawing the necessary energy from the sun.338

In short, evolutionist sources say that photosynthesis was in someway coincidentally "discovered" by bacteria, even though man, with all histechnology and knowledge, has been unable to do so. These accounts,which are no better than fairy tales, have no scientific worth. Those whostudy the subject in a bit more depth will accept that photosynthesis is amajor dilemma for evolution. Professor Ali Demirsoy makes the followingadmission, for instance:

Photosynthesis is a rather complicated event, and it seems impossible for itto emerge in an organelle inside a cell (because it is impossible for all thestages to have come about at once, and it is meaningless for them to haveemerged separately).339

The German biologist Hoimar von Ditfurth says that photosynthesisis a process that cannot possibly be learned:

No cell possesses the capacity to 'learn' a process in the true sense of theword. It is impossible for any cell to come by the ability to carry out suchfunctions as respiration or photosynthesis, neither when it first comes intobeing, nor later in life.340

Since photosynthesis cannot develop as the result of chance, andcannot subsequently be learned by a cell, it appears that the first plant cellsthat lived on the earth were specially designed to carry outphotosynthesis. In other words, plants were created with the ability tophotosynthesize.

The Origin of Algae

The theory of evolution hypothesizes that single-celled plant-likecreatures, whose origins it is unable to explain, came in time to form algae.The origin of algae goes back to very remote times. So much so, that fossilalgae remains from 3.1 to 3.4 million years old have been found. Theinteresting thing is that there is no structural difference between these

The Origin Of Plants


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (272)

extraordinarily ancient living things and specimens living in our owntime. An article published in Science News says:

Both blue-green algae and bacteria fossils dating back 3.4 billion years havebeen found in rocks from S. Africa. Even more intriguing, thepleurocapsalean algae turned out to be almost identical to modernpleurocapsalean algae at the family and possibly even at the generic level.341

The German biologist Hoimar von Ditfurth makes this comment onthe complex structure of so-called "primitive" algae:

The oldest fossils so far discovered are objects fossilized in minerals whichbelong to blue green algae, more than 3 billionyears old. No matter how primitive they are,they still represent rather complicated andexpertly organized forms of life.342

Evolutionary biologists consider thatthe algae in question gave rise over time toother marine plants and moved to the landsome 450 million years ago. However, justlike the scenario of animals moving fromwater onto the land, the idea that plantsmoved from water to the land is anotherfantasy. Both scenarios are invalid andinconsistent. Evolutionist sources usuallytry to gloss over the subject with suchfantastical and unscientific comments as

"algae in some way moved onto the land and adapted to it." But there area large number of obstacles that make this transition quite impossible. Letus have a short look at the most important of them.

1- The danger of drying out: For a plant which lives in water to beable to live on land, its surface has first of all to be protected from waterloss. Otherwise the plant will dry out. Land plants are provided withspecial systems to prevent this from happening. There are very importantdetails in these systems. For example, this protection must happen in sucha way that important gases such as oxygen and carbon dioxide are able toleave and enter the plant freely. At the same time, it is important thatevaporation be prevented. If a plant does not possess such a system, itcannot wait millions of years to develop one. In such a situation, the plant



Free-swimming algae inthe ocean.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (273)

will soon dry up and die.2- Feeding: Marine plants take the water and minerals they need

directly from the water they are in. For this reason, any algae which triedto live on land would have a food problem. They could not live withoutresolving it.

3- Reproduction: Algae, with their short life span, have no chance ofreproducing on land, because, as in all their functions, algae also use waterto disperse their reproductive cells. In order to be able to reproduce onland, they would need to possess multicellular reproductive cells likethose of land plants, which are covered by a protective layer of cells.Lacking these, any algae which found themselves on land would beunable to protect their reproductive cells from danger.

4- Protection from oxygen: Any algae which arrived on land wouldhave taken in oxygen in a decomposed form up until that point.According to the evolutionists' scenario, now they would have to take inoxygen in a form they had never encountered before, in other words,directly from the atmosphere. As we know, under normal conditions theoxygen in the atmosphere has a poisoning effect on organic substances.Living things which live on land possess systems which stop them beingharmed by it. But algae are marine plants, which means they do notpossess the enzymes to protect them from the harmful effects of oxygen.So, as soon as they arrived on land, it would be impossible for them toavoid these effects. Neither is there any question of their waiting for sucha system to develop, because they could not survive on land long enoughfor that to happen.

There is yet another reason why the claim that algae moved from theocean to the land inconsistent—namely, the absence of a natural agent tomake such a transition necessary. Let us imagine the natural environmentof algae 450 million years ago. The waters of the sea offer them an idealenvironment. For instance, the water isolates and protects them fromextreme heat, and offers them all kinds of minerals they need. And, at thesame time, they can absorb the sunlight by means of photosynthesis andmake their own carbohydrates (sugar and starch) by carbon dioxide, whichdissolves in the water. For this reason, there is nothing the algae lack in theocean, and therefore no reason for them to move to the land, where there isno "selective advantage" for them, as the evolutionists put it.

The Origin Of Plants


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (274)

This 300-million-year-old plant

from the late Carboniferous is

no different from specimens

growing today.

This plant from the Jurassic Age, some 180

million years old, emerged with its own unique

structure, and with no ancestor preceding it.

This 140-million-

year-old fossil

from the species

Archaefructus isthe oldest known

fossil angiosperm

(flowering plant).

It possesses the

same body,

flower and fruit

structure as

similar plants

alive today.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (275)

All of this shows that the evolutionist hypothesis that algae emergedonto the land and formed land plants is completely unscientific.

The Origin of Angiosperms

When we examine the fossil history and structural features of plantsthat live on land, another picture emerges which fails to agree withevolutionist predictions. There is no fossil series to confirm even onebranch of the "evolutionary tree" of plants that you will see in almost anybiological textbook. Most plants possess abundant remains in the fossilrecord, but none of these fossils is an intermediate form between onespecies and another. They are all specially and originally created ascompletely distinct species, and there are no evolutionary links betweenthem. As the evolutionary paleontologist E. C. Olson accepted, "Many newgroups of plants and animals suddenly appear, apparently without anyclose ancestors."343

The botanist Chester A. Arnold, who studies fossil plants at theUniversity of Michigan, makes the following comment:

It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of thestages through which existing groups have passed during the course of theirdevelopment, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has beenfulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has beenin progress for more than one hundred years.344

Arnold accepts that paleobotany (the science of plant fossils) hasproduced no results in support of evolution: "[W]e have not been able totrack the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from itsbeginning to the present."345

The fossil discoveries which most clearly deny the claims of plantevolution are those of flowering plants, or "angiosperms," to give themtheir scientific name. These plants are divided into 43 separate families,each one of which emerges suddenly, leaving no trace of any primitive"transitional form" behind it in the fossil record. This was realised in thenineteenth century, and for this reason Darwin described the origin ofangiosperms as "an abominable mystery." All the research carried outsince Darwin's time has simply added to the amount of discomfort thismystery causes. In his book The Paleobiology of Angiosperm Origins, the

The Origin Of Plants


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (276)

evolutionary paleobotanist N. F. Hughes makes this admission:

… With few exceptions of detail, however, the failure to find a satisfactoryexplanation has persisted, and many botanists have concluded that theproblem is not capable of solution, by use of fossil evidence.346

In his book The Evolution of Flowering Plants, Daniel Axelrod says thisabout the origin of flowering plants,

The ancestral group that gave rise to angiosperms has not yet been identifiedin the fossil record, and no living angiosperm points to such an ancestralalliance.347

All this leads us to just one conclusion: Like all living things, plantswere also created. From the moment they first emerged, all theirmechanisms have existed in a finished and complete form. Terms such as'development over time," "changes dependent on coincidences," and"adaptations which emerged as a result of need," which one finds in theevolutionist literature, have no truth in them at all and are scientificallymeaningless.


This fossil fern from theCarboniferous was found in

the Jerada region ofMorocco. The

interesting thing isthat this fossil,which is 320million years old,is identical topresent-dayferns.


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (277)

ne of the most important concepts that one must employ whenquestioning Darwinist theory in the light of scientific discoveries iswithout a doubt the criterion that Darwin himself employed. In TheOrigin of Species, Darwin put forward a number of concrete criteria

suggesting how his theory might be tested and, if found wanting,disproved. Many passages in his book begin, "If my theory be true," andin these Darwin describes the discoveries his theory requires. One of themost important of these criteria concerns fossils and "transitional forms."In earlier chapters, we examined how these prophecies of Darwin's did notcome true, and how, on the contrary, the fossil record completelycontradicts Darwinism.

In addition to these, Darwin gave us another very important criterionby which to test his theory. This criterion is so important, Darwin wrote,that it could cause his theory to be absolutely broken down:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could notpossibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. 348

We must examine Darwin's intention here very carefully. As weknow, Darwinism explains the origin of life with two unconscious naturalmechanisms: natural selection and random changes (in other words,mutations). According to Darwinist theory, these two mechanisms led tothe emergence of the complex structure of living cells, as well as theanatomical systems of complex living things, such as eyes, ears, wings,lungs, bat sonar and millions of other complex system designs.

However, how is it that these systems, which possess incredibly




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (278)

complicated structures, can be considered the products of twounconscious natural effects? At this point, the concept Darwinism appliesis that of "reducibility." It is claimed that these systems can be reduced tovery basic states, and that they may have then developed by stages. Eachstage gives a living thing a little more advantage, and is therefore chosenby natural selection. Then, later, there will be another small, chancedevelopment, and that too will be preferred because it affords anadvantage, and the process will go on in this way. Thanks to this,according to the Darwinist claim, a species which originally possessed noeyes will come to possess perfect ones, and another species which wasformerly unable to fly, will grow wings and be able to do so.

This story is explained in a very convincing and reasonable mannerin evolutionist sources. But when one goes into it in a bit more detail, agreat error appears. The first aspect of this error is a subject we havealready studied in earlier pages of this book: Mutations are destructive,not constructive. In other words, chance mutations that occur in livingcreatures do not provide them any "advantages," and, furthermore, theidea that they could do this thousands of times, one after the other, is adream that contradicts all scientific observations.

But there is yet another very important aspect to the error. Darwinisttheory requires all the stages from one point to another to be individually"advantageous." In an evolutionary process from A to Z (for instance, froma wingless creature to a winged one), all the "intermediate" stages B, C, D,…V, W, X, and Y along the way have to provide advantages for the livingthing in question. Since it is not possible for natural selection and mutationto consciously pick out their targets in advance, the whole theory is basedon the hypothesis that living systems can be reduced to discrete traits thatcan be added on to the organism in small steps, each of which carries someselective advantage. That is why Darwin said, "If it could be demonstratedthat any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have beenformed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory wouldabsolutely break down."

Given the primitive level of science in the nineteenth century, Darwinmay have thought that living things possess a reducible structure. Buttwentieth century discoveries have shown that many systems and organsin living things cannot be reduced to simplicity. This fact, known as



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (279)

"irreducible complexity," definitively destroys Darwinism, just as Darwinhimself feared.

The Bacterial Flagellum

The most important person to bring the concept of irreduciblecomplexity to the forefront of the scientific agenda is the biochemistMichael J. Behe of Lehigh University in the United States. In his bookDarwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, published in1996, Behe examines the irreducibly complex structure of the cell and anumber of other biochemical structures, and reveals that it is impossible toaccount for these by evolution. According to Behe, the real explanation oflife is intelligent design.

Behe's book was a serious blow to Darwinism. In fact, Peter vanInwagen, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame,stresses the importance of the book in this manner:

If Darwinians respond to this important book by ignoring it, misrepresentingit, or ridiculing it, that will be evidence in favor of the widespread suspicionthat Darwinism today functions more as an ideology than as a scientifictheory. If they can successfully answer Behe's arguments, that will beimportant evidence in favor of Darwinism.349

One of the interesting examples of irreducible complexity that Behegives in his book is the bacterial flagellum. This is a whip-like organ thatis used by some bacteria to move about in a liquid environment. This

Irreducible Complexity


An electric motor—but not one in ahousehold appliance or vehicle.This one is in a bacterium. Thanksto this motor, bacteria have beenable to move those organs knownas "flagella" and thus swim inwater. This was discovered in the 1970s,and astounded the world ofscience, because this "irreduciblycomplex" organ, made up of some240 distinct proteins, cannot beexplained by chance mechanisms asDarwin had proposed.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (280)

organ is embedded in the cell membrane, and enables the bacterium tomove in a chosen direction at a particular speed.

Scientists have known about the flagellum for some time. However,its structural details, which have only emerged over the last decade or so,have come as a great surprise to them. It has been discovered that theflagellum moves by means of a very complicated "organic motor," and notby a simple vibratory mechanism as was earlier believed. This propeller-like engine is constructed on the same mechanical principles as an electricmotor. There are two main parts to it: a moving part (the "rotor") and astationary one (the "stator").

The bacterial flagellum is different from all other organic systems thatproduce mechanical motion. The cell does not utilize available energystored as ATP molecules. Instead, it has a special energy source: Bacteriause energy from the flow of ions across their outer cell membranes. Theinner structure of the motor is extremely complex. Approximately 240distinct proteins go into constructing the flagellum. Each one of these iscarefully positioned. Scientists have determined that these proteins carrythe signals to turn the motor on or off, form joints to facilitate movementsat the atomic scale, and activate other proteins that connect the flagellumto the cell membrane. The models constructed to summarize the workingof the system are enough to depict the complicated nature of the system.

The complicated structure of the bacterial flagellum is sufficient allby itself to demolish the theory of evolution, since the flagellum has anirreducibly complex structure. If one single molecule in this fabulouslycomplex structure were to disappear, or become defective, the flagellumwould neither work nor be of any use to the bacterium. The flagellummust have been working perfectly from the first moment of its existence.This fact again reveals the nonsense in the theory of evolution's assertionof "step by step development." In fact, not one evolutionary biologist hasso far succeeded in explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellumalthough a few tried to do so.

The bacterial flagellum is clear evidence that even in supposedly"primitive" creatures there is an extraordinary design. As humanity learnsmore about the details, it becomes increasingly obvious that the organismsconsidered to be the simplest by the scientists of nineteenth century,including Darwin, are in fact just as complex as any others.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (281)

The Design of the Human Eye

The human eye is a very complicated system consisting of thedelicate conjunction of some 40 separate components. Let us consider justone of these components: for example, the lens. We do not usually realizeit, but the thing that enables us to see things clearly is the constantautomatic focusing of the lens. If you wish, you can carry out a smallexperiment on this subject: Hold your index finger up in the air. Then lookat the tip of your finger, then at the wall behind it. Every time you lookfrom your finger to the wall you will feel an adjustment.

This adjustment is made by small muscles around the lens. Everytime we look at something, these muscles go into action and enable us tosee what we are looking at clearly by changing the thickness of the lensand turning it at the right angle to the light. The lens carries out thisadjustment every second of our lives, and makes no mistakes.Photographers make the same adjustments in their cameras by hand, andsometimes have to struggle for quite some time to get the right focus.Within the last 10 to 15 years, modern technology has produced cameraswhich focus automatically, but no camera can focus as quickly and as wellas the eye.

For an eye to be able to see, the 40 or so basic components whichmake it up need to be present at the same time and work togetherperfectly. The lens is only one of these. If all the other components, such asthe cornea, iris, pupil, retina, and eye muscles, are all present andfunctioning properly, but just the eyelid is missing, then the eye willshortly incur serious damage and cease to carry out its function. In thesame way, if all the subsystems exist but tear production ceases, then theeye will dry up and go blind within a few hours.

The theory of evolution's claim of "reducibility" loses all meaning inthe face of the complicated structure of the eye. The reason is that, in orderfor the eye to function, all its parts need to be present at the same time. Itis impossible, of course, for the mechanisms of natural selection andmutation to give rise to the eye's dozens of different subsystems whenthey can confer no advantage right up until the last stage. Professor AliDemirsoy accepts the truth of this in these words:

It is rather hard to reply to a third objection. How was it possible for acomplicated organ to come about suddenly even though it brought benefits

Irreducible Complexity


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (282)

with it? For instance, how did the lens, retina, optic nerve, and all the otherparts in vertebrates that play a role in seeing suddenly come about? Becausenatural selection cannot choose separately between the visual nerve and theretina. The emergence of the lens has no meaning in the absence of a retina.The simultaneous development of all the structures for sight isunavoidable. Since parts that develop separately cannot be used, they willboth be meaningless, and also perhaps disappear with time. At the sametime, their development all together requires the coming together ofunimaginably small probabilities.350

What Professor Demirsoy really means by "unimaginably smallprobabilities" is basically an "impossibility." It is clearly an impossibilityfor the eye to be the product of chance. Darwin also had a great difficultyin the face of this, and in a letter he even admitted, "I remember well thetime when the thought of the eye made me cold all over."351

In The Origin of Species, Darwin experienced a serious difficulty in theface of the eye's complex design. The only solution he found was inpointing to the simpler eye structure found in some creatures as the originof the more complex eyes found in others. He hypothesized that morecomplex eyes evolved from simpler ones. However, this claim does notreflect the truth. Paleontology shows that living things emerged in theworld with their exceedingly complex structures already intact. The oldest


The human eye works by some 40 different parts functioning together. If just one ofthese is not present, the eye will serve no purpose. Each of these 40 parts has its ownindividual complex structure. For instance, the retina, at the back of the eye, is made upof 11 strata (above right), each of which has a different function. The theory ofevolution is unable to account for the development of such a complex organ.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (283)

known system of sight is the trilobite eye. This 530-million-year-oldcompound eye structure, which we touched on in an earlier chapter, is an"optical marvel" which worked with a double lens system. This fact totallyinvalidates Darwin's assumption that complex eyes evolved from"primitive" eyes.

The Irreducible Structure of the "Primitive" Eye

It remains to be said that the organs described by Darwin as"primitive" eyes actually possess a complex and irreducible structure thatcan never be explained by chance. Even in its simplest form, for seeing tohappen, some of a creature's cells need to become light-sensitive—that is,they need to possess the ability to transduce this sensitivity to light intoelectrical signals; a nerve network from these cells to the brain needs toemerge; and a visual center in the brain to evaluate the information has tobe formed. It is senseless to propose that all of these things came about bychance, at the same time, and in the same living thing. In his book EvrimKurami ve Bagnazlik (The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry), which he wroteto defend the theory of evolution, the evolutionist writer Cemal Yildirimadmits this fact in this way:

A large number of mechanisms need to work together for sight: As well asthe eye and the mechanisms inside it, we can mention the links betweenspecial centers in the brain and the eye. How did this complex system-creation come about? According to biologists, the first step in the emergenceof the eye during the evolutionary process was taken with the appearance ofa small, light-sensitive area on the skin of some primitive living things. Butwhat advantage could such a minute development on its own confer on aliving thing in natural selection? As well as this, there needs to be a visualcenter formed in the brain and a nerve system linked to it. As long as theserather complicated mechanisms are not linked to one another, then wecannot expect what we call "sight" to emerge. Darwin believed thatvariations emerged by chance. If that were the case, would not theappearance of all the many variations that sight requires in various places inthe organism at the same time and their working together turn into amystical puzzle?… However, a number of complementary changes workingtogether in harmony and cooperation are needed for sight… Some molluscs'eyes have retina, cornea, and a lens of cellulose tissue just like ours. Now,

Irreducible Complexity


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (284)

how can we explain the evolutionary processes of these two very differenttypes requiring a string of chance events just by natural selection? It is amatter for debate whether Darwinists have been able to provide asatisfactory answer to this question…352

This problem is so great from the evolutionist point of view that thecloser we look at the details, the worse the quandary the theory findsitself in. One important "detail" which needs to be looked at is the claimabout "the cell which came to be sensitive to light." Darwinists gloss thisover by saying, "Sight may have started by a single cell becomingsensitive to light." But what kind of design is such a structure supposedto have had?

The Chemistry of Sight

In his book Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe stresses that thestructure of the living cell and all other biochemical systems wereunknown "black boxes" for Darwin and his contemporaries. Darwinassumed that these black boxes possessed very simple structures andcould have come about by chance. Now, however, modern biochemistryhas opened up these black boxes and revealed the irreducibly complexstructure of life. Behe states that Darwin's comments on the emergence ofthe eye seemed convincing because of the primitive level of nineteenth-century science:

Darwin persuaded much of the world that a modern eye evolved graduallyfrom a simpler structure, but he did not even try to explain where his startingpoint—the relatively simple light-sensitive spot—came from. On thecontrary, Darwin dismissed the question of the eye's ultimate origin… Hehad an excellent reason for declining the question: it was completely beyondnineteenth-century science. How the eye works—that is, what happenswhen a photon of light first hits the retina—simply could not be answered atthat time.353

So, how does this system, which Darwin glossed over as a simplestructure, actually work? How do the cells in the eye's retinal layerperceive the light rays that fall on them?

The answer to that question is rather complicated. When photons hitthe cells of the retina they activate a chain action, rather like a domino



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (285)

effect. The first of these domino pieces is a molecule called "11-cis-retinal"that is sensitive to photons. When struck by a photon, this moleculechanges shape, which in turn changes the shape of a protein called"rhodopsin" to which it is tightly bound. Rhodopsin then takes a form thatenables it to stick to another resident protein in the cell called "transducin."

Prior to reacting with rhodopsin, transducin is bound to anothermolecule called GDP. When it connects with rhodopsin, transducinreleases the GDP molecule and is linked to a new molecule called GTP.That is why the new complex consisting of the two proteins (rhodopsinand transducin) and a smaller molecule (GTP) is called "GTP-transducin-rhodopsin."

But the process has only just begun. The new GTP-transducin-rhodopsin complex can now very quickly bind to another protein residentin the cell called "phosphodiesterase." This enables the phosphodiesteraseprotein to cut yet another molecule resident in the cell, called cGMP. Sincethis process takes place in the millions of proteins in the cell, the cGMPconcentration is suddenly decreased.

How does all this help with sight? The last element of this chainreaction supplies the answer. The fall in the cGMP amount affects the ionchannels in the cell. The so-called ion channel is a structure composed ofproteins that regulate the number of sodium ions within the cell. Undernormal conditions, the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cellwhile another molecule disposes of the excess ions to maintain a balance.When the number of cGMP molecules falls, so does the number of sodiumions. This leads to an imbalance of charge across the membrane, whichstimulates the nerve cells connected to these cells, forming what we referto as an "electrical impulse." Nerves carry the impulses to the brain and"seeing" happens there.354

In brief, a single photon hits a single cell, and through a series of chainreactions the cell produces an electrical impulse. This stimulus is modulatedby the energy of the photon—that is, the brightness of the light. Anotherfascinating fact is that all of the processes described so far happen in nomore than one thousandth of a second. As soon as this chain reaction iscompleted, other specialized proteins within the cells convert elements suchas 11-cis-retinal, rhodopsin and transducin back to their original states. Theeye is under a constant shower of photons, and the chain reactions within

Irreducible Complexity


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (286)

the eye's sensitive cells enable it to perceive each one of these.The process of sight is actually a great deal more complicated than the

outline presented here would indicate. However, even this brief overviewis sufficient to demonstrate the extraordinary nature of the system. Thereis such a complicated, finely calculated design inside the eye that it isnonsensical to claim that this system could have come about by chance.The system possesses a totally irreducibly complex structure. If even oneof the many molecular parts that enter into a chain reaction with eachother were missing, or did not possess a suitable structure, then the systemwould not function at all.

It is clear that this system deals a heavy blow to Darwin's explanationof life by "chance." Michael Behe makes this comment on the chemistry ofthe eye and the theory of evolution:

Now that the black box of vision has been opened, it is no longer enough foran evolutionary explanation of that power to consider only the anatomicalstructures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the nineteenth century (and aspopularizers of evolution continue to do today). Each of the anatomical stepsand structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involvesstaggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered overwith rhetoric.355

The irreducibly complex structure of the eye not only definitivelydisproves the Darwinist theory, but also shows that life was created witha superior design.

The Lobster Eye

There are many different types of eye in the living world. We areaccustomed to the camera-type eye found in vertebrates. This structureworks on the principle of the refraction of light, which falls onto the lensand is focused on a point behind the lens inside the interior of the eye.

However, the eyes possessed by other creatures work by verydifferent methods. One example is the lobster. A lobster's eye works on aprinciple of reflection, rather than that of refraction.

The most outstanding characteristic of the lobster eye is its surface,which is composed of numerous squares. As shown in the picture, thesesquares are positioned most precisely. As one astronomer commented in



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (287)

Science: "The lobster is the most unrectangular animal I've ever seen. Butunder the microscope a lobster's eye looks like perfect graph paper."356

These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of tiny square tubesforming a structure resembling a honeycomb. At first glance, thehoneycomb appears to be made up of hexagons, although these areactually the front faces of hexagonal prisms. In the lobster's eye, there arethe squares in place of hexagons.

Even more intriguing is that the sides of each one of these squaretubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected lightis focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes inside theeye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus onto a singlepoint.

The extraordinary nature of the design of this system is quiteindisputable. All of these perfect square tubes have a layer that works justlike a mirror. Furthermore, each one of these cells is sited by means of precise

Irreducible Complexity


The lobster eye is composedof numerous squares. Thesewell-arranged squares are infact the ends of tiny squaretubes. The sides of each oneof these square tubes are likemirrors that reflect theincoming light. This reflectedlight is focused onto theretina flawlessly. The sides ofthe tubes inside the eye arelodged at such perfect anglesthat they all focus onto asingle point.

reflector units


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (288)

geometrical alignments, so that they all focus the light at a single point.Michael Land, a scientist and researcher at the University of Sussex in

England, was the first to examine the lobster eye structure in detail. Landstated that the eye structure had a most surprising design.357

It is obvious that the design in the lobster eye presents a greatdifficulty for the theory of evolution. Most importantly, it exemplifies theconcept of "irreducible complexity." If even one of its features—such asthe facets of the eye, which are perfect squares, the mirrored sides of eachunit, or the retina layer at the back—were eliminated, the eye could neverfunction. Therefore, it is impossible to maintain that the eye evolved step-by-step. It is scientifically unjustifiable to argue that such a perfect designas this could have come about haphazardly. It is quite clear that the lobstereye was created as a miraculous system.

One can find further traits in the lobster's eye that nullify theassertions of evolutionists. An interesting fact emerges when one looks atcreatures with similar eye structures. The reflecting eye, of which thelobster's eye is one example, is found in only one group of crustaceans,the so-called long-bodied decapods. This family includes the lobsters,the prawns and shrimp.

The other members of the Crustacea class display "the refracting typeeye structure," which works on completely different principles from thoseof the reflecting type. Here, the eye is made up of hundreds of cells like ahoneycomb. Unlike the square cells in a lobster eye, these cells are eitherhexagonal or round. Furthermore, instead of reflecting light, small lensesin the cells refract the light onto the focus on the retina.

The majority of crustaceans have the refracting eyestructure. According to evolutionist assumptions, all the creatures withinthe class Crustacea should have evolved from the same ancestor. Therefore,evolutionists claim that refracting eye evolved from a refracting eye,which is far more common among the crustacea and of a fundamentallysimpler design.

However, such reasoning is impossible, because both eye structuresfunction perfectly within their own systems and have no room for any"transitional" phase. A crustacean would be left sightless and would beeliminated by natural selection if the refracting lens in its eye were todiminish and be replaced by reflecting mirrored surfaces.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (289)

It is, therefore, certain that both of these eye structures weredesigned and created separately. There is such superb geometricprecision in these eyes that entertaining the possibility of "chance" issimply ludicrious.

The Design in the Ear

Another interesting example of the irreducibly complex organs inliving things is the human ear.

As is commonly known, the hearing process begins with vibrations inthe air. These vibrations are enhanced in the external ear. Research hasshown that that part of the external ear known as the concha works as akind of megaphone, and sound waves are intensified in the externalauditory canal. In this way, the volume of sound waves increasesconsiderably.

Sound intensified in this way enters the external auditory canal. Thisis the area from the external ear to the ear drum. One interesting feature ofthe auditory canal, which is some three and a half centimeters long, is thewax it constantly secretes. This liquid contains an antiseptic propertywhich keeps bacteria and insects out. Furthermore, the cells on the surfaceof the auditory canal are aligned in a spiral form directed towards theoutside, so that the wax always flows towards the outside of the ear as itis secreted.

Sound vibrations which pass down the auditory canal in this wayreach the ear drum. This membrane is so sensitive that it can evenperceive vibrations on the molecular level. Thanks to the exquisitesensitivity of the ear drum, you can easily hear somebody whisperingfrom yards away. Or you can hear the vibration set up as you slowly rubtwo fingers together. Another extraordinary feature of the ear drum isthat after receiving a vibration it returns to its normal state. Calculationshave revealed that, after perceiving the tiniest vibrations, the ear drumbecomes motionless again within up to four thousandths of a second. If itdid not become motionless again so quickly, every sound we hear wouldecho in our ears.

The ear drum amplifies the vibrations which come to it, and sendsthem on to the middle ear region. Here, there are three bones in anextremely sensitive equilibrium with each other. These three bones are

Irreducible Complexity


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (290)

known as the hammer, the anvil and the stirrup; their function is toamplify the vibrations that reach them from the ear drum.

But the middle ear also possesses a kind of "buffer," to reduceexceedingly high levels of sound. This feature is provided by two of thebody's smallest muscles, which control the hammer, anvil and stirrupbones. These muscles enable exceptionally loud noises to be reducedbefore they reach the inner ear. Thanks to this mechanism, we hear soundsthat are loud enough to shock the system at a reduced volume. Thesemuscles are involuntary, and come into operation automatically, in such away that even if we are asleep and there is a loud noise beside us, thesemuscles immediately contract and reduce the intensity of the vibrationreaching the inner ear.

The middle ear, which possesses such a flawless design, needs tomaintain an important equilibrium. The air pressure inside the middle earhas to be the same as that beyond the ear drum, in other words, the sameas the atmospheric air pressure. But this balance has been thought of, anda canal between the middle ear and the outside world which allows anexchange of air has been built in. This canal is the Eustachean tube, ahollow tube running from the inner ear to the oral cavity.


Hammer, anvil and stirrupSemicircular canals

Vestibular nerve


Eustachian tube

EardrumExternal auditory canal


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (291)

The Inner Ear

It will be seen that all we have examined so far consists of thevibrations in the outer and middle ear. The vibrations are constantlypassed forward, but so far there is still nothing apart from a mechanicalmotion. In other words, there is as yet no sound.

The process whereby these mechanical motions begin to be turnedinto sound begins in the area known as the inner ear. In the inner ear is aspiral-shaped organ filled with a liquid. This organ is called the cochlea.

The last part of the middle ear is the stirrup bone, which is linked tothe cochlea by a membrane. The mechanical vibrations in the middle earare sent on to the liquid in the inner ear by this connection.

The vibrations which reach the liquid in the inner ear set up waveeffects in the liquid. The inner walls of the cochlea are lined with smallhair-like structures, called stereocilia, which are affected by this waveeffect. These tiny hairs move strictly in accordance with the motion of theliquid. If a loud noise is emitted, then more hairs bend in a more powerfulway. Every different frequency in the outside world sets up differenteffects in the hairs.

But what is the meaning of this movement of the hairs? What can themovement of the tiny hairs in the cochlea in the inner ear have to do withlistening to a concert of classical music, recognizing a friend's voice,hearing the sound of a car, or distinguishing the millions of other kinds ofsounds?

The answer is most interesting, and once more reveals the complexityof the design in the ear. Each of the tiny hairs covering the inner walls ofthe cochlea is actually a mechanism which lies on top of 16,000 hair cells.When these hairs sense a vibration, they move and push each other, justlike dominos. This motion opens channels in the membranes of the cellslying beneath the hairs. And this allows the inflow of ions into the cells.When the hairs move in the opposite direction, these channels close again.Thus, this constant motion of the hairs causes constant changes in thechemical balance within the underlying cells, which in turn enables themto produce electrical signals. These electrical signals are forwarded to thebrain by nerves, and the brain then processes them, turning them intosound.

Science has not been able to explain all the technical details of this

Irreducible Complexity


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (292)

system. While producing these electrical signals, the cells in the inner earalso manage to transmit the frequencies, strengths, and rhythms comingfrom the outside. This is such a complicated process that science has so farbeen unable to determine whether the frequency-distinguishing systemtakes place in the inner ear or in the brain.

At this point, there is an interesting fact we have to considerconcerning the motion of the tiny hairs on the cells of the inner ear. Earlier,we said that the hairs waved back and forth, pushing each other likedominos. But usually the motion of these tiny hairs is very small. Researchhas shown that a hair motion of just by the width of an atom can beenough to set off the reaction in the cell. Experts who have studied thematter give a very interesting example to describe this sensitivity of thesehairs: If we imagine a hair as being as tall as the Eiffel Tower, the effect onthe cell attached to it begins with a motion equivalent to just 3 centimetersof the top of the tower.358

Just as interesting is the question of how often these tiny hairs canmove in a second. This changes according to the frequency of the sound.As the frequency gets higher, the number of times these tiny hairs canmove reaches unbelievable levels: for instance, a sound of a frequency of20,000 causes these tiny hairs to move 20,000 times a second.


The complex structure of the inner ear. Inside this complicated bone structure is foundboth the system that maintains our balance, and also a very sensitive hearing systemthat turns vibrations into sound.



Vestibular nerve

Tympanic canal

Cochlea duct

Vestibule canal


Vestibular nerveOval window

Posterior semicircular canal


Lateral semicircular


Superior semicircular canal

Common crus

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (293)

Everything we have examined so far has shown us that the earpossesses an extraordinary design. On closer examination, it becomesevident that this design is irreducibly complex, since, in order forhearing to happen, it is necessary for all the component parts of theauditory system to be present and in complete working order. Take awayany one of these—for instance, the hammer bone in the middle ear—ordamage its structure, and you will no longer be able to hear anything. Inorder for you to hear, such different elements as the ear drum, the hammer,anvil and stirrup bones, the inner ear membrane, the cochlea, the liquidinside the cochlea, the tiny hairs that transmit the vibrations from theliquid to the underlying sensory cells, the latter cells themselves, the nervenetwork running from them to the brain, and the hearing center in thebrain must all exist in complete working order. The system cannot develop"by stages," because the intermediate stages would serve no purpose.

The Origin of the Ear According to Evolutionists

The irreducibly complex system in the ear is something thatevolutionists can never satisfactorily explain. When we look at the theoriesevolutionists occasionally propose, we are met by a facile and superficiallogic. For example, the writer Veysel Atayman, who translated the book Im


Theinner wallsof the cochleain the inner ear arelined with tiny hairs.These move in linewith the wave motionset up in the liquid in theinner ear by vibrationscoming from outside. In thisway, the electrical balance ofthe cells to which the hairs areattached changes, and forms thesignals we perceive as "sound."

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (294)

Anfang War der Wasserstoff (In the Beginning was Hydrogen), by theGerman biologist Hoimar von Ditfurth, into Turkish, and who has come tobe regarded as an "evolution expert" by the Turkish media, sums up his"scientific" theory on the origin of the ear and the evidence for it in thisway:

Our hearing organ, the ear, emerged as a result of the evolution of theendoderm and exoderm layers, which we call the skin. One proof of this isthat we feel low sounds in the skin of our stomachs!359

In other words, Atayman thinks that the ear evolved from theordinary skin in other parts of our bodies, and sees our feeling low soundsin our skin as a proof of this.

Let us first take Atayman's "theory," and then the "proof" he offers. Wehave just seen that the ear is a complex structure made up of dozens ofdifferent parts. To propose that this structure emerged with "the evolutionof layers of skin" is, in a word, to build castles in the air. What mutation ornatural selection effect could enable such an evolution to happen? Whichpart of the ear formed first? How could that part, the product ofcoincidence, have been chosen by natural selection even though it had nofunction? How did chance bring about all the sensitive mechanicalbalances in the ear: the ear drum, the hammer, anvil and stirrup bones, themuscles that control them, the inner ear, the cochlea, the liquid in it, thetiny hairs, the movement-sensitive cells, their nerve connections, etc.?

There is no answer to these questions. In fact, to suggest that all thiscomplex structure is just "chance" is actually an attack on humanintelligence. However, in Michael Denton's words, to the Darwinist "theidea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takesprecedence!"360

Beyond the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation,evolutionists really believe in a "magic wand" that brings about the mostcomplex designs by chance.

The "proof" that Atayman supplies for this imaginary theory is evenmore interesting. He says, "Our feeling low sounds in our skin is proof."What we call sound actually consists of vibrations in the air. Sincevibrations are a physical effect, of course they can be perceived by oursense of touch. For that reason it is quite normal that we should be able tofeel high and low sounds physically. Furthermore, these sounds also affect



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (295)

bodies physically. The breaking of glass in a room under high intensitiesof sound is one example of this. The interesting thing is that theevolutionist writer Atayman should think that these effects are a proof ofthe evolution of the ear. The logic Atayman employs is the following: "Theear perceives sound waves, our skin is affected by these vibrations,therefore, the ear evolved from the skin." Following Atayman's logic, onecould also say, "The ear perceives sound waves, glass is also affected bythese, therefore the ear evolved from glass." Once one has left the boundsof reason, there is no "theory" that cannot be proposed.

Other scenarios that evolutionists put forward regarding the originof the ear are surprisingly inconsistent. Evolutionists claim that allmammals, including human beings, evolved from reptiles. But, as we sawearlier, reptiles' ear structures are very different from those ofmammals. All mammals possess the middle ear structure made up of thethree bones that have just been described, whereas there is only one bonein the middle ear of all reptiles. In response to this, evolutionists claimthat four separate bones in the jaws of reptiles changed place by chanceand "migrated" to the middle ear, and that again by chance they took onjust the right shape to turn into the anvil and stirrup bones. According tothis imaginary scenario, the single bone in reptiles' middle ears changedshape and turned into the hammer bone, and the exceedingly sensitiveequilibrium between the three bones in the middle ear was established bychance.361

This fantastical claim, based on no scientific discovery at all (itcorresponds to nothing in the fossil record), is exceedingly self-contradictory. The most important point here is that such an imaginarychange would leave a creature deaf. Naturally, a living thing cannotcontinue hearing if its jaw bones slowly start entering its inner ear. Such aspecies would be at a disadvantage compared to other living things andwould be eliminated, according to what evolutionists themselves believe.

On the other hand, a living thing whose jaw bones were movingtowards its ear would end up with a defective jaw. Such a creature'sability to chew would greatly decrease, and even disappear totally. This,too, would disadvantage the creature, and result in its elimination.

In short, the results which emerge when one examines the structureof ears and their origins clearly invalidate evolutionist assumptions. The

Irreducible Complexity


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (296)

Grolier Encyclopedia, an evolutionist source, makes the admission that "theorigin of the ear is shrouded in uncertainty."362 Actually, anyone whostudies the system in the ear with common sense can easily see that it isthe product of a conscious creation.

The Reproduction of Rheobatrachus SilusIrreducible complexity is not a feature that we only see at the

biochemical level or in complicated organs. Many biological systemspossessed by living things are irreduciblycomplex, and invalidate the theory ofevolution for that reason. Theextraordinary reproductive method ofRheobatrachus silus, a species of frog livingin Australia, is an example of this.

The females of this species use afascinating method to protect their eggsafter fertilization. They swallow them.The tadpoles remain and grow in thestomach for the first six weeks after theyhatch. How is it possible that they canremain in their mothers' stomach thatlong without being digested?

A flawless system has been createdto enable them to do so. First, the femalegives up eating and drinking for those sixweeks, which means the stomach is

reserved solely for the tadpoles. However, another danger is the regularrelease of hydrochloric acid and pepsin in the stomach. These chemicalswould normally quickly kill the offspring. However, this is prevented bya very special measure. The fluids in the stomach of the mother areneutralized by the hormonelike substance prostaglandin E2, which issecreted first by the egg capsules and then by the tadpoles. Hence, theoffspring grow healthily, even though they are swimming in a pool of acid.

How do the tadpoles feed inside the empty stomach? The solution tothis has been thought of, too. The eggs of this species are significantly



The females of this species hidetheir young in their stomachsthroughout the incubationperiod, and then give birth tothem through their mouths.But in order for this to happen,a number of adjustments haveto be made, all at the sametime and with no mistakesallowed: The egg-structure hasto be set up, the stomach acidmust be neutralized, and themothers have to be able to livefor weeks without feeding.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (297)

larger than those of others, as they contain a yolk very rich in proteins,sufficient to feed the tadpoles for six weeks. The time of birth is designedperfectly, as well. The oesophagus of the female frog dilates during birth,just like the vagin* of mammals during delivery. Once the young haveemerged, the oesophagus and the stomach both return to normal, and thefemale starts feeding again.363

The miraculous reproduction system of Rheobatrachus silus explicitlyinvalidates the theory of evolution, since the whole system is irreduciblycomplex. Every step has to take place fully in order for the frogs to survive.The mother has to swallow the eggs, and has to stop feeding completelyfor six weeks. The eggs have to release a hormonelike substance toneutralize stomach acids. The addition of the extra protein-rich yolk to theegg is another necessity. The widening of the female's oesophagus cannotbe coincidental. If all these things failed to happen in the requisitesequence, the froglets would not survive, and the species would faceextinction.

Therefore, this system cannot have developed step-by-step, asasserted by the theory of evolution. The species has existed with this entiresystem intact since its first member came into existence. Another way ofputting it is, they were created.


In this section we have only examined a few examples of the conceptof irreducible complexity. In fact, most organs and systems in living thingspossess the feature. On the biochemical level in particular, systemsfunction by the working together of a number of independent parts, andcannot by any means be reduced to further simplicity. This fact invalidatesDarwinism, which tries to account for the design in life by naturalinfluences. Darwin said that "if it could be demonstrated that any complexorgan existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely breakdown." Today, modern biology has revealed countless examples of this.One can only conclude, then, that Darwinism has "absolutely" brokendown.

Irreducible Complexity


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (298)

he Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is accepted as one of thebasic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions allsystems left on their own tend to become disordered, dispersed, andcorrupted in direct relation to the amount of time that passes.

Everything, whether living or not, wears out, deteriorates, decays,disintegrates, and is destroyed. This is the absolute end that all beings willface one way or another, and according to the law, the process cannot beavoided.

This is something that all of us have observed. For example if youtake a car to a desert and leave it there, you would hardly expect to find itin a better condition when you came back years later. On the contrary, youwould see that its tires had gone flat, its windows had been broken, itschassis had rusted, and its engine had stopped working. The sameinevitable process holds true for living things.

The second law of thermodynamics is the means by which thisnatural process is defined, with physical equations and calculations.

This famous law of physics is also known as the "law of entropy." Inphysics, entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system. A system'sentropy increases as it moves from an ordered, organized, and plannedstate towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned one. The moredisorder there is in a system, the higher its entropy is. The law of entropyholds that the entire universe is unavoidably proceeding towards a moredisordered, unplanned, and disorganized state.

The truth of the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy,has been experimentally and theoretically established. All foremost




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (299)

scientists agree that the law of entropy will remain the principle paradigmfor the foreseeable future. Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of our age,described it as the "premier law of all of science." Sir Arthur Eddingtonalso referred to it as the "supreme metaphysical law of the entireuniverse."364

Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics. Themechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law. Thetheory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms andmolecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, toform extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA,whereupon millions of different living species with even more complexstructures gradually emerged. According to the theory of evolution, this

Evolution And Thermodynamics


If you leave a car out in natural conditions, it will rust and decay. In the same way, withoutan intelligent organization all the systems in the universe would decay. This is anincontrovertible law.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (300)

supposed process—which yields a more planned, more ordered, morecomplex and more organized structure at each stage—was formed all byitself under natural conditions. The law of entropy makes it clear that thisso-called natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics.

Evolutionist scientists are also aware of this fact. J. H. Rush states:

In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast tothe tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where theSecond Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropyand disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order.365

The evolutionist author Roger Lewin expresses the thermodynamicimpasse of evolution in an article in Science:

One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction byevolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decaythrough time, giving less, not more, order.366

Another defender of the theory of evolution, George Stravropoulos,states the thermodynamic impossibility of the spontaneous formation oflife and the impossibility of explaining the existence of complex livingmechanisms by natural laws in the well-known evolutionist journalAmerican Scientist:

Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever formspontaneously, but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the secondlaw. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it will be, and themore assured, sooner or later, its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all lifeprocesses, and even life itself, cannot yet be understood in terms ofthermodynamics or any other exact science, despite the use of confused ordeliberately confusing language.367

As we have seen, the evolution claim is completely at odds with thelaws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics constitutes aninsurmountable obstacle for the scenario of evolution, in terms of bothscience and logic. Unable to offer any scientific and consistent explanationto overcome this obstacle, evolutionists can only do so in theirimagination. For instance, the well-known evolutionist Jeremy Rifkinnotes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a"magical power":

The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energyfor life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (301)

believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value andorder on earth.368

These words well indicate that evolution is a dogmatic belief ratherthan a scientific thesis.

The Misconception About Open Systems

Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that thesecond law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems," andthat "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law. This claim goes nofurther than being an attempt by some evolutionists to distort scientificfacts that invalidate their theory. In fact, a large number of scientistsopenly state that this claim is invalid, and violates thermodynamics. Oneof these is the Harvard scientist John Ross, who also holds evolutionistviews. He explains that these unrealistic claims contain an importantscientific error in the following remarks in Chemical and Engineering News:

...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second lawapplies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated withthe field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second lawof thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure thatthis error does not perpetuate itself.369

An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy andmatter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an opensystem: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, thatthe law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and thatordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple,and inanimate structures.

However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a systemhas an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specificmechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a carneeds an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanismsto convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an energyconversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy stored inpetrol.

The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life

Evolution And Thermodynamics


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (302)

derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only beconverted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energyconversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants andthe digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can livewithout such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversionsystem, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns,parches, or melts.

As can be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energyconversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, beit open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and consciousmechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of theprimeval earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is thequestion of how complex energy-converting mechanisms such asphotosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with moderntechnology, could have come into being on their own.

The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bringabout order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperaturemay become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences.Energy by itself is incapable of making amino acids form the much morecomplex molecules of proteins, or of making proteins form the much morecomplex and organized structures of cell organelles.

Ilya Prigogine and the Myth of the

"Self-Organization of Matter"

Quite aware that the second law of thermodynamics rendersevolution impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculativeattempts to square the circle between the two, in order to be able to claimthat evolution is possible.

One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamicsand evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine.

Starting out from chaos theory, Prigogine proposed a number ofhypotheses in which order develops from chaos (disorder). However,despite all his best efforts, he was unable to reconcile thermodynamics andevolution.

In his studies, he tried to link irreversible physical processes to the



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (303)

evolutionist scenario on the origin of life, but hewas unsuccessful. His books, which arecompletely theoretical and include a largenumber of mathematical propositions whichcannot be implemented in real life and whichthere is no possibility of observing, have beencriticized by scientists, recognized as experts inthe fields of physics, chemistry andthermodynamics, as having no practical andconcrete value.

For instance, P. Hohenberg, a physicist regarded as an expert in thefields of statistical mechanics and pattern formation, and one of theauthors of the book Review of Modern Physics, sets out his comments onPrigogine's studies in the May 1995 edition of Scientific American:

I don't know of a single phenomenon his theory has explained.370

And Cosma Shalizi, a theoretical physicist from WisconsinUniversity, has this to say about the fact that Prigogine's studies havereached no firm conclusion or explanation:

…in the just under five hundred pages of his Self-Organization inNonequilibrium Systems, there are just four graphs of real-world data, and nocomparison of any of his models with experimental results. Nor are hisideas about irreversibility at all connected to self-organization, except fortheir both being topics in statistical physics.371

The studies in the physical field by the determinedly materialistPrigogine also had the intention of providing support for the theory ofevolution, because, as we have seen in the preceding pages, the theory ofevolution is in clear conflict with the entropy principle, i.e., the second lawof thermodynamics. The law of entropy, as we know, definitively statesthat when any organized, and complex structure is left to naturalconditions, then loss of organization, complexity and information willresult. In opposition to this, the theory of evolution claims that unordered,scattered, and unconscious atoms and molecules came together and gaverise to living things with their organized systems.

Prigogine determined to try to invent formulae that would makeprocesses of this kind feasible.

Evolution And Thermodynamics


Ilya Prigogine

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (304)

However, all these efforts resulted in nothing but a series oftheoretical experiments.

The two most important theories that emerged as a result of that aimwere the theory of "self-organization" and the theory of "dissipativestructures." The first of these maintains that simple molecules can organizetogether to form complex living systems; the second claims that ordered,complex systems can emerge in unordered, high-entropy systems. Butthese have no other practical and scientific value than creating new,imaginary worlds for evolutionists.

The fact that these theories explain nothing, and have produced noresults, is admitted by many scientists. The well-known physicist JoelKeizer writes: "His supposed criteria for predicting the stability of far-from-equilibrium dissipative structures fails—except for states very nearequilibrium."372

The theoretical physicist Cosma Shalizi has this to say on the subject:"Second, he tried to push forward a rigorous and well-grounded study ofpattern formation and self-organization almost before anyone else. Hefailed, but the attempt was inspiring."373

F. Eugene Yates, editor of Self-Organizing Systems: The Emergence ofOrder, sums up the criticisms directed at Prigogine by Daniel L. Stein andthe Nobel Prize-winning scientist Phillip W. Anderson, in an essay in thatsame journal:

The authors [Anderson and Stein] compare symmetry-breaking inthermodynamic equilibrium systems (leading to phase change) and insystems far from equilibrium (leading to dissipative structures). Thus, theauthors do not believe that speculation about dissipative structures andtheir broken symmetries can, at present, be relevant to questions of theorigin and persistence of life.374

In short, Prigogine's theoretical studies are of no value in explainingthe origin of life. The same authors make this comment about his theories:

Contrary to statements in a number of books and articles in this field, webelieve that there is no such theory, and it even may be that there are nosuch structures as they are implied to exist by Prigogine, Haken, and theircollaborators.375

In essence, experts in the subject state that none of the thesesPrigogine put forward possess any truth or validity, and that structures of



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (305)

the kind he discusses (dissipative structures) may not even really exist.Prigogine's claims are considered in great detail in Jean Bricmont's

article "Science of Chaos or Chaos in Science?" which makes theirinvalidity clear.

Despite the fact that Prigogine did not manage to find a way tosupport evolution, the mere fact that he took initiatives of this sort wasenough for the evolutionists to accord him the very greatest respect. Alarge number of evolutionists have welcomed Prigogine's concept of "self-organization" with great hope and a superficial bias. Prigogine'simaginary theories and concepts have nevertheless convinced manypeople who do not know much about the subject that evolution hasresolved the dilemma of thermodynamics, whereas even Prigoginehimself has accepted that the theories he has produced for the molecularlevel do not apply to living systems—for instance, a living cell:

The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecularactivity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far frombeing solved.376

These are the speculations that evolutionists have indulged in,encouraged by Prigogine's theories, which were meant to resolve theconflict between evolution and other physical laws.

The Difference Between Organized

and Ordered Systems

If we look carefully at Prigogine and other evolutionists' claims, wecan see that they have fallen into a very important trap. In order to makeevolution fit in with thermodynamics, evolutionists are constantly tryingto prove that a given order can emerge from open systems.

And here it is important to bring out two key concepts to reveal thedeceptive methods the evolutionists use. The deception lies in thedeliberate confusing of two distinct concepts: "ordered" and "organized."

We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely flatbeach on the seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds ofsand, large and small, form bumps on the surface of the sand.

This is a process of "ordering." The seashore is an open system, andthe energy flow (the wave) that enters it can form simple patterns in the

Evolution And Thermodynamics


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (306)

sand, which look completely regular. From the thermodynamic point ofview, it can set up order here where before there was none. But we mustmake it clear that those same waves cannot build a castle on the beach. Ifwe see a castle there, we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it,because the castle is an "organized" system. In other words, it possesses aclear design and information. Every part of it has been made by anintelligent entity in a planned manner.

The difference between the sand and the castle is that the former is anorganized complexity, whereas the latter possesses only order, broughtabout by simple repetitions. The order formed from repetitions is as if anobject (in other words the flow of energy entering the system) had fallenon the letter "a" on a typewriter keyboard, writing "aaaaaaaa" hundreds oftimes. But the string of "a"s in an order repeated in this manner containsno information, and no complexity. In order to write a complex chain ofletters actually containing information (in other words a meaningfulsentence, paragraph or book), the presence of intelligence is essential.

The same thing applies when a gust of wind blows into a dusty room.When the wind blows in, the dust which had been lying in an even layermay gather in one corner of the room. This is also a more ordered situationthan that which existed before, in the thermodynamic sense, but theindividual specks of dust cannot form a portrait of someone on the floorin an organized manner.

This means that complex, organized systems can never come about asthe result of natural processes. Although simple examples of order canhappen from time to time, these cannot go beyond certain limits.

But evolutionists point to this self-ordering which emerges throughnatural processes as a most important proof of evolution, portray suchcases as examples of "self-organization." As a result of this confusion ofconcepts, they propose that living systems could develop of their ownaccord from occurrences in nature and chemical reactions. The methodsand studies employed by Prigogine and his followers, which weconsidered above, are based on this deceptive logic.

However, as we made clear at the outset, organized systems arecompletely different structures from ordered ones. While ordered systemscontain structures formed of simple repetitions, organized systems containhighly complex structures and processes, one often embedded inside the



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (307)

other. In order for such structures to come into existence, there is a needfor intelligence, knowledge, and planning. Jeffrey Wicken, an evolutionistscientist, describes the important difference between these two conceptsin this way:

'Organized' systems are to be carefully distinguished from 'ordered'systems. Neither kind of system is 'random,' but whereas ordered systemsare generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity,organized systems must be assembled element by element according to anexternal 'wiring diagram' with a high information content ... Organization,then, is functional complexity and carries information.377

Ilya Prigogine—maybe as a result of evolutionist wishful thinking—resorted to a confusion of these two concepts, and advertised examples ofmolecules which ordered themselves under the influence of energyinflows as "self-organization."

The American scientists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley andRoger L. Olsen, in their book titled The Mystery of Life's Origin, explain thisfact as follows:

... In each case random movements of molecules in a fluid arespontaneously replaced by a highly ordered behaviour. Prigogine, Eigen,and others have suggested that a similar sort of self-organization may beintrinsic in organic chemistry and can potentially account for the highlycomplex macromolecules essential for living systems. But such analogieshave scant relevance to the origin-of-life question. A major reason is thatthey fail to distinguish between order and complexity...378

And this is how the same scientists explain the logical shallownessand distortion of claiming that water turning into ice is an example ofhow biological order can spontaneously emerge:

It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simplemonomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein andDNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however… The atomicbonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array whenthe thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small bylowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resistcombining at all at any temperature however, much less some orderlyarrangement.379

Prigogine devoted his whole career to reconciling evolution and

Evolution And Thermodynamics


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (308)

thermodynamics, but even he admitted that there was no resemblancebetween the crystallization of water and the emergence of complexbiological structures:

The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility forformation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently lowtemperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance ofordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phasetransitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation ofbiological structures. 380

In short, no chemical or physical effect can explain the origin of life,and the concept of "the self-organization of matter" will remain a fantasy.

Self-Organization: A Materialist Dogma

The claim that evolutionists maintain with the concept of "self-organization" is the belief that inanimate matter can organize itself andgenerate a complex living thing. This is an utterly unscientific conviction:Observation and experiment have incontrovertibly proven that matter hasno such property. The famous English astronomer and mathematician SirFred Hoyle notes that matter cannot generate life by itself, withoutdeliberate interference:

If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organicsystems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in thelaboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent theprimordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature youplease. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kindof radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a yearand see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells]have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time andtrouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothingat all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and othersimple organic chemicals.381

Evolutionary biologist Andrew Scott admits the same fact:

Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern versionof Genesis. The 'fundamental' forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (309)

strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest... Buthow much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remainshopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step,from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject ofeither controversy or complete bewilderment.382

So why do evolutionists continue to believe in scenarios such as the"self-organization of matter," which have no scientific foundation? Whyare they so determined to reject the intelligence and planning that can soclearly be seen in living systems?

The answer to these questions lies hidden in the materialistphilosophy that the theory of evolution is fundamentally constructed on.Materialist philosophy believes that only matter exists, for which reasonliving things need to be accounted for in a manner based on matter. It wasthis difficulty which gave birth to the theory of evolution, and no matterhow much it conflicts with the scientific evidence, it is defended for just thatreason. A professor of chemistry from New York University and DNAexpert, Robert Shapiro, explains this belief of evolutionists about the "self-organization of matter" and the materialist dogma lying at its heart asfollows:

Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gapfrom mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator.This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it isanticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for grantedin the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of lifeby Alexander Oparin.383

The truths that we have been examining in this section clearlydemonstrate the impossibility of evolution in the face of the second law ofthermodynamics. The concept of "self-organization" is another dogmathat evolutionist scientists are trying to keep alive despite all the scientificevidence.

Evolution And Thermodynamics


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (310)

aterialist philosophy lies at the basis of the theory of evolution.Materialism rests on the supposition that everything that exists ismatter. According to this philosophy, matter has existed sinceeternity, will continue to exist forever, and there is nothing but

matter. In order to provide support for their claim, materialists use a logiccalled "reductionism." This is the idea that things which are not observablecan also be explained by material causes.

To make matters clearer, let us take the example of the human mind. Itis evident that the mind cannot be touched or seen. Moreover, it has nocenter in the human brain. This situation unavoidably leads us to theconclusion that mind is a concept beyond matter. Therefore, the being whichwe refer to as "I," who thinks, loves, fears, worries, and feels pleasure orpain, is not a material being in the same way as a sofa, a table or a stone.

Materialists, however, claim that mind is "reducible to matter."According to the materialist claim, thinking, loving, worrying and all ourmental activities are nothing but chemical reactions taking place betweenthe atoms in the brain. Loving someone is a chemical reaction in some cellsin our brain, and fear is another. The famous materialist philosopher KarlVogt is notorious for his assertion that "the brain secretes thought just asthe liver secretes bile."384 Bile, however, is matter, whereas there is noevidence that thought is.

Reductionism is a logical deduction. However, a logical deductioncan be based on solid grounds or on shaky ones. For this reason, thequestion we need to ask is: What happens when reductionism iscompared to scientific data?




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (311)

Nineteenth-century materialist scientists and thinkers thought thatthe answer would be that science verifies reductionism. Twentieth-centuryscience, however, has revealed a very different picture.

One of the most salient feature of this picture is "information," whichis present in nature and can never be reduced to matter.

The Difference between Matter and Information

We earlier mentioned that there is incredibly comprehensiveinformation contained in the DNA of living things. Something as small asa hundred thousandth of a millimeter across contains a sort of "data bank"that specifies all the physical details of the body of a living thing.Moreover, the body also contains a system that reads this information,interprets it and carries out "production" in line with it. In all living cells,the information in the DNA is "read" by various enzymes, and proteins areproduced. This system makes possible the production of millions ofproteins every second, of just the required type for just the places wherethey are needed in our bodies. In this way, dead eye cells are replaced byliving ones, and old blood cells by new ones.

At this point, let us consider the claim of materialism: Is it possiblethat the information in DNA could be reduced to matter, as materialistssuggest? Or, in other words, can it be accepted that DNA is merely acollection of matter, and the information it contains came about as a resultof the random interactions of such pieces of matter?

All the scientific research, experiments and observations carried outin the twentieth century show that the answer to this question is a definite"No." The director of the German Federal Physics and TechnologyInstitute, Prof. Werner Gitt, has this to say on the issue:

A coding system always entails a nonmaterial intellectual process. A physicalmatter cannot produce an information code. All experiences show that everypiece of creative information represents some mental effort and can be tracedto a personal idea-giver who exercised his own free will, and who isendowed with an intelligent mind.... There is no known law of nature, noknown process and no known sequence of events which can causeinformation to originate by itself in matter...385

Werner Gitt's words summarize the conclusions of "information

Information Theory And The End Of Materialism


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (312)

theory," which has been developedin the last 50 years, and which isaccepted as a part ofthermodynamics. Informationtheory investigates the origin andnature of the information in theuniverse. The conclusion reached byinformation theoreticians as a resultof long studies is that "Informationis something different from matter.It can never be reduced to matter.The origin of information andphysical matter must beinvestigated separately."

For instance, let us think of thesource of a book. A book consists ofpaper, ink, and the information itcontains. Paper and ink are materialelements. Their source is againmatter: Paper is made of cellulose,and ink of various chemicals.However, the information in thebook is nonmaterial, and cannothave a material source. The sourceof the information in each book isthe mind of the person who wrote it.

Moreover, this minddetermines how the paper and inkwill be used. A book initially formsin the mind of the writer. The writerbuilds a chain of logic in his mind,and orders his sentences. As asecond step, he puts them intomaterial form, which is to say thathe translates the information in hismind into letters, using a pen, a


It is impossible for the informationinside DNA to have emerged bychance and natural processes.


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (313)

typewriter or a computer. Later, these letters are printed in a publishinghouse, and take the shape of a book made up of paper and ink.

We can therefore state this general conclusion: If physical mattercontains information, then that matter must have been designed by a mindthat possessed the information in question. First there is the mind. Thatmind translates the information it possesses into matter, which constitutesthe act of design.

The Origin of the Information in Nature

When we apply this scientific definition of information to nature, avery important result ensues. This is because nature overflows with animmense body of information (as, for example, in the case of DNA), andsince this information cannot be reduced to matter, it therefore comes froma source beyond matter.

One of the foremost advocates of the theory of evolution, George C.Williams, admits this reality, which most materialists and evolutionists arereluctant to see. Williams has strongly defended materialism for years, butin an article he wrote in 1995, he states the incorrectness of the materialist(reductionist) approach which holds that everything is matter:

Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two moreor less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter…These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the senseusually implied by the term "reductionism." …The gene is a package ofinformation, not an object... In biology, when you're talking about things likegenes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, notphysical objective reality... This dearth of shared descriptors makes matterand information two separate domains of existence, which have to bediscussed separately, in their own terms.386

Therefore, contrary to the supposition of materialists, the source ofthe information in nature cannot be matter itself. The source ofinformation is not matter but a superior Wisdom beyond matter. ThisWisdom existed prior to matter. The possessor of this Wisdom is God, theLord of all the Worlds. Matter was brought into existence, given form, andorganized by Him.

Information Theory And The End Of Materialism


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (314)

Materialist Admissions

We have already described how one of the fundamental principlesthat make up life is "knowledge," and it is clear that this knowledge provesthe existence of an intelligent Creator. The theory of evolution, which triesto account for life as being the result of coincidences in a purely materialworld, and the materialist philosophy it is based on, are quite helpless inthe face of this reality.

When we look at evolutionists' writings, we sometimes see that thishelplessness is openly admitted. One forthright authority on this subject isthe well-known French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé. He is a materialistand an evolutionist, although he sometimes openly admits the quandariesDarwinist theory faces. According to Grassé, the most important truthwhich invalidates the Darwinist account is the knowledge that gives riseto life:

Any living being possesses an enormous amount of "intelligence," verymuch more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals.Today, this "intelligence" is called information, but it is still the same thing. Itis not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on amolecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of every other organellein each cell. This "intelligence" is the sine qua non of life. Where does it comefrom?... This is a problem that concerns both biologists and philosophers,and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it.387

The reason why Pierre-Paul Grassé says, "Science seems incapable ofsolving it," is that he does not want any nonmaterialist explanation to bethought of as "scientific." However, science itself invalidates thehypotheses of materialist philosophy, and proves the existence of aCreator. Grassé and other materialist "scientists" either ignore this reality,or else say, "Science does not explain this." They do this because they arematerialists first and scientists second, and they continue to believe inmaterialism, even if science demonstrates the exact opposite.

For this reason, in order to possess a correct scientific attitude, onehas to distinguish between science and materialist philosophy.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (315)

he information we have considered throughout this book hasshown us that the theory of evolution has no scientific basis, andthat, on the contrary, evolutionist claims conflict with scientificfacts. In other words, the force that keeps evolution alive is not

science. Evolution may be maintained by some "scientists," but behind itthere is another influence at work.

This other influence is materialist philosophy. The theory of evolutionis simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, and those who supportthat philosophy do so despite the scientific evidence.

This relationship between materialism and the theory of evolution isaccepted by "authorities" on these concepts. For example, the discovery ofDarwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of thedialectic in the whole field of organic matter."388

The evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma writes, "Together withMarx's materialist theory of history and society….Darwin hewed the final planks of the platform ofmechanism and materialism."389 And the evolutionarypaleontologist Stephen Jay Gould says, "Darwin applieda consistent philosophy of materialism to hisinterpretation of nature."390

Materialist philosophy is one of the oldest beliefs inthe world, and assumes the absolute and exclusiveexistence of matter as its basic principle. According to thisview, matter has always existed, and everything thatexists consists of matter. This makes belief in a Creator




Karl Marx

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (316)

impossible, of course, because if matter has always existed, and ifeverything consists of matter, then there can be no supramaterial Creatorwho created it.

So the question becomes one of whether the materialist point of viewis correct. One method of testing whether a philosophy is true or false is toinvestigate the claims it makes about science by using scientific methods.For instance, a philosopher in the tenth century could have claimed thatthere was a divine tree on the surface of the moon and that all living thingsactually grew on the branches of this huge tree like fruit, and then fell offonto the earth. Some people might have found this philosophy attractiveand believed in it. But in the twentyfirst century, at a time when man hasmanaged to walk on the moon, it is no longer possible to seriously holdsuch a belief. Whether such a tree exists there or not can be determined byscientific methods, that is, by observation and experiment.

We can therefore investigate by means of scientific methods thematerialist claim that matter has existed for all eternity and that thismatter can organize itself without a supramaterial Creator and cause lifeto begin. When we do this, we see that materialism has already collapsed,because the idea that matter has existed since the beginning of time hasbeen overthrown by the Big Bang theory which shows that the universewas created from nothingness. The claim that matter organized itself andcreated life is the claim that we call the theory of evolution—which thisbook has been examining—and which has been shown to have collapsed.

However, if someone is determined to believe in materialism andputs his devotion to materialist philosophy before everything else, then hewill act differently. If he is a materialist first and a scientist second, he willnot abandon materialism when he sees that evolution is disproved byscience. On the contrary, he will attempt to uphold and defendmaterialism by trying to support evolution, no matter what. This is exactlythe predicament that evolutionists defending the theory of evolution findthemselves in today.

Interestingly enough, they also confess this fact from time to time. Awell-known geneticist and outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontinfrom Harvard University, confesses that he is "a materialist first and ascientist second" in these words:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (317)

accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary,that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create anapparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce materialexplanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifyingto the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannotallow a Divine Foot in the door.391

The term "a priori" that Lewontin uses here is quite important. Thisphilosophical term refers to a presupposition not based on anyexperimental knowledge. A thought is "a priori" when you consider it tobe correct and accept it as so even if there is no information available toconfirm it. As the evolutionist Lewontin frankly states, materialism is an"a priori" commitment for evolutionists, who then try to adapt science tothis preconception. Since materialism definitely necessitates denying theexistence of a Creator, they embrace the only alternative they have tohand, which is the theory of evolution. It does not matter to such scientiststhat evolution has been belied by scientific facts, because they haveaccepted it "a priori" as true.

This prejudiced behavior leads evolutionists to a belief that"unconscious matter composed itself," which is contrary not only toscience, but also to reason. The concept of "the self-organization of matter,"which we examined in an earlier chapter, is an expression of this.

Evolutionist propaganda, which we constantly come across in theWestern media and in well-known and "esteemed" science magazines, isthe outcome of this ideological necessity. Since evolution is considered tobe indispensable, it has been turned into a sacred cow by the circles thatset the standards of science.

Some scientists find themselves in a position where they are forced todefend this far-fetched theory, or at least avoid uttering any word againstit, in order to maintain their reputations. Academics in Western countrieshave to have articles published in certain scientific journals in order toattain and hold onto their professorships. All of the journals dealing withbiology are under the control of evolutionists, and they do not allow anyanti-evolutionist article to appear in them. Biologists, therefore, have toconduct their research under the domination of this theory. They, too, arepart of the established order, which regards evolution as an ideologicalnecessity, which is why they blindly defend all the "impossiblecoincidences" we have been examining in this book.

Distinguishing Between Science And Materialism


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (318)

The Definition of the "Scientific Cause"

The German biologist Hoimar von Ditfurth, a prominentevolutionist, is a good example of this bigoted materialist understanding.After Ditfurth cites an example of the extremely complex composition oflife, this is what he says concerning the question of whether it could haveemerged by chance or not:

Is such a harmony that emerged only out of coincidences possible in reality?This is the basic question of the whole of biological evolution. ...Criticallyspeaking, we can say that somebody who accepts the modern science ofnature has no other alternative than to say "yes," because he aims to explainnatural phenomena by means that are understandable and tries to derivethem from the laws of nature without reverting to supernaturalinterference.392

Yes, as Ditfurth states, the materialist scientific approach adopts as itsbasic principle explaining life by denying "supernatural interference," i.e.,creation. Once this principle is adopted, even the most impossiblescenarios are easily accepted. It is possible to find examples of thisdogmatic mentality in almost all evolutionist literature. Professor AliDemirsoy, the well-known advocate of evolutionary theory in Turkey, isjust one of many. As we have already pointed out, according to Demirsoy,the probability of the coincidental formation of cytochrome-C, an essentialprotein for life, is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing thehistory of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes."393

There is no doubt that to accept such a possibility is actually to rejectthe basic principles of reason and common sense. Even one singlecorrectly formed letter written on a page makes it certain that it waswritten by a person. When one sees a book of world history, it becomeseven more certain that the book has been written by an author. No logicalperson would agree that the letters in such a huge book could have beenput together "by chance."

However, it is very interesting to see that the evolutionist scientistProfessor Ali Demirsoy accepts this sort of irrational proposition:

In essence, the probability of the formation of a cytochrome-C sequence is aslikely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said thatthis has a probability likely to be realized once in the whole universe.Otherwise some metaphysical powers beyond our definition must have



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (319)

acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate for thescientific cause. We thus have to look into the first hypothesis.394

Demirsoy writes that he prefers the impossible, in order not to haveto accept supernatural forces—in other words, the existence of a Creator.However, the aim of science is not to avoid accepting the existence ofsupernatural forces. Science can get nowhere with such an aim. It shouldsimply observe nature, free of all prejudices, and draw conclusions fromthese observations. If these results indicate that there is planning by asupernatural intelligence, then science must accept the fact.

Under close examination, what they call the "scientific cause" isactually the materialist dogma that only matter exists and that all of naturecan be explained by material processes. This is not a "scientific cause," oranything like it; it is just materialist philosophy. This philosophy hidesbehind such superficial words as "scientific cause" and obliges scientists toaccept quite unscientific conclusions. Not surprisingly, when Demirsoy citesanother subject—the origins of the mitochondria in the cell—he openlyaccepts chance as an explanation, even though it is "quite contrary toscientific thought":

The heart of the problem is how the mitochondria have acquired this feature,because attaining this feature by chance even by one individual, requiresextreme probabilities that are incomprehensible... The enzymes providingrespiration and functioning as a catalyst in each step in a different form makeup the core of the mechanism. A cell has to contain this enzyme sequencecompletely, otherwise it is meaningless. Here, despite being contrary tobiological thought, in order to avoid a more dogmatic explanation orspeculation, we have to accept, though reluctantly, that all the respirationenzymes completely existed in the cell before the cell first came in contactwith oxygen.395

The conclusion to be drawn from such pronouncements is thatevolution is not a theory arrived at through scientific investigation. Onthe contrary, the form and substance of this theory were dictated by therequirements of materialistic philosophy. It then turned into a belief ordogma in spite of concrete scientific facts. Again, we can clearly see fromevolutionist literature that all of this effort has a "purpose"—and thatpurpose precludes any belief that living things were not created, nomatter what the price.

Distinguishing Between Science And Materialism


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (320)

Coming to Terms with the Shocks

As we recently stressed, materialism is the belief that categoricallyrejects the existence of the nonmaterial (or the "supernatural"). Science, onthe other hand, is under no obligation to accept such a dogma. The dutyof science is to observe nature and produce results. If these reveal thatnature was created, science has to accept the fact.

And science does reveal the fact that living things were created. This issomething demonstrated by scientific discoveries, which we may call"design." When we examine the fantastically complex structures in livingthings, we see that they possess such extraordinary design features thatthey can never be accounted for by natural processes and coincidences.Every instance of design is evidence for an intelligence; therefore, we mustconclude that life, too, was designed by an intelligence. Since thisintelligence is not present in matter, it must belong to a nonmaterialwisdom—a superior wisdom, an infinite power, that rules all of nature… Inshort, life and all living things were created. This is not a dogmatic belieflike materialism, but the result of scientific observation and experiment.

We see that this conclusion comes as a terrible shock for scientistswho are used to believing in materialism, and that materialism is ascience. See how this shock is described by Michael Behe, one of the mostimportant scientists to stand against the theory of evolution in the worldtoday:

The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shockto us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as theresult of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, andthere is no reason to suppose that we should escape them.396

Mankind has been freed from such dogmas as that the world is flat,or that it is the center of the universe. And it is now being freed from thematerialist and evolutionist dogma that life came about by itself.

The duty that befalls a true scientist in this respect, is to do awaywith materialist dogma and evaluate the origin of life and living thingswith the honesty and objectivity befitting a real scientist. A real scientistmust come to terms with the "shock," and not tie himself to outdatednineteenth-century dogmas and defend impossible scenarios.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (321)

hroughout this book we have examined the scientific evidence forthe origin of life, and what emerges clearly demonstrates that lifewas not the result of chance, as claimed by Darwinism andmaterialist philosophy in general. Living species could not have

evolved from one another through a string of coincidences. On thecontrary, all living things were independently and flawlessly created. Asthe twenty-first century dawns, science offers but one answer to thequestion of the origin of life: Creation.

The important thing is that science has confirmed the truth whichreligion has been witness to from the dawn of history to the present day.God created the universe and all the living things in it from nothing. Andit was God who created man from nothing and blessed him with countlesscharacteristics. This truth has been sent down to man since the dawn oftime by prophets, and revealed in holy books. Every prophet has told thecommunities he addressed that God created man and all living things. TheBible and the Qur'an all tell of the news of creation in the same way.

In the Qur'an, God announces in a number of verses that it was Hewho created the universe and all the living things in it from nothing, andflawlessly ordered them. In this verse, it is declared that the universe andeverything in it was created:

Your Lord is God, who created the heavens and the earth in six daysand then settled Himself firmly on the Throne. He covers the daywith the night, each pursuing the other urgently; and the sun andmoon and stars are subservient to His command. Both creation andcommand belongs to Him. Blessed be God, the Lord of all theworlds. (Qur'an, 7: 54)

Just as God created everything that exists, so he created the world welive in today, and made it capable of supporting life. This fact is revealed incertain verses:




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (322)

As for the earth, We stretched it out and cast firmly embeddedmountains in it and made everything grow in due proportion on it.And We put livelihoods in it both for you and for those you do notprovide for. (Qur'an, 15: 19-20)

And the earth: how We stretched it out and cast firmly embeddedmountains onto it and caused luxuriant plants of every kind togrow in it. (Qur'an, 50: 7-8)

The above verses announce that all plants were created by God. Allplants, known and unknown, all trees, grasses, fruit, flowers, seaweed andvegetables were created by God.

And the same thing applies to animals. All of the millions of differentanimal species that live, or have ever lived, on earth, were created by God.Fish, reptiles, birds, mammals, horses, giraffes, squirrels, deer, sparrows,eagles, dinosaurs, whales, and peaco*cks were all created from nothing byGod, the Lord of infinite art and knowledge. God's creation of the differentspecies of living things is mentioned in a number of verses:

God created every animal from water. Some of them go on theirbellies, some of them on two legs, and some on four. God createswhatever He wills. God has power over all things. (Qur'an, 24: 45)

And He created livestock. There is warmth for you in them, andvarious uses and some you eat. (Qur'an, 16: 5)

And God created man in exactly the same way. It is revealed in theQur'an that Adam, the first man, was created from mud, and then allsubsequent people came into existence from each other by a simple liquid(sperm). Furthermore, man had a soul breathed into him, unlike all theother species in the world. The Qur'an has this to say about the truth of thecreation of man:

He who has created all things in the best possible way. Hecommenced the creation of man from clay; then produced his seedfrom an extract of base fluid. (Qur'an, 32: 7-9)

Man's Duty

As we made clear at the start, science has confirmed the truth ofcreation, as handed down in the Qur'an, because scientific discoveries



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (323)

show that living things possess extraordinary design, and that they werebrought into existence by a superior intelligence and knowledge.Biological observations show that one living species cannot turn intoanother, and that for that reason, if one could go back in time, one wouldeventually come across, for each species, the first individuals that everexisted and that were created from nothing. For example, since eagleshave always been eagles, if we could go back in time, we would arrive atthe first pair, or group, of eagles who were created from nothing. In fact,the fossil record confirms this, and shows that different living speciessuddenly emerged with all their particular, individual features. Theseliving things may have been created at different points in time and settledin different parts of the world, but this all happened through the will ofGod.

In short, science confirms the proof we have considered that livingthings were all created by God.

However, science goes no further than that. It is the Qur'an, the bookthat has come down to us from God, that introduces us to the essence ofGod and is the sole source of truth on every subject that tells us why wewere created and what the reason for our lives is.

The Qur'an says that the reason for our creation is so that we mightknow God, our Lord, and serve Him. In one verse, He says, "I only createdjinn and man to worship me." (Qur'an, 51: 56) The duty falling toeveryone who grasps the truth of creation is to live in accordance with thatverse, and to say, "Why indeed should I not worship Him who broughtme into being, Him to Whom you will be returned?" (Qur'an, 36: 22), likeevery believer, as described in the Qur'an.

As for those who still deny God and the truth of creation, despite allthe evidence before their eyes, their minds have been conquered by theirown pride. One of God's holy verses describes how helpless andpowerless these individuals really are:

Mankind! an example has been made, so listen to it carefully. Thosewhom you call upon besides God are not even able to create asingle fly, even if they were to join together to do it. And if a flysteals something from them, they cannot get it back. How feeble areboth the seeker and the sought! (Qur'an, 22: 73)



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (324)


The chapter you are now about to read

reveals a crucial secret of your life. You

should read it very attentively and

thoroughly for it is concerned with a

subject that is liable to make a fundamental

change in your outlook on the external

world. The subject of this chapter is not just

a point of view, a different approach, or a

traditional philosophical thought: it is a fact

which everyone, believing or unbelieving,

must admit and which is also proven by

science today.


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (325)

he concept of "the nature of matter" is one liable to change one'soutlook on life, and indeed, one's whole life, once its essence isknown. This subject is directly related to the meaning of your life,your expectations from the future, your ideals, passions, desires,

plans, the concepts you esteem, and the material things you possess. The subject matter of this chapter, "the nature of matter," is not a

subject raised today for the first time. Throughout the history of humanity,many thinkers and scientists have discussed this concept. Right from thestart, people have been divided into two groups on this issue; one group,known as materialists, based their philosophies and lives on thesubstantial existence of matter and lived by deceiving themselves.Another group acted sincerely, and being unafraid of thinking moreprofoundly, led their lives by grasping the essence of the "things" to whichthey were exposed and the deep meaning lying beyond them. However,advances in the science and technology of our age have finally ended thiscontroversy by indisputably proving the self-evident fact that matter hasno substantial existence.

The Long Discussed Question:

What is the Real Nature of Matter?

Someone who conscientiously and wisely contemplates the universehe inhabits, the galaxies, the planets, the balance therein, the willpower inthe structure of the atom, the order he comes across in every part of theuniverse, the countless living species around him, the way they live, theiramazing traits, and finally his own body, will instantly realize that there is

The Secret Beyond Matter




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (326)

something extraordinary about all these things. He will readilyunderstand that this perfect order and the subtleties around him could nothave originated by themselves, but must certainly have had a Creator. Asa matter of fact, Darwinism and the materialist philosophy which denycreation are great errors as we have analysed throughout this book.

By Whom then were all these things created?It is obvious that "the fact of creation," which is self-evident in every

domain of the universe, cannot be an outcome of the universe itself. Forexample, a peaco*ck, with its coloring and design implying a matchless art,cannot have created itself. The miniscule equilibriums in the universecannot have created or organized themselves. Neither plants, humans,bacteria, erythrocytes (red-blood corpuscles), nor butterflies can havecreated themselves. Moreover, the possibility that all these entities couldhave originated "by chance" is not even imaginable.

It is evident that everything that we see has been created, but none ofthe things we see can themselves be "creators." The Creator is differentfrom and superior to all that we see with our eyes. He is invisible, buteverything He has created reveals His existence and attributes.

This is the point at which those who deny the existence of Goddemur. Such people have been conditioned not to believe in His existenceunless they see Him with their eyes. In their view, there is a heap of matterthroughout the whole universe, spreading out until eternity and God isnowhere in this heap of matter. Even if they traveled thousands of lightyears, they think they would not meet God. This is why they deny Hisexistence. Therefore, these people, who disregard the fact of "creation," areforced to reject the actuality of "creation" manifest throughout the universeand try to prove that the universe and the living things in it have not beencreated. However, it is impossible for them to do this, because everycorner of the universe overflows with the evidence of God's being.

The basic mistake of those who deny God is shared by many peoplewho do not really deny the existence of God but have a wrong perceptionof Him. They do not deny the signs of "creation" which are everywheremanifest but have superstitious beliefs about "where" God is. Most of themthink that God is up in the "sky." They tacitly and wrongly imagine thatGod is behind a very distant planet and interferes with "worldly affairs"once in a while, or perhaps does not intervene at all. They imagine that He



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (327)

created the universe and then left it to itself, leaving people to determinetheir fates for themselves.

Still others have heard the fact stated in the Qur'an that God is"everywhere," but they cannot conceive of what exactly this means. Inaccordance with the distorted thought in their subconscious, they thinkthat God surrounds everything—like radio waves or like an invisible,intangible gas.

However, this and other beliefs that are unclear about "where" God is(and maybe because of that deny Him) are all based on a common mistake.They are prejudiced without reason and so are liable to have wrongopinions of God.

What is this prejudice?This prejudice is about the nature and characteristics of matter. Man

is so conditioned in his suppositions about the existence of matter that henever thinks about whether it does or does not exist, or whether it is onlya shadow. Modern science demolishes this prejudice and discloses a very

The Secret Beyond Matter


Impulses from anobject areconverted intoelectrical signalsand cause aneffect in thebrain. When we"see," we in factview the effectsof these electricalsignals in ourmind. Whateverwe see, hear,know, recognizeor, get used to inthis worldthroughout ourlives is merelycomprised ofelectrical signalsour sense organstransmit to ourbrain.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (328)

important and revealing reality. In the following pages, we will clarify thisgreat reality to which the Qur'an points.

We Live in a Universe Presented to

Us by Our Perceptions

According to Albert Camus, you can grasp and count happeningsthrough science, but you cannot grasp the universe. Here is the tree, youfeel its hardness; here is the water, you taste it. Here is the wind, it coolsyou. You have to be satisfied with all that.397

All the information that we have about the realness of the world inwhich we live is conveyed to us by our five senses. The world we know ofconsists of what our eyes see, our hands feel, our noses smell, our tonguestaste, and our ears hear. We never think that the "external world" could beanything other than that which our senses present to us, as we have beendependent solely on those senses since birth.

Modern research in many different fields of science points to a verydifferent fact and creates serious doubt about our senses and the worldthat we perceive with them.

According to scientific findings, what we perceive as "the externalworld," is only the result of the brain being stimulated by the electricalsignals sent to it by our sense organs. The multi-hued colors you perceivewith your sense of sight, the feeling of hardness or softness conveyed byyour sense of touch, the tastes you experience on your tongue, thedifferent notes and sounds you hear with your ear, the variety of scentsyou smell, your work, your home, all your possessions, the lines of thisbook, and moreover, your mother, your father, your family, the wholeworld you have always seen, known, got used to throughout your life, arecomprised purely and simply of electrical signals sent by your senseorgans to the brain. Though this seems difficult on the first analysis, this isa scientific fact. The views of renowned philosophers like Bertrand Russelland L. Wittgeinstein on this subject are as follows:

For instance, whether a lemon truly exists or not and how it came to existcannot be questioned or investigated. A lemon consists merely of a tastesensed by the tongue, an odor sensed by the nose, a color and shape sensedby the eye; and only these features of it can be subject to examination and



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (329)

assessment. Science can never know the physical world.398

Frederick Vester explains the point that science has reached on thissubject:

The statements of certain scientists that "man is an image, everythingexperienced is temporary and deceptive, and this universe is a shadow,"seem to be proven by science in our day.399

The thoughts of the famous philosopher, George Berkeley, on thesubject can be summarized like this:

We believe in the existence of objects just because we see and touch them,and they are reflected to us by our perceptions. However, our perceptions areonly ideas in our mind. Thus, objects we captivate by perceptions arenothing but ideas, and these ideas are essentially in nowhere but our mind…Since all these exist only in the mind, then it means that we are beguiled bydeceptions when we imagine the universe and things to have an existenceoutside the mind. So, none of the surrounding things have an existence outof our mind.400

In order to clarify the subject, let us consider our sense of sight, whichprovides us with the most extensive information about the external world.

The Secret Beyond Matter


Bundles of light coming from an object fall on the retina upside-down. Here, theimage is converted into electrical signals and transmitted to the center of vision atthe back of the brain. Since the brain is insulated from light, it is impossible forlight to reach the center of vision. This means that we view a vast world of lightand depth in a tiny spot that is insulated from light. Even at the moment when wefeel the light and heat of a fire, the inside of our brain is pitch dark and itstemperature never changes.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (330)

How Do Our Sense Organs Work?

Few people think deeply on how the act of seeing takes place.Everyone answers the question "How do we see?" by saying "with oureyes for sure." However, when we look at the technical explanation of theprocess of seeing, it seems that that is not the case. The act of seeing isrealized progressively. Light clusters (photons) travel from the object tothe eye and pass through the lens at the front of the eye where they arerefracted and fall upside down on the retina at the back of the eye. Here,impinging light is turned into electrical signals that are transmitted byneurons to a tiny spot called the centre of vision in the back of the brain.The act of seeing actually takes place in this tiny spot in the posterior partof the brain, which is pitch-dark and completely insulated from light.

Now, let us reconsider this seemingly ordinary and unremarkableprocess. When we say, "we see," we are, in fact, seeing the effects ofimpulses reaching our eyes and induced in our brain, after they aretransformed into electrical signals. That is, when we say, "we see," we areactually observing the aggregate of the electrical signals in our mind.Therefore, seeing is not a process terminating in the eye; our eye is only asense organ serving as a means in the process of seeing.

All the images we view in our lives are formed in our center of vision,in the size of a nut, which only comprises a few cubic centimeters of thevolume of the brain. Both the book you are now reading, and the screen ofyour computer, and the boundless landscape you see when you gaze at thehorizon, and the seamless sea, and a crowd of people who participate in amarathon, fit into this tiny space. Another point that has to be kept in mindis that, as we have noted before, the brain is insulated from light; its insideis absolutely dark. The brain has no contact with light itself. The placecalled the center of vision is a place which is pitch-dark, where light neverreaches, so dark that maybe you have never been somewhere like it before.However, you watch a bright, multi-colored world in this completedarkness. A multi-colored nature, a glowing landscape, all tones of green,the colors of fruits, the patterns on flowers, the brightness of the sun, allthe people in a crowded street, vehicles moving fast in the traffic,hundreds of clothes in a shopping mall, and everything else are all imagesformed in this pitch dark place. Even the formation of colors in thisdarkness has still not been discovered. Klaus Budzinski comments:



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (331)

… Chromatists cannot answer the question of how the network in the eyethat perceives light as well as colours transmits this information to the brainthrough sight nerves and what kind of physical-physiological stimulationsthis creates in the brain.401

We can explain this interesting situation with an example. Let ussuppose that in front of us there is a burning candle. We can sit oppositethis candle and watch it at length. However, during this period, our brainnever has any direct contact with the original light of the candle. Even aswe feel the heat and light of the candle, the inside of our brain iscompletely dark and its temperature never changes. We watch a colorfuland bright world inside our dark brain.

The same is true of sunlight. Your eye's being dazzled in sunlight oryour feeling the scorching heat on your skin does not change the fact thatthese are mere perceptions and the center of vision in your brain iscompletely dark.

R. L. Gregory gives the following explanation about the miraculousaspects of seeing — something that we take so much for granted:

We are so familiar with seeing, that it takes a leap of imagination to realizethat there are problems to be solved. But consider it. We are given tinydistorted upside-down images in the eyes, and we see separate solid objectsin surrounding space. From the patterns of simulation on the retinas weperceive the world of objects, and this is nothing short of a miracle.402

The same situation applies to all our other senses. Sound, touch, taste,and smell are all perceived as electrical signals in the brain.

The sense of hearing works in a similar manner to that of sight. Theouter ear picks up sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middleear. The middle ear transmits the sound vibrations to the inner ear andintensifies them. The inner ear translates the vibrations into electricalsignals, which it sends into the brain. Just as with the eye, the act ofhearing finally takes place in the center of hearing in the brain.

What is true of the eye is also true of the ear, that is, the brain isinsulated from sound just as it is from light. Therefore, no matter hownoisy it is outside, the inside of the brain is completely silent.Nevertheless, even the subtlest sounds are perceived in the brain. Thisprocess is so precise that the ear of a healthy person hears everythingwithout any atmospheric noise or interference. In your brain, which is

The Secret Beyond Matter


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (332)

insulated from sound, and where there is dead silence, you listen to thesymphonies of an orchestra, hear all the noises of a crowded place, andperceive all the sounds within a wide frequency range, from the rustlingof a leaf to the roar of a jet plane. However, if the sound level in your brainwere to be measured by a sensitive device at that moment, it would beseen that complete silence prevailed within it.

Our perception of odor works in a similar way. Volatile moleculesemitted by things such as vanilla or a rose reach the receptors in thedelicate hairs in the epithelial region of the nose and become involved inan interaction. This interaction is transmitted to the brain as electricalsignals and perceived as smell. Everything that we smell, be it pleasant orunpleasant, is nothing but the brain's perception of the interactions ofvolatile molecules after they have been transformed into electrical signals.You perceive the scent of a perfume, a flower, a food that you like, the sea,or other odors you like or dislike, in your brain. The molecules themselvesnever reaches the brain. Just as with sound and vision, what reaches yourbrain as you sense an odor is simply a set of electrical signals. In otherwords, all the odors that you have assumed—since you were born—tobelong to external objects are just electrical signals that you experiencethrough your sense organs. Berkeley also said:

At the beginning, it was believed that colours, odours, etc., "really exist," butsubsequently such views were renounced, and it was seen that they onlyexist in dependence on our sensations.403

Similarly, there are four different types of chemical receptors in thefront part of a human being's tongue. These pertain to the four tastes: salty,sweet, sour, and bitter. Our taste receptors transform these perceptionsinto electrical signals through a chain of chemical processes and transmitthem to the brain. These signals are perceived as taste by the brain. Thetaste you experience when you eat a chocolate bar or a fruit that you likeis the interpretation of electrical signals by the brain. You can never reachthe object in the external world; you can never see, smell or taste thechocolate itself. For instance, if the taste nerves that travel to the brainwere cut, the taste of things you ate would not reach your brain; youwould completely lose your sense of taste.

At this point, we come across another fact: We can never be sure that what we experience when we taste a food



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (333)

and what another person experiences when he tastes the same food, orwhat we perceive when we hear a voice and what another personperceives when he hears the same voice are the same. Lincoln Barnett saysthat no one can know whether another person perceives the color red orhears the note C in same way as does he himself.404

We only know as much as our sense organs relate to us. It isimpossible for us to reach the physical reality outside us directly. It is againthe brain that interprets it. We can never reach the original. Therefore, evenwhen we talk about the same thing, others' brains may be perceivingsomething different. The reason for this is that what is perceived dependson the perceiver.

The same logic applies to our sense of touch. When we touch anobject, all information that will help us recognize the external world andthe objects in it is transmitted to the brain by the sense nerves on the skin.The feeling of touch is formed in our brain. Contrary to general belief, theplace where we perceive the sense of touch is not at our fingertips, or onour skins, but at the center of touch perception in our brains. Because ofthe brain's interpretation of the electrical stimuli coming to it from objects,we experience those objects differently, e.g. they may be hard or soft, hotor cold. We derive all the details that help us recognize an object fromthese stimuli. The renowned philosopher Bertrand Russell comments inrelation to this:

As to the sense of touch when we press the table with our fingers, that is anelectric disturbance on the electrons and protons of our fingertips,produced, according to modern physics, by the proximity of the electronsand protons in the table. If the same disturbance in our finger-tips arose in anyother way, we should have the sensations, in spite of there being no table.405

That the outside world can be identified completely through thesenses is a scientific fact. In his book, A Treatise Concerning the Principles ofHuman Knowledge, George Berkeley comments as follows:

By sight I have the ideas of light and colours, with their several degrees andvariations. By touch I perceive hard and soft, heat and cold, motion andresistance. ...Smelling furnishes me with odours; the palate with tastes; andhearing conveys sounds. ...And as several of these are observed toaccompany each other, they come to be marked by one name, and so to bereputed as one thing. Thus, for example, a certain colour, taste, smell, figure

The Secret Beyond Matter


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (334)

and consistence having been observed to go together, are accounted onedistinct thing, signified by the name apple; other collections of ideasconstitute a stone, a tree, a book, and the like sensible things. . .406

Therefore, by processing the data in the centers of vision, sound,smell, taste and touch, our brains, throughout our lives, do not confrontthe "original" of the matter existing outside us but rather the copy formedinside our brain. It is at this point that we are misled by assuming thesecopies are instances of the real matter outside us. However, as seenthroughout the book, there are also thinkers and scientists who have notbeen misled by such a misconception, and who have realized this fact.

Even Ali Demirsoy, one of the most famous Turkish materialists, alsoconfessed this truth:

In truth, there is neither light as we see it, nor sound as we hear it, nor heatas we sense it in the universe. Our sense organs mislead us between theexternal world and brain and give rise to interpretations which are irrelevantto reality in the brain.407

Do We Spend Our Entire Life in Our Brains?

From the physical facts described so far, we may conclude thefollowing. Everything we see, touch, hear, and perceive as "matter," "theworld" or "the universe" is only electrical signals occurring in our brain.Therefore, someone drinking an orange juice does not confront the actualdrink but its perception in the brain. The object considered by the onlookerto be a "drink" actually consists of electrical impressions of the orangecolor, sweet taste, and liquid feeling of the orange juice in the brain. Thesituation is no different while eating chocolate; the electrical datapertaining to the shape, taste, odor, and hardness of the chocolate areperceived in the brain. If the sight nerves traveling to the brain weresuddenly to be severed, the image of the chocolate would just as suddenlydisappear. A disconnection in the nerve traveling from the sensors in thenose to the brain would completely interrupt the sense of smell.

Put simply, the tree that you see, the objects you smell, the chocolateyou taste, and the orange juice you drink are nothing but the brain'sinterpretation of electrical signals.

Another point to be considered, which might be deceptive, is the



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (335)

sense of distance. For example, the distance between you and this book isonly a feeling of space formed in your brain. Objects that seem to bedistant from the human viewpoint also exist only in the brain. Forinstance, someone who watches the stars in the sky assumes that they aremillions of light-years away from him. Yet, what he "sees" are really thestars inside himself, in his center of vision. During a trip, one looks at thecity below from a plane and thinks that it is kilometers away from him.However, the whole length and breadth of the city are inside one's brainalong with all the people in it.

Today, all scientific data prove that the image we perceive is formedin our brain.

There is yet another misleading, but very important factor. While youread these lines, you are, in truth, not inside the room you assume yourselfto be in; on the contrary, the room is inside you. Your seeing your bodymakes you think that you are inside it. However, you must remember thatyour body, too, is an image formed inside your brain. Bertrand Russellstates the following on the subject:

What we can say, on the basis of physics itself, is that what we have hithertocalled our body is really an elaborate scientific construction notcorresponding to any physical reality.408

The truth is very clear. If we can feel the external world only throughour sense organs, then there would be no consistent reason for us toconsider our body to be separate from the external world, that is, toconcede that our body has a separate existence.

Our body is also presented to us by the electrical stimulations(impulses) reaching our brain. These impulses, just like all others, areconverted into certain sensations, or feelings in our brain. For instance, thefeeling of touch occurring when we touch our body with our hand, thefeeling of weight caused by the force of gravity, the feeling of seeingcaused by the light rays reflected from our body, etc… all these areassessed as a "collection of feelings" by the brain, and we "feel" our body.As revealed by these scientific facts, throughout our lives, we are exposednot to our original body, but to the impulses reaching our brain pertainingto our body. These impulses are identified as "our body" in our perception.

The same applies to all your other perceptions. For instance, whenyou think that you hear the sound of the television in the next room, you

The Secret Beyond Matter


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (336)

are actually experiencing the sound inside your brain. You can proveneither that a room exists next to yours, nor that a sound comes from thetelevision in that room. Both the sound you think to be coming frommeters away and the conversation of a person right next to you areperceived in a center of hearing in your brain which is only a few squarecentimeters in size. Apart from within this center of perception, no conceptsuch as right, left, front or behind exists. That is, sound does not come toyou from the right, from the left or from the air; there is no direction fromwhich sound comes.

The smells that you perceive are like that too; none of them reachesyou from a great distance. You suppose that the end-effects formed in yourcenter of smell are the smell of the objects in the external world. However,just as the image of a rose is in your center of vision, so the smell of therose is in your center of smell; there is neither a rose nor an odor pertainingto it in the external world.

The same facts hold true also for heat. One of the foremostphilosophers of his age, George Berkeley, clarifies with the followingexample that senses like coldness and hotness cannot be judged to existoutside the mind:

Suppose now one of your hands hot, and the other cold, and that they areboth at once put into the same vessel of water, in an intermediate state;will not the water seem cold to one hand, and warm to the other?409

Berkeley is right in his analysis. Had heat or cold been present in thematter itself, both hands would have felt the same thing.

The "external world" presented to us by our perceptions is merely acollection of electrical signals reaching our brains. Throughout our lives,our brains process and interpret these signals and we live withoutrecognizing that we are mistaken in assuming that these are the originalversions of things existing in the "external world." We are misled becausewe can never reach these entities themselves by means of our senses.This point is extremely important.

Moreover, again our brains interpret and attribute meaning to signalsthat we assume to be the "external world." For example, let us consider thesense of hearing. Our brains transform the sound waves in the "externalworld" into a rhythm. That is to say, music is also a perception created byour brains. In the same manner, when we see colors, what reaches our eyes



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (337)

is merely a set of electrical signals of differentwavelengths. Again our brains transform thesesignals into colors. There are no colors in the"external world." Neither is the lemon yellow, noris the sky blue, nor are the trees green. They are asthey are just because we perceive them to be so.The "external world" depends entirely on theperceiver. Color blindness is important evidencefor this. Even the slightest defect in the retina ofthe eye causes color blindness. Some peopleperceive blue as green, and some red as blue. Atthis point, it does not matter whether the objectexternally is colored or not.

According to the prominent thinkerBerkeley:

If the same things can be red and hot for some andthe contrary for others, this means that we areunder the influence of misconceptions and that"things" only exist in our brains.410

In conclusion, the reason we see objects ascolored is not because they are colored or because they have anindependent material existence outside ourselves. Had colors existedoutside us, a deficiency called color blindness would not have existed. Thetruth of the matter is rather that all the qualities we ascribe to objects areinside us and not in the "external world."

Is the Existence of the "External World" Indispensable?

So far, we have been speaking repeatedly of the existence of a worldof perceptions formed in our brains, and making the assertion that we cannever actually reach this world. Then, how can we be sure that such aworld really exists?

Actually, we cannot. Since each object is only a collection ofperceptions and those perceptions exist only in the mind, it is moreaccurate to say that the only world that really exists is the world ofperceptions. The only world we know of is the world that exists in ourmind: the one that is designed, recorded, and made vivid there; the one, in

The Secret Beyond Matter


The findings of modernphysics show that theuniverse is a collection ofperceptions. Thus the well-known science journal NewScientist asks: "BeyondReality: Is the UniverseReally a Frolic of PrimalInformation and Matter Justa Mirage?"

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (338)

short, that is created within our mind. This is the only world of which wecan be sure.

We can never prove that the perceptions we observe in our brain havematerial correlates. Those perceptions could conceivably be coming froman "artificial" source.

We can visualize this with such an example: First, let us imagine that we take your brain out of your body and

keep it alive artificially in a glass cube. Next to it, let us place a computerwith which all kinds of electrical signals can be produced. Then, let usartificially produce and record in this computer the electrical signals of thedata related to a setting, such as image, sound, odor, hardness-softness,taste, and body image. This experiment with your brain, which we havetaken out of your body, will be carried out on the peak of a desertedmountain. Finally, let us connect the computer to the brain with electrodesthat will function as nerves and send the pre-recorded data to your brainwhich is now high above the clouds. As your brain (which is literally you)perceives these signals, it will see and experience the correspondingsetting. For instance, let us suppose that every detail that comes to mindabout a football match in a stadium be produced or recorded—in a way tobe perceived through the sense organs. In your brain, all by itself at thesummit of the mountain, with this recording instrument connected to it,you would feel as if you were living in this artificially created setting. Youwould think that you were at the match. You would cheer, you wouldsometimes get angry and sometimes be pleased. Moreover, you wouldoften bump into other people because of the crowd, and therefore feel theirexistence, too. Most interestingly, everything would be so vivid that youwould never doubt the existence of this setting or your body. Or if we sentto your brain the electrical correlates of senses such as seeing, hearing, andtouching which you perceive while sitting at a table, your brain wouldthink of itself as a businessman sitting in his office. This imaginary worldwill continue so long as the stimulations keep coming from the computer.It will never become possible to understand that you consist of nothingbut your brain. This is because what is needed to form a world within yourbrain is not the existence of a real world but rather the stimuli. It isperfectly possible that these stimuli could be coming from an artificialsource, such as a recording device or a different kind of perception source.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (339)

Experiments carried out about this subject demonstrate this fact. In the U.S.A., Dr. White from Cleveland Hospital, along with his

colleagues, all experts in electronics, performed a great feat in making"Cyborg" survive. What Dr. White succeeded in doing was isolating anape's brain from his skull and feeding it with oxygen and blood. The brain,which was connected to an artificially produced "Heart Lung Machine,"was kept alive for five hours. The device, called an ElectroEncephalogram, to which the isolated brain was connected, identified inE.E.G. records that the noises made in the surroundings were heard bythis brain and that it reacted to them.411

As we have seen, it is quite possible that we perceive an externalworld through externally given artificial stimuli. The symbols you wouldperceive with your five senses are sufficient for this. Other than thesesymbols, there is nothing left of the external world.

It is indeed very easy for us to be misled into believing perceptions,without any material correlates, to be real. We often experience this feelingin our dreams, in which we experience events, see people, objects andsettings that seem completely real. However, they are all, withoutexception, mere perceptions. There is no basic difference between the"dream" and the "real" world; both of them are experienced in the brain.

Who Is the Perceiver?

As we have related so far, there is no doubt that the world we thinkwe inhabit and know as the "external world" is perceived inside our brain.However, here arises the question of primary importance. Is the will thatperceives all these perceptions the brain itself?

When we analyze the brain, we see that it is comprised of lipid andprotein molecules, which also exist in other living organisms. As is wellknown, the essence of these proteins is, in fact, atoms. This means thatwithin the piece of meat we call our "brain," there is nothing to observe theimages, to constitute consciousness, or to create the being we call "myself."

R. L. Gregory refers to a mistake people make in relation to theperception of images in the brain:

There is a temptation, which must be avoided, to say that the eyes producepictures in the brain. A picture in the brain suggests the need of some kind

The Secret Beyond Matter


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (340)

of internal eye to see it—but this would need a further eye to see its picture…and so on, in an endless regress of eyes and pictures. This is absurd.412

This is the very point that puts materialists, who do not holdanything but matter to be true, in a quandary: to whom belongs "the eyeinside" that sees, that interprets what it sees and reacts?

Karl Pribram also focused on this important question, about who theperceiver is, in the world of science and philosophy:

Philosophers since the Greeks have speculated about the "ghost" in themachine, the "little man inside the little man" and so on. Where is the I—theentity that uses the brain? Who does the actual knowing? Or, as SaintFrancis of Assisi once put it, "What we are looking for is what is looking."413

Now, think of this: The book in your hand, the room you are in, inbrief, all the images in front of you are seen inside your brain. Is it theatoms that see these images? Blind, deaf, unconscious atoms? How wouldlifeless and unconscious atoms feel, how would they see? Why did someatoms acquire this quality whereas others did not? Do our acts of thinking,comprehending, remembering, being delighted, being unhappy, andeverything else consist of the electrochemical reactions between theseatoms? No, the brain cannot be the will that performs all of these.

In previous sections, we have pointed out that our body is alsoincluded in the collection of perceptions we call the "external world."Therefore, since our brain is also a part of our body, it is also a part of thatcollection of perceptions. Since the brain itself is a perception, therefore, itcannot be the will that perceives other perceptions.

In his book, The ABC of Relativity, Bertrand Russell focuses attentionon this subject by saying:

Of course, if matter in general is to be interpreted as a group of occurrences,this must apply also to the eye, the optic nerve and the brain.414

It is clear that the being that sees, hears, senses, and feels is a supra-material being. For matter cannot think, feel, be happy or unhappy. It isnot possible to do all these with the body alone. Therefore, this being isneither matter, nor image, but it is "alive." This being relates to the "screen"in front of it by using the image of our body.

An example about dreams will illuminate the subject further. Let usimagine (in accordance with what has been said so far) that we see the



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (341)

dream within our brain. In the dream, we will have an imaginary body, animaginary arm, an imaginary eye, and an imaginary brain. If during ourdream, we were asked, "Where do you see?" we would answer, "I see inmy brain." If we were asked where our brain is and what it looks like, wewould hold our imaginary head on our imaginary body with ourimaginary hand and say, "My brain is a hunk of meat in my head weighinghardly more than a kilo."

Yet, actually there is not any brain to talk about, but an imaginaryhead and an imaginary brain. The seer of the images is not the imaginary


THE WORLD IN DREAMSFor you, reality is all that can be touched with the hand and seen with the eye.In your dreams you can also "touch with your hand and see with your eye",but in reality, you have neither hand nor eye, nor is there anything that canbe touched or seen. There is no material reality that makes these thingshappen except your brain. You are simply being deceived.What is it that separates real life and the dreams from one another?Ultimately, both forms of life are brought into being within the brain. If weare able to live easily in an unreal world during our dreams, the same thingcan equally be true for the world we live in. When we wake up from a dream,there is no logical reason for not thinking that we have entered a longerdream that we call "real life". The reason we consider our dream to be fancyand the world as real is nothing but a product of our habits and prejudices.This suggests that we may well be awoken from the life on earth which wethink we are living right now, just as we are awoken from a dream.

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (342)

brain in the dream, but a "being" that is far "superior" to it.We know that there is no physical distinction between the setting of a

dream and the setting we call real life. So when we are asked in the settingwe call real life the above question: "Where do you see?" it would be justas meaningless to answer "in my brain" as in the example above. In bothconditions, the entity that sees and perceives is not the brain, which is afterall only a hunk of meat. Realizing this fact, Bergson said in his book,Matter and Memory, in summary, that "the world is made up of images,these images only exist in our consciousness; and the brain is one ofthese images."415

Therefore, since the brain is a part of the external world, there has tobe a will to perceive all these images. This being is the "soul."

The aggregate of perceptions we call the "material world" is nothingbut a dream observed by this soul. Just as the bodies we possess and thematerial world we see in our dreams have no reality, the universe weoccupy and the bodies we possess also have no material reality. Thefamous British philosopher David Hume expresses his thoughts on thisfact:

For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I alwaysstumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade,love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time withouta perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.416

The real being is the soul. Matter consists merely of perceptionsviewed by the soul. The intelligent beings that write and read these linesare not each a heap of atoms and molecules and the chemical reactionsbetween them, but a "soul."

The Real Absolute Being

All these facts bring us face to face with a very significant question. Ifthe thing we acknowledge to be the material world is merely comprised ofperceptions seen by our soul, then what is the source of these perceptions?

In answering this question, we must consider the following: matterdoes not have a self-governing existence by itself. Since matter is aperception, it is something "artificial." That is, this perception must havebeen caused by another power, which means that it must have been



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (343)

created. Moreover, this creation must be continuous. If there were not acontinuous and consistent creation, then what we call matter woulddisappear and be lost. This may be likened to a television screen on whicha picture is displayed as long as the signal continues to be broadcast. So,who makes our soul see the stars, the earth, plants, people, our bodies, andall else that we see?

It is very evident that there is a Creator, Who has created the entirematerial universe, that is, the sum of perceptions, and continues Hiscreation ceaselessly. Since this Creator displays such a magnificentcreation, He surely has eternal power and might.

This Creator introduces Himself to us. He sent down a book andthrough this book has described to us Himself, the universe, and thereason for our existence.

This Creator is God and the name of His book is the Qur'an. The facts that the heavens and the earth, that is, the universe is not

stable, that their presence is only made possible by God's creating themand that they will disappear when He ends this creation, are all explainedin a verse as follows:

It is God Who sustains the heavens and the earth, lest they cease (tofunction): and if they should fail, there is none—not one—cansustain them thereafter: Truly, He is Most Forbearing and Oft-Forgiving. (Qur'an, 35: 41)

As we mentioned at the beginning, some people have no genuineunderstanding of God and so they imagine Him as a being presentsomewhere in the heavens and not really intervening in worldly affairs. Thebasis of this logic actually lies in the thought that the universe is an assemblyof matter and God is "outside" this material world, in a faraway place.

However, as we have considered so far, matter is composed only ofsensations. And the only real absolute being is God. That means that onlyGod exists; all things except Him are shadow beings. Consequently, it isimpossible to conceive of God as separate and outside this whole mass ofmatter. For there is actually nothing such as matter in the sense of being.God is surely "everywhere" and encompasses all. This reality isexplained in the Qur'an as follows;

God, there is no deity except Him, the Living, the Self-Sustaining.

The Secret Beyond Matter


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (344)

He is not subject to drowsiness or sleep. Everything in the heavensand the earth belongs to Him. Who can intercede with Him exceptby His permission? He knows what is before them and what isbehind them but they cannot grasp any of His knowledge savewhat He wills. His Footstool encompasses the heavens and theearth and their preservation does not tire Him. He is the Most High,the Magnificent. (Qur'an, 2: 255)

Since material beings are each a perception, they cannot see God; butGod sees the matter He created in all its forms. In the Qur'an, this is statedthus: "No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision."(Qur'an, 6: 103)

That is, we cannot grasp God's being with our eyes, but God hasthoroughly encompassed our inside, outside, looks and thoughts. For thisreason, God says that "He controls hearing and sight" (Qur'an, 10: 31). Wecannot utter a single word without His knowledge, nor can we even takea breath.

While we watch these sensory perceptions in the course of our lives,the closest being to us is not any one of these sensations, but God Himself.The following verse of the Qur'an asserts this reality: "It is We Whocreated man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes tohim: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein." (Qur'an, 50: 16)When a person thinks that his body is made up only of "matter," he cannotcomprehend this important fact. If he takes his brain to be "himself," thenthe place that he accepts to be the outside is 20-30 cm away from him.According to this reasoning, nothing can be nearer to him than his jugularvein. However, when he understands that there is nothing such as matter,and that everything is imagination, notions such as outside, inside, far ornear, lose their meaning. God has encompassed him and He is "infinitelyclose" to him.

God informs men that He is "infinitely close" to them in the verse:"When My servants ask you about Me, tell them I am indeed close (tothem)." (Qur'an, 2: 186). Another verse relates the same fact: "We have toldyou that your Lord encompasses all men." (Qur'an, 17: 60). However, manis misled in thinking that the being closest to him is himself. God, in truth,is even closer to us than ourselves.

He has called our attention to this point in the verse: "Why is it that



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (345)

when it (the soul) comes up to the throat, and you at that time look on, Weare nearer to him than you, but you do not see this." (Qur'an, 56: 83-85).

The only conclusion to be derived from the sum total of the factspresented here is that the only and real and absolute being is God. WithHis knowledge, God encompasses man, who is a shadow being, as well aseverything else.

Quite the reverse is true of man, who is nothing but a shadow being,and who is so wholly dependent on God, that it is impossible for him tohave any independent power or will: "You will not will unless Godwills." (Qur'an, 76: 39). Another verse showing that everything weexperience takes place under God's control runs: "God has created youand what you do!" (Qur'an, 37: 96). In the Qur'an, this reality is stated atmany points and with the verse "You did not throw, when you threw, itwas God who threw" (Qur'an, 8: 17), it is emphasized that no act isindependent of God.

This is the reality. The individual may not want to concede this andmay think of himself as a being independent of God; but this does notchange a thing. Of course his unwise denial is again subject to God's willand desire. In the Qur'an, this fact is addressed thus:

It is other than the religion of God that you desire, wheneverything in the heavens and earth, willingly or unwillingly,submits to Him? To Him you will all be returned. (Qur'an, 3: 83)


The subject we have explained so far is one of the greatest truths thatyou will ever be told in your lifetime.

You can explore beyond this point by dint of personal reflection. Forthis, you have to concentrate upon, devote your attention to, and ponderon the way you see the objects around you and the way you feel theirtouch. If you think heedfully, you can feel that the intelligent being thatsees, hears, touches, thinks, and reads this book at this moment is only asoul, who watches the perceptions called "matter" on a screen. One whocomprehends this is considered to have moved away from the domain ofthe material world that deceives a major part of humanity, and to haveentered the domain of true existence.

The Secret Beyond Matter


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (346)

This reality has been understood by a number of theists andphilosophers throughout history. Islamic intellectuals such as ImamRabbani, Muhyiddin Ibn al-'Arabi and Mawlana Jami realized this fromthe signs of the Qur'an and by using their reason. Some Westernphilosophers like George Berkeley have grasped the same reality throughreason. Imam Rabbani wrote in his Maktubat (Letters) that the wholematerial universe is an "illusion and supposition (perception)" and that theonly absolute being is God:

God… The substance of these beings which He created is merenothingness… He created all in the sphere of senses and illusions… Theexistence of the universe is in the sphere of senses and illusions, and it isnot material… In reality, there is nothing on the outside except the GloriousBeing, (Who is God).417

Mawlana Jami stated the same fact, which he discovered by followingthe signs of the Qur'an and by using his wit: "All phenomena of theuniverse are senses and illusions. They are either like reflections in mirrorsor shadows."

However, the number of those who have understood this factthroughout history has always been limited. Great scholars such as ImamRabbani have written that it might not be wise to tell this fact to themasses, because most people are not able to grasp it.

In the age in which we live, this has been established as an empiricalfact by the body of evidence put forward by science. The fact that theuniverse is a shadow being is described for the first time in history in sucha concrete, clear, and explicit way.

For this reason, the twentyfirst century will be a historical turningpoint, when people will generally comprehend the divine realities and beled in crowds to God, the only Absolute Being. The materialistic creeds ofthe nineteenth century will be relegated to the trash-heaps of history,God's being and creating will be accepted, spacelessness and timelessnesswill be understood; humanity, in short, will cast aside the centuries-oldveils, deceits and superstitions which have been confusing them.

It is not possible for this unavoidable course to be impeded by anyshadow being.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (347)

verything related so far demonstrates that "three-dimensionalspace" does not exist in reality, that it is a prejudice completelyfounded on perceptions and that one leads one's whole life in"spacelessness." For there is no valid proof of the existence of a

three-dimensional, material world. The universe we inhabit is a sum ofimages made up of plays of light and shade. To assert the contrary wouldbe to hold a superstitious belief far removed from reason and scientifictruth.

This refutes the primary assumption of the materialist philosophy,the assumption that matter is absolute and eternal. The secondassumption, upon which materialistic philosophy rests, is the suppositionthat time is absolute and eternal. This is as superstitious as the first.

The Perception of Time

What we perceive as time is, in fact, a method by which one momentis compared to another. We can explain this with an example. For instance,when a person taps an object, he hears a particular sound. When he tapsthe same object five minutes later, he hears another sound. He perceivesthat there is an interval between the first sound and the second, and hecalls this interval "time." Yet at the time he hears the second sound, thefirst sound he heard is no more than a mental imagining. It is merely a bitof information in his memory. The person formulates the concept of "time"by comparing the moment in which he lives with what he has in hismemory. If this comparison is not made, there can be no concept of time.

Similarly, the occupant of a room makes a comparison when he seessomeone enter through a door and sit in an armchair in the middle of theroom. By the time the newcomer sits in the armchair, the images related to




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (348)

the moments he opens the door, walks into the room, and makes his wayto the armchair are compiled as bits of information in his brain. Theperception of time occurs when he compares the man sitting in thearmchair with those bits of information.

In brief, time comes to exist as a result of the comparison madebetween some illusions stored in the brain. If man did not have memory,his brain would not make such interpretations and he would nevertherefore have formed the concept of time. The only reason why someonedetermines himself to be thirty years old is because he has accumulatedinformation pertaining to those thirty years in his mind. If his memory didnot exist, then he would not think of the existence of such a precedingperiod, and he would only experience the single "moment" in which helives—which is a very important point.

The Scientific Explanation of Timelessness

Let us try to clarify the subject by quoting various scientists' andscholars' explanations of the subject. Regarding the subject of time flowingbackwards, the famous intellectual and Nobel laureate professor ofgenetics, François Jacob, states the following in his book Le Jeu des Possibles(The Possible and the Actual):

Films played backwards make it possible for us to imagine a world in whichtime flows backwards. A world in which milk separates itself from thecoffee and jumps out of the cup to reach the milk-pan; a world in which lightrays are emitted from the walls to be collected in a trap (gravity center)instead of gushing out from a light source; a world in which a stone slopesto the palm of a man by the astonishing cooperation of innumerable drops ofwater which enable the stone to jump out of water. Yet, in such a world inwhich time has such opposite features, the processes of our brain and theway our memory compiles information, would similarly be functioningbackwards. The same is true for the past and future and the world willappear to us exactly as it currently appears.418

Since our brain is accustomed to a certain sequence of events, theworld does not operate as is related above and we assume that time hasalways flowed forward. However, this is a decision reached in the brainand is relative. Had the bits of information in our memory been arrangedas in films played backwards, for us, the flow of time would be as in these



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (349)

films played backwards. In this situation, we would start to perceive thepast as the future, and the future as the past, and live our lives in a totallyopposite sequence.

In reality, we can never know how time flows or even whether itflows or not. This is an indication of the fact that time is not an absolutefact, but just a sort of perception.

The relativity of time is a fact also verified by one of the mostimportant physicists of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein. LincolnBarnett writes in his book The Universe and Dr. Einstein:

Along with absolute space, Einstein discarded the concept of absolute time—of a steady, unvarying inexorable universal time flow, streaming from theinfinite past to the infinite future. Much of the obscurity that has surroundedthe Theory of Relativity stems from man's reluctance to recognize that senseof time, like sense of colour, is a form of perception. Just as space is simplya possible order of material objects, so time is simply a possible order ofevents. The subjectivity of time is best explained in Einstein's own words."The experiences of an individual" he says, "appear to us arranged in a seriesof events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to beordered according to the criterion of 'earlier' and 'later'. There exists,therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time. This in itself is notmeasurable. I can, indeed, associate numbers with the events, in such a waythat a greater number is associated with the later event than with an earlierone."419

The words of Einstein indicate that the idea of a forward-runningtime is nothing more than conditioning.

Einstein himself pointed out, as quoted in Barnett's book: "Space andtime are forms of intuition, which can no more be divorced fromconsciousness than can our concepts of colour, shape, or size." Accordingto the Theory of General Relativity: "Time has no independent existenceapart from the order of events by which we measure it."420

Since time is based on perception, it depends entirely on the perceiverand is therefore relative.

The speed at which time flows differs according to the references weuse to measure it, because there is no natural clock in the human body toindicate precisely how fast time passes. As Lincoln Barnett wrote: "Just asthere is no such thing as colour without an eye to discern it, so an instant

Timelessness and The Reality of Fate


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (350)

or an hour or a day is nothing without an event to mark it."421

The relativity of time is plainly experienced in dreams. Althoughwhat we see in our dreams seems to last for hours, in fact, it only lasts fora few minutes, and even a few seconds.

Let us think about an example to clarify the subject further. Let usassume that we were put in a room with a single specially designedwindow and we were kept there for a certain period. A clock in the roomwould allow us to see the amount of time that had passed. At the sametime, we are able to see from the window of the room the sun rising andsetting at certain intervals. A few days later, the answer we would give tothe question about the length of time we had spent in the room would bebased both on the information we had collected by looking at the clockfrom time to time and on the computation we had made by referring tohow many times the sun had risen and set. Suppose, we estimate that wespent three days in the room. However, if the person who put us in thatroom said that we spent only two days there and that the sun we had seenfrom the window was produced artificially by a simulation machine andthat the clock in the room was regulated specially to work faster, then thecalculation we had done would have no meaning.

This example confirms that the information we have about the rate ofthe passage of time is based on relative references.

In the same manner, the fact that everyone perceives the flowingspeed of time differently under different situations is evidence that time isbut a psychological perception. For instance, when you have to meet afriend, a 10-minute delay on his part would seem to you like aninterminable, or at least a very long time. Or for a sleepless person whohas to wake up to go to school or work, an extra ten-minute sleep mayseem very long. He may even think that he has had all his sleep in theseten minutes. In some circ*mstances, just the opposite happens. As youwould remember from your school years, after a forty-minute lessonwhich seems to last for centuries, a ten minutes break may seem to passvery quickly.

The relativity of time is a scientific fact also proven by scientificmethodology. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity maintains that thespeed of time changes depending on the speed of the object and itsposition in the gravitational field. As speed increases, time is shortened



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (351)

and compressed: it slows down as if coming to the point of "stopping." Let us explain this with an example given by Einstein. Imagine twins,

one of whom stays on earth while the other goes traveling in space at aspeed close to that of light. When he comes back, the traveler will see thathis brother has grown much older than he has. The reason is that timeflows much more slowly for the person who travels at speeds near thespeed of light. The same applies to a father traveling in space in a rocket,the speed of which is close to ninety-nine per cent of the speed of light, andhis earth-bound son. If the father were twenty-seven years old when he setout and his son three; when the father came back to earth thirty years later(earth time), the son would be thirty-three years old while his fatherwould be only thirty.422

This relativity of time is not caused by the deceleration or accelerationof clocks, or the deceleration of a mechanical spring. It is rather the resultof the differentiated operation periods of the entire system of materialexistence, which goes as deep as sub-atomic particles. In other words, forthe person experiencing it, the shortening of time is not experienced as ifacting in a slow-motion picture. In such a setting where time shortens,one's heartbeats, cell replications, and brain functions, etc, all operate moreslowly. Nevertheless, the person goes on with his daily life and does notnotice the shortening of time at all.

These facts revealed by the Theory of Relativity have been verifiedquite a few times by various scientists. In his book Frontiers, Isaac Asimovalso states that it is 84 years since the publication of Einstein's Theory ofRelativity, and each time the theory has been tested, Einstein has beenproved right once again.423

Relativity in the Qur'an

The conclusion to which we are led by the findings of modern scienceis that time is not an absolute fact as supposed by materialists, but onlya relative perception. What is most interesting is that this fact,undiscovered until the twentieth century by science, was revealed tomankind in the Qur'an fourteen centuries ago. There are variousreferences in the Qur'an to the relativity of time.

It is possible to see in many verses of the Qur'an the scientifically

Timelessness and The Reality of Fate


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (352)

proven fact that time is a psychological perception dependent on events,setting, and conditions. For instance, a person's entire life is a very shorttime, as we are informed in the Qur'an:

On the Day when He will call you, you will answer His Call withwords of His Praise and Obedience, and you will think that youhave stayed in this world but a little while! (Qur'an, 17: 52)

And on the Day when He shall gather them together, it will seem tothem as if they had not tarried on earth longer than an hour of aday: they will recognize each other. (Qur'an, 10: 45)

Some verses indicate that people perceive time differently and thatsometimes people can perceive a very short period as a very lengthy one:

He will say: "What number of years did you stay on earth?" Theywill say: "We stayed a day or part of a day, but ask those who keepaccount." He will say: "Brief indeed was your sojourn, if you hadonly known!" (Qur'an, 23: 112-114)

In some other verses God states that time may flow at different pacesin different settings:

…Truly, a day in the sight of your Lord is like a thousand years ofyour reckoning. (Qur'an, 22: 47)

The angels and the spirit ascend to Him in a day the measure ofwhich is like fifty thousand years. (Qur'an, 70: 4)

He rules all affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end all willascend to Him in a single day, the measure of which is a thousandyears by your reckoning. (Qur'an, 32: 5)

These verses are clear expressions of the relativity of time. That thisfinding, which was only recently understood by scientists in the twentiethcentury, was communicated to man 1,400 years ago in the Qur'an is anindication of the revelation of the Qur'an by God, Who encompasses thewhole of time and space.

Many other verses of the Qur'an reveal that time is a perception. Thesituation described in the verse below is also evidence that time is in trutha psychological perception.

Or (take) the instance of one who passed by a hamlet, all desolate



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (353)

and in ruins. He said, "How shall God ever bring it to life now thatis dead?" but God caused him to die for a hundred years, thenbrought him back to life. He said: "How long did you tarry thus?"He said: Perhaps a day or part of a day." He said: "No, you havetarried thus a hundred years; but look at your food and your drink;they show no signs of age; and look at your donkey. And so that Wemay make of you a sign to the people, look further at the bones,how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh." Whenthis was shown clearly to him, he said: "I know that God has powerover all things." (Qur'an, 2: 259)

The above verse clearly emphasizes that God, Who created time, isunbound by it. Man, on the other hand, is bound by time, which isordained by God. As in the verse, man is even incapable of knowing howlong he has slept. This being so, to assert that time is absolute (just asmaterialists do in their distorted thinking) is very unreasonable.


This relativity of time clears up a very important matter. Relativity isso variable that a period appearing to us to be billions of years' in durationmay last only a second in another perspective. Moreover, an enormousperiod of time, extending from the world's beginning to its end, may noteven last a second but just an instant in another dimension.

This is the very essence of the concept of destiny—a concept that isnot well understood by most people, especially materialists who deny itcompletely. Destiny is God's perfect knowledge of all events past or future.A majority of people question how God can already know events that havenot yet been experienced and this leads them to fail to understand theauthenticity of destiny. However, "events not yet experienced" are only sofor us. God is not bound by time or space, for He Himself has createdthem. For this reason, past, future, and present are all the same to God;for Him everything has already taken place and finished.

In The Universe and Dr. Einstein, Lincoln Barnett explains how theTheory of General Relativity leads to this conclusion. According toBarnett, the universe can be "encompassed in its entire majesty only by acosmic intellect."424 The will that Barnett calls "the cosmic intellect" is the

Timelessness and The Reality of Fate


Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (354)

wisdom and knowledge of God, Who prevails over the entire universe.Just as we can easily see a ruler's beginning, middle, and end, and all theunits in between as a whole, God knows the time we are subject to as if itwere a single moment right from its beginning to its end. People, however,experience incidents only when their time comes and they witness thedestiny God has created for them.

It is also important to draw attention to the shallowness of thedistorted understanding of destiny prevalent in our society. This distortedbelief about fate is a superstition that God has determined a "destiny" forevery man, but that people can sometimes change these destinies. Forinstance, people make superficial statements about a patient who returnsfrom death's door, such as "he defeated his destiny." No one is able tochange his destiny. The person, who returned from death's door, didn't dieprecisely because he was destined not to die at that time. It is, ironically,the destiny of those people who deceive themselves by saying "I defeatedmy destiny" that they should say so and maintain such a mindset. In theverse, "…no living thing lives long or has its life cut short without thatbeing in a Book. That is easy for God" (Qur'an, 35: 11), it is stated that allthings happen as a matter of destiny. Destiny is the eternal knowledge ofGod and for God, Who knows time like a single moment and Who prevailsover the whole of time and space; everything is determined and finishedin destiny.

We also understand from what He relates in the Qur'an that time isone for God: some incidents that appear to us to happen in the future arerelated in the Qur'an as if they had already taken place long before. Forinstance, the verses that describe the accounts that people must give toGod in the hereafter are related as events which occurred long ago:

And the trumpet is blown, and all who are in the heavens and allwho are on the earth swoon away, save him whom God wills. Thenit is blown a second time, and behold them standing waiting! Andthe earth shone with the light of her Lord, and the Book is set up,and the prophets and the witnesses are brought, and it is judgedbetween them with truth, and they are not wronged… And thosewho disbelieve are driven into hell in troops… And those whofeared their Lord are driven into Paradise in troops... (Qur'an, 39:68-73)



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (355)

As may be seen, occurrences that are going to take place after ourdeath (from our point of view) are related in the Qur'an as past eventsalready experienced. God is not bound by the relative time frame in whichwe are confined. God has willed these things in timelessness: people havealready performed them and all these events have been lived through andare ended. He states in the verse below that every event, big or small, iswithin the knowledge of God and recorded in a book:

In whatever business you may be, and whatever portion you maybe reciting from the Qur'an, and whatever deed you (mankind) maybe doing, We are witnesses of these things when you are deeplyengrossed in them. Nor is there hidden from your Lord so much asthe weight of an atom on the earth or in heaven. And there isneither the least and nor the greatest of these things but is recordedin a glorious book. (Qur'an, 10: 61)

With this secret out in the open, the world becomes like heaven fora believer. All distressful material worries, anxieties, and fears vanish. Hegrasps that the entire universe has a single sovereign, that He changes theentire physical world as He pleases and that all one has to do is to turn toHim. He then submits himself entirely to God "to be devoted to Hisservice." (Qur'an, 3: 35)

To comprehend this secret is the greatest gain in the world.

Timelessness and The Reality of Fate


Glory be to You!

We have no knowledge except what

You have taught us. You are

the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.

(Qur'an, 2: 32)

Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (356)

1 H. S. Lipson, "A Physicist's View ofDarwin's Theory", Evolution Trends inPlants, vol. 2, no. 1, 1988, p. 6.2 Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose. MolecularEvolution and The Origin of Life. W.H.Freeman and Company, San Francisco,1972, p. 4.3 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The GreatEvolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books,London, 1984, pp. 36, 41-42.4 B.E. Bishop, "Mendel's Opposition toEvolution and to Darwin," Journal ofHeredity, 87, 1996, pp. 205-213; also pleasesee. L.A. Callender, "Gregor Mendel: AnOpponent of Descent with Modification,"History of Science, 26, 1988, pp. 41-75.5 Lee Spetner, Not By Chance!, The JudaicaPress, New York, 1997, p. 20.6 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory inCrisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985.7 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species byMeans of Natural Selection, The ModernLibrary, New York, p. 127. (emphasis added)8 V. C. Wynne-Edwards, "Self RegulatingSystems in Populations of Animals, Science,vol. 147, 26 March 1965, pp. 1543-1548; V.C. Wynne-Edwards, Evolution ThroughGroup Selection, London, 1986.9 A. D. Bradshaw, "Evolutionarysignificance of phenotypic plasticity inplants," Advances in Genetics, vol. 13, pp.115-155; cited in Lee Spetner, Not ByChance!: Shattering the Modern Theory ofEvolution, The Judaica Press, Inc., NewYork, 1997, pp. 16-17.10 Andy Coghlan "Suicide Squad", NewScientist, 10 July 1999.11 Colin Patterson, "Cladistics", Interviewby Brian Leek, interviewer Peter Franz,March 4, 1982, BBC.(emphasis added)12 Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin On Trial,

Intervarsity Press, Illinois, 1993, p. 27.13 For more detailed information aboutIndustrial Melanism, please see PhillipJohnson, Darwin on Trial, InterVarsity

Press, 2nd. Ed., Washington D.C., p. 26.14 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Scienceor Myth? Why Much of What We Teach AboutEvolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing,Washington, 2000, pp. 149-150.15 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Scienceor Myth? Why Much of What We Teach AboutEvolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing,Washington, 2000, pp. 141-151.16 Jerry Coyne, "Not Black and White", areview of Michael Majerus's Melanism:Evolution in Action, Nature, 396, 1988, pp.35-36.17 Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return ofHopeful Monster", Natural History, vol. 86,June-July 1977, p. 28.18 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: AFacsimile of the First Edition, HarvardUniversity Press, 1964, p. 189.(emphasisadded)19 B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?,Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust,1988. (emphasis added)20 Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects ofAtomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June29, 1956, p. 1159. (emphasis added)21 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The GreatEvolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books,London, 1984, p. 48.22 Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution,River Publishing, London, 1984, p. 70.(emphasis added)23 David A. Demick, "The Blind Gunman",Impact, no. 308, February 1999. (emphasisadded)24 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of LivingOrganisms, Academic Press, New York,



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (357)

1977, p. 97, 98.25 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of LivingOrganisms, Academic Press, New York,1977, p. 88. (emphasis added)26 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory inCrisis, Burnett Books Ltd., London, 1985, p.149.27 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of LivingOrganisms, Academic Press, New York,1977, p. 87. (emphasis added)28 Loren C. Eiseley, The Immense Journey,Vintage Books, 1958, p. 186.; cited inNorman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: AnAppeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press,Boston, 1971, p. 30.29 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: AFacsimile of the First Edition, HarvardUniversity Press, 1964, p. 184.30 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: AnAppeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press,Boston, 1971, pp. 32-33.31 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: AnAppeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press,Boston, 1971, p. 36.32 Jerry Bergman, Some BiologicalProblems With the Natural SelectionTheory, The Creation Research SocietyQuarterly, vol. 29, no. 3, December 1992.33 Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey,Vintage Books, 1958. p 227., cited inNorman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: AnAppeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press,Boston, 1971, p. 33.34 Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and RudolfRaff, "Resynthesizing Evolutionary andDevelopmental Biology", DevelopmentalBiology, 173, Article no. 0032, 1996, p. 361.(emphasis added)35 R. Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory UnderFire", Science, vol. 210, 21 November, 1980,p. 883.

36 H. Lisle Gibbs and Peter R. Grant,"Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches,"Nature, 327, 1987, pp. 513; For moredetailed information, please see JonathanWells, Icons of Evolution, 2000, pp. 159-175.37 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processesof Vertebrate Evolution, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997, p. 938 Pierre Grassé, Evolution of LivingOrganisms, Academic Press, New York,1977, p. 82.39 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: AFacsimile of the First Edition, HarvardUniversity Press, 1964, p. 179.40 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species byMeans of Natural Selection, The ModernLibrary, New York, p. 124-125. (emphasisadded)41 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processesof Vertebrate Evolution, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997, p. 25.42 K. S. Thomson, Morphogenesis andEvolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press,1988, p. 98.43 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe:Where Darwin Went Wrong, Tichnor andFields, New Haven, 1982, p. 40.44 S.J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace",Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.(emphasis added)45 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge,"Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo andMode of Evolution Reconsidered",Paleobiology, 3 (2), 1977, p. 115.46 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processesof Vertebrate Evolution, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997, p. 146.47 S. J. Gould & N. Eldredge, Paleobiology,vol. 3, 1977, p. 147.48 Duane T. Gish, Evolution: Fossils Still SayNo, CA, 1995, p. 41



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (358)

49 David Day, Vanished Species, GalleryBooks, New York, 1989.50 T. Neville George, "Fossils inEvolutionary Perspective," Science Progress,vol. 48, January 1960, pp. 1, 3. (emphasisadded)51 N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Mythsof Human Evolution, Columbia UniversityPress, 1982, p. 59. (emphasis added)52 R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MITPress, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 45.53 Science, July 17, 1981, p. 289. (emphasisadded)54 N. Eldredge, and I. Tattersall, The Mythsof Human Evolution, Columbia UniversityPress, 1982, pp. 45-46. (emphasis added)55 S. M. Stanley, The New EvolutionaryTimetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin ofSpecies, Basic Books Inc., N.Y., 1981, p. 71.(emphasis added)56 Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, andPaul Chien, The Cambrian Explosion:Biology's Big Bang, 2001, p. 2.57 Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of theOrient," Discover, April 1993, p. 40.(emphasis added)58 Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of theOrient," Discover, April 1993, p. 40.59 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker,W. W. Norton, London, 1986, p. 229.(emphasis added)60 Phillip E. Johnson, "Darwinism's Rulesof Reasoning," in Darwinism: Science orPhilosophy by Buell Hearn, Foundation forThought and Ethics, 1994, p. 12. (emphasisadded)61 R. Lewin, Science, vol. 241, 15 July 1988,p. 291. (emphasis added)62 Gregory A. Wray, "The Grand Scheme ofLife," Review of The Crucible Creation: TheBurgess Shale and the Rise of Animals by

Simon Conway Morris, Trends in Genetics,February 1999, vol. 15, no. 2.63 Richard Fortey, "The CambrianExplosion Exploded?," Science, vol. 293, no.5529, 20 July 2001, pp. 438-439.64 Richard Fortey, "The CambrianExplosion Exploded?," Science, vol. 293, no.5529, 20 July 2001, pp. 438-439.65 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial,Pantheon Books, New York, 1983, p. 197.66 Jeffrey S. Levinton, "The Big Bang ofAnimal Evolution," Scientific American, vol.267, November 1992, p. 84.67 "The New Animal Phylogeny:Reliability And Implications", Proc. of Nat.Aca. of Sci., 25 April 2000, vol. 97, no. 9, pp.4453-4456.68 "The New Animal Phylogeny:Reliability And Implications, Proc. of Nat.Aca. of Sci., 25 April 2000, vol. 97, no. 9, pp.4453-4456.69 David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwinand Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museumof Natural History, vol. 50, January 1979, p.24.70 Richard Fortey, "The CambrianExplosion Exploded?," Science, vol. 293, no.5529, 20 July 2001, pp. 438-439.71 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species,1859, p. 313-314.72 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: AFacsimile of the First Edition, HarvardUniversity Press, 1964, p. 302.73 Stefan Bengston, Nature, vol. 345, 1990,p. 765. (emphasis added)74 R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: ThePhysiology of Seeing, Oxford UniversityPress, 1995, p. 31.75 Douglas Palmer, The Atlas of thePrehistoric World, Discovery Channel,Marshall Publishing, London, 1999, p. 66.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (359)

76 Mustafa Kuru, Omurgalı Hayvanlar(Vertebrates), Gazi University

Publications, 5th ed., Ankara, 1996, p. 21.(emphasis added)77 Mustafa Kuru, Omurgalı Hayvanlar(Vertebrates), Gazi University

Publications, 5th ed., Ankara, 1996, p. 27.78 Douglas Palmer, The Atlas of thePrehistoric World, Discovery Channel,Marshall Publishing, London, 1999, p. 64.79 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processesof Vertebrate Evolution, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997, pp. 296.80 Gerald T. Todd, "Evolution of the Lungand the Origin of Bony Fishes: A CasualRelationship," American Zoologist, vol. 26,no. 4, 1980, p. 757.81 Ali Demirsoy, Kalıtım ve Evrim(Inheritance and Evolution), MeteksanPublishing Co., Ankara, 1984, pp. 495-496.82 Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time: GoingBeyond The Fossil Record To A RevolutionaryUnderstanding of the History Of Life, TheFree Press, A Division of Simon & SchusterInc., 1999, p. 7.83 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processesof Vertebrate Evolution, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997, p. 230.84 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processesof Vertebrate Evolution, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997, p. 301.85 This time frame is also given by Carroll,Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution,Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 304.86 Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time: GoingBeyond The Fossil Record To A RevolutionaryUnderstanding of the History Of Life, TheFree Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster,Inc., 1999, p. 54.87 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processesof Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge

University Press, 1997, pp. 292-93.88 Jean-Jacques Hublin, The HamlynEncyclopædia of Prehistoric Animals, TheHamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., New York,1984, p. 120.89 www.ksu.edu/fishecology/relict.htm90 http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9809/23/living.fossil/index.html91 P. L. Forey, Nature, vol. 336, 1988, p. 727.92 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory InCrisis, Adler and Adler, 1986, pp. 218-219.93 Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontologyand Evolution, W. H. Freeman and Co., NewYork, 1988, p. 198.94 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processesof Vertebrate Evolution, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997, pp. 296-97.95 Stephen Jay Gould, "Eight (or Fewer)Little Piggies," Natural History, vol. 100, no.1, January 1991, p. 25. (emphasis added)96 Duane Gish, Evolution: The Fossils StillSay No!, Institute For Creation Research,California, 1995, p. 97.97 Robert Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontologyand Evolution, p. 235.98 Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, "Turtle– Origin and Evolution."99 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processesof Vertebrate Evolution, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997, pp. 296-97.(emphasis added)100 Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The FossilsStill Say No, ICR, San Diego, 1998, p. 103.101 Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontologyand Evolution. p. 336. (emphasis added)102 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processesof Vertebrate Evolution, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997, pp. 296-97.103 E. H. Colbert, M. Morales, Evolution ofthe Vertebrates, John Wiley and Sons, 1991,



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (360)

p. 193. (emphasis added)104 A. S Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd

ed., Chicago University Press, Chicago,1966, p. 120. (emphasis added)105 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processesof Vertebrate Evolution, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997, p. 296-97.106 John Ostrom, "Bird Flight: How Did ItBegin?," American Scientist, January-February 1979, vol. 67, p. 47.107 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processesof Vertebrate Evolution, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997, p. 314.108 Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... DidDinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February1997, p. 28.109 Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... DidDinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February1997, p. 28.110 Duane T. Gish, Dinosaurs by Design,Master Books, AR, 1996, pp. 65-66.111 Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis,Adler & Adler, 1986, pp. 210-211.112 Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis,Adler & Adler, 1986, pp. 211-212. (emphasisadded)113 J. A. Ruben, T. D. Jones, N. R. Geist, andW. J. Hillenius, "Lung Structure AndVentilation in Theropod Dinosaurs andEarly Birds," Science, vol. 278, p. 1267. 114 Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny,Free Press, New York, 1998, p. 361.115 Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny,Free Press, New York, 1998, pp. 361-62.116 Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History:Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350. (emphasis added)117 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin ofFeathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology,vol. 9, 1996, p.132.118 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of

Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology,vol. 9, 1996, p.131.119 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin ofFeathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology,vol. 9, 1996, p.133.120 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin ofFeathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology,vol. 9, 1996, p.131.121 Alan Feduccia, "On Why DinosaursLacked Feathers," The Beginning of Birds,Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum,1985, p. 76. (emphasis added)122 Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin ofSpecies, Dove, New York, 1964, p. 296.123 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: AnAppeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press,1971, p. 131.124 Nature, vol. 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401.125 Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, JohnWiley and Sons, New York, 1961, p. 310.126 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processesof Vertebrate Evolution, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997, p. 280-81.127 L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N.Whetstone, The Auk, vol. 97, 1980, p. 86.128 L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N.Whetstone, The Auk, vol. 97, 1980, p. 86; L.D. Martin, "Origins of the Higher Groupsof Tetrapods", Ithaca, ComstockPublishing Association, New York, 1991,pp. 485-540.129 S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, ZoologicalJournal of the Linnaean Society, vol. 69, 1980,p. 149; A. D. Walker, Geological Magazine,vol. 117, 1980, p. 595.130 A.D. Walker, as described in PeterDodson, "International ArchaeopteryxConference," Journal of VertebratePaleontology 5(2):177, June 1985.131 Richard Hinchliffe, "The ForwardMarch of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?,"



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (361)

Science, vol. 278, no. 5338, 24 October 1997,pp. 596-597.132 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution,Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 117133 Richard L. Deem, "Demise of the 'Birdsare Dinosaurs' Theory,"http://www.yfiles.com/dinobird2.html.

134 Pat Shipman, "Birds do it... DidDinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February,1997, p. 31.135 "Old Bird," Discover, March 21, 1997.136 "Old Bird," Discover, March 21, 1997.137 Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... DidDinosaurs?," p. 28.138 Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the FeatheredDinosaur," Science, vol. 278, no. 5341, 14November 1997, pp. 1229 - 1230139 National Geographic, Vol. 196, No. 5,November 1999, "Feathers for T. Rex?"140 Tim Friend, "Dinosaur-bird linksmashed in fossil flap," USA Today, 25January 2000141 "Open Letter: Smithsonian decriesNational Geographic's "editorialpropagandizing" of dinosaur-to-bird"evolution," http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevoletter.asp142 M. Kusinitz, Science World, 4 February,1983, p. 19.143 San Diego Union, New York Times PressService, 29 May, 1983; W. A. Shear, Science,vol. 224, 1984, p. 494. (emphasis added)144 R. J. Wootton, C. P. Ellington,"Biomechanics & the Origin of InsectFlight," Biomechanics in Evolution, ed. J. M.V. Rayner & R. J. Wootton, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, 1991, p. 99.145 Robin J. Wootton, "The MechanicalDesign of Insect Wings," ScientificAmerican, vol. 263, November 1990, p. 120.(emphasis added)

146 Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of LivingOrganisms, Academic Press, New York,1977, p. 30. (emphasis added)147 George Gamow, Martynas Ycas, Mr.Tompkins Inside Himself, The Viking Press,New York, 1967, p. 149.148 Roger Lewin, "Bones of Mammals,Ancestors Fleshed Out," Science, vol. 212,June 26, 1981, p. 1492. (emphasis added)149 George Gaylord Simpson, Life BeforeMan, Time-Life Books, New York, 1972, p.42. (emphasis added)150 R. Eric Lombard, "Review ofEvolutionary Principles of the MammalianMiddle Ear, Gerald Fleischer," Evolution,vol. 33, December 1979, p. 1230.151 George G., Simpson, Tempo and Mode inEvolution, Columbia University Press,New York, 1944, pp. 105, 107.152 Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle,November 5, 1980, p. 15. (emphasis added)153 Colin Patterson, Harper's, February1984, p. 60. (emphasis added)154 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe:Where Darwin Went Wrong, New AmericanLibrary, New York, 1982, pp. 16-17, 19.155 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe:Where Darwin Went Wrong, New AmericanLibrary, New York, 1982, pp. 16-17, 19.156 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The GreatEvolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books,London, 1984, p. 230. (emphasis added)157 John E. Hill, James D Smith, Bats: ANatural History, British Museum ofNatural History, London, 1984, p. 33.(emphasis added)158 L. R. Godfrey, "Creationism and Gapsin the Fossil Record," Scientists ConfrontCreationism, W. W. Norton and Company,1983, p. 199.159 Jeff Hecht, "Branching Out," New



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (362)

Scientist, 10 October 1998, vol. 160, no.2155, p. 14.160 Douglas H. Chadwick, "Evolution ofWhales," National Geographic, November2001, p. 68. 161 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Process ofVertebrate Evolution, Cambridge UniversityPress, 1998, p.329. 162 Ashby L. Camp, "The Overselling ofWhale Evolution," Creation Matters, anewsletter published by the CreationResearch Society, May/June 1998. 163 Douglas H. Chadwick, "Evolution ofWhales," National Geographic, November2001, p. 73. 164 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processesof Vertebrate Evolution, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1998, p. 329. 165 G. A. Mchedlidze, General Features of thePaleobiological Evolution of Cetacea, trans.from Russian (Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema,1986), p. 91.166 Ashby L. Camp, "The Overselling ofWhale Evolution," Creation Matters, anewsletter published by the CreationResearch Society, May/June 1998. 167 Douglas H. Chadwick, "Evolution ofWhales," National Geographic, November2001, p. 69. 168 Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time:Beyond The Fossil Record To A New HistoryOf Life, The Free Press, A Division of Simon& Schuster Inc., 1999, p. 103.169 B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems inEvolution, Dover Publications Inc., 1985, p.489.170 Michel C. Milinkovitch, "Molecularphylogeny of cetaceans prompts revisionof morphological transformations," Trendsin Ecology and Evolution, 10 August 1995,pp. 328-334.

171 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial,Pantheon Books, New York, 1983, p. 197.172 Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's ErraticPace," Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977, p.14.173 Stephen M. Stanley, Macroevolution:Pattern and Process, W. H. Freeman and Co.,San Francisco, 1979, pp. 35, 159.174 S. J. Gould, "Return of the HopefulMonster," The Panda's Thumb, W. W.Norton Co., New York, 1980, pp. 186-193.175 R. A. Fisher, The Genetical Theory ofNatural Selection, Oxford University Press,Oxford, 1930.176 Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, andEvolution, Belknap Press, Cambridge, 1970,p. 235.177 Lane P. Lester, Raymond G. Bohlin, TheNatural Limits to Biological Change, ProbeBooks, Dallas, 1989, pp. 141-142. (emphasisadded)178 M. E. Soulé and L. S. Mills, "Enhanced:No need to isolate genetics," Science, 1998,vol. 282, p. 1658.179 R. L. Westemeier, J. D. Brawn, J. D.Brawn, S. A. Simpson, T. L. Esker, R. W.Jansen, J. W. Walk, E. L. Kershner, J. L.Bouzat, and K. N. Paige, "Tracking thelong-term decline and recovery of anisolated population", Science, 1998, vol.282, p. 1695.180 Phillip Johnson, Objections Sustained,Intervarsity Press, Illinois, 1998, pp. 77-85.181 Richard E. Leakey, The Making ofMankind, Sphere Books Limited, Barcelona,1982, p. 43.182 William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers,Macmillan Publishing Company, NewYork, 1984, pp. 150-153.183 "Could science be brought to an end byscientists' belief that they have final



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (363)

answers or by society's reluctance to paythe bills?" Scientific American, December1992, p. 20.184 David Pilbeam, "Rearranging OurFamily Tree," Human Nature, June 1978, p.40.185 C. C. Swisher III, W. J. Rink, S. C.Antón, H. P. Schwarcz, G. H. Curtis, A.Suprijo, Widiasmoro, "Latest hom*oerectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneitywith hom*o sapiens in Southeast Asia,"Science, Volume 274, Number 5294, Issue of13 Dec 1996, pp. 1870-1874; also see, JeffreyKluger, "Not So Extinct After All: ThePrimitive hom*o Erectus May HaveSurvived Long Enough To Coexist WithModern Humans, Time, December 23, 1996186 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The IvoryTower, Toplinger Publications, New York,1970, pp. 75-94.187 Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place ofAustralopithecines in Human Evolution:Grounds for Doubt," Nature, vol. 258, 4December 1975, p. 389.188 Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Scienceet Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62.(emphasis added)189 Holly Smith, American Journal ofPhysical Antropology, vol. 94, 1994, pp. 307-325. (emphasis added)190 Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood & FransZonneveld, "Implications of EarlyHominid Labyrinthine Morphology forEvolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,"Nature, vol 369, 23 June 1994, p. 645191 Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood & FransZonneveld, "Implications of EarlyHominid Labyrinthine Morphology forEvolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,"Nature, vol 369, 23 June 1994, p. 648192 Tim Bromage, "Faces From the Past,"

New Scientist, vol. 133, issue 1803, 11January 1992, p. 41. (emphasis added)193 J. E. Cronin, N. T. Boaz, C. B. Stringer, Y.Rak, "Tempo and Mode in HominidEvolution," Nature, vol. 292, 1981, pp. 117.194 C. L. Brace, H. Nelson, N. Korn, M. L.Brace, Atlas of Human Evolution, 2. b.,Rinehart and Wilson, New York, 1979.195 Alan Walker and Richard E.F. Leakey,"The Hominids of East Turkana", ScientificAmerican, vol. 239 (2), August 1978, p. 54.196 Bernard Wood, Mark Collard, "TheHuman Genus," Science, vol. 284, No 5411,2 April 1999, pp. 65-71.197 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention: acreationist assessment of the human fossils,Baker Books, 1992, p. 83.198 Boyce Rensberger, Washington Post, 19October 1984, p. A11. 199 Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind,Sphere Books, London, 1981, p. 116.200 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention: acreationist assessment of the human fossils,Baker Books, 1992. p. 136.201 Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi,"American Scientist, November- December2000, p. 491202 Erik Trinkaus, "Hard Times Among theNeanderthals," Natural History, vol. 87,December 1978, p. 10; R. L. Holloway, "TheNeanderthal Brain: What Was Primitive,"American Journal of Physical AnthropologySupplement, vol. 12, 1991, p. 94. (emphasisadded)203 "Neandertals Lived Harmoniously,"The AAAS Science News Service, April 3,1997.204 Ralph Solecki, Shanidar, The First FlowerPeople, Knopf, New York, 1971, p. 196; PaulG. Bahn and Jean Vertut, Images in the Ice,Windward, Leichester, 1988, p. 72.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (364)

205 D. Johanson, B. Edgar, From Lucy toLanguage, p. 99.206 S. L. Kuhn, "Subsistence, Technology,and Adaptive Variation in MiddlePaleolithic Italy," American Anthropologist,vol. 94, no. 2, March 1992, pp. 309-310.207 Roger Lewin, The Origin of ModernHumans, Scientific American Library, NewYork, 1993, p. 131.208 R.E.F. Leakey, A. Walker, "On the Statusof Australopithecus afarensis", Science, vol.207, issue 4435, 7 March 1980, p. 1103.209 A. J. Kelso, Physical Antropology, 1st ed.,J. B. Lipincott Co., New York, 1970, p. 221;M. D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, vol. 3,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1971, p. 272.210 S. J. Gould, Natural History, vol. 85,1976, p. 30. (emphasis added)211 Jeffrey Kluger, "Not So Extinct AfterAll: The Primitive hom*o Erectus MayHave Survived Long Enough To CoexistWith Modern Humans," Time, 23December 1996.212 John Noble Wilford, "3 Human SpeciesCoexisted Eons Ago, New Data Suggest,"The New York Times, 13 December 1996.213 John Whitfield, "Oldest member ofhuman family found," Nature, 11 July2002.214 D.L. Parsell, "Skull Fossil From ChadForces Rethinking of Human Origins,"National Geographic News, July 10, 2002.215 John Whitfield, "Oldest member ofhuman family found," Nature, 11 July2002.216 The Guardian, 11 July 2002217 L. S. B. Leakey, The Origin of hom*oSapiens, ed. F. Borde, UNESCO, Paris, 1972,pp. 25-29; L. S. B. Leakey, By the Evidence,Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York,

1974.218 Robert Kunzig, "The Face of AnAncestral Child", Discover, December 1997,pp. 97, 100. (emphasis added)219 A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1.b.,1970, ss. 221; M.D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge,volume 3, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1971, s. 272220 Donald C. Johanson & M. A. Edey,Lucy, The Beginnings of Humankind, Simon& Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 250.(emphasis added)221 "The Leakey Footprints: An UncertainPath," Science News, vol. 115, 1979, p. 196.222 Ian Anderson, "Who made the Laetolifootprints?" New Scientist, vol. 98, 12 May1983, p. 373. (emphasis added)223 Russell H. Tuttle, "The Pitted Pattern ofLaetoli Feet," Natural History, vol. 99,March 1990, p. 64. (emphasis added)224 Ruth Henke, "Aufrecht aus denBäumen," Focus, vol. 39, 1996, p. 178.225 Elaine Morgan, The Scars of Evolution,Oxford University Press, New York, 1994,p. 5.226 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The IvoryTower, Toplinger Publications, New York,1970, p. 19. (emphasis added)227 Robert Locke, "Family Fights,"Discovering Archaeology, July/August 1999,p. 36-39.228 Robert Locke, "Family Fights,"Discovering Archaeology, July/August 1999,p. 36-39.229 Henry Gee, In Search of Time: Beyond theFossil Record to a New History of Life, NewYork, The Free Press, 1999, p. 126-127.230 David R. Pilbeam, "Rearranging OurFamily Tree," Human Nature, June 1978, p.45. (emphasis added)231 Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape,



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (365)

McMillan, New York, 1931, p. 332.(emphasis added)232 Malcolm Muggeridge, The End ofChristendom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,1980, p. 59.233 Stephen Jay Gould, "SmithWoodward's Folly," New Scientist, 5 April1979, p. 44.234 Stephen Jay Gould, "SmithWoodward's Folly," New Scientist, 5 April1979, p. 43. (emphasis added)235 William K. Gregory, "HesperopithecusApparently Not An Ape Nor A Man,"Science, vol. 66, issue 1720, 16 December1927, p. 579.236 Søren Løvtrup , Darwinism: TheRefutation of A Myth, Croom Helm, NewYork, 1987, p. 422.237 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory inCrisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pp.328, 342.238 Charles Darwin, Life and Letter ofCharles Darwin, vol. II, From CharlesDarwin to J. Do Hooker, March 29, 1863239 W. R. Bird, The Origin of SpeciesRevisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville,1991, pp. 298-99.240 "Hoyle on Evolution," Nature, vol. 294,November 12, 1981, p. 105.241 H. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution,158 (3d ed. 1968), cited in W. R. Bird, TheOrigin of Species Revisited, Thomas NelsonCo., Nashville, 1991, p. 304. (emphasisadded)242 W. Stokes, Essentials of Earth History,

186 (4th ed. 1942), cited in W. R. Bird, TheOrigin of Species Revisited, Thomas NelsonCo., Nashville, 1991, p. 305.243 J. D. Thomas, Evolution and Faith, ACUPress, Abilene, TX, 1988, pp. 81-82.(emphasis added)

244 Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic'sGuide to the Creation of Life on Earth,Summit Books, New York, 1986, p. 127.245 Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe,Evolution from Space, Simon & Schuster,New York, 1984, p. 148. (emphasis added)246 Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe,Evolution from Space, Simon & Schuster,New York, 1984, p. 130. (emphasis added)247 Simpson, Sarah, "Life's First ScaldingSteps," Science News, Jan. 9, 1999, 155(2):25.248 Fabbri Britannica Bilim Ansiklopedisi(Fabbri Britannica Science Encyclopaedia),vol. 2, no. 22, p. 519.249 Dawkins, Richard, Climbing MountImprobable, W.W. Norton, New York, 1996,p. 283.250 Alexander I. Oparin, Origin of Life,Dover Publications, NewYork, 1936, 1953(reprint), p. 196.251 Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: MoreQuestions Than Answers," InterdisciplinaryScience Reviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 1988, p. 348.(emphasis added)252 Horgan, John, The End of Science, MAAddison-Wesley, 1996, p. 138. (emphasisadded)253 Jeffrey Bada, Earth, "Life's Crucible,"February 1998, p. 40. (emphasis added)254 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, DuaneT. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications,

3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.255 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Scienceand Technology), no. 189, p. 7.256 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, "Photochemistryof Methane, Nitrogen, and Water MixtureAs a Model for the Atmosphere of thePrimitive Earth," Journal of AmericanChemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.257 "New Evidence on Evolution of EarlyAtmosphere and Life," Bulletin of the



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (366)

American Meteorological Society, vol. 63,November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.258 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker,Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P.

Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p.16.259 "Life's Crucible," Earth, February 1998,p. 34. (emphasis added)260 "The Rise of Life on Earth," NationalGeographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasisadded)261 W. R. Bird, The Origin of SpeciesRevisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville,1991, p. 325.(emphasis added)262 Richard Dickerson, "ChemicalEvolution," Scientific American, vol. 239:3,1978, p. 75. Chemist Richard Dickersonexplains the reason for this in this way: "Ifpolymeric chains of proteins and nucleicacids are to be forged out of their precursormonomers, a molecule of water must beremoved at each link in the chain. It istherefore hard to see how polymerizationcould have proceeded in the aqueousenvironment of the primitive ocean, sincethe presence of water favorsdepolymerization rather thanpolymerization."263 S. W. Fox, K. Harada, G. Kramptiz, G.Mueller, "Chemical Origin of Cells,"Chemical Engineering News, June 22, 1970,p. 80.264 Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about theModern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,"American Biology Teacher, September 1971,p. 336.265 Paul Auger, De La Physique Theorique ala Biologie, 1970, p. 118.266 Francis Crick, Life Itself: It's Origin andNature, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981,p. 88. (emphasis added)

267 Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim(Inheritance and Evolution), MeteksanPublishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 39.268 John Horgan, "In the Beginning,"Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991,p. 119. (emphasis added)269 Homer Jacobson, "Information,Reproduction and the Origin of Life,"American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121.270 Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher,Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, VintageBooks, New York, 1980, p. 548. (emphasisadded)271 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life onEarth," Scientific American, vol. 271,October 1994, p. 78. (emphasis added)272 Cairns-Smith, Alexander G., "The FirstOrganisms," Scientific American, 252: 90,June 1985. (emphasis added)273 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory inCrisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351.274 John Horgan, "In the Beginning,"Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991,p. 119.275 G. F. Joyce, L. E. Orgel, "Prospects forUnderstanding the Origin of the RNAWorld," In the RNA World, Cold SpringHarbor Laboratory Press, New York, 1993,p. 13.276 Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity,New York, 1971, p. 143. (emphasis added)277 Dover, Gabby L., Looping theEvolutionary loop, review of the origin oflife from the birth of life to the origin oflanguage, Nature, 1999, vol. 399, p. 218.(emphasis added)278 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life onthe Earth," Scientific American, October1994, vol. 271, p. 78.279 Horgan, John, The End of Science, MAAddison-Wesley, 1996, p. 139.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (367)

280 Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of LivingOrganisms, Academic Press, New York,1977, p. 103. (emphasis added)281 Chandra Wickramasinghe, Interviewin London Daily Express, August 14, 1981.282 Frank Salisbury, "Doubts About theModern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,"American Biology Teacher, September 1971,p. 338. (emphasis added)283 Dean H. Kenyon, Percival Davis, OfPandas and People: The Central Question ofBiological Origins, Haughton Publishing,Dallas, 1993, p. 33.284 Dean H. Kenyon, Percival Davis, OfPandas and People: The Central Question ofBiological Origins, Haughton Publishing,Dallas, 1993, p. 117. 285 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory inCrisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, p. 145.286 Gavin De Beer, hom*ology: An UnsolvedProblem, Oxford University Press, London,1971, p. 16.287 Pere Alberch, "Problems with theInterpretation of DevelopmentalSequences," Systematic Zoology, 1985, vol.34 (1), pp. 46-58.288 Raff, Rudolf A., The Shape of Life: Genes,Development, and the Evolution of AnimalForm, The University of Chicago Press,Chicago, 1996.289 Coates M., "New paleontologicalcontributions to limb ontogeny andphylogeny," In: J. R. Hinchcliffe (ed.),Developmental Patterning of the VertebrateLimb, Plenum Press, New York, 1991, 325-337; Coates M. I., The Devonian tetrapodAcanthostega gunnari Jarvik: postcranialanatomy, basal tetrapod interrelationshipsand patterns of skeletal evolution,transactions of the Royal Society ofEdinburgh, 1996, vol. 87, pp. 363-421.

290 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory inCrisis, Adler & Adler, Bethesda, MA, 1985,pp. 151, 154. (emphasis added)291 William Fix, The Bone Peddlers: SellingEvolution, Macmillan Publishing Co., NewYork, 1984, p. 189. (emphasis added)292 Karen Hopkin, "The Greatest Apes,"New Scientist, vol. 62, issue 2186, 15 May1999, p. 27.293 Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics of theEvolutionary Process, Columbia UniversityPress, New York & London, 1970, pp. 17-18.294 Pierre Paul Grassé, Evolution of LivingOrganisms, Academic Press, New York,1977, p. 194.295 Mike Benton, "Is a Dog More LikeLizard or a Chicken?," New Scientist, vol.103, August 16, 1984, p. 19. (emphasis added)296 Paul Erbrich, "On the Probability of theEmergence of a Protein with a ParticularFunction," Acta Biotheoretica, vol. 34, 1985,p. 53.297 Christian Schwabe, "On the Validity ofMolecular Evolution," Trends in BiochemicalSciences, vol. 11, July 1986, p. 280. (emphasisadded)298 Christian Schwabe, "TheoreticalLimitations of Molecular Phylogeneticsand the Evolution of Relaxins,"Comparative Biochemical Physiology, vol.107B, 1974, pp.171-172. (emphasis added)299 Christian Schwabe and Gregory W.Warr, "A Polyphyletic View of Evolution,"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. 27,Spring 1984, p. 473. (emphasis added)300 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory inCrisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pp.290-291. (emphasis added)301 Hervé Philippe and Patrick Forterre,"The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (368)

is Not Reliable," Journal of MolecularEvolution, vol 49, 1999, p. 510.302 James Lake, Ravi Jain ve Maria Rivera,"Mix and Match in the Tree of Life," Science,vol. 283, 1999, p. 2027.303 Carl Woese, "The Universel Ancestor,"Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences, USA, 95, (1998) p. 6854.304 Elizabeth Pennisi, "Is It Time to Uprootthe Tree of Life?" Science, vol. 284, no. 5418,21 May 1999, p. 1305.305 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution,Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 51.306 Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/EdwardMax Dialogue: Continuing an exchangewith Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001,http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp307 Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/EdwardMax Dialogue: Continuing an exchangewith Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001,http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp308 Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/EdwardMax Dialogue: Continuing an exchangewith Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001,http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp309 Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/EdwardMax Dialogue: Continuing an exchangewith Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001,http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp310 Francisco J. Ayala, "The Mechanisms ofEvolution," Scientific American, Vol. 239,September 1978, p. 64.311 Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/EdwardMax Dialogue: Continuing an exchangewith Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001,http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp312 S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs'Provide Evidence for Evolution?,"Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p.173.313 The Merck Manual of Medical Information,

Home edition, Merck & Co., Inc. The MerckPublishing Group, Rahway, New Jersey,1997.314 H. Enoch, Creation and Evolution, NewYork, 1966, pp. 18-19.315 Charles Darwin, Origin of Species,http://www.zoo.uib.no/classics/darwin/origin.chap14.html.316 R. Mcneill Alexander, "Biomechanics:Damper For Bad Vibrations," Nature, 20-27December 2001.317 R. Mcneill Alexander, "Biomechanics:Damper For Bad Vibrations," Nature, 20-27December 2001.318 Behe's Seminar in Princeton, 1997319 G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introductionto Biology, Harcourt Brace and World, NewYork, 1965, p. 241.320 Ken McNamara, "Embryos andEvolution," New Scientist, vol. 12416, 16October 1999. (emphasis added)321 Keith S. Thomson, "Ontogeny andPhylogeny Recapitulated," AmericanScientist, vol. 76, May/June 1988, p. 273.322 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe:Where Darwin Went Wrong, Ticknor andFields, New York, 1982, p. 204.323 Elizabeth Pennisi, "Haeckel's Embryos:Fraud Rediscovered," Science, 5 September,1997. (emphasis added)324 Elizabeth Pennisi, "Haeckel's Embryos:Fraud Rediscovered," Science, 5 September,1997. (emphasis added)325 Elizabeth Pennisi, "Haeckel's Embryos:Fraud Rediscovered," Science, 5 September,1997. (emphasis added)326 Mahlon B. Hoagland, The Roots of Life,Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978, p.18327 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim(Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara,Meteksan Yay›nlar›, p. 79.



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (369)

328 Robart A. Wallace, Gerald P. Sanders,Robert J. Ferl, Biology, The Science of Life,Harper Collins College Publishers, p. 283.329 Darnell, "Implications of RNA-RNASplicing in Evolution of Eukaryotic Cells,"Science, vol. 202, 1978, p. 1257. 330 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kal?t?m veEvrim (Inheritance and Evolution),Meteksan Publications, Ankara, p.79.331 "Book Review of Symbiosis in CellEvolution," Biological Journal of LinneanSociety, vol. 18, 1982, pp. 77-79. 332 D. Lloyd, The Mitochondria ofMicroorganisms, 1974, p. 476.333 Gray & Doolittle, "Has theEndosymbiant Hypothesis Been Proven?,"Microbilological Review, vol. 30, 1982, p. 46.334 Wallace-Sanders-Ferl, Biology: The

Science of Life, 4th edition, Harper CollinsCollege Publishers, p. 94. 335 Mahlon B. Hoagland, The Roots of Life,Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978, p. 145.336 Whitfield, Book Review of Symbiosis inCell Evolution, Biological Journal ofLinnean Society, 1982, pp. 77-79. 337 Milani, Bradshaw, Biological Science, AMolecular Approach, D. C.Heath andCompany, Toronto, p. 158 .338 David Attenborough, Life on Earth,Princeton University Press, Princeton,New Jersey, 1981, p. 20.339 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kal?t?m veEvrim (Inheritance and Evolution),Meteksan Publications, Ankara, p. 80. 340 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Im Amfang WarDer Wasserstoff (Secret Night of theDinosaurs), pp. 60-61.341 "Ancient Alga Fossil Most ComplexYet," Science News, vol. 108, September 20,1975, p. 181.

342 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Im Amfang WarDer Wasserstoff (Secret Night of theDinosaurs), p. 199.343 E. C. Olson, The Evolution of Life, TheNew American Library, New York, 1965, p.94.344 Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction toPaleobotany, McGraw-Hill Publications inthe Botanical Sciences, McGraw-Hill BookCompany, Inc., New York, 1947, p. 7.345 Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction toPaleobotany, McGraw-Hill Publications inthe Botanical Sciences, McGraw-Hill BookCompany, Inc., New York, 1947, p. 334.346 N. F. Hughes, Paleobiology of AngiospermOrigins: Problems of Mesozoic Seed-PlantEvolution, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 1976, pp. 1-2.347 Daniel Axelrod, The Evolution ofFlowering Plants, in The Evolution Life, 1959,pp. 264-274.348 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: AFacsimile of the First Edition, HarvardUniversity Press, 1964, p. 189. (emphasisadded)349 Peter van Inwagen, Review aboutMichael Behe's Darwin's Black Box. 350 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim(Inheritance and Evolution), MeteksanPublications, Ankara, p. 475. (emphasisadded)351 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: AnAppeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press,1971, p. 131.352 Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami veBagnazlik (Theory of Evolution andBigotry), Bilgi Publications, January 1989,pp. 58-59. (emphasis added)353 Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, TheFree Press, New York, 1996, p. 18.354 Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, The



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (370)

Free Press, New York, 1996, pp. 18-21.355 Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box,The Free Press, New York, 1996, p. 22.(emphasis added)356 J. R. P. Angel, "Lobster Eyes as X-rayTelescopes," Astrophysical Journal, 1979,No. 233, pp. 364-373. See also B. K.Hartline (1980), "Lobster-Eye X-rayTelescope Envisioned," Science, No. 207, p.47, cited in Michael Denton, Nature'sDestiny, The Free Press, 1998, p. 354.357 M. F. Land, "Superposition Images areFormed by Reflection in the Eyes of SomeOceanic Decapod Crustacea," Nature, 1976,vol. 263, pp. 764-765. 358 Jeff Goldberg, "The Quivering BundlesThat Let Us Hear," Seeing, Hearing, andSmelling the World, A Report from theHoward Hughes Medical Institute, p. 38.359 Veysel Atayman, "Maddeci 'Madde',Evrimci Madde" (Materialist 'Matter',Evolutionist Matter), Evrensel News Paper,13 June 1999. (emphasis added)360 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory inCrisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, p. 351.361 Duane T. Gish, "The Mammal-likeReptiles," Impact, no. 102, December 1981.362 "Ear / Evolution of the Ear" GrolierAcademic Encyclopedia,1986, p. 6. (emphasisadded)363 William E. Duruelleman & LindaTrueb, "The Gastric Brooding Frog,"Megraw-Hill Book com., 1986.364 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New WorldView, Viking Press, New York, 1980, p. 6.365 J. H. Rush, The Dawn of Life, New York,Signet, 1962, p. 35.366 Roger Lewin, "A Downward Slope toGreater Diversity," Science, vol. 217, 24September, 1982, p. 1239.367 George P. Stravropoulos, "The Frontiers

and Limits of Science," American Scientist,vol. 65, November-December 1977, p. 674.368 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New WorldView, Viking Press, New York, 1980, p. 55.

369 John Ross, Chemical and EngineeringNews, 27 July, 1980, p. 40. (emphasis added)370 "From Complexity to Perplexity,"Scientific American, May 1995.371 Cosma Shalizi, "Ilya Prigogine,"October 10, 2001,www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/notebooks/prigogine.html. (emphasis added)372 Joel Keizer, "StatisticalThermodynamics of NonequilibriumProcesses," Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987,p. 360-1. (emphasis added)373 Cosma Shalizi, "Ilya Prigogine,"October 10, 2001,www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/notebooks/prigogine.html. (emphasis added)374 F. Eugene Yates, Self-OrganizingSystems: The Emergence of Order, "BrokenSymmetry, Emergent Properties,Dissipative Structures, Life: Are TheyRelated," Plenum Press, New York, 1987,pp. 445-457. (emphasis added)375 F. Eugene Yates, Self-OrganizingSystems: The Emergence of Order, "BrokenSymmetry, Emergent Properties,Dissipative Structures, Life: Are TheyRelated" (NY: Plenum Press, 1987), p. 447.376 Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, OrderOut of Chaos, Bantam Books, New York,1984, p. 175.377 Jeffrey S. Wicken, "The Generation ofComplexity in Evolution: AThermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion," Journal ofTheoretical Biology, vol. 77, April 1979, p.349.378 Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (371)

& Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's

Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, 4th

edition, Dallas, 1992, p. 151.379 C. B. Thaxton, W. L. Bradley, and R. L.Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin:Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis andStanley, Texas, 1992, p. 120. (emphasisadded)380 I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis ve A.Babloyants, "Thermodynamics ofEvolution," Physics Today, November 1972,vol. 25, p. 23. (emphasis added)381 Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe,Michael Joseph, London, 1983, p. 20-21.(emphasis added)382 Andrew Scott, "Update on Genesis,"

New Scientist, vol. 106, May 2nd, 1985, p.30. (emphasis added)383 Robert Shapiro, Origins: A ScepticsGuide to the Creation of Life on Earth,Summit Books, New York, 1986, p. 207.(emphasis added)384 Encyclopædia Britannica, "ModernMaterialism." (emphasis added)385 Werner Gitt, In the Beginning WasInformation, CLV, Bielefeld, Germany, pp.107, 141. (emphasis added) 386 George C. Williams, The Third Culture:Beyond the Scientific Revolution, Simon &Schuster, New York, 1995, pp. 42-43.(emphasis added)387 Pierre P. Grassé, The Evolution of LivingOrganisms, 1977, p. 168.388 Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism andDarwinism," Reason in Revolt: Marxism andModern Science, London, 1993 .389 Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology,2. b., MA: Sinauer, Sunderland, 1986, p. 4.(emphasis added)390 Alan Woods, Ted Grant, "Marxism andDarwinism," Reason in Revolt: Marxism and

Modern Science, London, 1993. (emphasisadded)391 Richard Lewontin, "The Demon-Haunted World," The New York Review ofBooks, January 9, 1997, p. 28. (emphasisadded)392 Hoimar Von Dithfurth, Im Anfang WarDer Wasserstoff (Secret Night of theDinosaurs), vol. 2, p. 64. (emphasis added)393 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim(Inheritance and Evolution), MeteksanPublishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 61.(emphasis added)394 Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim(Inheritance and Evolution), MeteksanPublishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 61.(emphasis added)395 Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim(Inheritance and Evolution), MeteksanPublishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 94-95.(emphasis added)396 Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, TheFree Press, New York, 1996, pp. 252-53.397 Orhan Hançerlio¤lu, Düflünce Tarihi(History of Idea), Remzi Kitabevi, ‹stanbul:1987, p.432.398 Orhan Hançerlio¤lu, Düflünce Tarihi(History of Idea), Remzi Kitabevi, ‹stanbul:1987, p.447.399 Frederick Vester, Denken, Lernen,Vergessen, vga, 1978, p. 6.400 George Politzer, Principes Fondamentauxde Philosophie, Editions Sociales, Paris,1954, pp. 38-39-44.401 Bilim ve Teknik Magazine (Science andTechnology), No. 227, p. 6-7.402 R.L.Gregory, Eye and Brain: ThePsychology of Seeing, Oxford UniversityPress Inc. New York, 1990, p.9. (emphasisadded)403 George Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (372)

the Principles of Human Knowledge, 1710,Works of George Berkeley, vol. I, ed. A.Fraser, Oxford, 1871. (emphasis added)404 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr.Einstein, William Sloane Associate, NewYork, 1948, p. 20. (emphasis added)405 Bertrand Russell, ABC of Relativity,George Allen and Unwin, London, 1964,pp. 161-162. (emphasis added)406 George Berkeley, A Treatise Concerningthe Principles of Human Knowledge, 1710,Works of George Berkeley, vol. I, ed. A.Fraser, Oxford, 1871 p. 35-36. (emphasisadded)407 Ali Demirsoy, Kal›t›m ve Evrim(Inheritance and Evolution), p.4. (emphasisadded)408 Bertrand Russell, What is the Soul?,Works of George Berkeley, vol. I, ed. A.Fraser, Oxford, 1871. (emphasis added)409 Bertrand Russell, Three DialoguesBetween Hylas and Philonous, Works ofGeorge Berkeley, vol. I, ed. A. Fraser,Oxford, 1871. (emphasis added)410 George Politzer, PrincipesFondamentaux de Philosophie, EditionsSociales, Paris, 1954, p. 40.411 Bilim ve Teknik Magazine (Science andTechnology), No:111, p.2. (emphasis added)412 R.L.Gregory, Eye and Brain: ThePsychology of Seeing, Oxford UniversityPress Inc. New York, 1990, p.9.413 Ken Wilber, Holographic Paradigm andOther Paradoxes, p.20. (emphasis added)414 Bertrand Russell, ABC of Relativity,George Allen and Unwin, London, 1964,pp. 161-162. (emphasis added)415 Henri Bergson, Matter and Memory,Zone Books, New York, 1991. (emphasisadded)416 David Hume, A Treatise of Human

Nature, Book I, Section IV: Of PersonalIdentity. (emphasis added)417 ‹mam Rabbani, Hz. Mektuplar› (Lettersof Rabbani), Vol II, 357. Letter, p. 163.(emphasis added)418 François Jacob, Le Jeu Des Possibles,University of Washington Press, 1982, p.111. (emphasis added)419 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr.Einstein, William Sloane Associate, NewYork, 1948, p. 52-53. (emphasis added)420 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr.Einstein, William Sloane Associate, NewYork, 1948, p. 17. (emphasis added)421 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr.Einstein, William Sloane Associate, NewYork, 1948, p. 58.422 Paul Strathern, The Big Idea:Einsteinand Relativity, Arrow Books, 1997, p. 57.423 Isaac Asimov, Frontiers.424 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr.Einstein, William Sloane Associate, NewYork, 1948, p. 58. (emphasis added)



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (373)

AAborigines (nativeAustralians), 148, 160, 162,169Acantherpestes major 112Acanthostega, 71adaptation 13, 39, 71, 79,95, 115, 130, 131, 188, 272air sac (alveoli), 32, 92, 93,94, 95, 96AL 666-1, 177Alberch, Pere, 234albinism, 30algae, 51, 267, 268, 269,271Ambulocetus, 122, 123, 125,126, 127, 128, 133, 136American Museum ofNatural History, 45, 111,139, 187amino acids 195, 196, 197,198, 199, 200, 201, 202,203, 204, 205, 207, 208,209, 210, 211, 212, 213,214, 215, 216, 217, 222,225, 240, 242, 266, 298,303, 304amniotic egg, 79ammonia, 77, 207, 209,210, 212amphibians, 63, 68, 71, 74,78, 79, 80, 236Amud I skull, 165Anderson, Philip W., 300angiosperms, 271, 272Ankylosaurus, 92antibiotic resistance, 246,247, 249apes, 148, 149, 150, 151,152, 153, 154, 155, 156,157, 158, 164, 170, 172,173, 177, 180, 181, 186,187, 206, 237, 252, 335appendix, 167, 251, 252,254arboreal theory, 88Archaefructus, 270

Archaeocetea, 125, 126, 133Archaeopteryx, 88, 100, 101,102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 137archaic hom*o sapiens, 159,169, 171, 178Arnold, Chester A., 271arthropods, 61, 230Atapuerca, 173, 174, 175Atayman, Veysel, 289,290, 291atmosphere, 189, 206, 208,209, 210, 211, 212, 215,221, 269Auger, Paul, 218aural system, 128Australopithecus, 148, 149,150, 151, 152, 154, 155,156, 157, 158, 164, 170,171, 172, 175, 179Australopithecus afarensis,150, 151, 152, 153, 177, 179Australopithecus africanus,150, 157, 171Australopithecus boisei, 150Australopithecus robustus,150, 151, 185avian lung, 92, 93, 96Axelrod, Daniel, 272Ayala, Francisco, 249

Bbacteria, 15, 22, 33, 34, 46,51, 196, 199, 246, 247, 248,249, 250, 259, 260, 261,265, 266, 267, 268, 275,276, 285, 322Bada, Jeffrey, 206Barnett, Lincoln, 329, 345,349Basilosaurus, 126, 127Bathybius haeckelii, 192Beck, C. B., 255Beer, Gavin De, 234Behe, Michael, J., 254, 275,280, 282, 316Bengtson, Stefan, 63Berkeley, George, 325, 328,329, 332, 333, 342

beta-globin, 218Big Bang theory, 312biogenetic law, 254, 255,256Biomechanics in Evolution,113bipedalism, 180, 181Birkenia, 66Bishop, Martin, 241Bliss, Richard, 209Blum, Harold, F., 197Bohlin, Raymond, 143bony fishes, 65Brace, C. Loring, 154, 157Bricmont, Jean, 301British Museum, 23, 185,186, 187Bromage, Tim, 157Brush, A. H., 97Bryan, William, 187Burbank, Luther, 37

CCaecilians, 72Cambrian age, 53, 54, 56,57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64L. Camp, A. L., 125, 127cancer, 30Carboniferous, 113, 270,272Carroll, Robert L., 40, 43,44, 65, 70, 71, 79, 81, 82,88, 101, 127Cech, Thomas, 221cell, 12, 15, 20, 27, 33, 51,54, 56, 120, 132, 189, 190,191, 192, 193, 194, 195,197, 206, 208, 216, 217,221, 222, 223, 224, 225,226, 238, 240, 247, 251,259, 260, 261, 262, 263,264, 265, 266, 267, 269,273, 275, 276, 279, 280,281, 282, 283, 284, 285,287, 288, 289, 290, 298,301, 304, 305, 306, 307,310, 315, 347cephalochordates, 65




Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (374)

Chad, 172Chadwick, D. H., 130chemical evolution, 206,207, 220, 305chemical reaction, 194,204, 205, 210, 213, 225,302, 306, 336, 338Chen, C. T., 209chlorophyll, 262, 266chloroplast, 262, 263, 264,265, 266Chordata phylum, 63, 64,238chromosome, 240Clark, Le Gros, 187Coates, M., 236Coelacanth, 70, 72, 73, 74Cold trap (MillerExperiment), 208, 209, 211Committee on GeneticEffects of AtomicRadiation, 28common ancestor, 35, 40,52, 53, 55, 60, 133, 147,228, 230, 233, 234, 236,237, 238, 245communism, 146Confuciusornis, 105, 106Conkey, Margaret, 168craniates, 65Cretaceous, 81Crick, Francis, 216, 218,220, 223Cro-Magnon man, 159,169, 170Crompton, Robin, 181Cronin, J. E., 157Crossopterygian subclass,71cursorial theory, 88, 111cyanobacteria, 262Cynodictis gregarius, 138cytochrome-C, 196, 240,314cytoskeleton, 194, 262

DDarwin, Charles Robert,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 35, 36,37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,44, 45, 48, 49, 60, 61, 62,63, 96, 100, 140, 147, 192,198, 228, 234, 245, 251,252, 271, 273, 274, 275,276, 278, 279, 280, 282,293, 311Darwinism, 12, 13, 17, 19,20, 21, 26, 37, 39, 48, 52,53, 56, 57, 61, 62, 78, 82,96, 100, 119, 120, 142, 146,172, 181, 188, 226, 254,273, 274, 275, 293, 317, 322Dawkins, Richard, 55, 145,203Dawson, Charles, 185Deem, Richard L., 104Deevey, Edward, 37Demick, David A., 30Demirsoy, Ali, 68, 219,260, 262, 267, 277, 314,315, 330Denton, Michael, 19, 31,79, 92, 93, 95, 96, 135, 191,221, 233, 236, 243, 290Descent of Man, 147Developmental Biology, 38Devonian Age, 67, 71, 111Dimorphodon, 137Dinilysia, 81dissipative structures, 300300, 301Ditfurth, Hoimar von,268, 290, 314DNA, 12, 27, 33, 59, 134,142, 194, 197, 200, 216,217, 218, 219, 220, 221,223, 225, 233, 237, 238,239, 240, 243, 244, 259,260, 261, 263, 264, 265,295, 303, 305, 307, 308,309, 310Dobzhansky, Theodosius,17, 18, 238Dominican Republic, 70Doppler effect, 120Dose, Klaus, 206Down syndrome, 30

Dromaeosaur, 100, 104Drosophila melanogaster,31, 34Dunbar, Carl O., 101dwarfism, 30

EEddington, Sir Arthur, 295Einstein, Albert, 295, 345,346, 347, 349Eldredge, Niles, 44, 45,139, 143, 145Ellington, C., 113embryologicalrecapitulation, 19embryology, 108, 110, 233,246, 258endoplasmic reticulum,194, 263endosymbiosishypothesis, 263, 264Enoch, H., 252Eoalulavis, 105Eocene period, 118Eohippus, 118, 119Equus, 119Erbrich, Paul, 241Escherichia coli, 34Eudimorphodon, 83eukaryotic cells, 260, 262,263Eusthenopteron, 71evolutionary pressure, 129evolutionary tree of life,125, 172, 243, 271

FFaber, Betty, 111"feathered dinosaur", 98,106, 107, 108, 109Feduccia, Alan, 90, 98,105, 110Ferreras, Arsuaga, 174Ferris, J. P., 209Finches, 13, 39, 40Fink, Bob, 164, 166, 167Fix, William, 147, 237fluorine testing, 186flying reptiles, 83Fox, Sydney, 214, 215, 221



Darwinism refuted - [PDF Document] (375)

Fox's experiment, 214, 215Friday, Adrian, 241frogs, 29, 70, 72, 76, 234,240, 293fruit flies, 18, 28, 29, 33Futuyma, Douglas, 59,134, 311

Ggallinaceous birds, 102gene pool, 309genes, 76, 235, 239, 245,248genetic information, 12,18, 21, 27, 33, 35, 36, 37,38, 128, 129, 141, 225, 247,248, 249, 259genetic stability (genetichomeostasis), 17, 36Gee, Henry, 70, 71, 130,172, 173, 183Geological Society ofAmerica, 17, 18George, Neville, T., 45George WashingtonUniversity, 172Gilbert, Walter, 221Gingerich, P. D., 123 Gish, Duane T., 83Gitt, Werner, 307Godfrey, L. R., 121golgi apparatus, 194, 263Gondwanaland, 231Gould, Stephen Jay, 26, 43,44, 45, 58, 80, 139, 140,143, 145, 146, 171, 311gradual developmentmodel, 44, 58, 88, 181Gran Dolina, 174, 175Grassé, Paul Pierre, 23, 31,34, 41, 113, 226, 310Gray, Asa, 100Gregory, R. L., 327, 335Gregory, William, 187GTP, 281

HHaeckel, Ernst, 52, 192,254, 255, 256, 257, 258Halitherium, 138

hemoglobin, 30, 240, 241Harvard University, 43,47, 139, 171, 172, 184, 312Hesperopithecus haroldcooki,187heterozygous individuals,144Hitching, Francis, 43Hoagland, Mahlon B., 264Hofstadter, D., 220Hohenberg, P., 299hominids 155, 171, 172,179hom*o antecessor, 175hom*o erectus, 149, 150,154, 155, 157, 159, 160,161, 162, 163, 164, 170,171, 175, 178hom*o ergaster, 160hom*o habilis, 149, 150, 154,155, 156, 157, 158, 160,164, 170, 171, 175, 177hom*o heidelbergensis, 169,170hom*o rudolfensis, 156, 157,158, 164, 171hom*o sapiens, 148, 149,150, 159, 161, 163, 164,165, 169, 171, 173, 174,175, 177, 178, 179hom*o sapiens sapiens, 150,159, 178hom*ology, 19, 103, 104,228, 229, 232, 233, 234,235, 236, 237, 244hom*ozygous, 144Hooten, Earnst A., 184Hopeful Monster theory,140Horgan, John, 206, 219,222, 224Hou, Lianhai, 105Hoyle, Fred, 193, 198, 304Hughes, N. F., 272Hume, David, 338Huxley, Julian, 17, 18, 23hydrogen, 207, 209, 212,290Hylonomus, 80, 135

Hyrax, 119, 138

IIcaronycteris, 121, 137Ichthyosaur, 85, 86, 135Ichthyostega, 71, 72, 73(immunity to) DDT, 246,249inner ear, 128, 129, 155,156, 170, 286, 287, 288,289, 290, 291, 327insecta phylum, 111intelligent design, 11, 220,221, 226, 239, 275Inuits, 148, 159, 163, 178Inwagen, I. van, 275irreducible complexity, 26,88, 193, 233, 275, 284, 292

JJacob, François, 344Jacob, Homer, 219Java man, 149, 160Jepsen, Glen, L., 17Johannsen, W. L., 37Johanson, Donald C., 151,166, 175Johnson, Phillip, 56, 146Jour