1 WHY IS THE THEORY OF
EVOLUTION NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID?
THE theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about as
the result of chance and emerged by itself from natural conditions.
This theory is not a scientific law or a proven fact. Underneath its
scientific façade it is a materialist worldview that Darwinists are
trying to impose on society. The bases of this theory, which has been
disproved by science in every field, are suggestions and propaganda
methods consisting of deceptions, falsehood, contradiction, cheating,
and sleight of hand.
The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis
in the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth
century, and to this day it has not been backed up by any scientific
discovery or experiment. On the contrary, all the methods employed to
confirm the theory have merely proven its invalidity.
However, even today many people think that the theory is a proven fact,
like the force of gravity or the law of buoyancy. Because, as stated
at the beginning, the true nature of the theory of evolution is very
different from what is usually supposed. For this reason, some people
do not know what rotten foundations this theory has, how it is disproved
by science at every turn, and how evolutionists are trying to keep it
alive in its death throes. Evolutionists have no other support than
unconfirmed hypotheses, biased and unrealistic observations, and imaginary
drawings, methods of psychological suggestion, countless falsehoods,
and sleight-of-hand techniques.
Nothing was known in Darwin's time about
the complex structure of the cell
Today, such branches of science as paleontology, genetics, biochemistry,
and molecular biology have proven that it is quite impossible for life
to come about as a result of chance and to emerge by itself from natural
conditions. The living cell, it is commonly agreed by the world of science,
is the most complex structure that mankind has so far encountered. Modern
science has revealed that just one living cell has a much more complex
structure and mutually interconnected complicated systems than a large
city. Such a complex structure can only function if all its separate
parts emerge at the same time and in full working order. Otherwise,
it will serve no purpose, and will fall apart over time and disappear.
We cannot expect that its parts developed by chance over millions of
years as claimed by the theory of evolution. For that reason, the complex
design in just one cell clearly shows that God created life. (For more
details, see Harun Yahya, The Miracle in the Cell)
However, those who defend materialist philosophy do not want to accept
the fact of creation for various ideological reasons. That is because
the existence and spread of societies living in the light of that beautiful
morality that true religion offers to man by means of God's commands
and prohibitions is not in these materialists' interests. Masses devoid
of any spiritual and moral values suit these people far better, since
they can manipulate them for their own worldly interests. For this reason,
they try to impose the theory of evolution, which encourages the lie
that mankind was not created but rather emerged by chance and evolved
from animals, and to keep it alive at whatever costs. Despite all the
clear scientific proof that destroys the theory of evolution and confirms
the fact of creation, they abandon all reason and logic and defend this
nonsense at every available opportunity.
It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living
cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that
cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only
by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations
of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first
step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.
Not only could the cell, the smallest unit of life, never have come
about by chance in the primitive and uncontrolled conditions in the
early days of the Earth, as evolutionists would have us believe, it
cannot even be synthesized in the most advanced laboratories of the
twentieth century. Amino acids, the building blocks of the proteins
that make up the living cell, cannot of themselves build such organelles
in the cell as mitochondria, ribosomes, cell membranes, or the endoplasmic
reticulum, let alone a whole cell. For this reason, the claim that evolution
brought about the first cell by chance remains the product of a fantasy
based entirely on imagination.
The living cell, which still harbours many secrets that have not been
explained, is one of the major difficulties facing the theory of evolution.
Examples of the complex structures in cells:
Right, a ribosome where the protein synthesis takes place in the
cell. Left, a "nucleosome" which packages DNA units in the chromosome.
The cell contains many very complex structures and systems such
as these, and even more complex ones. The realisation that these
complex structures, discovered by technology as it advanced, could
not have come about by chance has placed evolutionists in a dilemma
they can never solve.
Another terrible dilemma from the point of view of evolution is the
DNA molecule in the nucleus of the living cell, a coding system with
3.5 billion units containing all the details of life. DNA was first
discovered using X-ray crystallography in the late 1940s and early 1950s,
and is a giant molecule with a superb plan and design. For many years,
Francis Crick, a Nobel-prize laureate, believed in the theory of molecular
evolution, but eventually even he had to admit to himself that such
a complex molecule could not have emerged spontaneously by chance, as
the result of an evolutionary process:
From the time Darwin's theory came to dominate
science to the present day, paleontology has considered the theory
its very basis. Despite this, however, excavations in many parts
of the world have produced results that conflict with the theory
instead of backing it up. Fossils show that different living groups
emerged suddenly with all their features intact-in other words
that they were created.
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available
to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life
appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.1
The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to make
the 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 of the emergence of a certain protein chain
is so slight as to be called astronomic. 2
Homer Jacobson, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, makes
the following admission regarding how impossible it is for life to have
come about by chance:
Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction
of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and
for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all
had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This
combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance…
Twenty-five-million-year-old termites preserved
in amber. They are indistinguishable from termites living in our
The fossil record represents another crushing defeat for the theory
of evolution. Among all the fossils discovered over the years, there
is not one trace of the intermediate forms that would be necessary if
living things were to have evolved stage by stage from simple species
to more complex ones, as the theory of evolution claims. If such creatures
had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of
them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present
in the fossil record. If these intermediate forms had ever really existed,
their numbers would be even greater than the number of animal species
we know today, and everywhere the world should be full of their fossil
remains. Evolutionists look for these intermediate forms in all the
feverish fossil research that has been carried out since the nineteenth
century. However, there has been no trace of these intermediate forms,
despite all the eager searching for the last 150 years.
In short, the fossil record shows that living species emerged suddenly
and perfectly formed, not by following a process from primitive forms
to advanced ones as evolution claims.
Evolutionists have tried very hard to find evidence for their theory
or so, but have actually proved by their own hand that no evolutionary
process could have been possible. In conclusion, modern science reveals
the following indisputable fact: Living things did not emerge as the
result of blind chance, but God created them.
2 HOW DOES THE COLLAPSE
OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEMONSTRATE THE TRUTH OF CREATION?
WHEN we ask how life on Earth emerged, we find two different answers:
One is that living things emerged by evolution. According to the theory
of evolution, which makes this claim, life began with the first cell,
which itself emerged by chance or by some hypothetical natural laws
of "self-organization." Again as a result of chance and natural laws,
this living cell developed and evolved, and by taking on different forms
gave rise to the millions of species of life on Earth.
The second answer is "Creation." All living things came into existence
by being created by an intelligent Creator. When life and the millions
of forms it takes, which could not possibly have come into existence
by chance, were first created, they had the same complete, flawless,
and superior design that they possess today. The fact that even the
simplest-looking forms of life possess such complex structures and systems
that could never have come about by chance and natural conditions is
a clear proof of this.
Outside these two alternatives, there is no third claim or hypothesis
today regarding how life emerged. According to the rules of logic, if
one answer to a question with two alternative possible answers is proved
to be false, then the other must be true. This rule, one of the most
fundamental in logic, is called disjunctive inference (modus tollendo
In other words, if it is demonstrated that living species on Earth
did not evolve by chance, as the theory of evolution claims, then that
is clear proof that they were formed by a Creator. Scientists who support
the theory of evolution agree that there is no third alternative. One
of these, Douglas Futuyma, makes the following statement:
Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed
or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing
species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully
developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent
The fossil record provides the answer to the evolutionist Futuyma.
The science of fossils (paleontology) shows that all living groups emerged
on Earth at different times, all at once, and perfectly formed.
All the discoveries from excavations and studies over the last hundred
years or so show that, contrary to evolutionists' expectations, living
things came into existence suddenly, in perfect and flawless form, in
other words that they were "created." Bacteria, protozoa, worms, molluscs,
and other invertebrate sea creatures, arthropods, fish, amphibians,
reptiles, birds, and mammals all appeared suddenly, with complex organs
and systems. There are no fossils that show any so-called "transition"
between them. Paleontology bears the same message as other branches
of science: Living things did not evolve, but were created. As a result,
while evolutionists were trying to prove their unrealistic theory, they
by their own hands produced proof of creation.
Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed
evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied
with fossil discoveries:
Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting
efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does
not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that
he expected. 5
The Cambrian Explosion is enough to tear
down the theory of evolution
The world of living things is divided by biologists into such fundamental
groups as plants, animals, fungae etc. These are then subdivided into
different "phyla." When designating these phyla, the fact that each
one possesses completely different physical structures should always
be borne in mind. Arthropoda (insects, spiders, and other creatures
with jointed legs), for instance, are a phylum by themselves, and all
the animals in the phylum have the same fundamental physical structure.
The phylum called Chordata includes those creatures with a
notochord or, most commonly, a spinal column. All the large animals
such as fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals that we are familiar in daily
life are in a subphylum of Chordata known as vertebrates.
THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION TEARS UP THE EVOLUTIONARY
"TREE OF LIFE" The
above illustration is taken from The Book of Life, published in 2001
under the editorship of the late Stephen Jay Gould, one of the world's
most prominent evolutionists. The illustration explains which different
groups of animals emerged in which periods. On the left, the various
geological periods are listed, starting 2,500 million years ago. The
coloured columns show the major phyla of animals. (The colours in
the columns refer to different periods.)
When we examine this figure, the miracle of the Cambrian Explosion
is obvious. There is only one phylum before the Cambrian Age (the
Cnidaria, which include jellyfish and corals). In the Cambrian Age,
however, 13 completely different phyla suddenly emerged.
This picture is the opposite of the theory of evolution, because evolution
maintains that living phyla increased in stages, like the branches
of a tree. The evolutionists who drew
up the figure try to gloss over this gap by talking about "theoretical
links." We can see pale lines at the bottom of the figure joining
the coloured boxes (in other words, genuine phyla of which fossil
remains have been found). These are imaginary links required by the
theory of evolution, but of which no evidence has ever been found.
If the theory of evolution were true,
if these links were real and not imaginary, then fossils of transitional
groups should have been discovered. Despite all the fossil research
of the last 150 years, the fact that these links are still just a
dream shows that the theory of evolution is nothing but a fantasy.
Marrella: One of the
interesting fossil creatures found in the Burgess Shale,
a Cambrian rock formation
A fossil from the Cambrian
There are around 35 different phyla of animals, including the Mollusca,
which include soft-bodied creatures such as snails and octopuses, or
the Nematoda, which include diminutive worms. The most important feature
of these phyla is, as we touched on earlier, that they possess totally
different physical characteristics. The categories below the phyla possess
basically similar body plans, but the phyla are very different from
So how did these differences come about?
Let us first consider the Darwinist hypothesis. As we know, Darwinism
proposes that life developed from one single common ancestor, and took
on all its varieties by a series of tiny changes. In that case, life
should first have emerged in very similar and simple forms. And according
to the same theory, the differentiation between, and growing complexity
in, living things must have happened in parallel over time.
Hallucigenia: One of the creatures that
suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. This and many other Cambrian
fossils have hard, sharp spines to protect them from attack. One
thing that evolutionists cannot account for is how these creatures
should have such an effective defense system when there were no
predators around. The lack of predators makes it impossible to
explain these spines in terms of natural selection.
According to Darwinism, life must be like a tree, with a common root,
subsequently splitting up into different branches. And this hypothesis
is constantly emphasized in Darwinist sources, where the concept of
the "tree of life" is frequently employed. According to this tree concept,
one phylum must first emerge, and then the other phyla must slowly come
about with minute changes over very long periods of time.
Many complex invertebrates such as starfish
and jellyfish emerged suddenly some 500 million years ago with
no so-called evolutionary ancestor before them. In other words,
they were created. They were no different from those alive today.
That is the theory of evolution's claim. But is this really how it
Definitely not. Quite the contrary, animals have
been very different and complex since the moment they first emerged.
All the animal phyla known today emerged at the same time, in the middle
of the geological period known as the Cambrian Age. The Cambrian Age
is a geological period estimated to have lasted some 65 million years,
approximately between 570 to 505 million years ago. But the period of
the abrupt appearance of major animal groups fit in an even shorter
phase of the Cambrian, often referred to as the "Cambrian explosion."
Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, in an article based
on a detailed literature survey, dated 2001, note that the "Cambrian
explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow window of geologic time,
lasting no more than 5 million years."6
of the complex invertebrates that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian
Age some 550 million years ago were the fossil trilobites above.
Another feature of trilobites that poses a quandary for evolutionists
is their compound eye structure. Trilobites' very advanced eyes
possessed a multi-lens system. That system is exactly the same as
that found in many creatures today, such as spiders, bees, and flies.
The sudden emergence of such a complex eye structure in a creature
that lived 500 million years ago is enough on its own to consign
evolutionists' theories based on chance to the waste bin.
Before then, there is no trace in the fossil record of anything apart
from single-celled creatures and a few very primitive multicellular
ones. All animal phyla emerged completely formed and all at once, in
the very short period of time represented by the Cambrian Explosion.
(Five million years is a very short time in geological terms!)
The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belong to very different creatures,
such as snails, trilobites, sponges, jellyfish, starfish, shellfish,
etc. Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems and advanced
structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the
same as those in modern specimens. These structures are at one and the
same time very advanced, and very different.
Prof. Philip Johnson
Richard Monastersky, a staff writer at Science News journal, states
the following about the Cambrian explosion, which is a deathtrap for
A half-billion years ago, ...the remarkably complex
forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right
at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago,
marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's
first complex creatures.7
Phillip Johnson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley
who is also one of the world's foremost critics of Darwinism, describes
the contradiction between this paleontological truth and Darwinism:
Darwinian theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity,"
as the first living organism, or first animal species, gradually and
continually diversified to create the higher levels of taxonomic order.
The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down,
with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing. 8
As Phillip Johnson has revealed, far from its being the case that
phyla came about by stages, in reality they all came into being at once,
and some of them even became extinct in later periods. The meaning of
the emergence of very different living creatures all of a sudden and
perfectly formed, is creation, as evolutionist Futuyma has also accepted.
As we have seen, all the available scientific discoveries disprove the
claims of the theory of evolution and reveal the truth of creation.
3 HOW FAR BACK DO TRACES
OF MAN GO? WHY DO THESE NOT SUPPORT EVOLUTION?
3.6-million-year-old human footprints found
in Laetoli, Tanzania.
WE need to turn to the fossil record to find an answer to the question
of when man appeared on Earth. This record shows that man goes back
millions of years. These discoveries consist of skeletons and skulls,
and the remains of people who lived at various times. One of the oldest
traces of man are the "footprints" found by the famous palaentologist
Mary Leakey in 1977 in Tanzania's Laetoli region.
These remains caused a great furore in the world of science. Research
indicated that these footprints were in a 3.6-million-year-old layer.
Russell Tuttle, who saw the footprints, wrote:
A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them...
In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals
that made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans.
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.
Such famous paleoanthropologists as Don Johnson and Tim White, who examined
the prints found by Mary Leakey, corroborated that conclusion. White
revealed his thoughts by saying:
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. 10
These footprints sparked an important debate among evolutionists.
That was because for them to accept that these were human footprints
would mean that the imaginary progression they had drawn up from ape
to man could no longer be maintained. However, at this point dogmatic
evolutionist logic once again showed its face. Most evolutionist scientists
once more abandoned science for the sake of their prejudices. They claimed
that the footprints found at Laetoli were those of an ape-like creature.
Russell Tuttle, who was one of the evolutionists defending this claim,
In sum, the 3.5 million-year-old footprint traits
at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans.
None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable
bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old,
we would readily conclude that there were made by a member of our genus
Homo... In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the
Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis.
The remains of a 1.7-million-year-old stone
Another of the oldest remains to do with man was the ruins of a stone
hut found in the Olduvai Gorge region by Louis Leakey in the 1970s.
The remains of the hut were found in a layer 1.7 million years old.
It is known that structures of this kind, of which similar examples
are still used in Africa in the present day, could only be built by
Homo sapiens, in other words modern man. The significance of the remains
is that they reveal that man lived at the same time as the so-called
ape-like creatures that evolutionists portray as his ancestors.
A 2.3 million-year-old modern human jaw found in
the Hadar region of Ethiopia was very important from the point of view
of showing that modern man had existed on the Earth much longer that
One of the oldest and most perfect human fossils is KNM-WT 1500, also
known as the "Turkana Child" skeleton. The 1.6 million-year-old fossil
is described by the evolutionist Donald Johanson in these terms:
He was tall and thin, in body shape and limb proportions
resembling present-day equatorial Africans. Despite his youth, the boy's
limb nearly matched the mean measurements for white North American adult
It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old
boy, who would have been 1.83 metres tall in adolescence. The American
paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average
pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and
that of a modern human." Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he
laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal."14
In its December 1997 edition, Discover, one
of the most popular evolutionist magazines, placed an 800,000-year-old
human face on its cover, alongside a headline taken from evolutionists'
surprised statement, "Is this the face of our past?"
One of the human fossils that has attracted the most attention was
one found in Spain in 1995. The fossil in question was uncovered in
a cave called Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca region of Spain by three
Spanish paleoanthropologists from the University of Madrid. The fossil
revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern
man. Yet, it had been 800,000 years since the child died. 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, in the past. It's like finding something like-like a
tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We don't
expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding
a modern face 800,000 years ago-it's the same thing. We were very surprised
when we saw it. 15
As we have seen, fossil discoveries give the lie to the claim of "the
evolution of man." This claim is presented by some media organizations
as if it were a proven fact, whereas all that actually exist are fictitious
theories. In fact, evolutionist scientists accept this, and admit that
the claim of "the evolution of man" lacks any scientific evidence.
For instance, by saying, "We appear suddenly in the
fossil record" the evolutionist paleontologists C. A. Villie, E. P.
Solomon and P. W. Davis admit that man emerged all of a sudden, in other
words with no evolutionary ancestor.16
Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, two evolutionist anthropologists
were forced to say, "existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution
are unlikely to be reliable." in an article they wrote in 2000. 17
REGARDING THE NEANDERTHALS
1975 PORTRAYAL OF NEANDERTHALS - Geheimnisse
der Urzeit, Deutsche Übersetzung, 1975 (left)
2000 PORTRAYAL OF NEANDERTHALS - National Geographic, July 2000
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionists have
been portraying the Neanderthals, a vanished human race, as semi-ape
creatures. The above portrayal of Neanderthals was used as evolutionist
propaganda for decades. However, since the 1980s this myth has
begun to collapse. Both fossil studies and traces of Neanderthal
culture have shown that these people were not semi-apes. For example,
this 26,000-year-old needle proved that Neanderthals were civilised
humans who possessed the ability to sew. As a result of this,
evolutionist publications such as National Geographic had to start
portraying them as civilised, as in the picture below.
Every new fossil discovery places evolutionists in an even worse quandary,
even if certain frivolous newspapers do print headlines such as "Missing
link discovered." The fossil skull discovered in 2001 and named Kenyanthropus
platyops is the latest example of this. The evolutionist paleontologist
Daniel E. Lieberman from Washington University's Department of Anthropology
had this to say about Kenyanthropus platyops in an article in the leading
scientific journal, Nature:
|EVOLUTIONISTS' IMAGINARY HYPOTHESES ARE
FAR FROM ACCOUNTING FOR THE ORIGIN OF MAN
Despite 150 years of propagandistic evolutionist
research into the origin of man, the fossils discovered show that
the first human beings suddenly appeared on the Earth, with no "apelike
ancestor." The three different hypotheses on this page illustrate
three different and contradictory evolutionist scenarios (Stephen
Jay Gould, The Book of Life, 2001). Looking carefully, we can see
that there is a question mark in front of Homo erectus, which is shown
as the first human race on Earth. The reason for this is that there
is no "ape-like" creature that evolutionists can show as being the
"ancestor of man." Species in the illustrations, which lack anything
linking them to man, are actually extinct species of ape. The origin
of man, as we can see, is a mystery for evolutionists, because that
origin is not evolution at all, but creation.
The evolutionary history of humans is complex and
unresolved. It now looks set to be thrown into further confusion by
the discovery of another species and genus, dated to 3.5 million years
ago… The nature of Kenyanthropus platyops raises all kinds of questions,
about human evolution in general and the behaviour of this species in
particular. Why, for example, does it have the unusual combination of
small cheek teeth and a big flat face with an anteriorly positioned
arch of the cheekbone? All other known hominin species with big faces
and similarly positioned cheekbones have big teeth. I suspect the chief
role of K. platyops in the next few years will be to act as a sort of
party spoiler, highlighting the confusion that confronts research into
evolutionary relationships among hominins. 18
The latest evidence to shatter the evolutionary theory's claim about
the origin of man is the new fossil Sahelanthropus tchadensis unearthed
in the Central African country of Chad in the summer of 2002.
The Gran Dolina cave in Spain, where the
Atapuerca fossil, of a true human being, was found.
The fossil has set the cat among the pigeons in the
world of Darwinism. In its article giving news of the discovery, the
world-renowned journal Nature admitted that "New-found skull could sink
our current ideas about human evolution."19
Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University said that
"This [discovery] will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb." 20
The reason for this is that although the fossil in question is 7 million
years old, it has a more "human-like" structure (according to the criteria
evolutionists have hitherto used) than the 5 million-year-old Australopithecus
ape species that is alleged to be "mankind's oldest ancestor." This
shows that the evolutionary links established between extinct ape species
based on the highly subjective and prejudiced criterion of "human similarity"
are totally imaginary.
John Whitfield, in his article "Oldest Member of Human Family Found"
published in Nature on July, 11, 2002, confirms this view quoting from
Bernard Wood, an evolutionist anthropologist from George Washington
University in Washington:
"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution
looked like a ladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from
monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly
less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush.
We have a menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each
other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.21
The comments of Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature and a leading
paleoanthropologist, about the newly discovered ape fossil are very
noteworthy. In his article published in The Guardian, Gee refers to
the debate about the fossil and writes:
Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for
all, that the old idea of a "missing link" is bunk... It should now
be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky,
is now completely untenable. 22
As we have seen, the increasing number of discoveries is producing
results opposed to the theory of evolution, not in favour of it. If
such an evolutionary process had happened in the past, there should
be many traces of it, and each new discovery should further strengthen
the theory. In fact, in The Origin of Species, Darwin claimed that science
would develop in just that direction. In his view, the only problem
facing his theory in the fossil record was a lack of fossil discoveries.
He hoped that future research would unearth countless fossils to support
his theory. However, subsequent scientific discoveries have actually
proved Darwin's dreams to be totally unfounded.
The importance of human-linked remains
The discoveries regarding man, of which we have seen a few examples
here, reveal very important truths. In particular, they have once again
demonstrated what a great product of fantasy the evolutionists' claim
that man's ancestor was an ape-like creature is. For this reason, it
is out of the question that these ape species could be man's ancestors.
In conclusion, the fossil record shows us that man came into existence
millions of years ago in just the same form as he is now, and that he
has come down to the present with absolutely no evolutionary development.
If they claim to be genuinely scientific and honest, evolutionists should
throw their imaginary progression from ape to man into the bin at this
point. The fact that they do not give up this spurious family tree shows
that evolution is not a theory that is defended in the name of science,
but rather a dogma they are struggling to keep alive in the face of
the scientific facts.
4 WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
NOT THE "BASIS OF BIOLOGY"?
ONE claim that is frequently repeated by evolutionists is the lie that
the theory of evolution is the basis of biology… Those who put forward
this claim suggest that biology could not develop, or even exist, without
the theory of evolution. This claim actually stems from a demagogy born
out of despair. The philosopher Professor Arda Denkel, one of the foremost
names in Turkish science, makes the following comment on this subject:
During Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union,
all scientific research had to conform to Marx and Engels' "dialectical
materialism." Those who portray Darwinism as being the basis of
biology have the same dogmatic mentality.
For instance, it is quite wrong to suggest that "Rejecting
the theory of evolution means rejecting the biological and geological
sciences and the discoveries of physics and chemistry." Because in order
to make such an inference (here a modus tollens) there need to be some
propositions regarding chemical, physical, geological and biological
discoveries that imply the theory of evolution. However, the discoveries,
or statements of them, do not imply the theory. Therefore, they do not
It is enough to look at the history of science to realise what an invalid
and irrational thing it is to claim that "evolution is the basis of
biology." If the claim were true, it would mean that no biological sciences
had developed in the world before the emergence of the theory of evolution,
and that they were all born after it. However, many branches of biology,
such as anatomy, physiology, and paleontology, were born and developed
before the theory of evolution. On the other hand, evolution is a hypothesis
that emerged after these sciences, which Darwinists are trying to impose
on these sciences by force.
A similar method to that employed by evolutionists was used in the
USSR in Stalin's time. In those days communism, the official ideology
of the Soviet Union, considered the philosophy of "dialectical materialism"
to be the basis of all the sciences. Stalin had ordered that all scientific
research should conform to dialectical materialism. In this way, all
books on biology, chemistry, physics, history, politics, and even art
had introductory sections to the effect that those sciences were based
on dialectical materialism and the views of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
However, with the collapse of the USSR this obligation was lifted,
and books returned to being ordinary technical, scientific texts containing
the same information. The abandoning of such nonsense as dialectical
materialism did not leave science in the shade, but rather lifted pressure
and obligations from it.
In our day, there is no reason why science should
remain tied to the theory of evolution. Science is based on observation
and experimentation. Evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothesis regarding
an unobservable past. Furthermore, the theory's claims and propositions
have always been disproved by science and the laws of logic. Science
will suffer no loss, of course, when this hypothesis is abandoned. The
American biologist G. W. Harper has this to say on the subject:
It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to modern biology.
On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly disappeared,
biology would remain substantially unchanged… 24
In fact, quite to the contrary, science will progress in a much faster
and healthier manner when it is freed from the insistence of a theory
full of dogmatism, prejudice, nonsense, and fabrication.
5 WHY IS THE EXISTENCE
OF DIFFERENT RACES NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION?
Since the genetic material in the first
man contained all the characteristics of the various races, parts
of this came to dominate in various societies, and thus the human
SOME evolutionists try to put the existence of different races forward
as evidence for evolution. In fact, this claim is more frequently expressed
by amateur evolutionists who have a less than sufficient knowledge of
the theory they defend.
The thesis proposed by those who defend this claim is based on the
question, "If, as divine sources say, life began with one man and one
woman, how could different races have emerged?" Another way of putting
it is: "Since Adam and Eve's height, colour, and other features were
those of only two people, how could races with entirely different features
In fact, the problem lying beneath all these questions or objections
is an insufficient knowledge of the laws of genetics, or the ignoring
of them. In order to understand the reason for the differences between
the races in today's world, it will be necessary to have some idea of
the subject of "variation," which is closely linked to this question.
Variation, a term used in genetics, refers to a genetic event that
causes the individuals or groups of a certain type or species to possess
different characteristics from one another. The source of this variation
is the genetic information possessed by the individuals within that
species. As a result of breeding between those individuals, that genetic
information comes together in later generations in different combinations.
There is an exchange of genetic material between the mother's and father's
chromosomes. Genes thus get mixed up with one another. The result of
this is a wide variety of individual features.
The different physical features between human races are due to variations
within the human race. All the people on Earth carry basically the same
genetic information, yet some have slanted eyes, some have red hair,
some have long noses, and others are short of stature, all depending
on the extent of the variation potential of this genetic information.
In order to understand the variation potential, let us consider a society
in which brunette, brown-eyed people predominate over blond, blue-eyed
individuals. As a result of the two communities intermingling and marrying
over time, new generations which are brunette but blue-eyed will be
seen. In other words, the physical characteristics of both groups will
come together in subsequent generations and produce new appearances.
When one imagines other physical characteristics mixing in the same
way, it is clear that a great variety will emerge.
The important point that must be understood here is this: There are
two genes that rule every physical feature. One may dominate the other,
or they may both influence matters to an equal extent. For instance,
two genes determine the colour of a person's eyes. One comes from the
mother, the other from the father. Whichever gene is the dominant one,
the individual's eye colour will be determined by that gene. In general,
dark colours dominate lighter ones. In this way, if a person possesses
genes for brown and for green eyes, his eyes will be brown because the
brown eye gene is dominant. However, the recessive green colour can
be passed down the generations and emerge at a later time. In other
words, parents with brown eyes can have a green-eyed child. That is
because that colour gene is recessive in both parents.
This law applies to all other physical features and the genes which
govern them. Hundreds, or even thousands, of physical features, such
as the ears, nose, the shape of the mouth, height, bone structure, and
organ structure, shape, and characteristics, are all controlled in the
same way. Thanks to this, all the limitless information in the genetic
structure can be passed on to subsequent generations without becoming
outwardly visible. Adam, the first human being, and Eve, were able to
pass the rich information in their genetic structure on to subsequent
generations even though only a part of it was reflected in their physical
appearance. Geographical isolation that had happened over human history
has led to an atmosphere where different physical features came together
in different groups. Over a long period of time, this led to different
groups having different bone structures, skin colour, height, and skull
volumes. This eventually led to the different races.
However, this long period did not change one thing, of course. No matter
what their height, skin colour and skull volume, all races are part
of the human species.