6 WHY IS THE CLAIM THAT
HUMAN AND APE GENOMES ARE 99 PERCENT SIMILAR AND THAT THIS CONFIRMS
EVOLUTION NOT TRUE?
MANY evolutionist sources from time to time carry the claim that humans
and apes share 99 percent of their genetic information and that this is
proof of evolution. This evolutionist claim focuses particularly on chimpanzees,
and says that this creature is the closest monkey to man, for which reason
there is a kinship between the two. However, this is a false proof put
forward by evolutionists who take advantage of the layman's lack of information
on these subjects.
99% similarity claim is misleading propaganda
For a very long time, the evolutionist choir had been propagating the
unsubstantiated thesis that there is very little genetic difference
between humans and chimps. In every piece of evolutionist literature,
you could read sentences like "we are 99 percent identical to chimps"
or "there is only 1 percent of DNA that makes us human." Although no
conclusive comparison between human and chimp genomes has been done,
the Darwinist ideology led them to assume that there is very little
difference between the two species.
A study in October 2002 revealed that the evolutionist propaganda on
this issue-like many others-is completely false. Humans and chimps are
not "99% similar" as the evolutionist fairy tale went on. Genetic similarity
turns out to be less than 95 %. In a news story reported by CNN.com,
entitled "Humans, chimps more different than thought," it reads:
There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human being than
once believed, according to a new genetic study.
have long held that the genes of chimps and humans are about 98.5 percent
identical. But Roy Britten, a biologist at the California Institute of
Technology, said in a study published this week that a new way of comparing
the genes shows that the human and chimp genetic similarity is only about
Britten based this on a computer program that compared
780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those
of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had,
and concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different.
This led him to conclude that there is a fundamental genetic difference
between the species of about 5 percent.25
Scientist, a leading science magazine and a strong supporter of Darwinism,
reported the following on the same subject in an article titled "Human-chimp
DNA difference trebled":
We are more unique than previously thought, according
to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held
that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest
relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than
95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation
between us and chimps.26
Biologist Boy Britten and other evolutionists continue to assess the
result in terms of the evolutionary theory, but in fact there is no
scientific reason to do so. The theory of evolution is supported neither
by the fossil record nor by genetic or biochemical data. On the contrary,
evidence shows that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly
without any evolutionary ancestors and that their complex systems prove
the existence of an "intelligent design."
Human DNA is also similar to that of the
worm, mosquito, and chicken!
Moreover, the above-mentioned basic proteins are
common vital molecules present, not just in chimpanzees, but also in
very many completely different living creatures. The structure of the
proteins in all these species is very similar to that of the proteins
present in humans.
For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed
a 75% similarity between the DNA of nematode worms and man.27
This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between
man and these worms!
On the other hand, in another finding which also
appeared in the media, it was stated that the comparisons carried out
between the genes of fruit flies belonging to the Drosophila genus and
human genes yielded a similarity of 60%.28
When living things other than man are studied, it
appears that there is no molecular relationship such as that claimed
by evolutionists.29 This fact shows that the concept
of similarity is not evidence for evolution.
"Common design": The reason for similarities
It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities
to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules,
they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods
consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms, and
therefore their genetic make-ups, would resemble one another. This,
however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.
This "common material" is the result not of evolution but of "common
design," that is, of their being created upon the same plan.
It is possible to explain this matter with an example: all construction
in the world is done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.).
This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each
other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The
same holds for living beings as well.
However, the complexity of the structure of living things cannot be
compared to that of bridges, of course.
Life did not originate as the result of unconscious coincidences as
evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty,
the possessor of infinite knowledge and wisdom.
7 WHY IS THE CLAIM THAT
DINOSAURS EVOLVED INTO BIRDS AN UNSCIENTIFIC MYTH?
theory of evolution is a fairy tale built on the hope of the impossible
coming true. Birds have a special place in this story. Above all things,
birds possess that magnificent organ, the wing. Beyond the structural
wonders of wings, their function also inspires amazement. So much so that
flight was man's obsession for thousands of years, and thousands of scientists
and researchers put considerable effort into duplicating it. Apart from
a few very primitive attempts, man only managed to build machines capable
of flying in the twentieth century. Birds have been doing something which
man tried to do with the accumulated technology of hundreds of years right
through the millions of years that they have existed. Moreover, a young
bird can acquire this skill after only a few attempts. Many of their characteristics
are so perfect that not even the products of the latest modern technology
can compare with them.
The idea that "dinosaurs grew wings while
trying to catch flies" is not a joke, but rather a theory which
evolutionists claim is very scientific. This example is sufficient
by itself to show how seriously we should take evolutionists.
The theory of evolution relies on prejudiced comments and twisting
the truth to account for the emergence of life and all its variety.
When it comes to living things such as birds, science is finally sidelined
completely, to be replaced by evolutionists' fantasy stories. The reason
for this is the creatures that evolutionists claim to be the ancestors
of birds. The theory of evolution maintains that the ancestors of birds
were dinosaurs, members of the reptile family. Such a claim raises two
questions that need to be answered. The first is, "How did dinosaurs
come to grow wings?" The second is, "Why is there no sign of such a
development in the fossil record?"
On the subject of how dinosaurs turned into birds, evolutionists debated
the matter for a long time and came up with two theories. The first
of these is the "cursorial" theory. This maintains that dinosaurs turned
into birds by taking to the air from the ground. Supporters of the second
theory object to the cursorial theory, and say that it is not possible
for dinosaurs to have turned into birds in this way. They offer another
solution to the question. They claim that dinosaurs that lived in the
branches of trees turned into birds by trying to jump from one branch
to another. This is known as the "arboreal" theory. The answer to the
question of how dinosaurs could have taken to the air is also ready:
"While trying to catch flies."
However, we must first of all put the following question to those people
who claim that a flight system, together with wings, emerged from the
body of such an animal as a dinosaur: How did flies' flight system,
that is much more efficient than that of a helicopter, which is in turn
modelled on them, come about? You will see that evolutionists have no
answer. It is certainly most unreasonable for a theory which cannot
explain the flight system of such a tiny creature as the fly to claim
that dinosaurs turned into birds.
As a result, all reasonable, logical scientists are agreed that the
only scientific things about these theories is their Latin names. The
essence of the matter is that flight by reptiles is simply the product
Evolutionists who claim that dinosaurs turned into birds need to be
able to find evidence for it in the fossil record. If dinosaurs did
turn into birds, then half-dinosaur, half-bird creatures must have lived
in the past and left some trace behind them in the fossil record. For
long years evolutionists claimed that a bird called "Archaeopteryx"
represented such a transition. However, those claims were nothing but
a great deception.
The Archaeopteryx deception
the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived
approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small
dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolved by acquiring
wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is assumed to be a
transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started
to fly for the first time.
However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that
this explanation lacks any scientific foundation. This is absolutely
not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some
insignificant differences from modern birds.
The thesis that Archaeopteryx was a "half-bird" that could not fly
perfectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago.
The absence of a sternum (breastbone) in this creature was held up as
the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The
sternum is a bone found under the thorax to which the muscles required
for flight are attached. In our day, this breastbone is observed in
all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats, a flying mammal which
belongs to a very different family.)
However, the seventh Archaeopteryx fossil, which was found in 1992,
disproved this argument. The reason was that in this recently discovered
fossil, the breastbone that was long assumed by evolutionists to be
missing was discovered to have existed after all. This fossil was described
in the journal Nature as follows:
The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx
preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously
documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles, but its capacity
for long flights is questionable. 30
This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the claims that Archaeopteryx
was a half-bird that could not fly properly.
Morevoer, the structure of the bird's feathers became
one of the most important pieces of evidence confirming that Archaeopteryx
was a flying bird in the true sense. The asymmetric feather structure
of Archaeopteryx is indistinguishable from that of modern birds, and
indicates that it could fly perfectly well. As the eminent paleontologist
Carl O. Dunbar states, "Because of its feathers, [Archaeopteryx is]
distinctly to be classed as a bird."31 Paleontologist
Robert Carroll further explains the subject:
The geometry of the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx
is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds
have symmetrical feathers. The way in which the feathers are arranged
on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds… According to
Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing of Archaeopteryx
are similar to that of birds that move through restricted openings in
vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves, woodcocks, woodpeckers,
and most passerine birds… The flight feathers have been in stasis for
at least 150 million years… 32
Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archaeopteryx's
feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. As was discussed above, reptiles
and-although there is some evolutionist wishful thinking on the opposite
direction-dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat fluctuates
with the temperature of their environment, rather than being homeostatically
regulated. A very important function of the feathers on birds is the
maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact that Archaeopteryx
had feathers shows that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed
to retain its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs.
The anatomy of Archaeopteryx and the evolutionists'
Studies of Archaeopteryx's anatomy revealed
that it possessed complete powers of flight, just like a modern
bird has. The efforts to liken it to a reptile are totally unfounded.
Two important points evolutionary biologists rely on when claiming
Archaeopteryx was a transitional form, are the claws on its wings and
It is true that Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its
mouth, but these traits do not imply that the creature bore any kind
of relationship to reptiles. Besides, two bird species living today,
the touraco and the hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto
branches. These creatures are fully birds, with no reptilian characteristics.
That is why it is completely groundless to assert that Archaeopteryx
is a transitional form just because of the claws on its wings.
Neither do the teeth in Archaeopteryx's beak imply that it is a transitional
form. Evolutionists are wrong to say that these teeth are reptilian
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 that there
are no toothed birds in existence today, but when we look at the fossil
record, we see that both during the time of Archaeopteryx and afterwards,
and even until fairly recently, a distinct group of birds existed that
could be categorised as "birds with teeth."
The most important point is that
the tooth structure of Archaeopteryx and other birds with teeth is totally
different from that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The well-known
ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, and K. N. Whetstone observed
that Archaeopteryx and other similar birds have unserrated teeth with
constricted bases and expanded roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs,
the alleged ancestors of these birds, had serrated teeth with straight
roots.33 These researchers also compared the ankle
bones of Archaeopteryx with those of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs,
and observed no similarity between them. 34
Studies by anatomists such as S.
Tarsitano, M.K. Hecht, and A.D. Walker have revealed that some of the
similarities that John Ostrom, a leading authority on the subject who
claims that Archaeopteryx evolved from dinosaurs, and others have seen
between the limbs of Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs were in reality misinterpretations.35
For example, A.D. Walker has analysed the ear region of Archaeopteryx
and found that it is very similar to that of modern birds. 36
his book Icons of Evolution, American biologist Jonathan Wells remarks
that Archaeopteryx has been turned into an "icon" of the theory of evolution,
whereas evidence clearly shows that this creature is not the primitive
ancestor of birds. According to Wells, one of the indications of this
is that theropod dinosaurs-the alleged ancestors of Archaeopteryx-are
actually younger than Archaeopteryx: "Two-legged reptiles that ran along
the ground, and had other features one might expect in an ancestor of
Archaeopteryx, appear later." 37
All these findings indicate that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional
link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called "toothed
birds." Linking this creature to theropod dinosaurs is completely invalid.
In an article headed "The Demise of the 'Birds Are Dinosaurs' Theory,"
the American biologist Richard L. Deem writes the following about Archaeopteryx
and the bird-dinosaur evolution claim:
The results of the recent studies show that the hands
of the theropod dinosaurs 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. The theropod forelimb is much
smaller (relative to body size) than that of Archaeopteryx. The small
"proto-wing" of the theropod is not very convincing, especially considering
the rather hefty weight of these dinosaurs. The vast majority of the
theropod lack the semilunate wrist bone, and have a large number of
other wrist elements which have no homology to the bones of Archaeopteryx.
In addition, in almost all theropods, nerve V1 exits the braincase out
the side, along with several other nerves, whereas in birds, it exits
out the front of the braincase, though its own hole. There is also the
minor problem that the vast majority of the theropods appeared after
the appearance of Archaeopteryx. 38
These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archaeopteryx
nor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The fossils
do not indicate that different bird species evolved from each other.
On the contrary, the fossil record proves that today's modern birds
and some archaic birds such as Archaeopteryx actually lived together
at the same time. It is true that some of these bird species, such as
Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis, have become extinct, but the fact
that only some of the species that once existed have been able to survive
down to the present day does not in itself support the theory of evolution.
Latest Evidence: Ostrich Study Refutes The
Dr. Alan Feduccia
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 proof that birds could
not have descended from dinosaurs...
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. "This creates a new problem for those who insist
that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. 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? That would be almost impossible."39
In the same report, Dr. Feduccia also made important comments on the
invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs"
"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
"If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton
through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination
reveals many differences," 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
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.
Evolutionists' bogus dino-bird fossils
With the collapse of evolutionists' claims regarding fossils like Archaeopteryx,
they are now at a complete dead-end as regards the origin of birds.
That is why some evolutionists have had to resort to classical methods-forgery.
In the 1990s, the public were several times given the message that "a
half-dinosaur, half-bird fossil has been found." The evolutionist media
carried pictures of these so-called "dino-birds" and an international
campaign was thus set in motion. However, it soon began to emerge that
the campaign was based on contradiction and forgery.
A Sinosauropteryx fossil.
The first hero of the campaign was a dinosaur called Sinosauropteryx,
discovered in China in 1996. The fossil was presented to the whole world
as a "feathered dinosaur," and made a number of headlines. However,
detailed analyses in the months that followed revealed that the structures
which evolutionists had excitedly portrayed as "bird feathers" were
actually nothing of the kind.
This was how the matter was presented in an article
called "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur" in the journal Science:
Exactly 1 year ago, paleontologists were abuzz about photos of a so-called
"feathered dinosaur," which were passed around the halls at the annual
meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The Sinosauropteryx
specimen from the Yixian Formation in China made the front page of The
New York Times, and was viewed by some as confirming the dinosaurian
origins of birds. But at this year's vertebrate paleontology meeting
in Chicago late last month, the verdict was a bit different: The structures
are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists
who have seen the specimens…paleontologist Larry Martin of Kansas University,
Lawrence, thinks the structures are frayed collagenous fibers beneath
the skin--and so have nothing to do with birds.41
|THE DINOSAUR DECEPTION IN THE EVOLUTIONIST
National Geographic magazine portrayed "dino-birds"
in this way in 1999, and presented them to the whole world as evidence
of evolution. Two years later, however, the source of inspiration
for these drawings, Archaeoraptor, was shown to be a scientific
Another "dino-bird" storm blew up in 1999. Another fossil discovered
in China was presented to the world as "major evidence for evolution."
National Geographic magazine, the source of the campaign, drew and published
imaginary "feathered dinosaur" pictures inspired by the fossil, and
these hit the headlines in a number of countries. This species, which
was said to have lived 125 million years ago, was immediately given
the scientific name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.
However, the fossil was a fake and was skilfully constructed from five
separate specimens. A group of researchers, among whom were also three
paleontologists, proved the forgery one year later with the help of
X-ray computed tomography. The dino-bird was actually the product of
a Chinese evolutionist. Chinese amateurs formed the dino-bird by using
glue and cement from 88 bones and stones. Research suggests that Archaeoraptor
was built from the front part of the skeleton of an ancient bird, and
that its body and tail included bones from four different specimens.
An article in the scientific journal Nature describes the forgery like
The Archaeoraptor fossil was announced as a 'missing
link' and purported to be possibly the best evidence since Archaeopteryx
that birds did, in fact, evolve from certain types of carnivorous dinosaur.
But Archaeoraptor was revealed to be a forgery in which bones of a primitive
bird and a non-flying dromaeosaurid dinosaur had been combined… The
Archaeoraptor specimen, which was reportedly collected from the Early
Cretaceous Jiufotang Formation of Liaoning, was smuggled out of China
and later sold in the United States on the commercial market… We conclude
that Archaeoraptor represents two or more species and that it was assembled
from at least two, and possibly five, separate specimens.... 42
So how was it that National Geographic could have presented such a
huge scientific forgery to the whole world as "major evidence for evolution"?
The answer to this question lay concealed in the magazine's evolutionary
fantasies. Since National Geographic was blindly supportive of Darwinism
and had no hesitation about using any propaganda tool it saw as being
in favour of the theory, it ended up signing up to a second "Piltdown
Even if evolutionists are unsuccessful in
finding scientific evidence to support their theories, they are
very successful at one thing: propaganda. The most important element
of this propaganda is the practice of creating false designs known
as "reconstructions." With brushes in their hands, evolutionists
produce imaginary creatures; nevertheless, the fact that these drawings
correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem
Evolutionist scientists also accepted National Geographic's
fanaticism. Dr. Storrs L. Olson, head of the famous U.S. Smithsonian
Institute's Ornithology Department, announced that he had previously
warned that the fossil was a forgery, but that the magazine's executives
had ignored him. In a letter he wrote to Peter Raven of National Geographic,
Prior to the publication of the article "Dinosaurs Take Wing" in the
July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for
Sloan's article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review
his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being
given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that
strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic
intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National
Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing
dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.43
In a statement in USA Today, Olson said, "The problem
is, at some point the fossil was known by Geographic to be a fake, and
that information was not revealed."44 In other words,
he said that National Geographic maintained the deception, even though
it knew that the fossil it was portraying as proof of evolution was
We must make it clear that this attitude of National Geographic was
not the first forgery that had been carried out in the name of the theory
of evolution. Many such incidents have taken place since it was first
proposed. The German biologist Ernst Haeckel drew false pictures of
embryos in order to support Darwin. British evolutionists mounted an
orangutan jaw on a human skull and exhibited it for some 40 years in
the British Museum as "Piltdown man, the greatest evidence for evolution."
American evolutionists put forward "Nebraska man" from a single pig's
tooth. All over the world, false pictures called "reconstructions,"
which have never actually lived, have been portrayed as "primitive creatures"
In short, evolutionists once again employed the method they first tried
in the Piltdown man forgery. They themselves created the intermediate
form they were unable to find. This event went down in history as showing
how deceptive the international propaganda on behalf of the theory of
evolution is, and that evolutionists will resort to all kinds of falsehood
for its sake.
8 WHAT SCIENTIFIC FORGERY
IS THE MYTH THAT "HUMAN EMBRYOS HAVE GILLS" BASED ON?
THE thesis that living things go through various stages in their mothers'
wombs that can be seen as evidence for evolution has a special position
amongst the unfounded claims of the theory of evolution. That is because
the thesis, known as "recapitulation" in evolutionist literature, is
more than a scientific deception: It is a scientific forgery.
Haeckel's recapitulation superstition
Ernst Haeckel, one of the foremost charlatans
in the history of science.
The term "recapitulation" is a condensation of the dictum "ontogeny
recapitulates phylogeny," put forward by the evolutionary biologist
Ernst Haeckel at the end of the nineteenth century. This theory of Haeckel's
postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process
that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theorised that during its
development in its mother's womb, the human embryo first displays the
characteristics of a fish, then those of a reptile, and finally those
of a human. The claim that the embryo possesses "gills" while it develops
stems from this thesis.
However, this is utter superstition. Scientific developments in the
years since recapitulation was first broached have enabled studies to
be made of just how valid it is. These studies have shown that the recapitulation
doctrine has no other basis than evolutionists' imaginations and deliberate
It is now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early
stages of the 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 the infant. The part that was identified as a "tail" by Haeckel
and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only
because it takes shape before the legs do.
These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific
world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves. George Gaylord
Simpson, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, writes:
Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly
established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.45
The following was written in an article in New Scientist
dated October 16, 1999:
[Haeckel] called this the biogenetic law, and the idea became popularly
known as recapitulation. In fact Haeckel's strict law was soon shown
to be incorrect. For instance, the early human embryo never has functioning
gills like a fish, and never passes through stages that look like an
adult reptile or monkey. 46
In an article published in American Scientist, we
Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally
exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious
theoretical inquiry it was extinct in the twenties… 47
As we have seen, developments since it was first put forward have shown
that recapitulation has no scientific basis at all. However, those same
advances would show that it was not just a scientific deception, but
that it stemmed from a complete "forgery."
Haeckel's forged drawings
Ernst Haeckel, who first put the recapitulation thesis forward, published
a number of drawings to back up his theory. Haeckel produced falsified
drawings to make fish and human embryos resemble each other! When he
was caught out, the only defense he offered was that other evolutionists
had committed similar offences:
In its April 8, 2001, edition, The New York
Times devoted wide space to the theory of intelligent design and
the ideas of scientists and philosophers who support the theory,
such as Michael Behe and William Dembski. In general, it said that
the theory of intelligent design possessed such a scientific respectability
and validity that it would rock Darwinism to its foundations. The
paper also compared Haeckel's forged drawings with true pictures
of embryos taken under the microscope.
After this compromising confession of "forgery" I
should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I
had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's
dock hundreds of fellow-culprits, among them many of the most trusted
observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the
diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would
incur in the same degree the charge of "forgery," for all of them are
inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed.
In the September 5, 1997, edition of the well-known scientific journal
Science, an article was published revealing that Haeckel's embryo drawings
were the product of a deception. The article, called "Haeckel's Embryos:
Fraud Rediscovered," had this to say:
The impression they [Haeckel's drawings] give, that
the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an
embryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School in London… So he
and his colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining and
photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those
Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos "often looked surprisingly
different," Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology.49
Science, September 5, 1997
Later in this same article, the following information was revealed:
Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson
and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate
similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences
in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the
species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an
entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note,
even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit
in their appearance and developmental pathway. "It [Haeckel's drawings]
looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology,"
It is noteworthy that, although Haeckel's falsification came out in
1901, the subject was still portrayed in many evolutionist publications
for nearly a century as if it were a proven scientific law. Those who
held evolutionist beliefs inadvertently sent out a most important message
by putting their ideology before science: Evolution is not science,
it is a dogma that they are trying to keep alive in the face of the
9 WHY IS IT DECEPTIVE TO
PORTRAY CLONING AS "EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION"?
THE fact that such a question as whether such a scientific advance
as cloning "supports evolution" is asked or even comes to mind actually
reveals a very important truth. This is the cheapness of the propaganda
that evolutionists resort to to get people to accept their theory. Since
the subject of cloning has nothing to do with the theory of evolution,
it cannot be a matter of concern for any professional evolutionist.
However, some of those who blindly support evolution at whatever cost,
and particularly certain circles within media organizations, have even
tried to turn such a totally unconnected matter as cloning into propaganda
Cloning is the using of one life form's
DNA code to make a copy of that life form in the laboratory. It
is a biological process, and has nothing to do with evolution.
There is no question of the emergence of a new species or organ,
nor indeed of any development or change.
What does cloning a living thing mean?
The DNA of the living thing that is proposed to be copied is used in
the cloning process. The DNA is extracted from any cell belonging to
the organism in question, and then placed into an egg cell belonging
to another organism of the same species. A shock is then given immediately
afterwards, which prompts the egg cell to start dividing. The embryo
is then placed into a living thing's womb, where it continues to divide.
Scientists then await its development and birth.
Why has cloning nothing to do with evolution?
Copying consists of adding already existing
genetic information to the already existing reproductive mechanism
of a living thing. No new mechanism or genetic information is
created by the process.
has recently become a matter of major concern to scientists.
Although it is a biological process carried out within the framework
of known laws, evolutionists have tried to take it over in the excited
hope that it might support their theory, as happens with every new
scientific discovery. The media that gives ideological backing to
evolution made headlines out of it, accompanied by slogans supporting
evolution. Although it has absolutely no scientific foundation,
Darwinists attempted to use cloning as evidence for evolution in
various debates. Yet it was clear that cloning had nothing to do
with evolution. The scientific community did not even take these
ridiculous efforts seriously. Right: A diagram of how cloning works,
taken from a scientific publication.
The concepts of cloning and evolution are completely different. The
theory of evolution is built on the claim that inanimate matter turned
into living matter by chance. (There is not the slightest scientific
proof that this could actually happen.) Cloning, on the other hand,
is the copying of a living thing by using genetic material from that
creature's cells. The new organism starts from a single cell, and a
biological process is transferred to the laboratory and repeated there.
In other words, there is no question of such a process happening by
"chance"-the basic claim of the theory of evolution-nor of "lifeless
matter coming to life."
The cloning process is no evidence for evolution whatsoever. It is,
however, clear evidence of a biological law that totally undermines
evolution. That is the famous principle that "Life can only come from
life," put forward by the famous scientist Louis Pasteur towards the
end of the nineteenth century. The fact that cloning is presented as
evidence for evolution, despite that open truth, is a deception being
carried out by the media.
Advances in many branches of science over the last 30 years have demonstrated
that the emergence of life cannot be explained in terms of chance. Evolutionists'
scientific errors and one-sided comments have been well-documented,
and the theory of evolution has become indefensible within the realm
of science. This fact has propelled some evolutionists to look in other
areas. That is why scientific advances such as "cloning," or "test-tube
babies," have been so fanatically used as evidence for evolution in
the recent past.
Evolutionists have nothing more to say to society in the name of science,
and so take refuge in the gaps in people's scientific knowledge and
try to prolong the theory's life in that way, even though that merely
brings the theory to a pitiable state. Just like all other scientific
advances, cloning is a very important and revealing scientific advance
that also sheds light on the fact that life was created.
Other misinterpretations of cloning
Another misunderstanding that people have fallen into as regards cloning
is the idea that cloning can "create human beings." However, cloning
bears no such interpretation. Cloning consists of adding genetic information
which already exists to a living reproduction mechanism that also already
exists. No new mechanism or genetic information is created in the process.
Genetic information is taken from someone who already exists and is
placed inside a female womb. This enables the child that is eventually
born to be the "identical twin" of the person from whom the genetic
information was taken.
Many people who do not fully understand what cloning is have all kinds
of fantastic ideas about it. For instance, they imagine that a cell
can be taken from a 30-year-old man and another 30-year-old can be created
that same day. Such an example of cloning is only to be found in science
fiction, and is not and never will be possible. Cloning basically consists
of bringing a person's "identical twin" to life by natural methods (in
other words in a mother's womb).This has nothing to do with the theory
of evolution, nor with the concept of "creating man."
Creating a human being or any other living thing-in other words bringing
something into existence out of nothing-is a power peculiar to God.
Scientific advances confirm the same thing by showing that this creation
cannot be done by man. This is expressed in a verse:
The Originator of the heavens and Earth. When
He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an,
10 COULD LIFE HAVE COME
FROM OUTER SPACE?
WHEN Darwin put forward his theory in the middle of the nineteenth
century, he never mentioned how the origin of life, in other words the
first living cell, came to be. Scientists looking for the origin of
life at the beginning of the twentieth century began to realise that
the theory was invalid. The complex and perfect structure in life prepared
the ground for many researchers to perceive the truth of creation. Mathematical
calculations and scientific experiment and observation demonstrated
that life could not be the "product of chance," as the theory of evolution
With the collapse of the claim that coincidence was responsible and
the realisation that life was "planned," some scientists began to look
for the origin of life in outer space. The best-known of the scientists
who made such claims were Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. These
two cobbled together a scenario in which they proposed that there was
a force which "seeded" life in space. According to the scenario, these
seeds were carried through the emptiness of space by gas or dust clouds,
or else by an asteroid, and eventually reached the Earth, and life thus
Nobel Prize-winner Francis Crick, co-discoverer with James Watson of
the double helix structure of DNA, is one of those who has sought the
origin of life in outer space. Crick came to realise that it is quite
unreasonable to expect life to have started by chance, but he has claimed
instead that life on Earth was started by intelligent "extraterrestrial"
As we have seen, the idea that life came from outer space has influenced
prominent scientists. The matter is now even discussed in writings and
debates on the origin of life. The idea of looking for the origin of
life in outer space can be considered from two basic perspectives.
It is not possible for meteors to carry
a living organism to Earth because of the intense heat generated
when they enter the atmosphere and the violence of impact when
they land. Above: A large meteor crater in Arizona. Even if we
accept there are living things in outer space, it is still impossible
to account for their origins in any other way than through creation.
The key to evaluating the "life began in outer space" thesis lies
in studying the meteorites that reached the Earth and the clouds of
gas and dust existing in space. No evidence has yet been found to support
the claim that celestial bodies contained non-earthly creatures that
eventually seeded life on Earth. No research that has been carried out
so far has revealed any of the complex macromolecules that appear in
Furthermore, the substances contained in meteorites
do not possess a certain kind of asymmetry found in the macromolecules
that constitute life. For instance, amino acids, which make up proteins,
which are themselves the basic building blocks of life, should theoretically
occur as both left- and right-handed forms ("optical isomers") in roughly
equal numbers. However, only left-handed amino acids are found in proteins,
whereas this asymmetric distribution does not occur among the small
organic molecules (the carbon-based molecules found in living things)
discovered in meteorites. The latter exist in both left- and right-handed
That is by no means the end of the obstacles to the thesis that bodies
and substances in outer space gave rise to life on Earth. Those who
maintain such an idea need to be able to explain why such a process
is not happening now, because the Earth is still being bombarded by
meteorites. However, study of these meteorites has not revealed any
"seeding" to confirm the thesis in any way.
Another question confronting the defenders of the thesis is this: Even
if it is accepted that life was formed by a consciousness in outer space,
and that it somehow reached Earth, how did the millions of species on
Earth come about? That is a huge dilemma for those who suggest that
life began in space.
Alongside all of these obstacles, no trace has been found in the universe
of a civilisation or life form that could have started life on Earth.
No astronomical observations, which have picked up enormous speed in
the last 30 years, have given any indication of the presence of such
What lies behind the "extraterrestrial"
As we have seen, the theory that life on Earth was begun by extraterrestrials
has no scientific basis to it. No discoveries have been made to confirm
or support it. However, when the scientists who put forward the suggestion
began to look in that direction, they did so because they perceived
one important truth.
The truth in question is that a theory that seeks to explain life on
Earth as being the result of chance is no longer tenable. It has been
realised that the complexity revealed in the life forms on Earth can
only be the product of intelligent design. In fact, the areas of expertise
of the scientists who sought the origin of life in outer space give
a clue as to their rejection of the logic of the theory of evolution.
Both are world-renowned scientists: Fred Hoyle is an astronomer and
bio-mathematician, and Francis Crick a molecular biologist.
EVOLUTIONISTS' "EXTRATERRESTRIAL" DILEMMA
Claims that the origin of life could lie in space, or even "extraterrestrials,"
are nothing more than science fiction. No concrete evidence can
be supplied to back them up, and news and comments on the subject
just consist of speculation that "it could have happened." In fact,
these scenarios are quite impossible. Even if we assume that some
organic compounds were carried to Earth by meteors, it is a chemical,
physical, and mathematical fact that these compounds could not have
given rise to life by themselves. The fantasy that life on Earth
could have been created by "extraterrestrials" is a ploy by means
of which evolutionists try to avoid admitting the existence of God,
since life cannot be explained by chance. But this is totally meaningless,
too, because the "extraterrestrial" thesis just takes the question
one step back, and leads to the question: "Who created the extraterrestrials?"
Reason and science lead us to an Absolute Being who created us and
all living things, though He Himself was not created and has existed
forever. That means God, the Creator of everything.
One point which needs to be considered is that those scientists who
look to outer space to find the origin of life do not actually make
any new interpretation of the matter. Scientists such as Hoyle, Wickramasinghe,
and Crick began to consider the possibility that life came from space
because they realised that life could not have come about by chance.
Since it was impossible for life on Earth to have begun by chance, they
had to accept the existence of a source of intelligent design in outer
However, the theory put forward by them on the subject of the origin
of this intelligent design is contradictory and meaningless. Modern
physics and astronomy have revealed that our universe originated as
a result of a huge explosion some 12-15 billion years ago known as "The
Big Bang." All matter in the universe came about from that explosion.
For this reason, any idea that seeks the origin of life on Earth in
another matterbased life form in the universe has to explain in turn
how that form of life came into existence. The meaning of this is that
such a suggestion does not actually solve the problem, but takes it
one step further back. (For more detail, see Harun Yahya's books The
Creation of the Universe and Timelessness and The Reality of Fate).
|THE SUPERSTITION EVOLUTIONISTS SO BLINDLY
||Millions of complex living species
The above formula is the shortest way of expressing
the theory of evolution. Evolutionists believe that inanimate and
unconscious collections of atoms and molecules came together and
organised themselves over time, finally becoming alive and turning
into millions of exceedingly complex and perfect living species.
This superstition is backed up by no known physical or chemical
law. On the contrary, the laws of physics and chemistry show that
time has a "disorganising, destructive" effect, not an "organising"
one (the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Actually, the "time" factor
is nothing but a deception used by evolutionists to take their theory
out of the field of observation. Since no "evolutionary process"
which creates new living things can be observed in nature, evolutionists
try to gloss over this fact by saying: "Yes, evolution cannot be
observed, but it may have taken place over the previous millions
of years." This claim is also torn down by the fossil record, which
shows that no evolutionary process ever happened.
As we have seen, the thesis that "life came from outer space" does
not support evolution, but is a view that reveals the impossibility
of evolution and accepts that there can be no other explanation for
life than intelligent design. The scientists who suggested this began
with a correct analysis but then went down a false road, and started
the silly search for the origin of life in outer space.
It is obvious that the concept of "extraterrestrials" cannot account
for the origin of life. Even if we accept for one moment the hypothesis
that "extraterrestrials" actually exist, it is still clear that they
could not have come into being by chance, but must themselves be the
product of intelligent design. (That is because the laws of physics
and chemistry are the same everywhere in the universe, and they make
it impossible for life to emerge by chance.) This shows that God, Who
is beyond matter and time, and possesses infinite might, wisdom, and
knowledge, created the universe and everything in it.