The theory of evolution is a philosophy and a conception of the world
that produces false hypotheses, assumptions and imaginary scenarios in
order to explain the existence and origin of life in terms of mere coincidences.
The roots of this philosophy go back as far as antiquity and ancient Greece.
All atheist philosophies that deny creation, directly or indirectly embrace
and defend the idea of evolution. The same condition today applies to
all the ideologies and systems that are antagonistic to religion.
The evolutionary notion has been cloaked in a scientific disguise for
the last century and a half in order to justify itself. Though put forward
as a supposedly scientific theory during the mid-19th century, the theory,
despite all the best efforts of its advocates, has not so far been verified
by any scientific finding or experiment. Indeed, the "very science" on
which the theory depends so greatly has demonstrated and continues to
demonstrate repeatedly that the theory has no merit in reality.
Laboratory experiments and probabilistic calculations have definitely
made it clear that the amino acids from which life arises cannot have
been formed by chance. The cell, which supposedly emerged by chance under
primitive and uncontrolled terrestrial conditions according to evolutionists,
still cannot be synthesised even in the most sophisticated, high-tech
laboratories of the 20th century. Not a single "transitional form", creatures
which are supposed to show the gradual evolution of advanced organisms
from more primitive ones as neo-Darwinist theory claims, has ever been
found anywhere in the world despite the most diligent and prolonged search
in the fossil record.
Striving to gather evidence for evolution, evolutionists have unwittingly
proven by their own hands that evolution cannot have happened at all!
The person who originally put forward the theory of evolution, essentially
in the form that it is defended today, was an amateur English biologist
by the name of Charles Robert Darwin. Darwin first published his ideas
in a book entitled The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection
in 1859. Darwin claimed in his book that all living beings had a common
ancestor and that they evolved from one another by means of natural selection.
Those that best adapted to the habitat transferred their traits to subsequent
generations, and by accumulating over great epochs, these advantageous
qualities transformed individuals into totally different species from
their ancestors. The human being was thus the most developed product of
the mechanism of natural selection. In short, the origin of one species
was another species.
Darwin's fanciful ideas were seized upon and promoted by certain ideological
and political circles and the theory became very popular. The main reason
was that the level of knowledge of those days was not yet sufficient to
reveal that Darwin's imaginary scenarios were false. When Darwin put forward
his assumptions, the disciplines of genetics, microbiology, and biochemistry
did not yet exist. If they had, Darwin might easily have recognised that
his theory was totally unscientific and thus would not have attempted
to advance such meaningless claims: the information determining species
already exists in the genes and it is impossible for natural selection
to produce new species by altering genes.
While the echoes of Darwin's book reverberated, an Austrian botanist
by the name of Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865.
Although little known before the end of the century, Mendel's discovery
gained great importance in the early 1900s with the birth of the science
of genetics. Some time later, the structures of genes and chromosomes
were discovered. The discovery, in the 1950s, of the DNA molecule, which
incorporates genetic information, threw the theory of evolution into a
great crisis, because the origin of the immense amount of information
in DNA could not possibly be explained by coincidental happenings.
Besides all these scientific developments, no transitional forms, which
were supposed to show the gradual evolution of living organisms from primitive
to advanced species, have ever been found despite years of search.
These developments ought to have resulted in Darwin's theory being banished
to the dustbin of history. However, it was not, because certain circles
insisted on revising, renewing, and elevating the theory to a scientific
platform. These efforts gain meaning only if we realise that behind the
theory lie ideological intentions rather than scientific concerns.
Nevertheless, some circles that believed in the necessity of upholding
a theory that had reached an impasse soon set up a new model. The name
of this new model was neo-Darwinism. According to this theory, species
evolved as a result of mutations, minor changes in their genes, and the
fittest ones survived through the mechanism of natural selection. When,
however, it was proved that the mechanisms proposed by neo-Darwinism were
invalid and minor changes were not sufficient for the formation of living
beings, evolutionists went on to look for new models. They came up with
a new claim called "punctuated equilibrium" that rests on no rational
or scientific grounds. This model held that living beings suddenly evolved
into another species without any transitional forms. In other words, species
with no evolutionary "ancestors" suddenly appeared. This was a way of
describing creation, though evolutionists would be loath to admit this.
They tried to cover it up with incomprehensible scenarios. For instance,
they said that the first bird in history could all of a sudden inexplicably
have popped out of a reptile egg. The same theory also held that carnivorous
land-dwelling animals could have turned into giant whales, having undergone
a sudden and comprehensive transformation.
These claims, totally contradicting all the rules of genetics, biophysics,
and biochemistry are as scientific as fairy-tales of frogs turning into
princes! Nevertheless, being distressed by the crisis that the neo-Darwinist
assertion was in, some evolutionist paleontologists embraced this theory,
which has the distinction of being even more bizarre than neo-Darwinism
The only purpose of this model was to provide an explanation for the
gaps in the fossil record that the neo-Darwinist model could not explain.
However, it is hardly rational to attempt to explain the gap in the fossil
record of the evolution of birds with a claim that "a bird popped all
of a sudden out of a reptile egg", because, by the evolutionists' own
admission, the evolution of a species to another species requires a great
and advantageous change in genetic information. However, no mutation whatsoever
improves the genetic information or adds new information to it. Mutations
only derange genetic information. Thus, the "gross mutations" imagined
by the punctuated equilibrium model, would only cause "gross", that is
"great", reductions and impairments in the genetic information.
The theory of punctuated equilibrium was obviously merely a product of
the imagination. Despite this evident truth, the advocates of evolution
did not hesitate to honour this theory. The fact that the model of evolution
proposed by Darwin could not be proved by the fossil record forced them
to do so. Darwin claimed that species underwent a gradual change, which
necessitated the existence of half-bird/half-reptile or half-fish/half-reptile
freaks. However, not even one of these "transitional forms" was found
despite the extensive studies of evolutionists and the hundreds of thousands
of fossils that were unearthed.
Evolutionists seized upon the model of punctuated equilibrium with the
hope of concealing this great fossil fiasco. As we have stated before,
it was very evident that this theory is a fantasy, so it very soon consumed
itself. The model of punctuated equilibrium was never put forward as a
consistent model, but rather used as an escape in cases that plainly did
not fit the model of gradual evolution. Since evolutionists today realise
that complex organs such as eyes, wings, lungs, brain and others explicitly
refute the model of gradual evolution, in these particular points they
are compelled to take shelter in the fantastic interpretations of the
model of punctuated equilibrium.
Is there any Fossil Record to Verify the Theory of Evolution?
The theory of evolution argues that the evolution of a species into another
species takes place gradually, step-by-step over millions of years. The
logical inference drawn from such a claim is that monstrous living organisms
called "transitional forms" should have lived during these periods of
transformation. Since evolutionists allege that all living things evolved
from each other step-by-step, the number and variety of these transitional
forms should have been in the millions.
If such creatures had really lived, then we should see their remains
everywhere. In fact, if this thesis is correct, the number of intermediate
transitional forms should be even greater than the number of animal species
alive today and their fossilised remains should be abundant all over the
Since Darwin, evolutionists have been searching for fossils and the result
has been for them a crushing disappointment. Nowhere in the world – neither
on land nor in the depths of the sea – has any intermediate transitional
form between any two species ever been uncovered.
Darwin himself was quite aware of the absence of such transitional forms.
It was his greatest hope that they would be found in the future. Despite
his hopefulness, he saw that the biggest stumbling block to his theory
was the missing transitional forms. This is why, in his book The Origin
of Species, he wrote:
Why, if species have descended from other species
by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional
forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being,
as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional
forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless
numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having
intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking
intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded
Darwin was right to be worried. The problem bothered other evolutionists
as well. A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this embarrassing
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil
record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find
– over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion
of one group at the expense of another.2
The gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained away by the wishful thinking
that not enough fossils have yet been unearthed and that these missing fossils
will one day be found. Another evolutionist paleontologist, T. Neville George,
explains the reason:
There is no need to apologise any longer for
the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably
rich and discovery is outpacing integration… The fossil record nevertheless
continues to be composed mainly of gaps.3
Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms
When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is seen
that living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the
earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of
the "Cambrian", which has an estimated age of 530-520 million years.
Living creatures that are found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian
period emerged in the fossil record all of a sudden without any pre-existing
ancestors. The vast mosaic of living organisms, made up of such great
numbers of complex creatures, emerged so suddenly that this miraculous
event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in scientific literature.
Most of the organisms found in this stratum have highly advanced organs
like eyes, or systems seen in organisms with a highly advanced organisation
such as gills, circulatory systems, and so on. There is no sign in the
fossil record to indicate that these organisms had any ancestors. Richard
Monestarsky, the editor of Earth Sciences magazine, states about
the sudden emergence of living species:
A half-billion years ago the remarkably complex
forms of animals that 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. The large animal phyla of today were present already
in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other then as
they are today.4
Not being able to find answers to the question of how earth came to overflow
with thousands of different animal species, evolutionists posit an imaginary
period of 20 million years before the Cambrian Period to explain how life
originated and "the unknown happened". This period is called the "evolutionary
gap". No evidence for it has ever been found and the concept is still conveniently
nebulous and undefined even today.
In 1984, numerous complex invertebrates were unearthed in Chengjiang,
set in the central Yunnan plateau in the high country of southwest China.
Among them were trilobites, now extinct, but no less complex in structure
than any modern invertebrate.
The Swedish evolutionist paleontologist, Stefan Bengston, explains the
situation as follows:
If any event in life's history resembles man's
creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when
multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and
evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles
The sudden appearance of these complex living beings with no predecessors
is no less baffling (and embarrassing) for evolutionists today than it was
for Darwin 135 years ago. In nearly a century and a half, they have advanced
not one step beyond the point that stymied Darwin.
A 320-million-year-old cockroach
A 360-million-year-old trilobite fossil (above).
As may be seen, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve
from primitive to advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and
in a perfect state. The absence of the transitional forms is not peculiar
to the Cambrian period. Not a single transitional form verifying the alleged
evolutionary "progression" of vertebrates – from fish to amphibians, reptiles,
birds, and mammals – has ever been found. Every living species appears instantaneously
and in its current form, perfect and complete, in the fossil record.
In other words, living beings did not come into existence through evolution.
They were created.
The Most Cherished Pieces of Evidence of Evolution
are Proven to be Invalid
four hundred and ten million-year-old Coelacanth fish fossil (left).
Evolutionists claimed that it was the transitional form proving
the transition of this fish from water to land. The fact that
more than forty living examples of this fish have been caught
in the last fifty years reveals that this is still a perfectly
ordinary fish and that it is still living. A one hundred and thirty-five
million-year-old Archaeopteryx fossil, the alleged ancestor of
birds, which is said to have evolved from dinosaurs (right). Research
on the fossil showed it, on the contrary, to be an extinct bird
that had once flown but later lost that ability.
Deceptions in Drawings
The fossil record is the principal source for those who seek evidence
for the theory of evolution. When inspected carefully and without prejudice,
the fossil record refutes the theory of evolution rather than supporting
it. Nevertheless, misleading interpretations of fossils by evolutionists
and their prejudiced representation to the public have given many people
the impression that the fossil record indeed supports the theory of evolution.
The susceptibility of some findings in the fossil record to all kinds
of interpretations is what best serves the evolutionists' purposes. The
fossils unearthed are most of the time unsatisfactory for reliable identification.
They usually consist of scattered, incomplete bone fragments. For this
reason, it is very easy to distort the available data and to use it as
desired. Not surprisingly, the reconstructions (drawings and models) made
by evolutionists based on such fossil remains are prepared entirely speculatively
in order to confirm evolutionary theses. Since people are readily affected
by visual information, these imaginary reconstructed models are employed
to convince them that the reconstructed creatures really existed in the
Evolutionist researchers draw human-like imaginary creatures, usually
setting out from a single tooth, or a mandible fragment or a humerus,
and present them to the public in a sensational manner as if they were
links in human evolution. These drawings have played a great role in the
establishment of the image of "primitive men" in the minds of many people.
These studies based on bone remains can only reveal very general characteristics
of the creature concerned. The distinctive details are present in the
soft tissues that quickly vanish with time. With the soft tissues speculatively
interpreted, everything becomes possible within the boundaries of the
imagination of the reconstruction's producer. Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard
University explains the situation like this:
To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even
more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal
tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility
model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments
of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have
very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the
public… So put not your trust in reconstructions.6
Continuously running into such skilfully drawn half-man half-ape
creatures in books or other publications, the public becomes convinced
that man evolved from the ape or some similar creature. These drawings,
however, are outright forgeries.
Studies Made to Fabricate False Fossils
Unable to find valid evidence in the fossil record for the theory of
evolution, some evolutionists have ventured to manufacture their own.
These efforts, which have even been included in encyclopaedias under the
heading "evolution forgeries", are the most telling indication that the
theory of evolution is an ideology and a philosophy that evolutionists
are hard put to defend. Two of the most egregious and notorious of these
forgeries are described below.
False fossil: Piltdown Man
Charles Dawson, a well-known doctor and amateur paleoanthropologist,
came forth with a claim that he had found a jawbone and a cranial fragment
in a pit in the area of Piltdown, England, in 1912. Although the skull
was human-like, the jawbone was distinctly simian. These specimens were
christened the "Piltdown Man". Alleged to be 500 thousand years old, they
were displayed as absolute proofs of human evolution. For more than 40
years, many scientific articles were written on the "Piltdown Man", many
interpretations and drawings were made and the fossil was presented as
crucial evidence of human evolution.
In 1949, scientists examined the fossil once more and concluded that
the "fossil" was a deliberate forgery consisting of a human skull and
the jawbone of an orang-utan.
Using the fluorine dating method, investigators discovered that the skull
was only a few thousand years old. The teeth in the jawbone, which belonged
to an orang-utan, had been artificially worn down and the "primitive"
tools that had conveniently accompanied the fossils were crude forgeries
that had been sharpened with steel implements. In the detailed analysis
completed by Oakley, Weiner and Clark, they revealed this forgery to the
public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the mandibular
bone belonged to a recently deceased ape! The teeth were thereafter specially
arranged in an array and added to the jaw and the joints were filed in
order to make them resemble that of a man. Then all these pieces were
stained with potassium dichromate to give them a dated appearance. (These
stains disappeared when dipped in acid.) Le Gros Clark, who was a member
of the team that disclosed the forgery, could not hide his astonishment:
The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang
to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked: how
was it that they had escaped notice before? 7
In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the director of the American Museum
of Natural History, declared that he had found a molar tooth fossil in
western Nebraska near Snake Brook belonging to the Pliocene period. This
tooth allegedly bore the common characteristics of both man and ape. Deep
scientific arguments began in which some interpreted this tooth to be
that of Pithecanthropus erectus while others claimed it was closer to
that of modern human beings. This fossil, which aroused extensive debate,
was popularly named "Nebraska Man". It was also immediately given a "scientific
name": "Hesperopithecus Haroldcooki".
Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth,
reconstructions of Nebraska Man's head and body were drawn. Moreover,
Nebraska Man was even pictured with a whole family.
In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these
newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an
ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American
pig called Prosthennops.
Did Men and Apes Come from a Common Ancestor?
According to the claims of the theory of evolution, men and modern apes
have common ancestors. These creatures evolved in time and some of them
became the apes of today, while another group that followed another branch
of evolution became the men of today.
Evolutionists call the so-called first common ancestors of men and apes
"Australopithecus" which means "South African ape". Australopithecus,
nothing but an old ape species that has become extinct, has various types.
Some of them are robust, while others are small and slight.
Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as "Homo", that
is "man". According to the evolutionist claim, the living beings in the
Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very much
different from modern man. The modern man of our day, Homo sapiens, is
said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this species.
The fact of the matter is that the beings called Australopithecus in
this imaginary scenario fabricated by evolutionists really are apes that
became extinct, and the beings in the Homo series are members of various
human races that lived in the past and then disappeared. Evolutionists
arranged various ape and human fossils in an order from the smallest to
the biggest in order to form a "human evolution" scheme. Research, however,
has demonstrated that these fossils by no means imply an evolutionary
process and some of these alleged ancestors of man were real apes whereas
some of them were real humans.
Now, let us have a look at Australopithecus, which represents
to evolutionists the first stage of the scheme of human evolution.
Australopithecus: Extinct Apes
Evolutionists claim that Australopithecus are the most primitive ancestors
of modern men. These are an old species with a head and skull structure
similar to that of modern apes, yet with a smaller cranial capacity. According
to the claims of evolutionists, these creatures have a very important
feature that authenticates them as the ancestors of men: bipedalism.
The movements of apes and men are completely different. Human beings
are the only living creatures that move freely about on two feet. Some
other animals do have a limited ability to move in this way, but those
that do have bent skeletons.
According to evolutionists, these living beings called Australopithecus
had the ability to walk in a bent rather than an upright posture like
human beings. Even this limited bipedal stride was sufficient to encourage
evolutionists to project onto these creatures that they were the ancestors
However, the first evidence refuting the allegations of evolutionists
that Australopithecus were bipedal came from evolutionists themselves.
Detailed studies made on Australopithecus fossils forced even evolutionists
to admit that these looked "too" ape-like. Having conducted detailed anatomical
research on Australopithecus fossils in the mid-1970s, Charles E. Oxnard
likened the skeletal structure of Australopithecus to that of modern orang-utans:
An important part of today's conventional wisdom about
human evolution is based on studies of teeth, jaws and skull fragments
of australopithecine fossils. These all indicate that the close
relation of the australopithecine to the human lineage may not
be true. All these fossils are different from gorillas, chimpanzees and
men. Studied as a group, the australopithecine seems more like
the orang-utan. 8
What really embarrassed evolutionists was the discovery that Australopithecus
could not have walked on two feet and with a bent posture. It would have
been physically very ineffective for Australopithecus, allegedly bipedal
but with a bent stride, to move about in such a way because of the enormous
energy demands it would have entailed. By means of computer simulations
conducted in 1996, the English paleoanthropologist Robin Crompton also demonstrated
that such a "compound" stride was impossible. Crompton reached the following
conclusion: a living being can walk either upright or on all fours. A type
of in-between stride cannot be sustained for long periods because of the
extreme energy consumption. This means that Australopithecus could not have
been both bipedal and have a bent walking posture.
Probably the most important study demonstrating that Australopithecus
could not have been bipedal came in 1994 from the research anatomist Fred
Spoor and his team in the Department of Human Anatomy and Cellular Biology
at the University of Liverpool, England. This group conducted studies
on the bipedalism of fossilised living beings. Their research investigated
the involuntary balance mechanism found in the cochlea of the ear, and
the findings showed conclusively that Australopithecus could not
have been bipedal. This precluded any claims that Australopithecus
The Homo Series: Real Human Beings
The next step in the imaginary human evolution is "Homo", that is, the
human series. These living beings are humans who are no different from
modern men, yet who have some racial differences. Seeking to exaggerate
these differences, evolutionists represent these people not as a "race"
of modern man but as a different "species". However, as we will soon see,
the people in the Homo series are nothing but ordinary human racial types.
According to the fanciful scheme of evolutionists, the internal imaginary
evolution of the Homo species is as follows: First Homo erectus,
then Homo sapiens archaic and Neanderthal Man, later Cro-Magnon
Man and finally modern man.
Despite the claims of evolutionists to the contrary, all the "species"
we have enumerated above are nothing but genuine human beings. Let us
first examine Homo erectus, who evolutionists refer to as the most primitive
The most striking evidence showing that Homo erectus is not a "primitive"
species is the fossil of "Turkana Boy", one of the oldest Homo erectus
remains. It is estimated that the fossil was of a 12-year-old boy, who
would have been 1.83 meters tall in his adolescence. The upright skeletal
structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. Its tall
and slender skeletal structure totally complies with that of the people
living in tropical regions in our day. This fossil is one of the most
important pieces of evidence that Homo erectus is simply another specimen
of the modern human race. Evolutionist paleontologist Richard Leakey compares
Homo erectus and modern man as follows:
One would also see differences in the shape
of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness
of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced
than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans.
Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated
from each other for significant lengths of time.9
Leakey means to say that the difference between Homo erectus and
us is no more than the difference between Negroes and Eskimos. The cranial
features of Homo erectus resulted from their manner of feeding, and
genetic emigration and from their not assimilating with other human races
for a lengthy period.
Another strong piece of evidence that Homo erectus is not a "primitive"
species is that fossils of this species have been unearthed aged twenty-seven
thousand years and even thirteen thousand years. According to an article
published in Time – which is not a scientific periodical, but nevertheless
had a sweeping effect on the world of science – Homo erectus fossils
aged twenty-seven thousand years were found on the island of Java. In
the Kow swamp in Australia, some thirteen thousand year-old fossils were
found that bore Homo Sapiens-Homo Erectus characteristics. All
these fossils demonstrate that Homo erectus continued living up
to times very close to our day and were nothing but a human race that
has since been buried in history.
Archaic Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal Man
Archaic Homo sapiens is the immediate forerunner of contemporary
man in the imaginary evolutionary scheme. In fact, evolutionists do not
have much to say about these men, as there are only minor differences
between them and modern men. Some researchers even state that representatives
of this race are still living today, and point to the Aborigines in Australia
as an example. Like Homo sapiens, the Aborigines also have thick
protruding eyebrows, an inward-inclined mandibular structure, and a slightly
smaller cranial volume. Moreover, significant discoveries have been made
hinting that such people lived in Hungary and in some villages in Italy
until not very long ago.
Evolutionists point to human fossils unearthed in the Neander valley
of Holland which have been named Neanderthal Man. Many contemporary researchers
define Neanderthal Man as a sub-species of modern man and call it "Homo sapiens neandertalensis". It is definite that this race lived together
with modern humans, at the same time and in the same areas. The findings
testify that Neanderthals buried their dead, fashioned musical instruments,
and had cultural affinities with the Homo sapiens sapiens living during
the same period. Entirely modern skulls and skeletal structures of Neanderthal
fossils are not open to any speculation. A prominent authority on the
subject, Erik Trinkaus from New Mexico University writes:
Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal
remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in
Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative,
intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.10
In fact, Neanderthals even had some "evolutionary" advantages over modern
men. The cranial capacity of Neanderthals was larger than that of the modern
man and they were more robust and muscular than we are. Trinkaus adds: "One
of the most characteristic features of the Neanderthals is the exaggerated
massiveness of their trunk and limb bones. All of the preserved bones suggest
a strength seldom attained by modern humans. Furthermore, not only is this
robustness present among the adult males, as one might expect, but it is
also evident in the adult females, adolescents, and even children."
To put it precisely, Neanderthals are a particular human race that assimilated
with other races in time.
All of these factors show that the scenario of "human evolution" fabricated
by evolutionists is a figment of their imaginations, and that men have
always been men and apes always apes.
Can LIfe Result from Coincidences as Revolution Argues?
The theory of evolution holds that life started with a cell that formed
by chance under primitive earth conditions. Let us therefore examine the
composition of the cell with simple comparisons in order to show how irrational
it is to ascribe the existence of the cell – a structure which still maintains
its mystery in many respects, even at a time when we are about to set
foot in the 21st century – to natural phenomena and coincidences.
With all its operational systems, systems of communication, transportation
and management, a cell is no less complex than any city. It contains power
stations producing the energy consumed by the cell, factories manufacturing
the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all necessary
information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation
systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one
place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down
imported raw materials into their usable parts, and specialised cell membrane
proteins for the control of incoming and outgoing materials. These constitute
only a small part of this incredibly complex system.
Far from being formed under primitive earth conditions, the cell, which
in its composition and mechanisms is so complex, cannot be synthesised
in even the most sophisticated laboratories of our day. Even with the
use of amino acids, the building blocks of the cell, it is not possible
to produce so much as a single organelle of the cell, such as mitochondria
or ribosome, much less a whole cell. The first cell claimed to have been
produced by evolutionary coincidence is as much a figment of the imagination
and a product of fantasy as the unicorn.
Proteins Challenge Coincidence
And it is not just the cell that cannot be produced: the formation, under
natural conditions, of even a single protein of the thousands of complex
protein molecules making up a cell is impossible.
Proteins are giant molecules consisting of amino acids arranged in a
particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These molecules
constitute the building blocks of a living cell. The simplest is composed
of 50 amino acids; but there are some proteins that are composed of thousands
of amino acids. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino
acid in the structure of a protein in living cells, each of which has
a particular function, causes the protein to become a useless molecular
heap. Incapable of demonstrating the "accidental formation" of amino acids,
the theory of evolution founders on the point of the formation of proteins.
We can easily demonstrate, with simple probability calculations anybody
can understand, that the functional structure of proteins can by no means
come about by chance.
There are twenty different amino acids. If we consider that an average-sized
protein molecule is composed of 288 amino acids, there are 10300
different combinations of acids. Of all of these possible sequences, only
"one" forms the desired protein molecule. The other amino-acid chains
are either completely useless or else potentially harmful to living things.
In other words, the probability of the coincidental formation of only
one protein molecule cited above is "1 in 10300". The probability
of this "1" occurring out of an "astronomical" number consisting of 1
followed by 300 zeros is for all practical purposes zero; it is impossible.
Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is rather a modest
one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands
of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these
giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" becomes
If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible,
it is billions of times more impossible for approximately one million
of those proteins to come together by chance in an organised fashion and
make up a complete human cell. Moreover, a cell is not merely a collection
of proteins. In addition to proteins, cells also include nucleic acids,
carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals such as electrolytes,
all of which are arranged harmoniously and with design in specific proportions,
both in terms of structure and function. Each functions as a building
block or component in various organelles.
As we have seen, evolution is unable to explain the formation of even
a single protein out of the millions in the cell, let alone explain the
Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, one of the foremost authorities of evolutionist
thought in Turkey, in his book Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and
Evolution), discusses the probability of the accidental formation of Cytochrome-C,
one of the essential enzymes for life:
The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C
sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence,
it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once
in the whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our
definition should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is
not appropriate to the goals of science. We therefore have to look into
the first hypothesis.11
After these lines, Demirsoy admits that this probability, which he accepted
just because it was "more appropriate to the goals of science", is unrealistic:
The probability of providing the particular
amino acid sequence of Cytochrome-C is as unlikely as the possibility
of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter – taking it
for granted that the monkey pushes the keys at random.12
The correct sequence of proper amino acids is simply not enough for the
formation of one of the protein molecules present in living things. Besides
this, each of the twenty different types of amino acid present in the composition
of proteins must be left-handed. Chemically, there are two different types
of amino acids called "left-handed" and "right-handed". The difference between
them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures,
which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands. Amino acids
of either of these two types are found in equal numbers in nature and they
can bond perfectly well with one another. Yet, research uncovers an astonishing
fact: all proteins present in the structure of living things are made up
of left-handed amino acids. Even a single right-handed amino acid attached
to the structure of a protein renders it useless.
Let us for an instant suppose that life came into existence
by chance as evolutionists claim. In this case, the right and left-handed
amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in nature
in roughly equal amounts. The question of how proteins can pick out only
left-handed amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino
acid becomes involved in the life process is something that still confounds
evolutionists. In the Britannica Science Encyclopaedia, an ardent
defender of evolution, the authors indicate that the amino acids of all
living organisms on earth and the building blocks of complex polymers
such as proteins have the same left-handed asymmetry. They add that this
is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads.
In the same encyclopaedia, they state that it is not possible to understand
why molecules become left-handed or right-handed and that this choice
is fascinatingly related to the source of life on earth.13
It is not enough for amino acids to be arranged in the correct numbers,
sequences, and in the required three-dimensional structures. The formation
of a protein also requires that amino acid molecules with more than one
arm be linked to each other only through certain arms. Such a bond is
called a "peptide bond". Amino acids can make different bonds with each
other; but proteins comprise those and only those amino acids that join
together by "peptide" bonds.
Research has shown that only 50 % of amino acids, combining at random,
combine with a peptide bond and that the rest combine with different bonds
that are not present in proteins. To function properly, each amino acid
making up a protein must join with other amino acids with a peptide bond,
as it has only to be chosen from among the left-handed ones. Unquestionably,
there is no control mechanism to select and leave out the right-handed
amino acids and personally make sure that each amino acid makes a peptide
bond with the other.
Under these circumstances, the probabilities of an average protein molecule
comprising five hundred amino acids arranging itself in the correct quantities
and in sequence, in addition to the probabilities of all of the amino
acids it contains being only left-handed and combining using only peptide
bonds are as follows:
– The probability of being in the right sequence = 1/20500
– The probability of being left-handed = 1/2500
– The probability of combining using a "peptide bond" = 1/2499
TOTAL PROBABILITY = 1/10950 that is, "1" probability in 10950
As you can see above, the probability of the formation of a protein molecule
comprising five hundred amino acids is "1" divided by a number formed
by placing 950 zeros after a 1, a number incomprehensible to the human
mind. This is only a probability on paper. Practically, such a possibility
has "0" chance of realisation. In mathematics, a probability smaller than
1 over 1050 is statistically considered to have a "0" probability
While the improbability of the formation of a protein molecule made up
of five hundred amino acids reaches such an extent, we can further proceed
to push the limits of the mind to higher levels of improbability. In the
"haemoglobin" molecule, a vital protein, there are five hundred and seventy-four
amino acids, which is a much larger number than that of the amino acids
making up the protein mentioned above. Now consider this: in only one
out of the billions of red blood cells in your body, there are "280,000,000"
(280 million) haemoglobin molecules. The supposed age of the earth is
not sufficient to afford the formation of even a single protein, let alone
a red blood cell, by the method of "trial and error". The conclusion from
all this is that evolution falls into a terrible abyss of improbability
right at the stage of the formation of a single protein.
Looking for Answers to the Generation of Life
Well aware of the terrible odds against the possibility of life forming
by chance, evolutionists were unable to provide a rational explanation
for their beliefs, so they set about looking for ways to demonstrate that
the odds were not so unfavourable.
They designed a number of laboratory experiments to address the question
of how life could generate itself from non-living matter. The best known
and most respected of these experiments is the one known as the "Miller
Experiment" or "Urey-Miller Experiment", which was conducted by the American
researcher Stanley Miller in 1953.
With the purpose of proving that amino acids could have come into existence
by accident, Miller created an atmosphere in his laboratory that he assumed
would have existed on primordial earth (but which later proved to be unrealistic)
and he set to work. The mixture he used for this primordial atmosphere
was composed of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapour.
Miller knew that methane, ammonia, water vapour and hydrogen would not
react with each other under natural conditions. He was aware that he had
to inject energy into the mixture to start a reaction. He suggested that
this energy could have come from lightning flashes in the primordial atmosphere
and, relying on this supposition, he used an artificial electricity discharge
in his experiments.
Miller boiled this gas mixture at 100 0C for a week, and,
in addition, he introduced an electric current into the chamber. At the
end of the week, Miller analysed the chemicals that had been formed in
the chamber and observed that three of the twenty amino acids, which constitute
the basic elements of proteins, had been synthesised.
This experiment aroused great excitement among evolutionists and they
promoted it as an outstanding success. Encouraged by the thought that
this experiment definitely verified their theory, evolutionists immediately
produced new scenarios. Miller had supposedly proved that amino acids
could form by themselves. Relying on this, they hurriedly hypothesised
the following stages. According to their scenario, amino acids had later
by accident united in the proper sequences to form proteins. Some of these
accidentally formed proteins placed themselves in cell membrane-like structures,
which "somehow" came into existence and formed a primitive cell. The cells
united in time and formed living organisms. The greatest mainstay of the
scenario was Miller's experiment.
However, Miller's experiment was nothing but make-believe, and has since
been proven invalid in many respects.
The Invalidity of Miller's Experiment
Nearly half a century has passed since Miller conducted his experiment.
Although it has been shown to be invalid in many respects, evolutionists
still advance Miller and his results as absolute proof that life could
have formed spontaneously from non-living matter. When we assess Miller's
experiment critically, without the bias and subjectivity of evolutionist
thinking, however, it is evident that the situation is not as rosy as
evolutionists would have us think. Miller set for himself the goal of
proving that amino acids could form by themselves in earth's primitive
conditions. Some amino acids were produced, but the conduct of the experiment
conflicts with his goal in many ways, as we shall now see.
Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they
were formed, by using a mechanism called a "cold trap". Had he not done
so, the conditions of the environment in which the amino acids formed
would immediately have destroyed the molecules.
It is quite meaningless to suppose that some conscious mechanism of
this sort was integral to earth's primordial conditions, which involved
ultraviolet radiation, thunderbolts, various chemicals, and a high percentage
of free oxygen. Without such a mechanism, any amino acid that did manage
to form would immediately have been destroyed.
The primordial atmospheric environment that Miller attempted to simulate
in his experiment was not realistic. Nitrogen and carbon dioxide would
have been constituents of the primordial atmosphere, but Miller disregarded
this and used methane and ammonia instead.
Why? Why were evolutionists insistent on the point that the primitive
atmosphere contained high amounts of methane (CH4), ammonia
(NH3), and water vapour (H2O)? The answer is simple:
without ammonia, it is impossible to synthesise an amino acid. Kevin
McKean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:
Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere
of earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. According to them, the
earth was a true homogeneous mixture of metal, rock and ice. However
in the latest studies, it is understood that the earth was very hot
at those times and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore,
the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly
of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water
vapour (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as methane
and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.14
After a long period of silence, Miller himself also confessed that the
atmospheric environment he used in his experiment was not realistic.
Another important point invalidating Miller's experiment is that there
was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at
the time when evolutionists thought that amino acids formed. This oxygen
concentration would definitely have hindered the formation of amino acids.
This situation completely negates Miller's experiment, in which he totally
neglected oxygen. If he had used oxygen in the experiment, methane would
have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia would have
decomposed into nitrogen and water.
On the other hand, since no ozone layer yet existed, no organic molecule
could possibly have lived on earth because it was entirely unprotected
against intense ultraviolet rays.
In addition to a few amino acids essential for life, Miller's experiment
also produced many organic acids with characteristics that are quite detrimental
to the structures and functions of living things. If he had not isolated
the amino acids and had left them in the same environment with these chemicals,
their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical
reactions would have been unavoidable. Moreover, a large number of right-handed
amino acids also formed. The existence of these amino acids alone refuted
the theory, even within its own reasoning, because right-handed amino
acids are unable to function in the composition of living organisms and
render proteins useless when they are involved in their composition.
To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids formed in Miller's
experiment were not suitable for life forms to come into being. The
medium in which they formed was an acidic mixture that destroyed and
oxidised any useful molecules that might have been obtained.
Evolutionists themselves actually refute the theory of evolution, as
they are often wont to do, by advancing this experiment as "proof".
If the experiment proves anything, it is that amino acids can only be
produced in a controlled laboratory environment where all the necessary
conditions have been specifically and consciously designed. That is,
the experiment shows that what brings life (even the "near-life" of
amino acids) into being cannot be unconscious chance, but rather conscious
will – in a word, Creation. This is why every stage of Creation is a
sign proving to us the existence and might of Allah.
The Miraculous Molecule: DNA
theory of evolution has been unable to provide a coherent explanation
for the existence of the molecules that are the basis of the cell. Furthermore,
developments in the science of genetics and the discovery of the nucleic
acids (DNA and RNA) have produced brand-new problems for the theory
In 1955, the work of two scientists on DNA, James Watson and Francis
Crick, launched a new era in biology. Many scientists directed their
attention to the science of genetics. Today, after years of research,
scientists have, largely, mapped the structure of DNA.
Here, we need to give some very basic information on the structure
and function of DNA:
The molecule called DNA, which exists in the nucleus of each of the
100 trillion cells in our body, contains the complete construction plan
of the human body. Information regarding all the characteristics of
a person, from the physical appearance to the structure of the inner
organs, is recorded in DNA by means of a special coding system. The
information in DNA is coded within the sequence of four special bases
that make up this molecule. These bases are specified as A, T, G, and
C according to the initial letters of their names. All the structural
differences among people depend on the variations in the sequence of
these bases. There are approximately 3.5 billion nucleotides, that is,
3.5 billion letters in a DNA molecule.
The DNA data pertaining to a particular organ or protein is included
in special components called "genes". For instance, information about
the eye exists in a series of special genes, whereas information about
the heart exists in quite another series of genes. The cell produces
proteins by using the information in all of these genes. Amino acids
that constitute the structure of the protein are defined by the sequential
arrangement of three nucleotides in the DNA.
At this point, an important detail deserves attention. An error in
the sequence of nucleotides making up a gene renders the gene completely
useless. When we consider that there are 200 thousand genes in the human
body, it becomes more evident how impossible it is for the millions
of nucleotides making up these genes to form by accident in the right
sequence. An evolutionist biologist, Frank Salisbury, comments on this
impossibility by saying:
A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids.
The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in
its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain,
one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41000
forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms), we can see that 41000=10600.
Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600
zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.15
The number 41000 is equivalent to 10600.
We obtain this number by adding 600 zeros to 1. As 10 with 11 zeros indicates
a trillion, a figure with 600 zeros is indeed a number that is difficult
Evolutionist Prof. Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following admission
on this issue:
In fact, the probability of the random formation
of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is inconceivably small. The
chances against the emergence of even a particular protein chain are
In addition to all these improbabilities, DNA can barely be involved in
a reaction because of its double-chained spiral shape. This also makes
it impossible to think that it can be the basis of life.
Moreover, while DNA can replicate only with the help of some enzymes
that are actually proteins, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realised
only by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other,
either they have to exist at the same time for replication, or one of
them has had to be "created" before the other. American microbiologist
Jacobson comments on the subject:
The complete 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, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention.17
The quotation above was written two years after the disclosure of the
structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick. Despite all the developments
in science, this problem remains unsolved for evolutionists. To sum up,
the need for DNA in reproduction, the necessity of the presence of some
proteins for reproduction, and the requirement to produce these proteins
according to the information in the DNA entirely demolish evolutionist
Two German scientists, Junker and Scherer, explained that the synthesis
of each of the molecules required for chemical evolution, necessitates
distinct conditions, and that the probability of the compounding of
these materials having theoretically very different acquirement methods
Until now, no experiment is known in which we can
obtain all the molecules necessary for chemical evolution. Therefore,
it is essential to produce various molecules in different places under
very suitable conditions and then to carry them to another place for
reaction by protecting them from harmful elements like hydrolysis
In short, the theory of evolution is unable to prove any of the evolutionary
stages that allegedly occur at the molecular level.
To summarise what we have said so far, neither amino acids nor their
products, the proteins making up the cells of living beings, could ever
be produced in any so-called "primitive atmosphere" environment. Moreover,
factors such as the incredibly complex structure of proteins, their
right-hand, left-hand features, and the difficulties in the formation
of peptide bonds are just parts of the reason why they will never be
produced in any future experiment either.
Even if we suppose for a moment that proteins somehow did form accidentally,
that would still have no meaning, for proteins are nothing at all on
their own: they cannot themselves reproduce. Protein synthesis is only
possible with the information coded in DNA and RNA molecules. Without
DNA and RNA, it is impossible for a protein to reproduce. The specific
sequence of the twenty different amino acids encoded in DNA determines
the structure of each protein in the body. However, as has been made
abundantly clear by all those who have studied these molecules, it is
impossible for DNA and RNA to form by chance.
The Fact of Creation
With the collapse of the theory of evolution in every field, prominent
names in the discipline of microbiology today admit the fact of creation
and have begun to defend the view that everything is created by a conscious
Creator as part of an exalted creation. This is already a fact that
people cannot disregard. Scientists who can approach their work with
an open mind have developed a view called "intelligent design". Michael
J. Behe, one of the foremost of these scientists, states that he accepts
the absolute being of the Creator and describes the impasse of those
who deny this fact:
The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate
the cell – to investigate life at the molecular level – is a loud,
clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and
so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements
in the history of science. This triumph of science should evoke cries
of "Eureka" from ten thousand throats.
But, no bottles have been uncorked, no hands clapped. Instead, a
curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the
cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle,
and breathing gets a bit laboured. In private people are a bit more
relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground,
shake their heads, and let it go like that. Why does the scientific
community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the
observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma
is that while one side of the elephant is labelled intelligent design,
the other side must be labelled God.19
Today, many people are not even aware that they are in a position of
accepting a body of fallacy as truth in the name of science, instead
of believing in Allah. Those who do not find the sentence "Allah created
you from nothing" scientific enough can believe that the first living
being came into being by thunderbolts striking a "primordial soup" billions
of years ago.
As we have described elsewhere in this book, the balances in nature
are so delicate and so numerous that it is entirely irrational to claim
that they developed "by chance". No matter how much those who cannot
set themselves free from this irrationality may strive, the signs of
Allah in the heavens and the earth are completely obvious and they are
Allah is the Creator of the heavens, the earth and all that is in between.
The signs of His being have encompassed the entire universe.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or
the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, London: Senate
Press, 1995, p. 134.
2. Derek A. Ager. "The Nature of the Fossil Record." Proceedings of the
British Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2, (1976), p. 133.
3. T.N. George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective", Science Progress,
vol.48, (January 1960), p.1-3
4. Richard Monestarsky, Mysteries of the Orient, Discover, April 1993,
5. Stefan Bengston, Nature 345:765 (1990).
6. Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape, New York: McMillan, 1931, p.332.
7. Stephen Jay Gould, Smith Woodward's Folly, New Scientist, 5 April,
1979, p. 44.
8. Charles E. Oxnard, The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution:
Grounds for Doubt, Nature, No. 258, p. 389.
9. Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind, London: Sphere Books, 1981,
10. Eric Trinkaus, Hard Times Among the Neanderthals, Natural History,
No. 87, December 1978, p. 10, R.L. Holoway, "The Neanderthal Brain: What
was Primitive?", American Journal of Physical Anthrophology Supplement,
No. 12, 1991, p. 94
11. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara:
Meteksan Yayinlari 1984, p. 61
12. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara:
Meteksan Yayinlari 1984, p. 61
13. Fabbri Britannica Science Encyclopaedia, Vol. 2, No. 22, p. 519
14. Kevin McKean, Bilim ve Teknik, No. 189, p. 7
15. Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution",
American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.
16. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara:
Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 39.
17. Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life",
American Scientist, January, 1955, p.121.
18. Reinhard Junker & Siegfried Scherer, "Entstehung Gesiche Der Lebewesen",
Weyel, 1986, p. 89.
19. Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, New York: Free Press, 1996,