uotemarker
 |
 Karl Marx made it
clear that Darwin’s theory provided a solid ground for materialism and thus
also for communism. He also showed his sympathy to Darwin by dedicating
Das Kapital, which is considered as his greatest work, to him. In the
German edition of the book, he wrote: "From a devoted admirer to Charles
Darwin". (left) |
To Be Freed
From Prejudice
Most people accept
everything they hear from scientists as strictly true. It does not even occur to them that
scientists may also have various philosophical or ideological prejudices. The fact of the
matter is that evolutionist scientists impose their own prejudices and philosophical views
on the public under the guise of science. For instance, although they are aware that
random events do not cause anything other than irregularity and confusion, they still
claim that the marvellous order, plan, and design seen both in the universe and in living
organisms arose by chance.
For instance, such a
biologist easily grasps that there is an incomprehensible harmony in a protein molecule,
the building block of life, and that there is no probability that this might have come
about by chance. Nevertheless, he alleges that this protein came into existence under
primitive earth conditions by chance billions of years ago. He does not stop there; he
also claims, without hesitation, that not only one, but millions of proteins formed by
chance and then incredibly came together to create the first living cell. Moreover, he
defends his view with a blind stubbornness. This person is an "evolutionist"
scientist.
If the same scientist were
to find three bricks resting on top of one another while walking along a flat road, he
would never suppose that these bricks had come together by chance and then climbed up on
top of each other, again by chance. Indeed, anyone who did make such an assertion would be
considered insane.
How then can it be
possible that people who are able to assess ordinary events rationally can adopt such an
irrational attitude when it comes to thinking about their own existence?
It is not possible to
claim that this attitude is adopted in the name of science: science requires taking both
alternatives into consideration wherever there are two alternatives equally possible
concerning a certain case. And if the likelihood of one of the two alternatives is much
lower, for example if it is only one percent, then the rational and scientific thing to do
is to consider the other alternative, whose likelihood is 99 percent, to be the valid one.
Let us continue, keeping
this scientific basis in mind. There are two views that can be set forth regarding how
living beings came into being on earth. The first is that all living beings were created
by Allah in their present complex structure. The second is that life was formed by
unconscious, random coincidences. The latter is the claim of the theory of evolution.
When we look at the
scientific data, that of molecular biology for instance, we can see that there is no
chance whatsoever that a single living cell-or even one of the millions of proteins
present in this cell-could have come into existence by chance as the evolutionists claim.
As we will illustrate in the following chapters, probabilistic calculations also confirm
this many times over. So the evolutionist view on the emergence of living beings has zero
probability of being true.
This means that the first
view has a "one hundred percent" probability of being true. That is, life has
been consciously brought into being. To put it in another way, it was "created".
All living beings have come into existence by the design of a Creator exalted in superior
power, wisdom, and knowledge. This reality is not simply a matter of conviction; it is the
normal conclusion that wisdom, logic and science take one to.
Under these circumstances,
our "evolutionist" scientist ought to withdraw his claim and adhere to a fact
that is both obvious and proven. To do otherwise is to demonstrate that he is actually
someone who is sacrificing science on behalf of his philosophy, ideology, and dogma rather
than being a true scientist.
The anger, stubbornness,
and prejudices of our "scientist" increase more and more every time he confronts
reality. His attitude can be explained with a single word: "faith". Yet it is a
blind superstitious faith, since there can be no other explanation for one’s
disregard of all the facts or for a lifelong devotion to the preposterous scenario that he
has constructed in his imagination.
Blind
Materialism
The faith that we are
talking about is the materialistic philosophy, which argues that matter has existed for
all eternity and there is nothing other than matter. The theory of evolution is the
so-called "scientific foundation" for this materialistic philosophy and that
theory is blindly defended in order to uphold this philosophy. When science invalidates
the claims of evolution-and that is the very point that has been reached here at the end
of the 20th century-it then is sought to be distorted and brought into a position where it
supports evolution for the sake of keeping materialism alive.
A few lines written by one
of the prominent evolutionist biologists of Turkey is a good example that enables us to
see the disordered judgement and discretion that this blind devotion leads to. This
scientist discusses the probability of the coincidental formation of Cytochrome-C, which
is one of the most essential enzymes for life, as follows:
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. (2)
This scientist finds it "more
scientific" to accept a possibility "as likely as zero" rather than
creation. However according to the rules of science, if there are two alternative
explanations concerning an event and if one of them has "as likely as zero" a
possibility of realisation, then the other one is the correct alternative. However the
dogmatic materialistic approach forbids the admittance of a superior Creator. This
prohibition drives this scientist-and many others who believe in the same materialist
dogma-to accept claims that are completely contrary to reason.
People who believe and trust these
scientists also become enthralled and blinded by the same materialistic spell and they
adopt the same insensible psychology when reading their books and articles.
This dogmatic materialistic point of view
is the reason why many prominent names in the scientific community are atheists. Those who
free themselves from the thrall of this spell and think with an open mind do not hesitate
to accept the existence of a Creator. American biochemist Dr Michael J. Behe, one of those
prominent names who support the theory of "intelligent design" that has lately
become very accepted, describes the scientists who resist believing in the
"design" or "creation" of living organisms thus:
Over the past four decades, modern
biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. It has required tens of thousands of
people to dedicate the better parts of their lives to the tedious work of the laboratory.
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... Instead a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark
complexity of the cell. 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.
(3)
This is the predicament of the atheist
evolutionist scientists you see in magazines and on television and whose books you may be
reading. All the scientific research carried out by these people demonstrates to them the
existence of a Creator. Yet they have become so insensitised and blinded by the dogmatic
materialist education they have absorbed that they still persist in their denial.
People who steadily neglect the clear
signs and evidences of the Creator become totally insensitive. Caught up in an ignorant
self-confidence caused by their insensitivity, they may even end up supporting an
absurdity as a virtue. A good case in point is the prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins
who calls upon Christians not to assume that they have witnessed a miracle even if they
see the statue of the Virgin Mary wave to them. According to Dawkins, "Perhaps all
the atoms of the statue’s arm just happened to move in the same direction at once-a
low probability event to be sure, but possible." (4)
The psychology of the unbeliever has
existed throughout history. In the Qur’an it is described thus:
Even if We did send unto them angels, and
the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes,
they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in God’s plan. But most of them ignore
(the truth). (Surat Al-Anaam : 111)
As this verse makes clear, the dogmatic
thinking of the evolutionists is not an original way of thinking, nor is it even peculiar
to them. In fact, what the evolutionist scientist maintains is not a modern scientific
thought but an ignorance that has persevered since the most uncivilised pagan communities.
The same psychology is defined in another
verse of the Qur’an:
Even if We opened out to them a gate from
heaven and they were to continue (all day) ascending therein, they would only say:
"Our eyes have been intoxicated: Nay, we have been bewitched by sorcery." (Surat
Al-Hijr : 14-15)
Mass Evolutionist
Indoctrination
As indicated in the verses cited above,
one of the reasons why people cannot see the realities of their existence is a kind of
"spell" impeding their reasoning. It is the same "spell" that
underlies the world-wide acceptance of the theory of evolution. What we mean by spell is a
conditioning acquired by indoctrination. People are exposed to such an intense
indoctrination about the correctness of the theory of evolution that they often do not
even realise the distortion that exists.
This indoctrination creates a negative
effect on the brain and disables the faculty of judgement. Eventually, the brain, being
under a continuous indoctrination, starts to perceive the realities not as they are but as
they have been indoctrinated. This phenomenon can be observed in other examples. For
instance, if someone is hypnotised and indoctrinated that the bed he is lying on is a car,
he perceives the bed as a car after the hypnosis session. He thinks that this is very
logical and rational because he really sees it that way and has no doubt that he is right.
Such examples as the one above, which show the efficiency and the power of the mechanism
of indoctrination, are scientific realities that have been verified by countless
experiments that have been reported in the scientific literature and are the everyday fare
of psychology and psychiatry textbooks.
The theory of evolution and the
materialistic world view that relies on it are imposed on the masses by such
indoctrination methods. People who continuously encounter the indoctrination of evolution
in the media, academic sources, and "scientific" platforms, fail to realise that
accepting this theory is in fact contrary to the most basic principles of reason. The same
indoctrination captures scientists as well. Young names stepping up in their scientific
careers adopt the materialist world view more and more as time passes. Enchanted by this
spell, many evolutionist scientists go on searching for scientific confirmation of 19th
century’s irrational and outdated evolutionist claims that have long since been
refuted by scientific evidence.
There are also additional mechanisms that
force scientists to be evolutionist and materialist. In Western countries, a scientist has
to observe some standards in order to be promoted, to receive academic recognition, or to
have his articles published in scientific journals. A straightforward acceptance of
evolution is the number-one criterion. This system drives these scientists so far as to
spend their whole lives and scientific careers for the sake of a dogmatic belief.
This is the reality that continues to lie
behind the assertion "evolution is still accepted by the world of science".
Evolution is kept alive not because it has a scientific worth but because it is an
ideological obligation. Very few of the scientists who are aware of this fact can risk
pointing out that the king isn’t wearing any clothes.
In the rest of this book, we will be
reviewing the findings of modern science that have led to the collapse of the evolutionist
belief and the display of the clear evidences of Allah’s existence. The reader will
witness that evolution theory is in fact a deceit-a deceit that is belied by science at
every step but is upheld to veil the fact of creation. What is to be hoped of the reader
is that he will wake up from the spell that blinds people’s minds and disrupts their
ability to judge and he will reflect seriously on what is related in this book.
If he rids himself of this spell and
thinks clearly, freely, and without any prejudice, he will soon discover the crystal-clear
truth. This inevitable truth, also demonstrated by modern science in all its aspects, is
that living organisms came into existence not by chance but as a result of creation. Man
can easily see the fact of creation when he considers how he himself exists, how he has
come into being from a drop of water, or the perfection of every other living thing.
Imaginary Mechanisms Of
Evolution
The neo-Darwinist model, which we shall
take as the "mainstream" theory of evolution today, argues that life has evolved
through two naturalistic mechanisms: "natural selection" and
"mutation". The basic assertion of the theory is as follows: Natural selection
and mutation are two complementary mechanisms. The origin of evolutionary modifications is
random mutations that take place in the genetic structure of living things. The traits
brought about by the mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural selection and
therefore the living things evolve.
When we further probe into this theory, we
find that there is no such evolutionary mechanism at all, because neither natural
selection nor mutations make any contribution to the claim that different species have
evolved and transformed into one another.
Natural
Selection
As process of nature, natural selection
was familiar to biologists before Darwin, who defined it as a "mechanism that keeps
species unchanging without being corrupted". Darwin was the first person to put
forward the assertion that this process had evolutionary power and he then erected his
entire theory on the foundation of this assertion. The name he gave to his book indicates
that natural selection was the basis of Darwin’s theory: The Origin of Species, by
means of Natural Selection...
However since Darwin’s time, there
has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes
living beings to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist of the Museum of
Natural History in England, who is also a prominent evolutionist by the way, stresses that
natural selection has never been observed to have the power to cause things to evolve:
No one has ever produced a species by
mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current
argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question. (11)
Natural selection holds that those living
things that are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by
having offspring that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. For
example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run
faster will survive. That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will
not transform those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer.
When we look at the few incidents the
evolutionists have put forth as observed examples of natural selection, we see that these
are nothing but a simple attempt to hoodwink.
Butterflies of the Industrial
Revolution
In 1986 Douglas Futuyma published a book,
The Biology of Evolution, which is accepted as one of the sources explaining the theory of
evolution by natural selection in the most explicit way. The most famous of his examples
on this subject is about the colour of the butterfly population, which appeared to darken
during the Industrial Revolution in England.
According to the account, around the outset
of the Industrial Revolution in England, the colour of the tree barks around Manchester
was quite light. Because of this, dark-coloured butterflies resting on those trees could
easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them and therefore they had very little chance
of survival. Fifty years later, as a result of pollution, the barks of the trees had
darkened, and this time the light-coloured butterflies became the most hunted. As a
result, the number of light-coloured butterflies decreased whereas that of the
dark-coloured ones increased since the latter were not easily noticed. Evolutionists use
this as a great evidence to their theory. Evolutionists, on the other hand, take refuge
and solace in window-dressing by showing how light-coloured butterflies
"evolved" into dark-coloured ones.
 |
The example of the butterflies of the
Industrial Revolution is advanced as the greatest evidence for evolution by natural
selection. However, evolution is out of the question in this example, as no new butterfly
species is formed. On the left are trees and butterflies of the pre-Industrial Revolution
era, and on the right are those of the post-Industrial Revolution era. |
However, it should be quite clear that
this situation can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, for natural
selection did not give rise to a new form that had not existed before. Dark coloured
butterflies existed in the butterfly population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the
relative proportions of the existing butterfly species in the population changed. The
butterflies had not acquired a new trait or an organ, which would cause a "change in
species". In order to have a butterfly turn into another living species, a bird for
example, new additions would have had to be made to the genes. That is, an entirely
separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about
the physical traits of the bird.
Briefly, natural selection does not have
the capability to add a new organ to a living organism, remove one, or change the organism
into another species-quite contrary to the image that evolutionists conjure up. The
"greatest" evidence put forward since Darwin has been able to go no further than
butterflies in England.
Can Natural Selection Explain
Complexity?
There is nothing that natural selection
contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or
improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into
another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a
crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Gould, refers to
this deadlock of natural selection as follows;
The essence of Darwism lies in a single
phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that
natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories
require that it create the fit as well. (12)
Another of the misleading methods that
evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this
mechanism as a conscious designer. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It
does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living beings. As
a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that have the
feature of "irreducible complexity". These systems and organs are composed of
the co-operation of a great number of parts and they are of no use if even one of these
parts is missing or defective. (For example, human eye does not function unless it exists
with all its details). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be
able to figure the future in advance and aim directly for the benefit that is to be
acquired at the last stage. Since natural mechanism has no consciousness or will, it can
do no such thing. This fact which also demolishes the foundations of the theory of
evolution, also worried Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ
existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (13)
Natural selection only selects out the
disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new
genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot make anything evolve. Darwin
accepted this reality by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable
variations chance to occur". (14) This is why neo-Darwinism has had to elevate mutations next to
natural selection as the "cause of beneficial changes". However as we shall see,
mutations can only be "the cause for harmful changes".
Mutations
Mutations are defined as breaks or
replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nucleus of the cell
of a living organism and which holds all the genetic information. These breaks or
replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action.
Every mutation is an "accident" and either damages the nucleotides making up the
DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and
modification that the cell cannot repair them.
Mutation, which evolutionists frequently
hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and
perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations
can only be like those experienced by the people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl:
that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature...
The reason for this is very simple: DNA
has a very complex structure and random effects can only cause harm to this structure.
B.G. Ranganathan states:
Mutations are small, random, and harmful.
They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four
characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary
development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or
harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm
it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings
destruction. (15)
Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has
been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist
Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of
Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused
by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:
Many will be puzzled about the statement
that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of
the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life -
results from mutations practically all of which are harmful? (16)
Every effort put into "generating a
useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many
experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies as these insects reproduce very rapidly
and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were
mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. Evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor
writes thus:
In all the thousands of fly-breeding
experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new
species has never been seen to emerge... or even a new enzyme. (17)
Another researcher, Michael Pitman,
comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:
Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other
geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold,
light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically
all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really:
Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred
in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type. (18)
The same holds true for man. All mutations
that have been observed in human beings have deleterious results. On this issue,
evolutionists throw up a smokescreen and try to show even examples of such deleterious
mutation as "evidence for evolution". All mutations that take place in humans
result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism,
or dwarfism. These mutations are presented in evolutionist textbooks as examples of
"the evolutionary mechanism at work". Needless to say, a process that leaves
people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is
supposed to produce better forms that are more fit to survive.
To summarise, there are three main reasons
why mutations cannot be pressed into the service of supporting evolutionists’
assertions:
The direct effect of mutations is harmful:
Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes
them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure
will not improve that structure but impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has
ever been observed.
Mutations add no new information to an
organism’s DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from
their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a
living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg
sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.
In order for a mutation to be transferred
to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the
organism: A random change that occurs in a casual cell or organ of the body cannot be
transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of
radiation or by other causes will not be passed on to subsequent generations.
Briefly, it is impossible for living
beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause them to
evolve. This agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which demonstrates that this
scenario is far removed from reality.
A fruit fly (drosophila) with its legs
jutting from its head: a mutation induced by radiation.
Mutations do not improve an organism, but
rather harm it. Above, the effects of mutation on a human eye.
The Fossil Record Refutes
Evolution
The Ever-missing
Links
According to the theory of evolution,
every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously-existing species turned
into something else in time and all species have come into being in this way. According to
the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
If this was the case, then numerous
intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.
For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles
should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the
fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which
acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had.
Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the
past, as "transitional forms".
If such animals had really existed, there
should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the
remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of
these transitional forms should have been even greater than the present animal species and
their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin
explained:
If my theory be true, numberless
intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together
must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be
found only amongst fossil remains. (19)
Even Darwin himself was aware of the
absence of such transitional forms. It was his hope that they would be found in the
future. Despite his hopefulness, he realised that the biggest stumbling-block in his
theory was the missing transitional forms. Therefore in his book The Origin of Species he
wrote the following in the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory":
...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
me. (20)
The single explanation Darwin could come
up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far
was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the
missing links would be found.
Believing in Darwin’s prophecy,
evolutionists have been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the
middle of the 19th century all over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional
forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations showed that
contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and
fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, the evolutionists have instead unwittingly
caused it to collapse.
A famous British paleontologist, Derek V.
Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:
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. (21)
Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark
Czarnecki comments as follows:
A major problem in proving the theory has
been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's
geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical
intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly
has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God. (22)
They have also had to deal with the
futility of waiting for "missing" transitional forms to appear in the future, as
explained by a professor of paleontology from Glasgow University, T.Neville George:
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.
(23)
Life Emerged on Earth
Suddenly and in Complex Forms
When terrestrial strata and the fossil
record are examined, it is to be seen that all 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 500-550 million years.
The living creatures found in the strata
belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no
pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails,
trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex
invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of
complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the
"Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.
Most of the life forms found in this
strata have complex systems like eyes, gills, circulatory system, and advanced
physiological structures no different from their modern counterparts. For instance, the
double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of design. David Raup, a
professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: "the
trilobites used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative
optical engineer to develop today".
(24)
These complex invertebrates emerged
suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and
the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.
Richard Monastersky, the editor of Earth
Sciences, which is one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the
following about the "Cambrian Explosion" which came as a total surprise to
evolutionists:
Researchers have since uncovered thousands
of exquisitely preserved fossils that offer a glimpse back to a pivotal event in the
history of life. 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 creat5res. In a blink of geological time a planet dominated by
simple sponge-like animals gave way to one ruled by a vast variety of sophisticated
beasts, animals whose relatives still inhabit the world today. (25)
How the earth came to overflow with such a
great number of animal species all of a sudden and how these distinct types of species
with no common ancestors could have emerged is a question that remains unanswered by
evolutionists. The Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of
evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that invalidates the very
roots of all the arguments he has been defending:
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks,
vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major
invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution,
the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any
evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted
creationists.
(26)
As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the
Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to
explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent
evolutionist biologist admits this fact and states: "Organisms either appeared on the
earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from
preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully
developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." (27) Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote:
"If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started
into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow
modification through natural selection."
(28) The Cambrian Period
is nothing more or less than Darwin’s "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss
evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengston confesses the lack of transitional links
while he describes the Cambrian Period and says "Baffling (and embarrasing) to
Darwin, this event still dazzles us".
(29)
As may be seen, the fossil record
indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but
instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not
come into existence by evolution, they were created.
A Creation
MiracleThat Confounds Evolution
TRILOBITE EYES
The trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a
suddenhave an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of
honeycomb-shapedtiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal
design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer todevelop
today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology.
This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. No
doubt,the sudden appearance of such a wondrous design cannot be explained byevolution and
it proves the actuality of creation.
Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has
survivedto our own day without a single change. Some insects such as bees and dragonflies
have the same eye structure as did the trilobite. This situationdisproves the evolutionary
thesis that living things evolved progressivelyfrom the primitive to the complex.
(*) R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Psychology ofSeeing, Oxford
University Press, 1995, p.31.
|
Deceptive Fossil Interpretations
Of Evolutionists
Before going into the details of the
legend of man’s evolution, we need to mention the propaganda method that has
convinced the general public of the idea that half-man half-ape creatures once lived in
the past. This propaganda method makes use of "reconstructions" made in
reference to fossils. Reconstruction can be explained as drawing a picture or constructing
a model of a living thing based on a single bone-sometimes only a fragment-that has been
unearthed. The "ape-men" we see in newspapers, magazines, or films are all
reconstructions.
 IMAGINARY DRAWINGS: In their pictures and reconstructions, evolutionists
deliberately give shape to features that do not actually leave any fossil traces, such as
the structure of the nose and lips, the shape of the hair, the form of the eyebrows, and
other bodily hair so as to support evolution. They also prepare detailed pictures
depicting these imaginary creatures walking with their families, hunting, or in other
instances of their daily lives. However, these drawings are all figments of the
imagination and have no counterpart in the fossil record. |
 
 |
Since fossils are usually disordered and
incomplete, any conjecture based on them is likely to be totally speculative. As a matter
of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by the evolutionists based on the
fossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the evolutionary thesis.
An anthropologist from Harvard, David R. Pilbeam stresses this fact when he says "at
least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences
interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies
instead of the actual data".
(53) Since people are
highly affected by visual information, these reconstructions best serve the purpose of
evolutionists, which is to convince people that these reconstructed creatures really
existed in the past.
At this point, we have to highlight a
particular point: reconstructions based on bone remains can only reveal the very general
characteristics of the object, since the real distinctive details are soft tissues that
quickly vanish in time. Therefore with the speculative interpretation of the soft tissues,
the reconstructed drawings or models become totally dependent on the imagination of the
person producing them. 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. (54)
| Two drawings of Java Man seen above, which are totally
different from each other, provide a good example of how fantastically fossils are
interpreted by evolutionists. |
Steven Stanley's drawing
(Human Origins) |
Maurice Wilson’s drawing
(From ape to Adam The Search for the Ancestry of Man, Herbert Wendth) |
As a matter of fact, evolutionists invent
such "preposterous stories" that they even ascribe different faces to the same
skull. For example, the three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named
Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus), is a famous example of such a forgery.
The biased interpretation of fossils or
fabrication of many imaginary reconstructions may be an indication of how frequently
evolutionists have recourse to tricks. Yet these seem innocent when compared to the
deliberate forgeries that have been perpetrated in the history of evolution.
Evolution
Forgeries
There is no concrete fossil evidence to
support the "ape-man" image, which is unceasingly indoctrinated by the media and
evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce
imaginary creatures, yet the fact that these drawings have no matching fossils constitutes
a serious problem for them. One of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this
problem is to "produce" the fossils they cannot find. The Piltdown Man, the
biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.
Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan
Jaw and a Human Skull!
A well-known doctor and also an amateur
paleoanthropologist, Charles Dawson came out with an assertion that he had found a jawbone
and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England in 1912. Even though the jawbone was
more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man’s. These specimens were
labelled the "Piltdown Man". Alleged to be 500 thousand years old, they were
displayed as an absolute proof of human evolution in several museums. 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 an important
evidence of human evolution. No less than five hundred doctoral theses were written on the
subject. (55) The famous American paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn
said "...we have to be reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes
and this is an astonishing finding about early man..." while he was visiting the
British Museum in 1935.
(56)
In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the British
Museum’s paleontology department attempted to try the method of "fluorine
testing", a new test used for determining the date of some old fossils. A trial was
made on the fossil of the Piltdown Man. The result was astounding. During the test, it was
realised that the jawbone of the Piltdown Man did not contain any fluorine. This indicated
that it had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a
small amount of fluorine, showed that it was only a few thousand years old.
The latest chronological studies made with
the fluorine method have revealed that the skull is only a few thousand years old. It was
determined that the teeth in the jawbone belonging to an orang-utan had been worn down
artificially and that the "primitive" tools discovered with the fossils were
simple imitations that had been sharpened with steel implements. (57) In the detailed analysis completed by Weiner, this forgery was
revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the
mandibular bone belonged to a recently dead ape! The teeth were thereafter specially
arranged in an array and added to the jaw and the joints were filled in order to resemble
that of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them a
dated appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Le Gros Clark, who
was in the team that disclosed the forgery, could not hide his astonishment at this
situation and said that "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?"
(58) In the wake of all
this, "Piltdown Man" was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it had
been displayed for more than 40 years.
Nebraska Man: A Single Pig
Tooth
In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the
manager of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil
molar tooth in West 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 of Pithecanthropus erectus while others
claimed it was closer to human beings. This fossil, which aroused extensive debate, was
called the "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 the Nebraska Man’s head and
body were drawn. Moreover, the Nebraska Man was even pictured along with his wife and
children, as a whole family in a natural setting.
All of these scenarios were developed from
just one tooth. Evolutionist circles accredited this "ghost man" to such an
extent that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased decisions relying
on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.
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. William Gregory entitled his article published in Science
magazine where he announced this fault as: "Hesperopithecus: Apparently not an ape
nor a man".
(59) Then all the
drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and "his family" were hurriedly removed
from evolutionary literature.
Ota Benga: The African Native
Put Into a Cage
After Darwin advanced the claim with his
book The Descent of Man that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek
fossils to support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed that
"half-man half-ape" creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record,
but also alive in various parts of the world. In the early 20th century, these pursuits
for "living transitional links" led to unfortunate incidents, one of the
cruellest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga.
Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an
evolutionist researcher in the Congo. In his own tongue, his name meant
"friend". He had a wife and two children. Chained and caged like an animal, he
was taken to the USA where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St
Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him as "the closest
transitional link to man". Two years later, they took him to the Bronx Zoo in New
York and there they exhibited him under the denomination of "ancient ancestors of
man" along with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, and an orang-utan called
Dohung. Dr William T. Hornaday, the zoo’s evolutionist director gave long speeches on
how proud he was to have this exceptional "transitional form" in his zoo and
treated caged Ota Benga as if he were an ordinary animal. Unable to bear the treatment he
was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually committed suicide. (60)
Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga...
These scandals demonstrate that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind
of unscientific method to prove their theory. Bearing this point in mind, when we look at
the other so-called evidence of the "human evolution" legend, we confront a
similar situation. Here there are a fictional story and an army of volunteers ready to try
everything to verify this story.
The Scenario Of Human
Evolution
In previous chapters, we saw that there
are no mechanisms in nature to lead the living beings to evolve and that living species
came into existence not as the result of an evolutionary process, but rather emerged all
of a sudden in their present perfect structure. That is, they were created individually.
Therefore, it is obvious that "human evolution", too, is a story that has never
taken place.
What, then, do the evolutionists propose
as the basis for this story?
This basis is the existence of plenty of
fossils on which the evolutionists are able to build up imaginary interpretations.
Throughout history, more than 6,000 ape species have lived and most of them have become
extinct. Today, only 120 ape species live on the earth. These approximately 6,000 ape
species, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists.
Evolutionists wrote the scenario of human
evolution by arranging some of the skulls that suited their purpose in an order from the
smallest to the biggest and scattering the skulls of some extinct human races among them.
According to this scenario, 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.
However, all the paleontological,
anatomical and biological findings have demonstrated that this claim of evolution is as
fictitious and invalid as all the others. No sound or real evidence has been put forward
to prove that there is a relationship between man and ape, except forgeries, distortions,
and misleading drawings and comments.
The fossil record indicates to us that
throughout history, men have been men and apes have been apes. Some of the fossils the
evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of man, belong to human races that lived until
very recently-about 10,000 years ago-and then disappeared. Moreover, many human
communities currently living have the same physical appearance and characteristics as
these extinct human races, which the evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of men. All
these are clear proof that man has never gone through an evolutionary process at any
period in history.
The most important of all is that there
are numerous anatomical differences between apes and men and none of them are of the kind
to come into existence through an evolutionary process. "Bipedality" is one of
them. As we will describe later on in detail, bipedality is peculiar to man and it is one
of the most important traits that distinguishes man from other animals.
The Imaginary Family Tree of
Man
The Darwinist claim holds that modern men
of today have evolved from some kind of ape-like creatures. During this alleged
evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, it is
claimed that there existed some "transitional forms" between modern man and his
ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, four basic
"categories" are listed:
1. Australopithecines (plural form of
Australopithecus)
2. Homo habilis
3. Homo erectus
4. Homo sapiens
The evolutionists call the so-called first
common ancestors of men and apes "Australopithecus" which means "South
African apes". Australopithecus, nothing but an old ape species that has become
extinct, has various types. Some of them are well built, and others are small and slim
structured.
The 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,
that is, Homo sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this
species.
Fossils like "Java Man",
"Pekin Man", and "Lucy", which appear in the media from time to time
and are to be found in evolutionist publications and lecture books, are included in one of
the four species listed above. These species are also assumed to branch into sub-species.
Some transitional form candidates of the
past, such as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded from the imaginary human evolution family
tree after it was understood that they were ordinary apes. (61)
By outlining the link chain as
"Australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens", the
evolutionists imply that each of these species are one another’s ancestor. However,
recent findings of paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecines, Homo
habilis and Homo erectus existed at different parts of the world at the same time.
Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very
modern times. Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man)
co-existed in the same region. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the
claim that they are ancestors of one another.
Intrinsically, all findings and scientific
research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as
evolutionists put forward. The fossils, which are claimed to be the ancestors of humans by
evolutionists, in fact belong either to different human races or to ape species.
Then, which fossils are human and which
ones are apes? Is it ever possible for any one of them to be considered as a transitional
form? In order to get the answers, let us have a closer look at each category.
Australopithecus : An Ape
Species
Australopithecus, that is the first
category, means "southern ape". It is assumed that these creatures first
appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago and they lived until 1 million years ago.
There are some classes among Astralopithecines. The evolutionists assume that the oldest
Australopithecus species is A. Afarensis. After that comes A. Africanus, which have
slimmer bones, and then A. Robustus, which have relatively bigger bones. For A. Boisei,
some researchers accept it as a different species and some others as a sub-species of A.
Robustus.
All of the Australopithecus species are
extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial volumes are the same or
smaller than the chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and
feet which they used to climb trees just like today’s chimpanzees and their feet have
grasping abilities to hold onto the branches. They are short (maximum 130 cm. (51 in.))
and just like today’s chimpanzees, male Australopithecus is larger than the female.
Many characteristics such as the details on their skulls, the closeness of the eyes, sharp
molar teeth, mandibular structure, long arms, short legs, are evidence to show that these
living beings were no different from today’s apes.
The evolutionists claim that although
Australopithecines have the anatomy of an ape, they walked upright like humans and unlike
apes.
This claim of "walking upright"
is in fact a view that has been held by paleoanthropologists like Richard Leakey and
Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet many scientists have carried out a great deal of
research on the skeletal structures of Australopithecines and proved the invalidity of
this argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two
world-renown anatomists from England and the USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof.
Charles Oxnard, has shown that these creatures were not bipedal and had the same sort of
movement as today’s apes. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of
15 years with the provision supplied by the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his
team of 5 specialists reached the conclusion that Australopithecines were only an ordinary
ape species and definitely were not bipedal, although Zuckerman was an evolutionist
himself. (62) Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionist
famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of
Australopithecines to that of modern orang-utans. (63) Finally,
in 1994, a team from Liverpool University in England launched an extensive research to
reach a definite conclusion. Finally, they concluded that "the Australopithecines are
quadripedal".
(64)
Briefly, Australopithecines have no link
with humans and they are merely an extinct ape species.
Homo Habilis: The Ape that
was Presented as Human
The great similarity between the skeletal
and cranial structures of Australopithecines and chimpanzees and the refutation of the
claim that these creatures walked upright, caused great difficulty for the evolutionist
paleoanthropologists. The reason is that, according to the imaginary evolution scheme,
Homo erectus comes after Australopithecines. As the prefix "homo" meaning
"human" implies, Homo erectus is a human class and its skeleton is straight. It
cranial volume is two times bigger than that of Australopithecines. A direct transition
from Australopithecines, which is a chimpanzee-like ape, to Homo erectus that has a
skeleton no different from modern man’s, is out of the question even according to the
evolutionist theory. Therefore, "links", that is, "transitional forms"
are needed. The concept of Homo habilis arose from this necessity.
The classification of Homo habilis was put
forward in the 1960’s by the Leakeys who are "fossil hunters" as a whole
family. According to the Leakeys, this new species which they classified as Homo habilis
had a relatively large cranial capacity, the ability to walk upright and to use stone and
wooden tools, and had a relatively large cranial volume. Therefore, it could have been the
ancestor of man.
New fossils of the same species unearthed
in the late 1980’s, were to completely change this view. Some researchers like
Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace who relied on those newly-found fossils, stated that Homo
habilis, which means "man capable of using tools" should be classified as
Australopithecus habilis which means "South African ape capable of using tools",
because Homo habilis had a lot of characteristics in common with the apes named
Australopithecines. It had long arms, short legs and an ape-like skeleton structure just
like Australopithecines. Its fingers and toes were suitable for climbing. Its mandibular
structure was very similar to that of today’s apes. Their 550 cc cranial volumes were
the best indication of the fact that they were apes. In short, Homo habilis, which was
presented as a different species by some evolutionists, was in reality an ape species just
like all the other Australopithecines.
Research carried out in years to come
indeed demonstrated that Homo habilis was no different than Australopithecines. The skull
and skeleton fossil OH62 found by Tim White showed that this species had small cranial
volume, and long arms and short legs which enabled them to climb trees, just like modern
apes.
The detailed analyses conducted by
American anthropologist Holly Smith in 1994 indicated that Homo habilis was not
"homo", in other words, "human", but "ape". About the
analyses she made on the teeth of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo
neandertalensis, Smith stated the following;
Restricting analysis of fossils to
specimens satisfying these criteria, patterns of dental development of gracile
australopithecines and Homo Habilis remain classified with African apes. Those of Homo
erectus and Neanderthals are classified with humans. (65)
Within the same year, Fred Spoor, Bernard
Wood and Frans Zonneveld, all specialists on anatomy, reached the same conclusion through
a totally different method. This method was based on the comparative analysis of the
semi-circular canals in the inner ear of humans and apes which provided for sustaining
balance. The canals of humans walking straight differed considerably from those of apes
who walked bent downwards. The inner ear canals of all Australopithecus and furthermore,
Homo habilis specimens analysed by Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld were the same as modern
apes’. The inner ear canals of Homo erectus were the same as modern men’s. (66)
This finding yielded two important
results:
1. Fossils referred to as Homo habilis
actually did not belong to the classes of "homo", i.e. humans, but to those of
Australopithecines, i.e. apes.
2. Both Homo habilis and
Australopithecines were living things that had a bent stride, and therefore, the skeleton
of an ape. They did not have any relation whatsoever with the humans.
Homo Rudolfensis: The Face
Wrongly Joined
The term Homo rudolfensis is the name
given to a few fossil fragments unearthed in 1972. The class supposedly represented by
this fossil was also designated as Homo rudolfensis for these fossil fragments were found
in the vicinity of Rudolf River in Kenya. Most of the paleoanthropologists accept that
these fossils do not belong to a distinct species but that the living being called Homo
rudolfensis was in fact a Homo habilis.
Richard Leakey, who unearthed the fossils,
presented the skull he named "KNM-ER 1470" and said to have 2.8 million years of
age, as the greatest discovery of the history of anthropology and had a sweeping effect.
According to Leakey, this being, which had a small cranial volume like Australopithecus
and yet the face of a human, was the missing link between Australopithecus and human. Yet,
after a short while, it was to be understood that the human-like face of KNM-ER 1470 skull
which frequently appeared on the covers of scientific magazines was the result of the
flawed joining of the skull fragments-which may have been deliberate. Prof. Tim Bromage,
who made studies on human face anatomy, outlined this fact which he disclosed by the help
of computer simulations in 1992:
When it (KNM-ER 1470) was first
reconstructed, the face was fitted to the cranium in an almost vertical position, much
like the flat faces of modern humans. But recent studies of anatomical relationships show
that in life the face must have jutted out considerably, creating an ape-like aspect,
rather like the faces of Australopithecus.
(67)
The evolutionist paleoanthropologist J. E.
Cronin states the following on the matter:
... its relatively robustly constructed
face, flattish naso-alveolar clivus, (recalling australopithecine dished faces), low
maximum cranial width (on the temporals), strong canine juga and large molars (as
indicated by remaining roots) are all relatively primitive traits which ally the specimen
with members of the taxon A/ africanus.
(68)
C. Loring Brace from Michigan University
concluded the same as a result of the analyses he made on the jaw and tooth structure of
skull 1470 and said that the size of the jaw and of the part containing molars showed that
ER 1470 had exactly the face and teeth of an Australopithecus." (69)
Prof. Alan Walker, a paleoanthropologist
from John Hopkins University who has done as much research on KNM-ER 1470 as Leakey,
defends that this living being should not be classified under a "homo", that is,
human species such as Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis, but on the contrary must be
included under the Australopithecus species.
(70)
In summary, classifications like Homo
habilis or Homo rudolfensis which are presented as transitional links between the
Australopithecines and Homo erectus are entirely imaginary. As confirmed by many
researchers today, these living beings are members of the Australopithecus series. All of
their anatomical features disclose that they are each an ape species.
Following these creatures, each of which
is an ape species, come the "homo" fossils which are human being fossils.
Homo Erectus and Thereafter:
Real Human Beings
According to the fanciful scheme of
evolutionists, the internal 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. However all these classifications are only original human races in reality.
The difference between them is no greater than the difference between an Inuit and a black
or a pygmy and a European.
Let us first examine Homo erectus, which
is referred to as the most primitive human species. As the word "erect" implies,
"Homo erectus" means a "man walking upright". Evolutionists have had
to separate these men from previous ones by adding the quality of "erectness",
because all the available Homo erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in
any of the Australopithecines or Homo habilis specimens. There is no difference between
the skeleton of modern man and Homo erectus.
The primary reason for evolutionists in
defining Homo erectus as "primitive", is the volume of its skull (900-1100 cc),
which is smaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However,
there are many people living today in the world who have the same skull volume as Homo
erectus (for instance the pygmies) and there are some other races that have protruding
eyebrows (for instance the Australian Aborigines).
It is a commonly agreed fact that
differences in cranial volume do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or
abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organisation of the brain rather than its
volume. (71)
The fossils that have made Homo erectus
known to the world are the fossils of Pekin Man and Java Man found in Asia. However it was
understood in time that these two fossils were not reliable. Pekin Man consisted of some
elements made of plaster whose originals were lost and Java Man was "composed"
of a skull fragment plus a pelvis bone that was found meters away from it with no
indication that these belonged to the same living being. This is why the Homo erectus
fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance. (It should also be noted
that some of the fossils said to be Homo erectus were included under a second class named
"Homo ergaster" by some evolutionists. There is a disagreement between them on
this issue. We will treat all these fossils under the classification of Homo erectus)
The most famous of Homo erectus specimens
found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome homo erectus" or the "Turkana
Boy" which was found near Lake Turkana Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was of
a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in his adolescence. The upright
skeleton structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. Concerning it,
American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average
pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern
human."
(72) Concerning the
skull, Walker said that "it looked so much like a Neanderthal." (73) As we will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a modern
human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human race.
Even evolutionist Richard Leakey states
that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:
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 (74)
Prof. William Laughlin from the Univercity
of Connecticut made extensive anatomical examinations on Inuits and the people living in
Aleut islands and noticed that these people were extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus.
The conclusion Laughlin arrived was that all these distinct races were in fact different
races of Homo sapiens (modern man).
When we consider the vast differences that
exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong within
the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an
erectus specimen-ALC]belongs within this same diverse species. (75)
There is, on the other hand, a huge gap
between Homo erectus, a human race, and apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human
evolution" scenario, (Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Homo rudolfensis). This means
that the first men appeared in the fossil record suddenly and right away without any
evolutionary history. There can be no clearer indication of their being created.
Yet, admitting this fact is totally
against the dogmatic philosophy and ideology of evolutionists. As a result, they try to
portray Homo erectus, a truly human race, as a half-ape creature. In their Homo-erectus
reconstructions, they tenaciously draw simian features. On the other hand, with similar
drawing methods, they humanise apes like Australopithecus or Homo Habilis. With this
method, they seek to "approximate" apes and human beings and close the gap
between these two distinct living classes.
Neanderthals: A Robust Human
Race
Neanderthals are human beings who suddenly
appeared 100 thousand years ago in Europe and disappeared-or were assimilated by being
blended with other races-quietly yet quickly 35 thousand years ago. Their only difference
from the modern man is their skeleton being more robust and their cranial volume slightly
bigger.
Neanderthals are a human race and this
fact is admitted by almost everybody today. Evolutionists have tried very hard to present
them as "a primitive species", yet all findings indicate that they were no
different from a "robust" man walking on the street today. A prominent authority
on the subject, Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist 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. (76)
Many contemporary researchers define
Neanderthal man as a sub-species of modern man and call it "Homo sapiens
neandertalensis". 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. To put it precisely, Neanderthals are a "robust" human
race that simply disappeared in time.
Homo Sapiens Archaic, Homo
Heilderbergensis and Cro-Magnon Man
Archaic Homo sapiens is the last step
before contemporary man in the imaginary evolutionary scheme. In fact, evolutionists do
not have much to say about these men, as there are only very 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.
The group characterised as Homo
heilderbergensis in evolutionist literature is in fact the same as Homo sapiens archaic.
The reason why two different terms are used to define the same human race is the
conceptual differences among the evolutionists. All the fossils included under the Homo
heilderbergensis classification suggest that people who were anatomically very similar to
modern Europeans lived 500 thousand and even 740 thousand years earlier first in England
and then in Spain.
It is estimated that the Cro-Magnon Man
lived 30,000 years ago. He has a dome-shaped cranium and a broad forehead. His cranium of
1,600 cc is above the average for contemporary man. His skull has thick eyebrow
projections and a bony protrusion at the back that is characteristic of both Neanderthal
man and Homo erectus.
Although the Cro-Magnon is considered to
be a European race, the structure and volume of Cro-Magnon’s cranium look very much
like that of some races living in Africa and the tropics today. Relying on this
similarity, it is estimated that Cro-Magnon was an archaic African race. Some other
paleoanthropological finds have shown that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal races blended with
each other and laid the foundations for the races of our day. Moreover, in our day, it is
accepted that the representatives of the Cro-Magnon race still live in the different
regions of the continent of Africa and the Salute and Dordogne regions of France. People
bearing similar characteristics are also noted to be living in Poland and Hungary.
Species Living in the Same
Age as Their Ancestors
What we have investigated so far forms a
clear picture for us: The scenario of "human evolution" is totally a fiction. In
order for such a family tree to exist, a gradual evolution from ape to man should have
taken place and the fossil record of this process should have been found. However, there
is a huge gap between apes and humans. Skeletal structures, cranial volumes, and such
criteria as walking upright or bent sharply forward distinguish humans from apes. (We
mentioned that with a recent research done in 1994 on the balance canals of inner ear,
Australopithecus and Homo habilis were classified as ape, while Homo erectus was
classified as human.)
Another significant finding proving that
there can be no family tree among these different species is that the species that are
presented as ancestors of each other in fact lived concurrently. If, as the evolutionists
claim, Australopithecus converted to Homo habilis and if they, in turn, converted to Homo
erectus, the eras they lived in should necessarily have followed each other. However,
there is no such a chronological order.
According to the estimates of
evolutionists, Australopithecines lived from 4 million years ago up until 1 million years
ago. Living beings classified as Homo habilis, on the other hand, are thought to have
lived until 1.7-1.9 million years ago. Homo rudolfensis, which is said to have been more
"advanced" than Homo habilis, is known to be as old as 2.5-2.8 million years!
That is to say, Homo rudolfensis is nearly 1 million years older than Homo habilis, of
which it is supposed to be the "ancestor". On the other hand, the age of Homo
erectus dates as far back as 1.6-1.8 million years ago, which means that Homo erectus
specimens appeared on the earth in the same time frame as its so-called ancestor, that is,
Homo habilis.
Alan Walker confirms this fact by stating
that "there is evidence from East Africa for late-surviving small Australopithecus
individuals that were contemporaneous first with H. Habilis, then with H. erectus." (77) Louis Leakey has found fossils of Australopithecus, Homo habilis
and Homo erectus almost next to each other in Olduvai Gorge region, Bed II layer. (78)
Most certainly there is no such family
tree. A paleontologist from Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould explains this deadlock
of evolution although he is an evolutionist himself:
What has become of our ladder if there are
three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H.
habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any
evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth. (79)
When we move on from Homo erectus to Homo
sapiens, we again see that there is no family tree to talk about. There is evidence
showing that Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens continued living up to 27,000 years and
even 10,000 years before our time. In the Kow swamp in Australia, some 13,000 year-old
Homo erectus skulls have been found. On Java Island, a Homo erectus skull was found that
was 27,000 year-old.
(80)
The Secret History of Homo
Sapiens
The most interesting and significant fact
that nullifies the very basis of the imaginary family tree of evolutionary theory is the
unexpectedly old history of modern man. Paleoanthropological data reveal that Homo sapiens
people who looked exactly like us lived as long as one million years ago.
It was Louis Leakey, the famous
evolutionist paleoanthropologist, who discovered the first findings concerning this
subject. In 1932, in Kanjera region around Lake Victoria in Kenya, Leakey found several
fossils that belonged to the Middle Pleistocene Age and that were no different from modern
man. However, Middle Pleistocene Age means a million years ago. (81) Since these discoveries turned the evolutionary family tree upside
down, they were dismissed by some evolutionist paleoanthropologists. Yet Leakey always
contended that his estimates were correct.
Just when this controversy was about to be
forgotten, a fossil unearthed in Spain in 1995 revealed in a very remarkable way that the
history of Homo Sapiens was much older than assumed. The fossil in question was uncovered
in a cave called Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca region of Spain by three Spanish
paleoanthropologists from the University of Madrid. The fossil belonged to the face of an
11 year old boy who looked entirely like modern men. Yet, it had been 800,000 years since
the child died. Discover magazine covered the story in great detail in its December 1997
issue .
This fossil even shook the convictions of
Ferreras, who was leading the Gran Dolina excavation. Ferreras said:
We expected something big, something
large, something inflated... you know, something "primitive". Our expectation of
an 800,000 years old boy was something like Turkana Boy. And what we found was a totally
modern face.... To me this is most spectacular... These are the kinds of things that shake
you. Finding something totally unexpected like that. Not finding fossils; finding fossils
is unexpected too, and it’s okay. But the most spectacular thing is finding something
you thought belonged to the present, in the past. It’s like finding something like...
like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We don’t expect
cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face it’s the
same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it. (82)
The fossil highlighted the fact that the
history of Homo sapiens had to be extended back to 800 thousand years ago. After
recovering from the initial shock, the evolutionists who discovered the fossil decided
that it belonged to a different species, because according to the evolutionary family
tree, no Homo sapiens should ever have lived 800 thousand years ago. Therefore, they made
up an imaginary species called "Homo antecessor" and included the Atapuerca
skull under this classification.
A Hut 1.7 Million Years Old
and Footprints of Modern Man 3.6 Million Years Old!
There have been many findings
demonstrating that Homo sapiens dates even earlier than 800 thousand years. One of them is
the discovery of Louis Leakey made in the early 1970s in Olduvai Gorge. Here, in the Bed
II layer, Leakey discovered that the Australopithecus, Homo Habilis and Homo erectus
species co-existed at the same time. What is even more interesting was a structure Leakey
found in the same layer (Bed II). Here, Leakey found the remains of a stone-hut. The
unusual aspect of the event was that this construction, which is still used in some parts
of Africa, could only be constructed by Homo sapiens! So, according to the findings of
Leakey, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and modern man must have co-existed
approximately 1.7 million years ago.
(83) This discovery must
surely invalidate the evolutionary theory that claims that modern men evolved from any
ape-like species like Australopithecus.
Indeed, some other discoveries trace the
origins of modern man back to 1.7 million years ago. One of these most important finds is
the footprints found in Laetoli, Tanzania by Mary Leakey in 1977. These footprints were
found in a layer that was calculated to be 3.6 million years old and more importantly,
they were no different from the footprints that a contemporary man would leave.
The footprints found by Mary Leakey were
later examined by a number of famous paleoanthropologists like Don Johanson and Tim White.
The results were the same. White wrote:
Make no mistake about it,... They are like
modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a
four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked
there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would
you. (84)
After examining the footprints, Louis
Robbins from North California University made the following comments:
The arch is raised-the smaller individual
had a higher arch than I do-and the big toe is large and aligned with the second toe...
The toes grip the ground like human toes. You do not see this in other animal forms. (85)
Examinations made on the morphological
form of the footprints showed time and again that they had to be accepted as the prints of
a human, and more, a modern human (Homo sapiens). Russell Tuttle who examined the
footprints wrote:
A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have
made them... In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that
made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans. (86)
Impartial examinations of the footprints
revealed their real owners. In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilised
footprints of a 10 year-old modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger one. They
were certainly modern people like ourselves.
This situation put the Laetoli footprints
at the centre of discussions for years. Evolutionist paleoanthropologists desperately
tried to come up with an explanation as it was hard for them to accept the fact that a
modern man had been walking on the earth 3.6 million years ago. During 1990s, this
"explanation" started to take shape. The evolutionists decided that these
footprints should have been left by an Australopithecus, because according to their
theory, it was impossible for a homo species to exist 3.6 years ago. Russell H. Tuttle
wrote the following in his article dated 1990:
In sum, the 3.5 million-year-old footprint
traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their
features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G
footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that there were made by
a member of our genus Homo... In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the
Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis. (87)
To put it briefly, these footprints that
were supposed to be 3.6 million years old could not have belonged to Australopithecus. The
only reason why the footprints were thought to have been left by Australopithecus was the
3.6 million year old volcanic layer in which the footprints were found. The prints were
ascribed to Australopithecus on the assumption that humans could not have lived at such an
early age.
These interpretations of the Laetoli
prints show us a very important reality. Evolutionists support their theory not by
considering scientific findings but despite them. Here we have a theory that is being
blindly defended no matter what, with all new findings that are against the theory being
either ignored or distorted to serve its purposes.
Briefly, the evolutionary theory is not
science, but a dogma kept alive despite science.
The Bipedalism Impasse of
Evolution
Apart from the fossil record that we have
dealt with so far, unclosable anatomical gaps between men and apes also invalidate the
fiction of human evolution. One of these gaps has to do with the manner of walking.
Human beings walk upright on their two
feet. This is a very special kind of motion not seen in any other species. Some other
animals do have a limited ability to move when they stand on two hind feet. Animals like
bears and monkeys can move in this way only rarely, such as when they want to reach a
source of food and then only for a short time. Normally their skeletons lean forward and
they walk on all fours.
Well then, has bipedalism evolved from the
quadripedal stride of monkeys as the evolutionists claim?
Of course not. Research has shown that the
evolution of bipedalism has never occurred, nor is it possible for it to have occurred.
First of all, bipedalism is not an evolutionary advantage. The way in which monkeys move
is much easier, faster, and more efficient than man’s bipedal stride. Man can neither
move by jumping from tree to tree without stepping on the ground like a chimpanzee, nor
run with a speed of 125 kms an hour like a cheetah. On the contrary, since man walks on
his two feet, he moves much more slowly on the ground. For the same reason, he is one of
the most unprotected of all species in nature in terms of movement and defence. According
to the logic of evolution, monkeys should not have evolved to adopt a bipedal stride:
humans should instead have evolved to become quadripedal.
Another impasse of the evolutionary claim
is that bipedalism does not serve the "gradual development" model of Darwinism.
This model, which constitutes the basis of evolution, requires that there should be a
"compound" stride between bipedalism and quadripedalism. However, with the
computerised research he conducted in 1996, the English paleoanthropologist Robin
Crompton, showed that such a "compound" stride was not possible. Cromptom
reached the following conclusion: A living being can either walk upright or on all fours. (88) A type of stride in-between cannot be possible because of extreme
energy consumption. This is why it is impossible for a half-bipedal being to exist.
The immense gap between man and ape is not
limited solely to bipedalism. Many other issues still remain unexplained such as brain
capacity, the ability to talk, and so on. Elaine Morgan, an evolutionist
paleoanthropologist, makes the following confession in relation to this matter:
Four of the most outstanding mysteries
about humans are: 1) why do they walk on two legs? 2) why have they lost their fur? 3) why
have they developed such large brains? 4) why did they learn to speak?
The orthodox answers to these questions
are: 1) 'We do not yet know'; 2) 'We do not yet know'; 3) 'We do not yet know'; 4) 'We do
not yet know'. The list of questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting
the monotony of the answers.
(89)
Evolution: An Unscientific
Faith
Lord Solly Zuckerman is one of the most
famous and respected scientists in the U.K. For years, he studied the fossil record and
conducted many detailed investigations. He was honoured with the title of "Lord"
for his contributions to science. Zuckerman is an evolutionist. Therefore, his comments on
evolution can not be regarded as deliberately perverse remarks. After years of research on
the fossils included in the human evolution scenario however, he reached the conclusion
that there is no such family tree in truth.
Zuckerman also made an interesting
"spectrum of science". He formed a spectrum of sciences ranging from those he
considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman’s
spectrum, the most "scientific"-that is, depending on concrete data-fields of
science are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the
social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most
"unscientific", are "extra-sensory perception"-concepts such as
telepathy and sixth sense-and finally "human evolution". Zuckerman explains his
reasoning:
We then move right off the register of
objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory
perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything
is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several
contradictory things at the same time.
(90)
What, then, is the reason that make so
many scientists so tenacious about this dogma? Why have they been trying so hard to keep
their theory alive, at the cost of having to admit countless conflicts and discarding the
evidence they have found?
The only answer is their being afraid of
the fact they will have to face in case of abandoning the theory of evolution. The fact
they will have to face when they abandon evolution is the fact that man has been created
by Allah. However, considering the presuppositions they have and the materialistic
philosophy they believe in, creation is an unacceptable concept for evolutionists.
For this reason, they deceive themselves,
as well as the world, by using the media with which they co-operate. If they cannot find
the necessary fossils, they "fabricate" them either in the form of imaginary
pictures or fictitious models and try to give the impression that there indeed exist
fossils verifying evolution. Some media organs who share their materialistic point of view
also try to deceive the public and instil the story of evolution in people’s
subconscious.
No matter how hard they try, the truth is
evident: Man has come into existence not through an evolutionary process but by having
been created by Allah. Therefore, he is responsible to Him however unwilling he may be to
assume this responsibility.
ANCIENT MARINERS:
"Early humans were much smarter than
we suspected..."
News published in New Scientist on March
14th 1998 tells us that the humans called Homo Erectus by evolutionists were practicing
seamanship 700 thousand years ago. These humans, who had enough knowledge and technology
to build a vessel and possess a culture that made use of sea transport, can hardly be
called "primitive".
The Impasse Of Molecular
Evolution
In previous sections of this book, we have
related how the fossil record invalidates the theory of evolution. In point of fact we
need not have related any of that, because the theory of evolution collapses long before
one gets to any claims about the "evolution of species" and the evidence of
fossils. The subject that renders the theory meaningless from the very outset is the
question of how life first appeared on earth.
When it addresses this question,
evolutionary theory claims that life started with a cell that formed by chance. According
to the scenario, four billion years ago various inorganic chemical compounds underwent a
reaction in the primordial earth atmosphere in which the effects of thunderbolts and
pressure caused them to form the first living cell.
The first thing that must be said is that
the claim that inorganic materials can come together to form life is an unscientific one
that is not verified by any experiment or observation so far. Life only generates from
life. Each living cell is formed by the replication of another cell. No one in the world
has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inorganic materials together, not
even in the most advanced laboratories.
The theory of evolution claims that the
cell of a living being, which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human
intellect, knowledge and technology are brought to bear nevertheless managed to form by
chance under primordial earth conditions. In the following pages, we will examine why this
claim is contrary to the most basic principles of science and reason.
The Tale of the "Cell
Produced by Chance"
If one believes that a living cell can
come into existence by coincidence, then there is nothing to prevent him from believing a
similar story that we will tell below. It is the story of a town:
One day, a lump of clay pressed between
the rocks in a barren land becomes wet after the rain. The wet clay dries and hardens when
the sun rises, and takes on a stiff, resistant shape. Afterwards, these rocks, which also
served as a mould, are somehow smashed into pieces, and then a neat, well-shaped, and
strong brick appears. This brick waits under the same natural conditions for years for a
similar brick to be formed. This goes on until hundreds and thousands of the same bricks
have been formed in the same place. However, by chance, none of the bricks that were
previously formed get damaged. Although exposed to storm, rain, wind, scorching sun, and
freezing cold for thousands of years, the bricks do not crack, break up, or get dragged
away, but wait there in the same place with the same determination for other bricks to
form.
When the number of bricks is adequate,
they erect a building by being arranged sideways and on top of each other having been
randomly dragged along by the effects of natural conditions such as winds, storms, or
tornadoes. Meanwhile, materials like cement or soil mixture form under "natural
conditions" with perfect timing and creep into the bricks to clamp them to each
other. While all this is happening, iron ore under the earth is shaped under "natural
conditions" and lays the foundations of a building that is to be formed with these
bricks. At the end of this process, a complete building rises with all its materials,
carpentry, and installations intact.
Of course, a building does not only
consist of a foundation, bricks, and cement. How, then, are the other missing materials to
be obtained? The answer is simple: all kinds of materials that are needed for the
construction of the building exist in the earth on which it is erected. Silicon for the
glass, copper for the electric cables, iron for the columns, beams, water pipes, etc. all
exist under the earth in abundant quantities. It takes only the skill of "natural
conditions" to shape and place these materials inside the building. All the
installations, carpentry, and accessories are placed among the bricks with the help of the
blowing wind, rain, and earthquakes. Everything has gone so well that the bricks are
arranged so as to leave the necessary window spaces as if they knew that something called
glass will be formed later on by natural conditions. Moreover, they have not forgotten to
leave some space to allow the installation of water, electricity and heating systems,
which are also later to be formed by coincidence. Everything has gone so well that
"coincidences" and "natural conditions" produce a perfect design.
If you have managed to sustain your belief
in this sto
