The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions
|1 WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID? |
THE theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about as the result of chance and emerged by itself from natural conditions. This theory is not a scientific law or a proven fact. Underneath its scientific façade it is a materialist worldview that Darwinists are trying to impose on society. The bases of this theory, which has been disproved by science in every field, are suggestions and propaganda methods consisting of deceptions, falsehood, contradiction, cheating, and sleight of hand.
The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth century, and to this day it has not been backed up by any scientific discovery or experiment. On the contrary, all the methods employed to confirm the theory have merely proven its invalidity.
However, even today many people think that the theory is a proven fact, like the force of gravity or the law of buoyancy. Because, as stated at the beginning, the true nature of the theory of evolution is very different from what is usually supposed. For this reason, some people do not know what rotten foundations this theory has, how it is disproved by science at every turn, and how evolutionists are trying to keep it alive in its death throes. Evolutionists have no other support than unconfirmed hypotheses, biased and unrealistic observations, and imaginary drawings, methods of psychological suggestion, countless falsehoods, and sleight-of-hand techniques.
However, those who defend materialist philosophy do not want to accept the fact of creation for various ideological reasons. That is because the existence and spread of societies living in the light of that beautiful morality that true religion offers to man by means of God's commands and prohibitions is not in these materialists' interests. Masses devoid of any spiritual and moral values suit these people far better, since they can manipulate them for their own worldly interests. For this reason, they try to impose the theory of evolution, which encourages the lie that mankind was not created but rather emerged by chance and evolved from animals, and to keep it alive at whatever costs. Despite all the clear scientific proof that destroys the theory of evolution and confirms the fact of creation, they abandon all reason and logic and defend this nonsense at every available opportunity.
It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.
Not only could the cell, the smallest unit of life, never have come about by chance in the primitive and uncontrolled conditions in the early days of the Earth, as evolutionists would have us believe, it cannot even be synthesized in the most advanced laboratories of the twentieth century. Amino acids, the building blocks of the proteins that make up the living cell, cannot of themselves build such organelles in the cell as mitochondria, ribosomes, cell membranes, or the endoplasmic reticulum, let alone a whole cell. For this reason, the claim that evolution brought about the first cell by chance remains the product of a fantasy based entirely on imagination.
The living cell, which still harbours many secrets that have not been explained, is one of the major difficulties facing the theory of evolution.
The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following confession on the issue:
In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic. 2
Homer Jacobson, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, makes the following admission regarding how impossible it is for life to have come about by chance:
Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance… 3
In short, the fossil record shows that living species emerged suddenly and perfectly formed, not by following a process from primitive forms to advanced ones as evolution claims.
Evolutionists have tried very hard to find evidence for their theory or so, but have actually proved by their own hand that no evolutionary process could have been possible. In conclusion, modern science reveals the following indisputable fact: Living things did not emerge as the result of blind chance, but God created them.
2 HOW DOES THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEMONSTRATE THE TRUTH OF CREATION?
WHEN we ask how life on Earth emerged, we find two different answers:
One is that living things emerged by evolution. According to the theory of evolution, which makes this claim, life began with the first cell, which itself emerged by chance or by some hypothetical natural laws of "self-organization." Again as a result of chance and natural laws, this living cell developed and evolved, and by taking on different forms gave rise to the millions of species of life on Earth.
The second answer is "Creation." All living things came into existence by being created by an intelligent Creator. When life and the millions of forms it takes, which could not possibly have come into existence by chance, were first created, they had the same complete, flawless, and superior design that they possess today. The fact that even the simplest-looking forms of life possess such complex structures and systems that could never have come about by chance and natural conditions is a clear proof of this.
Outside these two alternatives, there is no third claim or hypothesis today regarding how life emerged. According to the rules of logic, if one answer to a question with two alternative possible answers is proved to be false, then the other must be true. This rule, one of the most fundamental in logic, is called disjunctive inference (modus tollendo ponens).
In other words, if it is demonstrated that living species on Earth did not evolve by chance, as the theory of evolution claims, then that is clear proof that they were formed by a Creator. Scientists who support the theory of evolution agree that there is no third alternative. One of these, Douglas Futuyma, makes the following statement:
Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence. 4
The fossil record provides the answer to the evolutionist Futuyma. The science of fossils (paleontology) shows that all living groups emerged on Earth at different times, all at once, and perfectly formed.
All the discoveries from excavations and studies over the last hundred years or so show that, contrary to evolutionists' expectations, living things came into existence suddenly, in perfect and flawless form, in other words that they were "created." Bacteria, protozoa, worms, molluscs, and other invertebrate sea creatures, arthropods, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all appeared suddenly, with complex organs and systems. There are no fossils that show any so-called "transition" between them. Paleontology bears the same message as other branches of science: Living things did not evolve, but were created. As a result, while evolutionists were trying to prove their unrealistic theory, they by their own hands produced proof of creation.
Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:
Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected. 5
The Cambrian Explosion is enough to tear down the theory of evolution
The world of living things is divided by biologists into such fundamental groups as plants, animals, fungae etc. These are then subdivided into different "phyla." When designating these phyla, the fact that each one possesses completely different physical structures should always be borne in mind. Arthropoda (insects, spiders, and other creatures with jointed legs), for instance, are a phylum by themselves, and all the animals in the phylum have the same fundamental physical structure. The phylum called Chordata includes those creatures with a notochord or, most commonly, a spinal column. All the large animals such as fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals that we are familiar in daily life are in a subphylum of Chordata known as vertebrates.
So how did these differences come about?Let us first consider the Darwinist hypothesis. As we know, Darwinism proposes that life developed from one single common ancestor, and took on all its varieties by a series of tiny changes. In that case, life should first have emerged in very similar and simple forms. And according to the same theory, the differentiation between, and growing complexity in, living things must have happened in parallel over time.
Definitely not. Quite the contrary, animals have been very different and complex since the moment they first emerged. All the animal phyla known today emerged at the same time, in the middle of the geological period known as the Cambrian Age. The Cambrian Age is a geological period estimated to have lasted some 65 million years, approximately between 570 to 505 million years ago. But the period of the abrupt appearance of major animal groups fit in an even shorter phase of the Cambrian, often referred to as the "Cambrian explosion." Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, in an article based on a detailed literature survey, dated 2001, note that the "Cambrian explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years."6
The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belong to very different creatures, such as snails, trilobites, sponges, jellyfish, starfish, shellfish, etc. Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens. These structures are at one and the same time very advanced, and very different.
A half-billion years ago, ...the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures.7
Phillip Johnson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who is also one of the world's foremost critics of Darwinism, describes the contradiction between this paleontological truth and Darwinism:
Darwinian theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first living organism, or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified to create the higher levels of taxonomic order. The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing. 8
As Phillip Johnson has revealed, far from its being the case that phyla came about by stages, in reality they all came into being at once, and some of them even became extinct in later periods. The meaning of the emergence of very different living creatures all of a sudden and perfectly formed, is creation, as evolutionist Futuyma has also accepted. As we have seen, all the available scientific discoveries disprove the claims of the theory of evolution and reveal the truth of creation.
3 HOW FAR BACK DO TRACES OF MAN GO? WHY DO THESE NOT SUPPORT EVOLUTION?
These remains caused a great furore in the world of science. Research indicated that these footprints were in a 3.6-million-year-old layer. Russell Tuttle, who saw the footprints, wrote:
A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them... In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans. 9
Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners. In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilized footprints of a 10-year-old modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger one. Such famous paleoanthropologists as Don Johnson and Tim White, who examined the prints found by Mary Leakey, corroborated that conclusion. White revealed his thoughts by saying:
Make no mistake about it,... They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. 10
These footprints sparked an important debate among evolutionists. That was because for them to accept that these were human footprints would mean that the imaginary progression they had drawn up from ape to man could no longer be maintained. However, at this point dogmatic evolutionist logic once again showed its face. Most evolutionist scientists once more abandoned science for the sake of their prejudices. They claimed that the footprints found at Laetoli were those of an ape-like creature. Russell Tuttle, who was one of the evolutionists defending this claim, wrote:
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. 11
A 2.3 million-year-old modern human jaw found in the Hadar region of Ethiopia was very important from the point of view of showing that modern man had existed on the Earth much longer that evolutionists expected.12
One of the oldest and most perfect human fossils is KNM-WT 1500, also known as the "Turkana Child" skeleton. The 1.6 million-year-old fossil is described by the evolutionist Donald Johanson in these terms:
He was tall and thin, in body shape and limb proportions resembling present-day equatorial Africans. Despite his youth, the boy's limb nearly matched the mean measurements for white North American adult males. 13
It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 metres tall in adolescence. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal."14
We expected something big, something large, something inflated-you know, something primitive… Our expectation of an 800,000-year-old boy was something like Turkana Boy. And what we found was a totally modern face.... To me this is most spectacular-these are the kinds of things that shake you. Finding something totally unexpected like that. Not finding fossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, and it's okay. But the most spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged to the present, in the past. It's like finding something like-like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We don't expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago-it's the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it. 15
As we have seen, fossil discoveries give the lie to the claim of "the evolution of man." This claim is presented by some media organizations as if it were a proven fact, whereas all that actually exist are fictitious theories. In fact, evolutionist scientists accept this, and admit that the claim of "the evolution of man" lacks any scientific evidence.
For instance, by saying, "We appear suddenly in the fossil record" the evolutionist paleontologists C. A. Villie, E. P. Solomon and P. W. Davis admit that man emerged all of a sudden, in other words with no evolutionary ancestor.16
Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, two evolutionist anthropologists were forced to say, "existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable." in an article they wrote in 2000. 17
The latest evidence to shatter the evolutionary theory's claim about the origin of man is the new fossil Sahelanthropus tchadensis unearthed in the Central African country of Chad in the summer of 2002.
Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University said that "This [discovery] will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb." 20
The reason for this is that although the fossil in question is 7 million years old, it has a more "human-like" structure (according to the criteria evolutionists have hitherto used) than the 5 million-year-old Australopithecus ape species that is alleged to be "mankind's oldest ancestor." This shows that the evolutionary links established between extinct ape species based on the highly subjective and prejudiced criterion of "human similarity" are totally imaginary.
John Whitfield, in his article "Oldest Member of Human Family Found" published in Nature on July, 11, 2002, confirms this view quoting from Bernard Wood, an evolutionist anthropologist from George Washington University in Washington:
"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.21
The comments of Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature and a leading paleoanthropologist, about the newly discovered ape fossil are very noteworthy. In his article published in The Guardian, Gee refers to the debate about the fossil and writes:
Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a "missing link" is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable. 22
As we have seen, the increasing number of discoveries is producing results opposed to the theory of evolution, not in favour of it. If such an evolutionary process had happened in the past, there should be many traces of it, and each new discovery should further strengthen the theory. In fact, in The Origin of Species, Darwin claimed that science would develop in just that direction. In his view, the only problem facing his theory in the fossil record was a lack of fossil discoveries. He hoped that future research would unearth countless fossils to support his theory. However, subsequent scientific discoveries have actually proved Darwin's dreams to be totally unfounded.
The importance of human-linked remains
The discoveries regarding man, of which we have seen a few examples here, reveal very important truths. In particular, they have once again demonstrated what a great product of fantasy the evolutionists' claim that man's ancestor was an ape-like creature is. For this reason, it is out of the question that these ape species could be man's ancestors.
In conclusion, the fossil record shows us that man came into existence millions of years ago in just the same form as he is now, and that he has come down to the present with absolutely no evolutionary development. If they claim to be genuinely scientific and honest, evolutionists should throw their imaginary progression from ape to man into the bin at this point. The fact that they do not give up this spurious family tree shows that evolution is not a theory that is defended in the name of science, but rather a dogma they are struggling to keep alive in the face of the scientific facts.
It is enough to look at the history of science to realise what an invalid and irrational thing it is to claim that "evolution is the basis of biology." If the claim were true, it would mean that no biological sciences had developed in the world before the emergence of the theory of evolution, and that they were all born after it. However, many branches of biology, such as anatomy, physiology, and paleontology, were born and developed before the theory of evolution. On the other hand, evolution is a hypothesis that emerged after these sciences, which Darwinists are trying to impose on these sciences by force.
A similar method to that employed by evolutionists was used in the USSR in Stalin's time. In those days communism, the official ideology of the Soviet Union, considered the philosophy of "dialectical materialism" to be the basis of all the sciences. Stalin had ordered that all scientific research should conform to dialectical materialism. In this way, all books on biology, chemistry, physics, history, politics, and even art had introductory sections to the effect that those sciences were based on dialectical materialism and the views of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
However, with the collapse of the USSR this obligation was lifted, and books returned to being ordinary technical, scientific texts containing the same information. The abandoning of such nonsense as dialectical materialism did not leave science in the shade, but rather lifted pressure and obligations from it.
In our day, there is no reason why science should remain tied to the theory of evolution. Science is based on observation and experimentation. Evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothesis regarding an unobservable past. Furthermore, the theory's claims and propositions have always been disproved by science and the laws of logic. Science will suffer no loss, of course, when this hypothesis is abandoned. The American biologist G. W. Harper has this to say on the subject:
It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to modern biology. On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged… 24
In fact, quite to the contrary, science will progress in a much faster and healthier manner when it is freed from the insistence of a theory full of dogmatism, prejudice, nonsense, and fabrication.
5 WHY IS THE EXISTENCE OF DIFFERENT RACES NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION?
The thesis proposed by those who defend this claim is based on the question, "If, as divine sources say, life began with one man and one woman, how could different races have emerged?" Another way of putting it is: "Since Adam and Eve's height, colour, and other features were those of only two people, how could races with entirely different features have emerged?"
In fact, the problem lying beneath all these questions or objections is an insufficient knowledge of the laws of genetics, or the ignoring of them. In order to understand the reason for the differences between the races in today's world, it will be necessary to have some idea of the subject of "variation," which is closely linked to this question.
Variation, a term used in genetics, refers to a genetic event that causes the individuals or groups of a certain type or species to possess different characteristics from one another. The source of this variation is the genetic information possessed by the individuals within that species. As a result of breeding between those individuals, that genetic information comes together in later generations in different combinations. There is an exchange of genetic material between the mother's and father's chromosomes. Genes thus get mixed up with one another. The result of this is a wide variety of individual features.
The different physical features between human races are due to variations within the human race. All the people on Earth carry basically the same genetic information, yet some have slanted eyes, some have red hair, some have long noses, and others are short of stature, all depending on the extent of the variation potential of this genetic information.
In order to understand the variation potential, let us consider a society in which brunette, brown-eyed people predominate over blond, blue-eyed individuals. As a result of the two communities intermingling and marrying over time, new generations which are brunette but blue-eyed will be seen. In other words, the physical characteristics of both groups will come together in subsequent generations and produce new appearances. When one imagines other physical characteristics mixing in the same way, it is clear that a great variety will emerge.
The important point that must be understood here is this: There are two genes that rule every physical feature. One may dominate the other, or they may both influence matters to an equal extent. For instance, two genes determine the colour of a person's eyes. One comes from the mother, the other from the father. Whichever gene is the dominant one, the individual's eye colour will be determined by that gene. In general, dark colours dominate lighter ones. In this way, if a person possesses genes for brown and for green eyes, his eyes will be brown because the brown eye gene is dominant. However, the recessive green colour can be passed down the generations and emerge at a later time. In other words, parents with brown eyes can have a green-eyed child. That is because that colour gene is recessive in both parents.
This law applies to all other physical features and the genes which govern them. Hundreds, or even thousands, of physical features, such as the ears, nose, the shape of the mouth, height, bone structure, and organ structure, shape, and characteristics, are all controlled in the same way. Thanks to this, all the limitless information in the genetic structure can be passed on to subsequent generations without becoming outwardly visible. Adam, the first human being, and Eve, were able to pass the rich information in their genetic structure on to subsequent generations even though only a part of it was reflected in their physical appearance. Geographical isolation that had happened over human history has led to an atmosphere where different physical features came together in different groups. Over a long period of time, this led to different groups having different bone structures, skin colour, height, and skull volumes. This eventually led to the different races.
However, this long period did not change one thing, of course. No matter what their height, skin colour and skull volume, all races are part of the human species.
1. Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88
2. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 39
3. Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life," American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121.
4. Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, Pantheon Books, New York, 1983, p. 197.
5. Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 25. (emphasis added)
6. Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang, 2001, p. 2. (This piece has been updated and gone to print as part of an anthology by Michigan State University Press. For details, please visit http://www.darwinanddesign.com/excerpts.php).
7. Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient," Discover, April 1993, p. 40. (emphasis added)
8. Phillip E. Johnson, "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning," in Darwinism: Science or Philosophy by Buell Hearn, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1994, p. 12. (emphasis added)
9. Ian Anderson, "Who made the Laetoli footprints?" New Scientist, vol. 98, 12 May 1983, p. 373.
10. D. Johanson & M. A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 250
11. R. H. Tuttle, Natural History, March 1990, pp. 61-64
12. D. Johanson, Blake Edgar, From Lucy to Language, p.169
13. D. Johanson, Blake Edgar, From Lucy to Language, p.173
14. Boyce Rensberger, Washington Post, 19 October 1984, p. A11.
15. "Is This The Face of Our Past," Discover, December 1997, pp. 97-100
16. Villee, Solomon and Davis, Biology, Saunders College Publishing,1985, p. 1053
17. Hominoid Evolution and Climatic Change in Europe, Volume 2, Edited by Louis de Bonis, George D. Koufos, Peter Andrews, Cambridge University Press 2001, chapter 6, (emphasis added)
18. Daniel E. Lieberman, "Another face in our family tree," Nature, March 22, 2001, (emphasis added)
19. John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found," Nature, 11 July 2002
20. D.L. Parsell, "Skull Fossil From Chad Forces Rethinking of Human Origins," National Geographic News, July 10, 2002
21. John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found," Nature, 11 July 2002
22. The Guardian, 11 July 2002
23. Arda Denkel, Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik Eki (Science and Technology Supplement of the Turkish daily Cumhuriyet), February 27, 1999
24. G. W. Harper, "Alternatives to Evolution," School Science Review, vol. 61, September 1979, p. 26