The Evolution Impasse -I

Published by GLOBAL PUBLISHING

Talatpasa Mahallesi, Emirgazi Caddesi, ‹brahim Elmas ‹ﬂ Merkezi A Blok, Kat: 4 Okmeydani - Istanbul / Turkey Tel: +90 212 222 00 88

Printed and bound by Secil Ofset in Istanbul 100 Yil Mah. MAS-SIT Matbaacilar Sitesi 4. Cadde No: 77 Bagcilar- Istanbul/Turkey Phone: (+90 212) 629 06 15

All translations from the Qur'an are from The Noble Qur'an: a New Rendering of its Meaning in English by Hajj Abdalhaqq and Aisha Bewley, published by Bookwork, Norwich, UK. 1420 CE/1999 AH.

www.harunyahya.com - www.harunyahya.net THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE -I

HARUN YAHYA (ADNAN OKTAR) ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Now writing under the pen-name of HARUN YAHYA, Adnan Oktar was born in Ankara in 1956. Having completed his primary and secondary education in Ankara, he studied arts at Istanbul's Mimar Sinan University and philosophy at Istanbul University. Since the 1980s, he has published many books on political, scientific, and faith-related issues. Harun Yahya is well- known as the author of important works disclosing the imposture of evolutionists, their invalid claims, and the dark liaisons between Darwinism and such bloody ideologies as fascism and communism. Harun Yahya’s works, translated into 57 different languages, constitute a collection for a total of more than 45,000 pages with 30,000 illustrations. His pen-name is a composite of the names Harun (Aaron) and Yahya (John), in memory of the two esteemed Prophets who fought against their peoples' lack of faith. The Prophet's seal on his books' covers is symbolic and is linked to their contents. It represents the Qur'an (the Final Scripture) and Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), last of the prophets. Under the guidance of the Qur'an and the Sunnah (teachings of the Prophet [may Allah bless him and grant him peace]), the author makes it his purpose to disprove each fundamental tenet of irreligious ideologies and to have the "last word," so as to completely silence the objections raised against religion. He uses the seal of the final Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who attained ultimate wisdom and moral perfection, as a sign of his intention to offer the last word. All of Harun Yahya's works share one single goal: to convey the Qur'an's message, encourage readers to consider basic faith-related issues such as Allah's existence and unity and the Hereafter; and to expose irreligious systems' feeble foundations and perverted ideologies. Harun Yahya enjoys a wide readership in many countries, from India to America, England to Indonesia, Poland to Bosnia, Spain to Brazil, Malaysia to Italy, France to Bulgaria and Russia. Some of his books are available in English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Urdu, Arabic, Albanian, Chinese, Swahili, Hausa, Dhivehi (spoken in Mauritius), Russian, Serbo-Croat (Bosnian), Polish, Malay, Uygur Turkish, Indonesian, Bengali, Danish and Swedish. Greatly appreciated all around the world, these works have been instrumental in many people recovering faith in Allah and gaining deeper insights into their faith. His books' wisdom and sinceri- ty, together with a distinct style that's easy to understand, directly affect anyone who reads them. Those who seriously consider these books, can no longer advocate atheism or any other perverted ideology or materialistic philosophy, since these books are characterized by rapid effectiveness, defi- nite results, and irrefutability. Even if they continue to do so, it will be only a sentimental insistence, since these books refute such ideologies from their very foundations. All contemporary movements of denial are now ideologically defeated, thanks to the books written by Harun Yahya. This is no doubt a result of the Qur'an's wisdom and lucidity. The author modestly intends to serve as a means in humanity's search for Allah's right path. No material gain is sought in the publication of these works. Those who encourage others to read these books, to open their minds and hearts and guide them to become more devoted servants of Allah, render an invaluable service. Meanwhile, it would only be a waste of time and energy to propagate other books that create con- fusion in people's minds, lead them into ideological chaos, and that clearly have no strong and precise effects in removing the doubts in people's hearts, as also verified from previous experience. It is impossible for books devised to emphasize the author's literary power rather than the noble goal of saving people from loss of faith, to have such a great effect. Those who doubt this can readily see that the sole aim of Harun Yahya's books is to overcome disbelief and to disseminate the Qur'an's moral values. The success and impact of this service are manifested in the readers' conviction. One point should be kept in mind: The main reason for the continuing cruelty, conflict, and other ordeals endured by the vast majority of people is the ideological prevalence of disbelief. This can be ended only with the ideological defeat of disbelief and by conveying the wonders of creation and Qur'anic morality so that people can live by it. Considering the state of the world today, leading into a downward spiral of violence, corruption and conflict, clearly this service must be provided speedi- ly and effectively, or it may be too late. In this effort, the books of Harun Yahya assume a leading role. By the will of Allah, these books will be a means through which people in the twenty-first century will attain the peace, justice, and happiness promised in the Qur'an. TO THE READER

● A special chapter is assigned to the collapse of the theory of evolution because this theory constitutes the basis of all anti-spiritual philosophies. Since Darwinism rejects the fact of creation—and therefore, Allah's Existence—over the last 140 years it has caused many people to abandon their faith or fall into doubt. It is therefore an imperative service, a very important duty to show everyone that this theory is a deception. Since some readers may find the chance to read only one of our book, we think it appropriate to devote a chapter to summarize this subject. ● All the author's books explain faith-related issues in light of Qur'anic verses, and invite readers to learn Allah's words and to live by them. All the subjects concerning Allah's verses are explained so as to leave no doubt or room for questions in the reader's mind. The books' sincere, plain, and flu- ent style ensure that everyone of every age and from every social group can easily understand them. Thanks to their effective, lucid narrative, they can be read at a one sitting. Even those who rigorously reject spirituality are influenced by the facts these books document and cannot refute the truthfulness of their contents. ● This and all the other books by the author can be read individually, or discussed in a group. Readers eager to profit from the books will find discussion very useful, letting them relate their reflections and experiences to one another. ● In addition, it will be a great service to Islam to contribute to the publication and reading of these books, written solely for the pleasure of Allah. The author's books are all extremely convincing. For this reason, to com- municate true religion to others, one of the most effective methods is encouraging them to read these books. ● We hope the reader will look through the reviews of his other books at the back of this book. His rich source material on faith-related issues is very useful, and a pleasure to read. ● In these books, unlike some other books, you will not find the author's personal views, explanations based on dubious sources, styles that are unob- servant of the respect and reverence due to sacred subjects, nor hopeless, pessimistic arguments that create doubts in the mind and deviations in the heart. TTHHEE EEVVOOLLUUTTIIOONN IIMMPPAASSSSEE II

A-J

HHaarruunn YYaahhyyaa CONTENTS

Carbon-14 testing...... 64 A Carbon-based life ...... 66 Carboniferous-Era Plant Fossils ...... 68 Abiogenesis ...... 13 Cell...... 69 Aboriginal peoples ...... 13 Chemical Evolution Deception, the ....73 Adaptation ...... 15 Chromosomes ...... 74 AL 288-1...... 15 Coacervates ...... 74 AL 666-1...... 16 Coelacanth ...... 75 Algae ...... 17 Cloning ...... 77 Altruism ...... 18 Cold Trap, the ...... 78 Amino acids ...... 21 Comedy of Life from Space, the ...... 79 Amphibians ...... 23 “Common Ancestor” Fallacy, the ...... 79 Analogous organ ...... 26 Common creation...... 80 Analogy ...... 28 Communism and evolution ...... 80 Angiosperm ...... 29 Confuciusornis ...... 82 Inorganic evolution...... 30 Conjugation ...... 82 Anthropic Principle, the ...... 30 Creationism ...... 83 Anthropology ...... 32 Crick, Francis ...... 84 Antibiotic resistance ...... 32 Cro-Magnon Man...... 85 Ape-Human Genetic-Similarity Crossing-over ...... 85 Falsehood, the ...... 35 Crossopterygian ...... 86 Arboreal Theory ...... 37 Cultural Evolution Myth, the...... 88 Archaeopteryx ...... 37 Cursorial Theory, the ...... 89 Archaeoraptor...... 43 Cuvier, Georges ...... 91 Atapuerca Skull, the ...... 44 Cytochrome-C ...... 91 Australopithecus ...... 45 Autotrophy Nonsense, the ...... 47 Avian lungs...... 47 D

Darwin, Charles Robert ...... 93 B Darwinism ...... 95 Darwinism and Racism ...... 95 Bacteria flagellum ...... 49 Darwin, Erasmus ...... 99 Bathybus haeckelii (Haeckel’s mud)....50 Dawkins, Richard ...... 100 Behe, Michael J...... 51 Dawson, Charles...... 100 Big Bang Theory, the ...... 52 DDT immunity ...... 101 Biogenesis View, the ...... 54 Denton, Michael...... 101 Bipedalism ...... 54 Descent of Man, the (Charles Darwin) 102 Blind Watchmaker Deception, the...... 55 Devonian Period Fossilized Plants ...... 103 Boudreaux, Edward ...... 56 Dino-Bird Fossil, the —See Buffon, Comte de ...... 57 Archaeoraptor liaoningensis ...... 103 Burgess Shal ...... 57 Dipneuma ...... 103 Dialectics ...... 104 DNA ...... 105 C Dobzhansky, Theodosius...... 107 Drosophila—See Fruit flies ...... 107 Cambrian Explosion, the...... 61 Indeed, Darwin had written that...... 62 Cambrian Period, the ...... 63 Geographic Isolation theory, the...... 153 E Gish, Duane T...... 155 Gould, Stephen Jay ...... 155 E. coli bacterium...... 109 Gradual Evolution comedy, the —See, Eldredge, Niles ...... 110 Punctuated Model of evolution myth, Embryology ...... 111 the Great Chain of Being, the ...... 156 Embryological evolution ...... 112 Embryological recapitulation ...... 113 Eoalulavis ...... 113 Endosymbiosis Theory, the ...... 113 H Law of Entropy, the —See, Second law Haeckel, Ernst ...... 159 of Thermodynamics, the...... 115 Hallucigenia ...... 159 Eohippus...... 117 Heterotrophic view, the ...... 160 Eukaryote—see Root of Plant Cell, the117 Hoatzin bird, the...... 160 Eugenic slaughter ...... 117 Homo antecessor ...... 161 Eukaryotic cells—see, Origin of the plant Homo erectus ...... 161 cell, the...... 119 Homo ergaster ...... 164 Eusthenopteron foordi ...... 119 Homo habilis ...... 164 Evolutionary mechanisms ...... 120 Homo heidelbergensis ...... 166 Evolutionary Family Tree ...... 121 Homo rudolfensis ...... 167 Evolution Theory, the ...... 121 Homo sapiens...... 168 Evolutionary gaps ...... 122 Homo sapiens archaic ...... 169 Evolutionary humanism ...... 123 Homology (Common origins) ...... Evolutionary paganism ...... 124 Homologous organs ...... 170 “Hopeful Monster” theory, the ...... 172 Huxley, Julian ...... 173 F Hypothesis ...... 173 False god of chance, the ...... 127 Feathered Dinosaur deception, the ....128 Feduccia, Alan ...... 130 Finch (Fringilla coelebs) ...... 130 I Five-digit homology ...... 131 Ichthyostega...... 175 Fliermans, Carl ...... 134 Imaginary Human Family Tree, the ....175 Flying reptiles ...... 134 Impasse of Chaos Theory, Fluoride testing...... 136 the—See Second Law of Thermodynamics, Fossil...... 136 the (The Law of Entropy)...... 177 Fossil records ...... 139 Industrial Melanism...... 177 Fox Experiment, the ...... 142 Peppered moths, the ...... 180 Fox, Sydney ...... 144 Information theory ...... 181 Fruit flies...... 144 Irreducible complexity ...... 184 Futuyma, Douglas ...... 145 Isolation ...... 186 G

Galapagos Islands ...... 147 J Galton, Sir Francis...... 147 Java Man ...... 189 Genes ...... 147 Johnson, Phillip...... 190 Gene frequency ...... 149 “Junk” DNA ...... 191 Gene pool...... 149 Genetic information ...... 150 Notes...... 192 Genetic homeostasis ...... 150 Genome Project, the...... 151 Introduction

he evolution theory claims that living things came into being spontaneously as the result of chance. This theory has been widely accepted for over a century and espoused by scientists Twith a vested interest in denying the existence of God and the fact of creation. However, far from supporting the theory of evolution, scientific evidence invalidates every aspect of this theory and points out the several impasses that confront it. Over the past 20 years especially, research in paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy, biophysics and many other branches of science have shown that the appearance of life and the multitude of different species cannot possibly be explained by the mechanism of natural processes and blind chance—as Charles Darwin originally proposed. Darwin, the originator of this theory, was an amateur observer of nature. His idea was that all living things underwent changes and evolved from one another in a step-by-step process. But the fossil record disproves his claim: In the fossils of once-living things, there are no traces of the intermediate stages that Darwin imagined were necessary to prove his theory. So far, there has been no discovery of a reptile with vestigial wings or a fish with vestigial feet. On the contrary, every fossil that has been found shows that the living creature it once was had been created perfectly, all at once. Moreover, it is clear that mutations—the supposed means by which evolution occurs—do not create the structural changes that enable natural selection. Finally, all branches of science have stop- ped trying to prove the theory of evolution. They can now demonstrate that life has an extraordinarily complex creation that could not possibly be the result of an infinite series of chances. In spite of all this, evolution is still defended in certain quarters for the sole purpose of supporting an ideology. Proponents of atheism and materialism—and adherents of the distorted ideologies that arise from these currents of thought, such as communism, fascism, and rampant capitalism—claim, in so-called scientific support of their adopted ideologies, that life was not created, but came to through an

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I infinite series of chance occurrences. Naturally, supporters of these distorted ideologies are interested in defending at all costs every aspect of the theory of evolution. Our previous books explain in detail how evolution is scientifically untenable; which groups disregard scientific facts to defend it and for what ideological purposes; and how evolutionists—with no basis in science or logic, no valid proof and no reliable evidence—try to disguise and pervert the facts. Some of these books include The Evolution Deceit, Darwinism Refuted, The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution in 20 Questions, New Research Demolishes Evolution, The Error of the Evolution of Species, A Definitive Reply To Evolutionist Propaganda, The Col- lapse of the Theory of Evolution in 50 Themes, The Disasters Dar- winism Brought to Humanity, and The Dark Spell of Darwinism. The present encyclopedia has been compiled from these books, to provide our readers with the most convenient way to access all information pertaining to evolution so that they will be able to assess the truth about these matters. This way, readers will have in a prac- tical format the most up-to-date and reliable information about all the ideas and terms related to evolution as used in the press, magazines, books, television programs and other published sources. The book has been prepared in encyclopedia format with topics listed alphabetically. Under each heading, the claims of evolutionists are laid out, followed by an explanation of the scientific evidence and discoveries that have invalidated these claims. Ever-mounting scientific evidence and discoveries demonstrate this unchanging reality: Contrary to what evolutionists believe, life did not arise over time through a series of chance events. Today’s science proves that every living species has been created according to a perfect plan. The theory of evolution cannot even explain how the first cell came into existence, let alone how a countless chain of living organisms evolved from one another. Every new discovery, every newly excavated fossil delivers another blow to the theory. Evo- lution as a hypothesis is dead and buried, and now science is free to examine the incomparable proofs in creation of God’s perfect creation.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar)

Abiogenesis been discarded in favor of the theory of biogenesis, which holds that life comes This is the from only from life. (See: Biogenesis.) theory that lifeless But some evolutionist circles matter came together that still defend the idea that to form a living orga- life was formed long nism. Also known as ago from some chance the theory of Sponta- combination of lifeless neous Generation, this matter. But they have be- idea has persisted since en unable to prove their the Middle Ages. (Also see Spontaneo- claims scientifically, and us generation.) their attempts to do so In Medieval times, it was widely ac- have been inconclusive. cepted that maggots were generated (See Miller Experiment, the and Fox from food scraps, clothe moths from wo- Experiment, the.) ol and mice from wheat! Interesting experiments were devised to prove this belief. One 17th -century physicist by the Aboriginal peoples name of J.B. Van Helmont thought that Before Europeans discovered Aus- if he spread a few grains of wheat on a tralia, the only people there were Abori- dirty cloth, mice would be generated. ginals, the descendents of groups who And when maggots appeared in rotting migrated to the north coast of Australia meat, they were regarded as proof that from Southeast Asia 50,000 years ago life could arise from lifeless matter. and who, in time, spread to all parts of Only later was it understood that the subcontinent. maggots did not come about spontaneo- Before the Europeans came to Aus- usly, but from the nearly microscopic tralia in 1788, there were some 300,000 eggs that adult flies laid on the meat. Aboriginals living there, divided into The theory of spontaneous generati- 500 tribes. The newly-arrived Europeans on was shown to be totally false by the regarded them as “primitive” and under- famous 19th -century French scientist, took to exterminate them, employing ex- Louis Pasteur, who summarized his fin- traordinarily savage means. By the end dings in this triumphant sentence: of the extermination, there were few Never will the doctrine of spontaneous Aboriginal survivors from the original generation recover from the mortal blow 500 tribes. Of the Australian population 2 struck by this simple experiment. today, only one in a hundred persons is Today the theory of abiogenesis has of Aboriginal ancestry. 3

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 14

Native Aborigines

The Europeans’ extermination of the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no do- Aboriginals on the pretext that they were ubt be exterminated. The break between primitives gained momentum from the man and his nearest allies will then be publication of Charles Darwin’s Descent wider, for it will intervene between man of Man (See, Descent of Man). In this in a more civilized state, as we may hope, book, he proposed that there was a even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now “struggle for life” among the different between the negro or Australian and the races of humanity and that the “fittest” gorilla. 4 races were those that survived. According to Darwin, the fittest were As we see, Darwin placed Australian white Europeans. Asian and African ra- Aboriginals on the same level as goril- ces fell behind in this struggle. Darwin las. He did not consider the Aboriginals went further to suggest that they would to be human beings and believed that soon lose their struggle for survival and those who were exterminating them we- be totally annihilated: re only killing gorilla-like animals. After Darwin, some evolutionists At some future period not very distant as stated that “if human beings and apes measured by centuries, the civilized ra- descended from a common ancestor, the- ces of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races thro- re must be somewhere in the world a ughout the world. At the same time the transitional form (half-human and half- ape) that has still not totally evolved.”

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 15

(See Transitional form). Because Abo- Adaptation riginals have slightly larger eyebrow protrusions, a more downwardly slanted This is the ability that allows a cre- jaw and a smaller brain volume than ature to survive and reproduce in its en- Western peoples, they were thought to vironment. be living examples of transitional speci- No two members of the same species es. In order to produce proofs of evoluti- resemble each other exactly. They will on, evolutionist paleontologists together be of different sizes, colors and tempera- with fossil hunters who accepted the sa- ments. Because of this distinction, one me theory dug up Aboriginal graves and of them can adapt better to its environ- took skulls back to evolutionist muse- ment, live longer and reproduce more ums in the West. Then they offered these successfully. This advantage is known as skulls to Western institutions and scho- natural selection. ols distributing them as the most solid The theory of evolution gives an ad- proof of evolution. ded significance to the process of adap- Later, when there were no graves tation, claiming that under conditions left, they started shooting Aboriginals in that favor continual adaptation, creatures the attempt to find proof for their theory. undergo a change in species over time. The skulls were taken, the bullet holes But this evolutionist claim—that filled in and, after chemical processes changes in conditions lead to an evoluti- were used to make the skulls look old, on of species—is false. A species can they were sold to museums. adapt to change in its environment only This inhuman treatment was legiti- to the extent that its genetic potential al- mated in the name of the theory of evo- lows. If that genetic potential does not lution. For example, in 1890, James Ber- allow for ready adaptation, then the spe- nard, chairman of the Royal Society of cies cannot adapt to changing conditions Tasmania wrote: “the process of exter- and does not survive. No species ever mination is an axiom of the law of evolu- changes into a new one by adapting to tion and survival of the fittest.” Therefo- new conditions; it always remains a re, he concluded, there was no reason to member of the same species. (See Natu- suppose that “there had been any culpab- ral selection.) le neglect” in the murder and disposses- sion of the Aboriginal Australian. 5 AL 288-1 Today, Aboriginals are regarded as (The fossil record of Aus- full Australian citizens, but many still tralopithecus afarensis) suffer social, economic and political dis- —See; The Lucy Deceit. crimination.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 16

AL 666-1 The jawbones of these two species are (The fossil record of Homo narrow and quadrangular, similar to tho- sapiens) se of modern-day apes. But the fossil AL 666-1 has a jaw structure similar to that This is the fossil of a jawbone found of modern human beings. in 1994 in Hadar, Ethiopia, together with In spite of the fact that fossil AL 666- fossils of Australopithecus afarensis. 1 has been determined to belong to the The fossil was dated to 2.3 million years old and displayed characteristics belon- Homo (human) genus, evolutionists he- sitate to interpret it as such. This is be- ging to Homo sapiens, the human species alive today. cause the age of this fossil is calculated The jaw structure of fossil AL 666-1 at 2.3 million years, much earlier than was quite different from that of A. afa- the age accepted for the Homo genus as rensis and the 1.75-million-year-old H. a whole. habilis fossil with which it was found.

AL 666-1: A 2.3-million-year-old Homo Side view of AL 666-1 sapiens jaw 17

Algae Algae are photosynthesizing organisms that live everywhere: in both fresh and salt water, desert sand, underground hot springs, and even under snow and ice. They vary in shape and size, from single-celled organisms to kelp up to 60 meters (196.85 feet) long. . By their photosynthesizing, they break down

CO2 and release a large amount of the oxygen into the atmosphere. Red algae fossils dating back to the The origins of algae go back to very Cambrian Period. These organisms are identical to present-day red algae. early times. Fossilized algae have been found that date from 3.1 to 3.4 billion But two factors show this explanati- years ago. How algae came to be is one on to be false: First, the theory of evolu- of those questions that have left evolution has still been unable to explain how tionists at an impasse. They claim that the first plant cell came into being. And, the first cell evolved over time to form second, algae do not have the primitive algae and for this reason, the algae are a structure one would expect. On the con- primitive form of plant. trary, they are complex organisms whose living examples are indifferent from the earliest fossils known. An article in Science News explains the similarity between the first algae and algae known today:

Both blue-green algae and bacteria fossils dating back 3.4 billion years have been found in rocks from S. Africa. Even more in- triguing, the pleurocapsalean algae turned out to be almost identical to modern pleurocapsalean algae at the family and possibly even at the generic level.6 The German scientist, Professor Hoimar Von Ditfurth, makes the following comment on the structure of so- Algae floating freely in the ocean called “primitive” algae:

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 18

The oldest fossils so far discovered are down the generations, and the unfit and objects fossilized in minerals which be- weaker being eliminated. According to long to blue-green algae, more than 3 the mechanism of natural selection billion years old. No matter how primiti- adopted by Darwinism, nature is an are- ve they are, they still represent rather na where living organisms fight to the complicated and expertly organized death for a chance to survive and where forms of life.7 the weak are eliminated by the strong. When we examine the structures that Therefore, according to this claim, algae use to form their cell walls, we see every living thing has to be strong and that these organisms are by no means ba- overcome others in all areas in order to sic and primitive. The organic polyami- survive. Such an environment has no pla- ne they use to produce their tissues is a ce for such concepts as altruism, self-sac- complex chemical material, and to build rifice or cooperation, because these can their cell walls, algae use the longest operate against the interests of each indi- polyamine chain found in nature. vidual. For that reason, every living thing As the algae go through the process must be as self-oriented as possible and of photosynthesis together with complex think only of its own food, its own home, chlorophyll, they also produce a yello- and its own protection and security. wish-gold colored pigment called xant- In fact, however, nature is not solely hophylls. These single-celled organisms an environment consisting solely of sel- are fishes’ major source of Vitamin D fish and savage individuals in which and have a complex structure designed every living things competes for survi- for a special purpose.8 val, and strives to eliminate or neutralize Just as evolutionists have been unab- all others. On the contrary, nature is full le to account for the origins of the first of examples of altruism and rational co- cells, so they cannot explain how these operation, even when individuals risk first plant cells gave rise to the first alga- death, the loss of their own interests. e cells, whose complex structure is no Despite being an evolutionist him- different from algae living today. self, Cemal Yildirim explains why Dar- win and other evolutionists of his day Altruism imagined nature to be solely a battlefield: Since the majority of scientists in the 19th The mechanism of natural selection century were confined to their work ro- that Darwin proposed foresees stronger oms, studies or laboratories and did not living things and those best adapting to go to examine nature directly, they were the natural conditions in their geographi- easily taken in by the thesis that living cal location surviving and continuing things were solely at war. Even such a

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 19

prestigious scientist as Huxley was unab- Evolutionists are unable to account le to escape this error.9 for the self-sacrificial behavior they en- In his book Mutual Aid: A Factor in counter in nature. The authors of an ar- Evolution, dealing with cooperation ticle on the subject in one scientific jour- among animals, the evolutionist Peter nal reveal this helplessness: Kropotkin expresses the error into which The question is why do living beings help Darwin and his followers fell: one another? According to Darwin’s the- . . . the numberless followers of Darwin ory, every animal is fighting for its own reduced the notion of struggle for exis- survival and the continuation of its speci- tence to its narrowest limits. They came es. Helping other creatures would dec- to conceive the animal world as a world rease its own chances of surviving, and of perpetual struggle among half-starved therefore, evolution should have elimina- individuals, thirsting for one another's ted this type of behavior, whereas it is ob- blood. . . . In fact, if we take Huxley, . . . served that animals can indeed behave 11 were we not taught by him, in a paper on selflessly. the “Struggle for Existence and its Bea- Honeybees, for example, will sting to ring upon Man,” that, “from the point of death any intruder that attacks their hive. view of the moralist, the animal world is By doing this they are actually commit- on about the same level as a gladiators' ting suicide. Because since their stings show. The creatures are fairly well trea- lodge in the enemy during the stinging ted, and set to, fight hereby the strongest, the swiftest, and the cunningest live to process, a number of their internal organs fight another day.”. . . But it may be re- are torn out of their bodies. The honeybe- marked at once that Huxley's view of na- es give up their own lives to ensure the ture had . . . little claim to be taken as a security of the hive as a whole. scientific deduction. . . .10 Despite being a particularly ferocio- Evolutionist scientists interpreted us reptile, the crocodile displays an asto- certain features that could clearly be se- nishing gentleness towards its young. en in nature in order to support the ideo- After they hatch from the eggs, it carries logy to which they were devoted. The them in its mouth to the water. Subsequ- war that Darwin imagined to dominate ently, it carries them either in its mouth all of nature is indeed a great error, be- or on its back until they are old enough cause the natural world is not full of li- to look after themselves. Whenever the ving things that fight for their own inte- young crocodiles perceive any danger, rests alone. Many species are helpful to- they immediately retreat to in their mot- wards other species and, more impor- hers’ mouth for shelter. tantly, are even altruistic and self-sacrifi- Yet the crocodile is both exceedingly cing toward members of their own. ferocious and also devoid of conscience.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 20

One would therefore expect it to eat its ralize the weaker ones, and consume all young as food without a moment’s hesi- the food resources for themselves. Yet tation, rather than protecting them. events do not actually transpire as evolu- Among other species, some mothers tionists imagine. have to leave the community in which In his book, the well-known evolu- they live until their young are weaned, tionist Peter Kropotkin cites several and thus expose themselves to conside- examples of this: In the event of a food rable risks. Some animal species care for shortage, ants begin using the supplies their young for days, for months or even they have stored. Birds migrate en masse years after they are born or hatched. in search of food, and when too many They provide them with food, shelter beavers start living in one pond, the yo- and warmth and protection from preda- unger ones head north and the older ones tors. Many birds feed their young betwe- south.12 en four and 20 times an hour throughout As you can see, there is no ruthless the day. fight to the death for food or shelter Among mammals, mothers face dif- among these living things. On the con- ferent problems. They have to eat better trary, even under the most difficult con- while suckling their young and must the- ditions, excellent harmony and solidarity refore hunt for more food. Yet as the yo- are shown. It is as if these creatures ung gain weight, the mother constantly work to ameliorate existing conditions. loses it. However, one very important point What one would expect an animal needs to be borne in mind: These living devoid of consciousness to do is to aban- things possess no rational mind with don its young after birth, because ani- which to make decisions. There is there- mals cannot even conceive of what these fore only one possible explanation for tiny creatures need. Yet they actually as- the way in which determine a particular sume all the responsibility for their offs- objective and work together to attain it, pring. even deciding on the soundest course for Living things are altruistic not only all members of the community—na- when it comes to protecting their young mely, God’s creation. from danger. They have also been obser- Confronted by these facts throughout ved to behave most considerately and nature, evolutionists’ claim to the effect helpfully towards others of their kind in that “Nature is a battleground, and the the community they live in. One examp- selfish and those who protect their own le can be seen when nearby food sources interests emerge victorious” is comple- decline. In that event, one might expect tely invalidated. stronger animals to rise to the top, neut- In the face of these features of living

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 21 things, one well-known evolutionist, American geologist William R. Stokes John Maynard Smith, addressed the fol- admits this fact in his book entitled, Es- lowing question to evolutionists: sentials of Earth-History: “that it would Here one of the key questions has to do not occur during billions of years on bil- with altruism: How is it that natural se- lions of planets each covered by a blan- lection can favor patterns of behavior ket of concentrated watery solution of that apparently do not favor the survival the necessary amino acids.” 14 of the individual? 13 An article in the January, 1999 edition of Science News explains that there is Amino acids still no explanation as to how proteins are formed: Amino acids are molecules, the building blocks of the proteins that make up . . . no one has ever satisfactorily explai- living cells. More than 200 different ned how the widely distributed ingredi- amino acids are found in nature, but of ents linked up into proteins. Presumed these, only 20 kinds make up the protein conditions of primordial Earth would have driven the amino acids toward lonely in living creatures. Certain of these 20 isolation.15 amino acids combine with one another, forming a series of chemical bonds that create proteins with various functions and characteristics. There are basic proteins, composed of about 50 amino acids, and other proteins are composed of thousands of amino acids. If a single amino acid is lacking in the structure of a protein—if it should alter its position, or if a single amino was added to the chain—that protein would be reduced to a useless series of molecules. For this reason, every amino acid must be in exactly the right place, in exactly the right order. The theory of evolution claims that life came to be as a matter of chance— but it certainly cannot explain how this The disappearance of a single amino acid in the structure of proteins, or a change of extraordinary order was formed by place or the addition of one extra amino chance. acid to the chain, will turn that protein into Although he’s an evolutionist, the a functionless molecular mass.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) An amino acid molecule consists of a carbon atom bonded to an amino group (-NH2), a car- H boxyl group (-COOH), a hydrogen atom and a side chain group (-R).

H2 N C C O O H

Amino acid Carboxyl group group H Glycine R

Alanine Side chain group CH3

CH 3 Valine AMINO ACID STRUCTURE CH CH3 O H

C C Are bonded to various Phenyl R groups from here. CH 2 alanine HO N

H H CH2 Acid group Amino group CH2 CH2 Leucine CH Basic amino acid part 2

EXAMPLES NH2 Asparagine CH2 C O H O C C H

HO N 2 CH CH CH2 CH3 3 Isoleucine O H CH CH C C 3 N HO 2 CH3 Proteins are made up of amino acids. Although amino acid molecules are much smaller than proteins, they have exceedingly complex structures. 23 Cell nucleus

Amino acid

tRNA

Ribosome mRNA

Protein chain The disappearance of a single amino acid in the structure of proteins, or a change of place or the addition of one extra amino acid to the chain, will turn that protein into a functionless molecular mass.

Deliberate manipulations performed into being. This is one of the greatest im- under laboratory conditions have not be- passes faced by the theory of evolution. en able to produce the amino acids re- (See Protein.) quired to form a protein. Experiments done in this area have either been unsuc- cessful or, as with the Miller Experi- Amphibians ment, employed invalid methods. Frogs, toads, salamanders and caeci- The Miller Experiment used substan- lians are all amphibians, scale-less ver- ces that did not exist in the primitive at- tebrates able to live on both land and in mosphere and created an environment the water. There are about 4,000 diffe- that was not to be found in that atmosp- rent species. here. What was created as a result were Because amphibians are able to live right-handed amino acids, which are not on land as well as in the water, evolutio- found in the structure of living proteins nists have claimed that they are a “tran- (See Miller Experiment, the.) Evolu- sitional form” in the movement of ver- tionists still cannot explain how amino tebrate life from water to land. acids could have formed by chance, yet According to the evolutionist scena- they persist in their claim that just the rio, fish first evolved into amphibians, right acids, in the proper number and ar- which later developed into reptiles. But rangements, somehow brought proteins there is no proof for this. Not a single

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) The Difference Between the Eggs of an AmphIbIan and a ReptIle

One of the inconsistencies in the scenario of amphibian-reptile evolution lies in the structure of their eggs. Amphibian eggs develop in water, have a jelly-like structure and are covered in a porous membrane. Reptile eggs, on the other hand, have a hard structure that’s impermeable to water, but appropriate to conditions on land—as you can see from the dinosaur egg reconstruction to the right. For an amphibian to turn into a reptile, its eggs need to become fully reptilian. Yet the slightest error in such a transition will lead to that particular species becoming extinct.

fossil has been found that proves that a frogs, salamanders and caecilians. half-fish or a half-amphibian ever lived. There is no evidence of any Paleozoic In this book, Vertebrate Paleonto- amphibians combining the characteris- logy and Evolution, the noted evolutio- tics that would be expected in a single nist writer Robert L. Carroll says that in common ancestor. The oldest known fact, we have no fossils of any interme- frogs, salamanders, and caecilians are diate form between early amphibians very similar to their living descen- and rhipidistian fish.16 dants.17 Colbert and Morales, evolutionist pa- Up until about 60 years ago, an ex- leontologists, make the following com- tinct fossilized fish called the Coela- ment on the amphibians’ three classes— canth, estimated to be 410 million years

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 25 old, was touted in evolutionist sources as the transitional form between fish and amphibians. But the fact that this fish, still alive and anatomically unchanged was caught in the Indian Ocean invalidated these evolutionist claims. (See Co- elacanth.) In the evolutionist scenario, the second stage is the evolution of amphibians to reptiles and their movement from A tropical salamander the water to the land. But there is no solid fossil discovery to support this claim. On the contrary, there remain very great on. How this switch could have sud- physiological and anatomical differen- denly occurred cannot be explained by ces between amphibians and reptiles. the evolutionist mechanisms of natural For example, take the structure of the selection and mutation. eggs of the two different species. Amp- Again, the fossil record leaves the hibians lay their eggs in water. Their origins of reptiles with no evolutionist eggs have a very permeable, transparent explanation. The noted evolutionist pale- membrane and a gelatin-like consistency ontologist, Robert L. Carroll, admits this that allows them to develop in water. But in an article entitled “Problems of the because reptiles lay their eggs on the Origin of Reptiles”: ground, they are designed for a dry cli- Unfortunately not a single specimen of mate. Reptile eggs are amniotic with a an appropriate reptilian ancestor is strong rubbery shell that admits air, but known prior to the appearance of true keeps water out. For this reason, the flu- reptiles. The absence of such ancestral id needed by the young is stored within forms leaves many problems of the amp- until they hatch. hibian-reptilian transition unanswered.18 If amphibian eggs were laid on the ground, they would soon dry out, and the The same fact is admitted by the late embryos inside would die. This poses a evolutionist paleontologist, Stephen Jay problem for any evolutionist explanation Gould, of Harvard University: “No fos- of how reptiles evolved in stages from sil amphibian seems clearly ancestral to amphibians: For the very first amphibi- the lineage of fully terrestrial vertebra- ans to begin living entirely on land, their tes (reptiles, birds, and mammals)." (Se- eggs would have had to transform into e Movement from Water to land, amniotic eggs within a single generati- the.)19

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 26

Analogous organ wever, his assertion rests on no proof and was merely a supposition made on Some organs superficially appear to the basis of external similarities. From be similar and perform the same functi- Darwin’s time until now, no solid evi- on. For example, their wings allow but- dence has been discovered to substantia- terflies and birds to fly; and both cats and te these assertions. beetles use their legs to walk. But these In the light of this, evolutionists no creatures have completely different gene- longer call these organs homologous— tic and anatomical structures. This kind that is, coming from some common an- of similarity is only superficial. 20 cestor—but analogous, or showing simi- Darwin stated that creatures with si- larity without being related through evo- milar (so-called homologous) organs lution. (See Morphological homology.) were related to one another by evolution, But many species among which evo- and that these organs must have been de- lutionists have been unable to establish veloped in some common ancestor. Ho- an evolutionary connection do have similar (homologous) organs. The wing is the best known example. Bats, which are mammals, have wings and so do birds. Flies and many varieties of insects have wings, but evolutionists have not been able to establish The wings of a flying reptile, a bird, and a any evolutionary connection or relati- bat. There can be no evolutionary rela- onship among these various classes. tionship among them, yet these wings all have similar structures. According to evolutionary theory, wings came to be by chance in four independent groups: in insects, flying reptiles, birds and bats. When evolutionists try to explain these four instances by the mechanisms of natural selection/mutation and assert a similarity of structure among them, biologists come up against a serious impasse. Mammals are one of the most concrete examples that draw the evolutionary thesis into a blind alley. Modern biology accepts that all mammals are divided into two basic categories: tho-

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I The Tasmanian Wolf and a SImIlar AnImal from North AmerIca

The existence of twin species between pouched and placental mammals is a serious blow to the homological claim. For example, the placental wolf from North America and the pouched Tasmanian wolf above bear an extraordinary resemblance to one another. To the side can be seen the two species’ very similar skulls. Such a close similarity between these two, for which no evolutionary relationship can be claimed, leaves the homological claim totally unfounded.

se with placentas, and marsupials. Evo- words, according to the theory of evolu- lutionists suppose that this difference cation, totally independent mutations must me into existence with the first mam- have produced these two categories of mals and that each category underwent a creatures by chance! Of course, this is different evolutionary history, indepen- impossible. dently of the other. But it is interesting One of the interesting similarities that in each of these two categories, the- between placental mammals and marsu- re are almost two “identical pairs”. Wol- pials is that between the North American ves, cats, squirrels, anteaters, moles and wolf and the Tasmanian wolf. The first is mice with their similar features belong classed as a mammal with a placenta; the both to the category of mammals with second as a marsupial. (It is supposed placentas and marsupials.21 In other that contact between marsupials and pla-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 28

cental was severed when Australia and Analogical organs are different in its costal islands separated from the con- structure and development, but the same tinent of Antarctica—and that there were in functions.22 For example, the wings no species of wolves at that time.) of birds, bats, and insects are functio- But structurally, that the skeletons of nally the same, but there is no evolutio- the North American wolf and the Tasma- nary connection among them. nian wolf are almost identical. As the Therefore, evolutionists have been above illustration shows, their skulls unable to establish any common connec- match almost exactly. tion between these similar appendages Such similarities, which evolutionist and have been forced to admit that they biologists cannot accept as examples of are the products of separate develop- homology, demonstrate that similar or- ments. For example, the wings of birds gans do not prove the thesis of evolution and insects must have arisen through from a common ancestor. different chance events than those through which bats’ wings evolved. For those who want to establish an Analogy evolutionary connection solely on the ba- Evolutionists try to establish an an- sis of similarities, this is a major obstac- cestor-descendent relationship between le. They have never been able to explain living creatures on the basis of certain how a structure as complex as a wing co- perceived structural similarities between uld have come into being by chance, and them. But some creatures have organs so must explain this separately for each that perform a similar function, but no creature. (See Homology; Homologous evolutionary link can be established bet- organs.) Many other such situations ha- ween them. This similarity is known as ve led evolutionists into an impasse. (See analogy, and such organs are called ana- Analogous organ, above.) logical.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 29

Angiosperm This is a name given to the most common flowering plants, of which there are more than 230.000 species that grow in many environments, even on ocean and in deserts. Fossils found of these plants clearly contradict the evolutionists’ claims. The fossil record indicates that no primitive transitional form has been found for any one of 43 different families into which angiosperms have been classified. This fact was already known in the 19th century, and Darwin called the origin of angiosperms an “abominable mystery.” All the research performed since Darwin’s day has not been able to offer any evolutionist explanation for the origin of these plants. In his book entitled, Paleology of Angiosperm Origins, the evolutionist This 140-million-year-old fossil belonging to paleontologist, N.F. Hughes, made this the species Archaefructus is the earliest admission: known remains of an angiosperm (flowering plant). This plant is identical to its modern- With few exceptions of detail, however, day counterparts, and its flowers and fruit the failure to find a satisfactory explana- have similarly flawless structures.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 30

tion has persisted, and many botanists hered since the 1920s has proven that the have concluded that the problem is not universe came into being from nothing capable of solution, by use of fossil evi- at a particular point in time called the 23 dence. Big Bang. That is, the universe is not And Daniel Isaac Axelrod’s article, eternal, but was created from nothing. “The Evolution of Flowering Plants,” (See Big Bang Theory.) had this to say: In the first half of the 20th century, Georges Politzer became a great suppor- The ancestral group that gave rise to angiosperms has not yet been identified in ter of materialism and Marxism. In his the fossil record, and no living angios- book, Elementary Principles of Philo- perm points to such an ancestral allian- sophy, he came out in favor of the model ce. 24 of an eternal universe, as opposed to one The fact that the fossil record of an- that was created: giosperms reveals no evolutionary an- The universe was not a created object. If cestor, and that such highly complex li- it were, then it would have to be created ving things such as flowering plants ca- instantaneously by God and brought into me into being all at once is an indication existence from nothing. To admit creati- that they were created. on, one has to admit, in the first place, the existence of a moment when the universe did not exist, and that something Inorganic evolution came out of nothingness. This is something to which science cannot accede. 25 Inorganic evolution attempts to exp- In supporting the idea of the eternal lain by chance processes the formation universe, he thought that science was on of the world and the universe before the his side. But before long, science called appearance of living things. Politzer’s bluff: To admit creation, one Those who try to explain everything has to admit . . . that something came out in terms of evolution espouse the mate- of nothingness. In other words, the uni- rialist proposition that the universe has verse did have a beginning. existed forever (that it was never created) and that it is a product of chance, with no plan, design or purpose. Evolu- Anthropic Principle, the tionists in the 19th century, with its primitive scientific level of achievement, One of the several claims demolis- th actively supported this view, but its cla- hed by 20 -century science is that of ims were invalidated in the 20th century. chance. Research conducted since the The idea of an eternal universe was 1960s has shown that all the physical ba- first to be abandoned. Information gat- lances in the solar system—indeed, in the entire universe—have been very fi-

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 31 nely regulated in order to support human An article in the well-known magazi- life. The deeper research has penetrated, ne Science refers to the wondrous equ- the more it has shown that the laws of ilibrium at the beginning of the universe: physics, chemistry and biology; basic If the density of the universe matter had forces such as gravity and electromagne- been a little more, then the universe, ac- tism, and the structures of all atoms and cording to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, elements are just as they need to be to would never expand due to the attraction support human life. forces of atomic particles, and would ha- Western scientists today refer to this ve recollapsed to turn into a point. If the extraordinary creation as the Anthropic density had initially been a little less, Principle. In other words, every detail in then the universe would have expanded the universe has been created with the at the highest speed, and the atomic par- goal of supporting human life. ticles would not have been able to attract and capture one another, and stars and There are some 300 billion galaxies galaxies would never have been formed. in the universe, each containing approxi- Naturally, we, too, would not have exis- mately as many stars. Eight major pla- ted! According to the calculations made, nets circle in great harmony around our the difference between the initial real Sun, which is one of those stars. Of the- density of the universe and the critical se, only the Earth possesses conditions density beyond which there is no likeliho- suited to life. Today, many scientists ad- od of its formation is less than a quadril- mit the impossibility of the universe be- lion of a hundredth. This is like placing a ing a collection of random clouds of pen on its sharp end that it can stay so hydrogen matter forming the stars that even after one billion years. Moreover, form galaxies, of matter thrown out ran- this balance gets more delicate as the 27 domly as the result of exploding stars, or universe expands. of heavier elements coming together at Adherents of the theory of evolution specific points in such a way as to give try to account for this extraordinary order rise to planets. In the face of this, Sir in the universe in terms of chance effects. Fred Hoyle, who opposed the Big Bang Yet it is doubtless irrational and illogical theory for many years, expressed the as- to expect interconnected coincidences to tonishment he felt: give rise to such a complex order. Since chance can be calculated mat- The Big Bang theory holds that the universe began with a single explosion. Yet hematically, we can see the impossibility as can be seen, an explosion merely of such a thing happening. It has been throws matter apart, while the big bang calculated that the probability of an en- has mysteriously produced the opposite vironment suited to life emerging thro- effect—with matter clumping together in ugh an explosion such as the Big Bang the form of galaxies.26 are 1 in 10 x 10123.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 32

This calculation was performed by started to propose one new idea after the famous British mathematician Roger another about the evolution of human Penrose, a colleague of Stephen Haw- beings. king. In mathematics, Probabilities less Scientists wanted to learn about the than 1 in 1050 are regarded as essenti- development of human societies, how ally zero. The number in question is a they changed and became politically or- trillion, trillion, trillion times larger than ganized, and how they developed art and 1 in 1050—a number that shows that the music. As a result of all their efforts, the universe cannot be accounted for in science of anthropology developed va- terms of chance. rious branches of expertise in its study of Roger Penrose comments on this in- the history of humanity: physical anthro- conceivably vast number: pology, cultural anthropology, and so forth. This now tells how precise the Creator's But after Darwin proposed the theory aim must have been, namely to an accu- racy of one part in 10 x 10123. This is an of evolution, cultural anthropology be- extraordinary figure. One could not pos- gan to study human beings as cultural sibly even write the number down in full animals, and physical anthropology in- in the ordinary denary notation: it would vestigated them as biological organisms. be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. As a result of this distorted way of thin- Even if we were to write a 0 on each se- king, anthropology became the domain parate proton and on each separate neut- of evolutionist scientists, whose unre- ron in the entire universe—and we could alistic and partisan views prevailed. throw in all the other particles for good measure—we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. 28 Antibiotic resistance When any species of bacteria are Anthropology constantly exposed to a given antibiotic, later generations of them begin to show Anthropology is the science that in- resistance to it—and eventually that an- vestigates human origins together with tibiotic has no further effect on them. its biological, social and cultural charac- Evolutionists assume that bacteria’s de- teristics. This science began with the im- veloping resistance to antibiotics is pro- petus to learn about human history; in of for evolution. They say that this resis- fact, its Greek roots mean the science of tance develops as a result of mutations human beings. After Charles Darwin es- that occur in the bacteria. tablished his evolutionary theory of the However, this increasing resistance origins and development of living things is not the result of bacterial mutations. in the 19th century, interested scientists Bacteria had resistance ability before be-

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 33

Bacteria acquire immunity in a very short time by passing their resistant genes on to one another.

ing exposed to antibiotics. Despite the were buried in the permafrost and remai- fact that it is an evolutionist publication, ned deeply frozen until their bodies were Scientific American made the following exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so statement in its March, 1998 issue: complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the con- Many bacteria possessed resistance genes tents of the sailors' intestines were able to even before commercial antibiotics came be revived! When tested, these bacteria into use. Scientists do not know exactly were found to possess resistance to several why these genes evolved and were maintai- modern-day antibiotics, including penicil- ned. 29 lin. 30 The fact that genetic information af- Since the medical world now knows forded bacterial resistance before the in- that this kind of resistance was present in vention of antibiotics invalidates the cla- some bacteria before the discovery of pe- ims of evolutionists. nicillin, it is definitely erroneous to claim Since bacterial ability of resistance that bacterial resistance is an evolutionary existed years before the discovery of anti- development. biotics, the respected scientific journal In bacteria, the development of immu- Medical Tribune related this interesting nity occurs in this way: finding in its December 29, 1988 issue: In any one species of bacteria, there In 1845, sailors on an . . . Arctic expedition

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 34

are countless genetic variations. Some of Genes are transmitted between bac- them, as mentioned above, have genetic teria by means of plasmids, tiny DNA information that gives them resistance to circles in bacteria in which resistance some medicines. When bacteria are ex- genes are often found encoded. These posed to a certain medicine, the non-re- genes allow the bacteria to become resis- sistant variations are killed off. But the tant to various toxic materials in their resistant variations survive and multiply surroundings. even more. After a while, the rapidly Resistance genes may also be found multiplying resistant bacteria take the in the chromosomal DNA in bacteria. A place of the non-resistant bacteria that chromosome is much larger than the had been destroyed. Then, since most plasmids in bacterial cells; it is a mole- bacteria in a colony are resistant to that cule that determines the cells’ function particular antibiotic, it becomes ineffec- and division. tive against them. A bacterium with genetic immunity But the bacteria are the exact same to antibiotics can transfer its genetic in- species of bacteria. There was no pro- formation through plasmids to another cess of evolution. bacterium. Resistance genes are sometimes transferred through viruses. In this Transmission of resistance case, a virus transfers the resistance gene among different species of it withdrew from one bacterium to anot- bacteria her. And when a bacterium dies and di- Not only can some bacteria inherit sintegrates, another bacterium can ab- their resistance to antibiotics from pre- sorb the resistance gene it releases into vious immune generations; they can also the immediate environment. have resistance genes from other bacteri- A non-resistant bacterium can easily a transferred to them. add this gene to its own DNA molecules,

There were resistant bacteria before the discovery of antibiotics. Bacteria did not develop resistance after being exposed to antibiotics.

RESISTANT POPULATION ANTIBIOTICS HALTED DEAD CELLS SENSITIVE POPULATION

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 35 because such resistance genes are usu- code would have to be mapped, in the ally in the form of tiny DNA particles way the human one has. Then the two called transposons that can easily be ad- would have to be compared, to obtain ded to other DNA molecules. the results. Yet no such results are yet In such ways, a whole colony of re- available: While the human genetic map sistant bacteria can be formed in a short has been completed, the chimpanzee time from one resistant bacterium. This equivalent has not. has nothing to do with evolution: The In fact, the “98% similarity between genes that make bacteria resistant did human and ape genes” slogan was deli- not develop through any process of mu- berately produced for propaganda pur- tation. Only existing genes are distribu- poses many years ago. This “similarity” ted among bacteria. is a highly exaggerated generalization, based on a similarity in the amino acid sequences in between 30 and 40 of the Ape-Human Genetic Si- basic proteins present in man and ape. milarity Falsehood, the Sequence analysis of the DNA Drawing up the human gene map strings corresponding to these proteins within the framework of the Human Ge- was performed using a method known as nome project was a major scientific de- “DNA hybridization.” and only these li- velopment. However, evolutionist publi- mited proteins were compared. cations have distorted a number of the Yet there are around 30,000 genes in project’s results. It is claimed that the human beings and these genes encode genes of chimpanzees and humans bear some 200,000 proteins. There is thus no a 98% similarity and assumed that this scientific justification for claiming, on shows their closeness, which is used as the basis of a similarity in 40 proteins evidence for the theory of evolution. out of 200,000, any 98% resemblance However, this is in fact a false proof between human and ape genetics. that evolutionists exploit by making use The DNA comparison of those 40 of society’s lack of information on the proteins is also questionable. Two biolo- subject. gists named Charles Sibley and Jon Ed- First of all, the concept so frequently ward Ahlquist carried out the compari- touted by evolutionists—that 98% simi- son in 1987 and published the results in larity between human and chimpanzee the Journal of Molecular Evolution. 31 DNA—is a deceptive one. In order to However, another scientist by the name claim that the genetic structures of hu- of Sarich examined their data and conc- man beings and chimpanzees bear a 98% luded that they’d used a method of ques- similarity, the entire chimpanzee genetic tionable reliability and had exaggera-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 36

tedly interpreted the data.32 yed by evolutionists were valid, then Basic proteins are essential molecu- man would have a much closer relative les commonly found in many other li- than the chimpanzee—the potato! Both ving things. The structures of the prote- human beings and potatoes have exactly ins in all living things, not just of chim- the same number of chromosomes: 46. panzees, bear a close similarity to those These examples demonstrate that the of proteins in human beings. concept of genetic similarity constitutes For example, genetic analyses repor- no evidence for the theory of evolution. ted in New Scientist revealed a 75% si- Not only are the genetic similarities in- milarity between the DNA of nematodes compatible with the evolutionary family (millimeter-long worms that dwell in the tree proposed, but they actually provide soil) and humans!33 This, of course, totally conflicting results. does not imply that there is only a 25% In addition, the similarities discove- difference between human beings and red are actually evidence for creation nematodes. rather than for evolution. It is perfectly When the genes of the fruit fly speci- natural for the bodies of humans and ot- es Drosophila were compared with hu- her living things to exhibit molecular si- man genes, a 60% similarity was deter- milarities, because all living things are mined. 34 made up of the same molecules, use the Analyses of some proteins seem to same water and atmosphere, and consu- show that man is actually closer to very me foods made up of the same molecu- different living things. In one study per- les. Naturally, their metabolisms—and formed at Cambridge University, certain thus, their genetic structures—will tend proteins in terrestrial organisms were to resemble one another. However, this compared. Astonishingly, in almost all is no evidence that they evolved from a the specimens involved, human beings common ancestor. and chickens were found to bear the clo- Another example will help elucidate sest relationship to one another. Our next this: All the buildings in the world are closest relative is the lizard.35 constructed from similar materials— Another example used by evolutio- bricks, iron, cement, and so forth. But nists with regard to the so-called “gene- this does not imply that these buildings tic similarity between man and ape” is evolved from one another. They were bu- that there are 46 chromosomes in human ilt independently, using common materi- beings and 48 in gorillas. Evolutionists als. The same principle applies to living assume that chromosome numbers are things. an indication of an evolutionary relati- Apart from the superficial similarity onship. But in fact, if this logic emplo- between human beings and apes, there is no question of their being closer to each

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 37 other than to other animals. In One of the theories that evolutionists put terms of ability, a bee producing ho- forward to account for the origin of neycombs that are geometrical mi- flight maintains that reptiles turned into birds by leaping from branch racles, or a spider wea- to branch. Yet there are no ving a web that is a mar- fossils of any living things vel of engineering, are that slowly developed wings, nor any natural much closer to man than are process that could bring apes. In some respects, one can even say this about. that these invertebrates are superior. Yet the huge gulf between human beings and apes is too vast to be bridged with evolutionist claims and myths. Apes are animals and, in terms of consciousness, are no different to horses or dogs. Human beings, on the other hand, are conscious, possess free will and are capable of thought, speech, reasoning, decision-making and judgment. All the- the ground.) But this first theory is ut- se attributes are processes of the soul terly imaginary, and has no scientific they possess. It is this soul that gives rise evidence to support it. to the major difference between human John Ostrom, who first proposed the beings and animals. Man is the only en- cursorial theory, admits that the propo- tity in nature to possess a soul. No physi- nents of both hypotheses can do nothing cal similarity can bridge this widest gulf more than speculate. He wrote that his between humans and other living things. theory of “cursorial predator” was in fact speculative—but the arboreal theory was also speculative.36 Arboreal Theory In addition, none of the transitional This is one of two evolutionist the- forms (See Transitional form) that sho- ories regarding how reptiles—a terrestri- uld have existed on Earth in ages past al life form—began to fly. According to has ever been discovered (See Cursorial the arboreal theory, the ancestors of theory; also Origin of birds, the.) birds were tree-dwelling reptiles that gradually developed wings by leaping from branch to branch. (The other view Archaeopteryx is the cursorial theory, which maintains This extinct species of bird lived 140 that birds took to the air directly from million years ago, during the Jurassic

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) period. The fact that Archaeopteryx had This attests to its strong flight muscles, some characteristics that differ from tho- but its capacity for long flights is questi- se of modern birds led evolutionists to onable.37 suppose that it was a transitional species This discovery has removed the basic between them and their dinosaur ances- foundation for the claim that Archaeop- tors. According to the theory of evoluti- teryx was a half- evolved flightless bird. on, small dinosaurs called Velociraptors - There is no difference between the or Dromesaurs evolved wings and began wings of modern birds and those of Arc- to fly; Archaeopteryx is thought to be the haeopteryx: Both have the same asy- ancestor of today’s flying birds. mmetrical feather structure, which indi- However, the latest research on Arc- cates that this creature was an excellent haeopteryx fossils shows that this claim flyer. As the noted paleontologist Carl O. has no scientific basis. This species was Dunbar pointed out, ‘Because of its feat- not an awkwardly flying transitional spe- hers, [Archaeopteryx is] distinctly to be cies, merely an extinct bird with charac- classed as a bird.’ 38 teristics different from those of its mo- - Another fact that emerges from the dern counterparts. Here is the latest rese- feathers of Archaeopteryx is that the cre- arch data on Archaeopteryx: ature was warm-blooded. As we know, - Originally, the fact that this creature reptiles and dinosaurs were cold-bloo- had no sternum was cited as the most im- ded—that is, their body temperature was portant proof that it could not fly. The determined by the external ambient tem- muscles needed for flight are attached to perature. One of the most important the sternum located at the base of the rib functions of birds’ feathers is to stabilize cage. (Modern flying and flightless birds keep their body temperature. The fact and bats—mammals which belong to a that Archaeopteryx had wings shows that totally different family—all have a ster- unlike dinosaurs, it was warm-blooded. num.) That is, it was a true bird that needed a But the seventh Archaeopteryx fossil covering of feathers to regulate its body found in 1992 showed this argument to temperature. be false. This particular fossil had a ster- -The two most important points that num, which evolutionists had long disco- evolutionist biologists consider as evi- unted. The following words are from an dence that Archaeopteryx was a transitio- article in Nature magazine: nal form are its teeth and the claws on its The recently discovered seventh spe- wings. cimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a But those claws on its wings and its partial, rectangular sternum, long sus- teeth do not indicate that Archaeopteryx pected but never previously documented. had any relation to reptiles. Two species The best-known Archaeopteryx fossil, on display in Berlin Research into the anatomy of Archaeopteryx has revealed that the vertebrate had a perfect flying ability and was in fact a typical bird. The efforts to equate Archaeopteryx with reptiles are totally groundless. of birds alive today, Tauraco corythaix importantly, while no birds with teeth and Opisthocomus hoazin, have claws are alive today, when we look at the fos- that enable them to grip on to branches. sil record, we see that there was a speci- Each of these species is wholly a bird, es of bird with teeth that lived at the sa- with no relation to reptiles. Therefore, me time or later than Archaeopteryx. the fact that Archaeopteryx had claws on Until very recently in geologic history, its wings does not substantiate the claim there was a group of birds that could be that it was a transitional form. called toothed. Neither do its teeth. Evolutionists In addition, the tooth structure of were wrong to claim that these teeth we- Archaeopteryx and other toothed birds is re a reptilian characteristic. In fact, teeth quite different from that of dinosaurs, are not a typical characteristic of repti- their supposed ancestors. Noted ornitho- les. Some living reptiles do not have te- logists such as L. D. Martin, J. D. Ste- eth at all—turtles, for example. More wart and K. N. Whetstone determined

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 41 that that the surface of the teeth of Arc- ced in Science magazine the discovery haeopteryx and other toothed birds were of a 130-million-year-old fossil called straight and had wide roots. However, Liaoningornis. It had a breastbone to the teeth of theropod dinosaurs—the which the flying muscles were attached, supposed ancestors of birds—had serra- as in modern birds. And in other ways ted teeth and have straight roots. 39 too, this creature was no different from -Some recently discovered fossils modern birds. The only difference was show in a different way that the evolu- that it had teeth—which indicated, con- tionist scenario invented for Archaeop- trary to the evolutionist claims, that teeth teryx is untenable. in birds did not constitute a primitive In 1995, Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe characteristic. 41 Zhou of the Vertebrate Paleontology Ins- Accordingly, Alan Feduccia wrote in titute in China discovered a new fossil Discovery magazine that Liaoningornis that they called Confuciusornis. It is the invalidates the claim that birds evolved same age as Archaeopteryx (about 140 from dinosaurs.42 Eoalulavis is another million years old) and has no teeth. Its fossil that has invalidated evolutionist beak and feathers and skeleton are the claims about Archaeopteryx. At 120 mil- same as those of modern birds. And, like lion years old, it is 30 million years yo- Archaeopteryx, it had claws on its unger than Archaeopteryx, wings, as well as a feature called a but its wing structure is pygostyle that supported its tail feathers. the same, and it still In short, this seen in some mo- creature is the dern species of same age as Arc- birds. This proves haeopteryx, the that 120 million years supposed ancestor ago, creatu- of all modern res no diffe- birds. But it was rent from pre- itself very much sent-day birds flew like modern birds. This through the air. 43 contradicts the evolutionist One clear proof that Archa- An illustration of thesis that Archaeopteryx Archaeopteryx eopteryx is not a transitional is the primitive ancestor of form between reptiles and birds all birds. 40 came from a fossil found in China Another fossil found in China in in the year 2000. Named Longisquama, 1996 caused even more of a stir. L. Hou, it was the fossil of a bird that lived in L. D. Martin and Alan Feduccia announ- Central Asia 220 million years ago. The

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) well-known magazines Science and Nature, as well as BBC television, reported about this fossil that the entire body of the fossil—estimated to have lived 220 million years ago— was covered in feathers, had a furcula like present-day birds (as well as Archaeopteryx), and that its feathers had hollow shafts. This invalidates the claims that Archaeopteryx was the ancestor of present-day birds. The fossil discovered is 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx—in other words, it existed with fully avian features 75 million years before the creature that evolutionists claimed to have been the forerunner of birds.44 So it became clear that Arc- haeopteryx and other archaic birds were not transitional forms. Their fossils did not demonstrate that various bird species evolved from one another. On the contrary, they proved that modern-day birds and some species of birds like Archaeopteryx lived together. In short, some characteristics of Archaeopteryx show that this creature was no transitional form. And A reconstruction now two noted proponents of the of Archaeopteryx

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 43

Some media organizations accept the theory of evolution unquestioningly and present every new fossil as if it were scientific evidence for the theory. In 1999 for example, newspa- pers interpreted the fossil known as Archaeoraptor as a winged dinosaur. Some two years later, however, it emerged that the fossil in question was an evolutionary fraud. Those same newspa- pers had to accept that all the talk of a “dino-bird” was mere nonsense.

theory of evolution—paleontologists archers, who published the results in Na- Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge ture magazine: of Harvard University—have acknow- The Archaeoraptor fossil was announced ledged that Archaeopteryx was never a as a missing link and purported to be transitional form but a so-called “mosa- possibly the best evidence since Archa- ic” creature with several different cha- eopteryx that birds did, in fact, evolve racteristics.45 from certain types of carnivorous dinosaur . . . But Archaeoraptor was revealed to be a forgery in which bones of a primiti- Archaeoraptor ve bird and a non-flying dromaeosaurid dinosaur had been combined. . . . We This fossil is said to have been disco- conclude that Archaeoraptor represents vered in China in 2001, but was actually two or more species and that it was as- a false construction. The hoax was de- sembled from at least two, and possibly tected through detailed analysis by rese- five, separate specimens. . . Sadly, parts

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 44

of at least two significant new specimens living today. But the child died 800,000 were combined in favor of the higher years ago! This was a surprising disco- commercial value of the forgery, and very for evolutionists, who did not hope both were nearly lost to science. Paleon- that Homo sapiens (modern-day human tology was also badly damaged by the beings) lived so long ago. (See Imagi- Piltdown forgery and the “lying stones” nary Human Family Tree, the.) of Johann Beringer, and many fossils ha- The December 1996 issue of Disco- ve been unwittingly or deliberately sub- very magazine gave it wide coverage. jected to misleading reconstruction.46 This fossil even shook the convictions (See Piltdown Man.) about evolution of the head of the Gran Atapuerca Skull, the Dolina research team, Arsuaga Ferreras, who said: In 1995, three Spanish paleontolo- We expected something big, something gists from the University of Madrid fo- large, something inflated—you know, sound a fossil in the Gran Dolina cave in mething primitive. Our expectation of an Spain’s Atapuerca region. It was a secti- 800,000-year-old boy was something like on of the facial bones of an 11 year-old Turkana Boy. And what we found was a child that is identical to human children totally modern face. . . To me this is most spectacular—these are the kinds of

Facial bones discovered in Spain showed that human beings with the same facial structure as ourselves were living 800,000 years ago.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 45

The reconstructed skull based on a fossil found in Atapuerca (left) bears an extraordinary resemblance to the skull of modern man (right).

things that shake you. Finding something of Homo sapiens had to be pushed totally unexpected like that. Not finding 800,000 years into the past. But accor- fossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, ding to the human family tree fabricated and it's okay. But the most spectacular by evolutionists, H. sapiens could not thing is finding something you thought have lived 800,000 years earlier. Deci- belonged to the present, in the past. It's ding that this fossil belonged to another like finding something like—like a tape species, they invented an imaginary spe- recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be cies called and assig- very surprising. We don't expect cassettes Homo antecessor and tape recorders in the Lower Pleisto- ned the Atapuerca skull to it. cene. Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago—it's the same thing. We were Australopithecus 47 very surprised when we saw it. This is the first genus of human be- This fossil indicated that the history ing in the imaginary evolutionist sche-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 46

Australopithecines bear a very close resemblance, in terms of skull and skeletal structure, to modern apes.

ma; the name means “southern ape.” show that they were no different from This creature is thought to have first ap- modern apes. peared in Africa 4 million years ago and Despite the fact that Australopithe- lived until one million years ago. All the cus had the anatomy of an ape, evolutio- species of Australopithecus [A. aferen- nists claim that unlike other apes, it wal- sis, A. africanus, A. boisei. A. robustus ked upright like a human. But the skele- (or Zinjanthropus)], comprise an extinct tal structure of Australopithecus has be- genus of apes that closely resembles en studied my many scientists who reject apes we see today. the validity of this claim. Two world-re- Their brain volume is the same or nowned anatomists, Lord Solly Zucker- slightly smaller than that of a modern man from England and Prof. Charles chimpanzee. Like modern apes, they had Oxnard of the U.S.A., did an extensive protrusions on their hands and feet to fa- study of Australopithecus remains and cilitate climbing trees, and their feet we- determined that this creature didn’t walk re shaped to allow them to grasp tree on two feet and moved in a way quite branches. They were short (130 centime- different from that of humans. ters, or 51 inches at the most), and like Lord Zuckerman, with the support of modern apes, males were much larger the British government and a team of fi- than the females. Many features of their ve experts, examined the bones of this skulls—the position of their eyes close creature for a period of 15 years. Even together, their sharp molar teeth, jaw though he was an evolutionist, he conc- structure—long arms, and short legs luded that Australopithecus was a speci-

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 47

es of ape and that certainly did not walk relation to human beings whatsoever. upright.48 Studies done by another noted evolutionist anatomist, Charles E. Oxnard, Autotrophy Nonsense, showed that the skeleton of Australopit- the hecus resembles that of a modern oran- Since all living organisms need food gutan.49 to survive, then the first living thing The fact that Australopithecus can- must have had to make its own food. Ac- not be considered an ancestor of man is cording to this view, the first living thing accepted even by evolutionist sources. capable of producing its own nourish- The well-known French magazine Sci- ment was an autotrophic one, and other ence et Vie made this the cover story of living things then emerged from this or- its May 1999 issue. The story dealt with ganism. Lucy, the best-known fossil specimen of However, it is impossible for autot- A. afarensis, under the title "Adieu Lucy rophs to emerge as in the hostile and (Goodbye, Lucy)” and detailed the need simple conditions in early days of this to remove Australopithecus from the hu- Earth. Autotrophs would have to under- man family tree. The article was based go millions of years of changes in order on the discovery of a new Australopithe- to acquire their first complex structure. cus, code number St W573: The autotrophic view maintains that A new theory states that the genus Austra- the first living thing formed as a comp- lopithecus is not the root of the human ra- lex organism in a simple environment. ce. . . . The results arrived at by the only Yet rather than account for the orga- woman authorized to examine St W573 nism’s appearance, it actually explains are different from the normal theories re- how this first living thing fed. Since the garding mankind's ancestors: this des- theory fails to account for how the first troys the hominid family tree. Large pri- autotroph came into being, it received mates, considered the ancestors of man, little support.51 have been removed from the equation of this family tree. . . . Australopithecus and Avian lungs Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors (See Origin of Avian lungs, the) are still waiting to be discovered.50 Australopithecus was nothing more than an extinct species of ape, with no

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar)

Bacteria flagellum se have been put in place with a perfect mechanical design. Scientists have de- Flagella, allowing bacteria to move termined that these proteins send signals in a fluid environment, attached to the that start and stop the flagellum, that the- membrane covering the bacteria’s cell ir articulations allow movement at the surface, and their whiplike movement atomic level or set in motion the proteins allows the bacteria to swim quickly from that attach the flagellum to the cell mem- place to place. brane. Models constructed to make it These flagella have long been known simpler to understand the motor’s func- about, but only in the last 10 years has tioning have not been sufficient to expla- their structure been observed carefully, in its complexity. to the surprise of the scientific world. The flagellum possesses a structure Contrary to what had been supposed, the that cannot be simply explained, and its undulation of the flagellum is not the re- complex structure of bacterium’s flagel- sult of a simple mechanism, but of a lum is enough to show the invalidity of very complex organic motor. the theory of evolution. If there were any The bacterium’s flagellum is mecha- deficiency in the number or quality of nically similar to electric motors. There any of the molecular particles in its ma- are two main movements: a moving ro- keup, the flagellum could not function tor and a non-moving stator. and would be useless to the bacterium. This organic motor is different from The flagellum must have functioned per- other systems that cause organic move- fectly from the moment it came into ment. The cell does not use the energy existence. stored in it in the form of ATP molecu- This proves once again that the evo- les; it uses energy from acids in its mem- lutionist claims of stage-by-stage deve- brane. The inner structure of the motor is lopment in untenable. And so far, no highly complex: About 240 different evolutionist biologist has tried to explain proteins make up the flagellum, and the- the origins of these flagella, which also

This is an electric motor. Yet it is not located in a household appliance or transport vehicle, but in a bacterium. Thanks to this engine, which bacteria have possessed for millions of years, they operate their organ known as the flagellum (bacterial whip) and thus can swim through the water. The bacterial whip motor was discovered in the 1970s and astonished the scientific world, because it is impossible to account for this irreducibly complex organ, consisting of 250 separate molecules, in terms of the random mechanisms proposed by Darwin. 50

Ribosome (protein synthesis)

Chromosome (inheritance) Cytoplasm Capsule (defense) Micro-hair (connection Mesosome point) (cell division)

Cell membrane (transportation)

Cell wall Evolutionists maintain that life arose from a primitive bacterium that appeared by chance. However, the subsequent realization of the complex Whip structure of bacteria defin- (movement) itively refuted this claim.

show the important fact that bacteria, arch vessel and claimed that this was an thought by evolutionists to be the “most inanimate substance that turned into li- primitive of life forms”, have an extraor- ving matter. This so-called life-assuming dinarily complex structure. matter is known as Bathybus haeckelii (Haeckel’s mud); and those who first proposed the theory of evolution imagi- Bathybus haeckelii ned life to be just such a simple matter. (Haeckel’s mud) However, 20th -century technology The complex structure of the cell was investigated life down to the very finest unknown in Charles Darwin’s day. For that reason, evolutionists of his time ima- Although bacteria are gined that chance and natural phenomena very small and single- celled organisms they represented a satisfactory answer to the have a highly complex question of how life first came to be. structure. Darwin suggested that the first cell could come into existence in a small, warm waterhole. The German biologist Ernst Haeckel, one of Darwin’s supporters, examined under the microscope the mud brought up from sea bed by a rese-

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 51

1.9 billion-year-old bacteria fossils discovered in Western Ontario in Canada. These fossils are identical to bacteria living today. detail, revealing that the cell was the ce of a Creator. He describes scientists most complex system yet discovered. who refuse to admit the presence of de- (See also The Miracle in the Cell sign—in other words, of creation—in http://www.harunyahya.com/books/sci- living things: ence/miracle_in_cell/mirac- Over the past four decades, modern bi- le_cell_01.php by Harun Yahya.) ochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. . . . It has required tens of thousands of people to dedicate the better Behe, Michael J. parts of their lives to the tedious work of The renowned biochemist Michael the laboratory. . . .The result of these cu- J. Behe of Lehigh University is one of mulative efforts to investigate the cell— to investigate life at the molecular le- the most important figures to advance the idea of irreducible complexity. In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box: The Prof. Michael J. Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Behe and his Behe investigated the living cell and book Darwin’s certain biochemical structures and sta- Black Box. ted that it was impossible to account for their complexity in terms of evolution. As a scientist free from the influence of the materialist perspective and who thinks clearly, Professor Behe has no qualms about accepting the existen-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 52

vel—is a loud, clear, piercing cry of “design!” The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. This triumph of science should evoke cries of “Eureka” from ten thousand throats. . . . Instead, a cu- rious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? 52 He goes on to define the dilemma: To acknowledge an intelligent design implies acknowledging God’s existence. In these words, Behe declares that the perfect design in living things reveals the existence of God.

Big Bang Theory, the Given the primitive level of 19th - century science, materialists of the time strongly defended the idea that the universe had been in existence forever—in other words, that it was not created; that there was no design, plan or purpose in the universe and that everything in it was the result of chance. Eventually, however, these claims collapsed in the face of scientific discoveries made in the 20th century. The fact of the expanding universe, revealed in 1929 by the American astro- nomer Edwin Hubble, gave birth to a new model of the universe. Since the universe was expanding, then the further back in time one went, the smaller the 53 universe must have been. And if one went Bang stems from the order that emerged back far enough, then the universe must in the wake of the explosion. When we have occupied a single point. Calculati- examine the universe, we see that every- ons showed that this single point, despite thing in it—such as its density; its rate of its containing all the matter in the univer- expansion; its gravitational pull, orbits, se, would have had zero volume because movements, speed and matter contained of its enormous gravitational pull. by the galaxies; and countless other such The universe came into being when details—is constructed with the finest this single point with zero volume explo- calculations and most delicate balances. ded. This explosion was given the nick- Similarly, the way that our Earth and the name of the Big Bang, and the theory ca- atmosphere that surrounds it have the me to be known by that same name. ideal structure for supporting life, is The Big Bang revealed one very im- another example of this extraordinary portant fact: Zero volume meant that the design. The slightest deviation in these universe had come into being out of not- calculations and balances would have an hing. This in turn meant that the univer- irrevocably destructive impact on the se had a beginning, thus repudiating the universe and the Earth. materialist hypothesis that the universe We know that rather than producing had existed forever. Information about order, explosions give rise to disorder, the structure of the universe obtained chaos and destruction. Since the Big since the 1920s has proved that the uni- Bang was an explosion, one would ex- verse came into being at a specific time pect it to have distributed matter ran- through the Big Bang. In other words, domly throughout space. But following the universe is not eternal, but was crea- it, no such random distribution occurred. ted from nothing by God. Matter accumulated at particular points But this fact was highly displeasing in the universe to form galaxies, stars, to many materialist scientists. For ins- constellations, the Sun, the Earth and la- tance the British materialist physicist, ter, all the plants, animals and human be- H.S. Lipson, “reluctantly” admits that ings on it. There is only one explanation creation is a scientific fact: for this: Only a conscious intervention I think, however, that we must ... admit that directing every moment of the event can the only acceptable explanation is creati- give rise to such order in the wake of an on. I know that this is anathema to physi- explosion on the order of the Big Bang. cists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not That is the flawless creation of God, reject a theory that we do not like if the ex- Who created the universe out of nothing 53 perimental evidence supports it. and keeps it under His control and domi- Another important aspect of the Big nion at every moment.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 54

Biogenesis View, the countered in any other living thing. So- me mammals may have a restricted abi- When Darwin wrote his book On the lity to move on two legs, such as bears Origin of Species, the scientific world and apes, and stand upright on rare occa- widely accepted the belief that bacteria sions for short periods of time, such as could form themselves out of inanimate when they wish to reach a food source or matter. (See also Abiogenesis View, scout for danger. But normally they pos- the.) But the fact is that five years after sess a stooped skeleton and walk on four the publication of Darwin’s book, the legs. French biologist Louis Pasteur demolis- However, bipedalism (walking on hed this belief that represented the cor- two legs) did not evolve from the four- 54 nerstone of evolution. Pasteur sum- legged gait of apes, as evolutionists wo- marized the conclusions he arrived at as uld have us believe. a result of lengthy research and observa- First off, bipedalism establishes no tion: “The claim that inanimate matter evolutionary advantage. An ape’s mode can originate life is buried in history for of walking is easier, faster and more effi- 55 good.” cient than a human’s. Human beings Pasteur’s opinion that “life can cannot move by leaping from branch to emerge only from life” is described as branch like apes, nor run at 125 kilome- biogenesis. ters/hour (77 miles/hour) like cheetahs. For a long time, adherents of the the- Since they walk on two legs, humans ac- ory of evolution held out against these tually move very slowly over the gro- findings of Pasteur’s. However, as scien- und, making them one of the most de- ce progressed and increasingly revealed fenseless creatures in nature. According the living cell’s complex structure, the to the logic of evolution, there is therefo- idea that life could form itself spontaneo- re no point in apes “evolving” to wal- usly faced an ever-worsening impasse. king on two legs. On the contrary, according to the survival of the fittest, human Bipedalism beings should have begun walking on four. In addition to the fossil record, the Another dilemma facing the evolu- insuperable anatomical gulfs between tionists is that bipedalism is wholly inhuman beings and apes also invalidate compatible with Darwin’s model of sta- the fairy tale of evolution. One of these ge-by-stage development. This model has to do with walking. suggested by evolution presupposes so- Human beings walk upright, on two me “compound” form of walking, both legs, using a special movement not en- on four and two legs. Yet in his 1996

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 55

The human skeleton was created to walk upright. With its stooped posture, short legs and long arms, however, the ape skeleton is suited to walking on four legs. It is impossible for any “intermediate form” between the two to arise, because such a transitional form would be totally inefficient. computer-assisted research, the British cation of his 1986 book The Blind paleoanthropologist Robin Crompton Watchmaker, in which he tells his rea- showed that such a compound walking ders that: “Biology is the study of style was impossible. (See Compound complicated things that give the appe- walking.) Crompton’s conclusion was arance of having been designed for a that “a living being can either walk up- purpose.”56 Despite this admission, right, or on all fours.” A walking style Dawkins maintains that life evolved between these two would be impossib- spontaneously through chance effects— le, as it would consume too much ener- a process he describes using the ana- gy. Therefore, it is impossible for any logy of the “blind watchmaker.” Accor- semi-bipedal life form to have existed. ding to Dawkins, the watchmaker is not (See, Origin of walking upright, the.) only blind, but also unconscious. It is therefore impossible for the blind watchmaker to see ahead, make plans or har- Blind Watchmaker bor any objective in the formation of li- Deception, the fe.57 Yet on the one hand, Dawkins Richard Dawkins became a great sets out the complex order in living proponent of Darwinism with the publi- things, while on the other he seeks to

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 56

Even Richard Dawkins, one of the greatest advocates of evolution, has had to admit the complex order in living things. This order points to an evident fact: that living things are created by God. Richard Dawkins’ book The Blind Watchmaker

account for this in terms of blind chance. find themselves—having to maintain the In a later section of the book he says: impossible and deny an evident fact— “If a marble statue of the Virgin Mary sometimes obliges them to propose such suddenly waved its hand at us we should strained logic. Desperately striving to treat it as a miracle,” because according deny the evidence of creation that they to Dawkins, “all our experience and so plainly observe, evolutionists reveal knowledge tells us that marble doesn't one important fact: The sole aim of all behave like that. . . . But if, by sheer co- their efforts made on behalf of the theory incidence, all the molecules just happe- of evolution is to deny the manifest exis- ned to move in the same direction at the tence of God. same moment, the hand would move. If As we have seen, such endeavors are they then all reversed direction at the sa- always in vain. All scientific evidence me moment the hand would move back. reveals the truth of creation, once again In this way it is possible for a marble proving that God has created living statue to wave at us.” 58 things. This difficulty in which evolutionists

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 57

Boudreaux, Edward things from simple species to complex ones, also known as the Scala naturae, A professor of chemistry at Univer- represented the starting point for the sity of New Orleans. Boudreaux regards evolutionary systems of both de Buffon the theory of evolution as an unscientific and Lamarck. The American historian of claim. On 5 July 1998, he participated in science D. R. Oldroyd describes this re- an international conference titled The lationship: Collapse of the Theory of Evolution: In his Histoire Naturelle, Buffon reveals The Fact of Creation held by the Science himself as an exponent of the doctrine of and Research Foundation. At that confe- the Great Chain of Being, with man be- rence, Boudreaux gave an address, De- ing placed at the top of the Chain. . . . La- sign in Chemistry, in which he referred marck held a version of the ancient doc- to the chemical elements essential in or- trine of the Great Chain of Being. Yet, it der for life to emerge having been set out was not conceived as a rigid, static struc- by way of creation. As he went on to say, ture. By their struggle to meet the requ- The world we live in, and its natural laws irements of the environment, and with the are very precisely set up by the Creator help of the principle of the inheritance of for the benefit of us, humans.59 acquired characteristics, organisms could supposedly work their way up the Chain—from microbe to man, so to speak. . . .Moreover, new creatures were Buffon, Comte de constantly appearing at the bottom of the The Comte de Buffon was a French Chain, arising from inorganic matter evolutionist and one of the best-known through spontaneous generation. . . As- scientists of the 18th century. He served cent of the Chain involved a continuous 60 as director of the Royal Zoological gar- process of complexification. dens in Paris for more than 50 years. To From that point of view, the concept a large extent Darwin based his we refer to as the theory of evolution theory on the works of de Buf- was actually born with the ancient Gre- fon. One can see most of the ek myth of the Great Chain. There teachings that Darwin emp- were many evolutionists before Dar- loyed in de Buffon’s wide- win, and the most of their original ranging 44-volume ideas and so-called proofs were alre- study Histoire Natu- ady to be found in the Great Chain relle. of Being. With de Buffon and “The Great Chain Lamarck the Great Chain of of Being,” Aristotle’s Being was presented to the scien- classification of living Comte de Buffon tific world in a new guise, whereu-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 58

Marrella: One of the interesting fossils discovered in the Burgess Shale beds

pon it came to influence Darwin. claim, different species actually emerged suddenly on Earth, with no forerunners Burgess Shale preceding them. The Burgess Shale region in the Ca- The February 1999 edition of the nadian province of British Columbia well-known scientific journal Trends in contains a fossil bed now regarded as Genetics expressed this difficulty con- one of the most important paleontologi- fronting Darwinism: cal discoveries of our time. The fossils It might seem odd that fossils from one in this region belong to very different small locality, no matter how exciting, species and appear suddenly, with no fo- should lie at the center of a fierce debate rerunners in earlier strata. about such broad issues in evolutionary As we know, the theory of evolution biology. The reason is that animals burst maintains that all living species evolved into the fossil record in astonishing pro- in stages from other species that lived fusion during the Cambrian, seemingly from nowhere. Increasingly precise radi- before them. The Burgess Shale fossils ometric dating and new fossil discoveries and similar paleontological discoveries, have only sharpened the suddenness and however, show that in contrast to this scope of this biological revolution. The magnitude of this change in Earth's biota demands an explanation. Although many hypotheses have been proposed, the general consensus is that none is wholly convincing. 61 In this context, the journal refers to two famous evolutionist authorities Stephen Jay Gould and Simon Con- way Morris. Both have written books

A fossil thorn discovered in Burgess Shale THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 59

A Cambrian Period fossil in order to account—according to evolu- Organisms either appeared on the earth tionary theory—for the sudden appearan- fully developed or they did not. If they did ce of species in the Burgess Shale. Go- not, they must have developed from pre- uld’s book is titled Wonderful Life, and existing species by some process of modifi- Morris’s, The Burgess Shale and the Rise cation. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been crea- of Animals. However, as stressed in ted by some omnipotent intelligence.62 Trends in Genetics, neither of these authorities is able in any way to account for Therefore, the fossil records show either the Burgess Shale fossils or other that living things did not follow a path fossils dating back to the Cambrian Peri- from the simple to the complex, as evo- od. lution maintains, but instead appeared The fact made clear by the fossil re- suddenly and perfectly formed. This, in cord is that living things appeared sud- turn, is evidence that life came about not denly on Earth and in perfect forms. through unconscious natural phenome- The picture revealed by the Cambri- na, but through a sublime creation. In an Period fossils refutes the assumptions “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” an of the theory of evolution, while also article published in Scientific American, providing significant evidence that li- the evolutionist paleontologist Jeffrey S. ving things were brought into being Levinton admits as much, albeit reluc- through a supernatural creation. The tantly: “Therefore, something special evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma and very mysterious—some highly “cre- describes this fact: ative force”—existed then [at the Cam-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar)

61 brian period].” 63 Sciences magazine, a popular evolutionist publication, provides the following Cambrian Explosion, the information about the Cambrian Explo- sion, which baffles evolutionists: Fossils found in Cambrian rock strata belong to such complex invertebrates . . . remarkably complex forms of animals as snails, trilobites, sponges, worms, sea that we see today suddenly appeared. anemones, starfishes, shellfish and jell- This moment, right at the start of the earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 mil- yfish. (See Trilobites.) The interesting lion years ago, marks the evolutionary thing is that all these very different spe- explosion that filled the seas with the cies appear suddenly, with no forerun- earth's first complex creatures. . . .The ners. In the geological literature, this mi- large animal phyla of today were present raculous event is therefore known as the already in the early Cambrian and they Cambrian Explosion. were as distinct from each other as they Most of the organisms found in this are today. 64 stratum possess advanced physiological The question of how the world came structures and complex systems, such as to be suddenly filled with very different the eye, gills, and circulation system. invertebrate species and how so many These complex invertebrates appeared different species with no forerunners ca- suddenly, fully formed, and with no me into being is one that evolutionists links or transitional forms to the single- are unable to answer. celled organisms that had previously be- The British biologist Richard Daw- en the only living things on Earth. kins, one of the world’s leading propo- Richard Monastersky, editor of Earth nents of the idea of evolution, has this to

The way that many highly complex invertebrates such as the starfish and jellyfish appeared suddenly in the Cambrian Period, some 500 million years ago, invalidates Darwinist theory right from the outset.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 62

say on the subject—which fun- nary ancestors behind damentally invalidates the them. The evolutionist theses he maintains: biologist Douglas Fu-

For example, the Cam- tuyma also admits brian strata of rocks. . . this fact: are the oldest ones in Organisms either ap- which we find most of the peared on the earth major invertebrate groups. And fully developed, or they we find many of them already did not. If they did not, they A fossil discovered in in an advanced state of evo- must have developed from Cambrian rock beds lution, the very first time they preexisting species by some appear. It is as though they process of modification. If were just planted there, without any evo- they did appear in a fully developed sta- lutionary history. Needles to say, this ap- te, they must indeed have been created by pearance of sudden planting has deligh- some omnipotent intelligence. 66 ted creationists. 65 As Dawkins admits, the Cambrian Indeed, Darwin had Explosion is clear evidence of creation, written that since that is the only explanation of how living things appeared with no evolutio- If numerous species, belonging to the sa-

4.5 billion years ago

2 billion years ago

1 billion years ago

530 million years ago

THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION 63

me genera or families, have really star- come into being through evolution, but ted into life all at once, the fact would be were all separately created. fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selecti- Cambrian Period, the on.67 The Cambrian Period is a geological The Cambrian Period confirms the age that began some 520 million years picture described by Darwin as a fatal. ago and is estimated to have lasted 10 That is why the Swedish evolutionist million years. Apart from single-celled Stefan Bengtson admits the absence of organisms and a few simple multi-celled intermediate forms in discussing the organisms, no traces of living things Cambrian Period and says, “Baffling from before that period are to be found (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this in the fossil record. But in the excee- event still dazzles us.” 68 dingly short Cambrian Period (10 milli- As we have seen, the fossil record on years being a very brief space of time shows that living things emerged sud- in geological terms), all the animal phyla denly and perfectly formed, and did emerged simultaneously, with not a sing- not—as the theory of evolution mainta- le deficiency among them. In the geolo- ins—follow a process from the primitive gic periods that followed. Basic classifi- to the developed. Living things did not cations such as fish, insects, amphibians, 64

Living things from the Cambrian Period

reptiles and birds, and subgroups there- hypothetical intermediate variants—ins- of, also appeared suddenly, and with no tead, species appear and disappear ab- forerunners preceding them. ruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the This totally demolished the theory of creationist argument that each species 69 evolution’s fundamental claim, that of was created by God. gradual development over a long period of time by way of chance. Moreover, this also represents major evidence for Carbon-14 testing the fact of creation. Carbon-14 is one form of radiomet- Mark Czarnecki, and evolutionist and ric test, but one very important feature paleontologist, in effect admits as much: distinguishes it from the others. Other A major problem in proving the theory radiometric tests can be used only in de- has been the fossil record. . . This record termining the ages of volcanic rocks. has never revealed traces of Darwin's Carbon-14 dating, however, can be used

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 65 to determine the ages of once-living The half-life of carbon-14 is around things. That is because Carbon-14 is the 5,570 years. In other words, the amount only radioactive substance found in the of carbon-14 in the dead tissue declines bodies of living organisms. by half once every 5.570 years. For The Earth is constantly being bom- example, if there were 10 grams of car- barded by cosmic rays from outer space. bon-14 in a living thing’s body 5.570 These rays strike nitrogen-14, found in years ago, then there will now be only 5 high levels in the atmosphere, and trans- grams. This test, like other radiometric form this into carbon-14, a radioactive tests, cannot be used to determine the substance. Radioactive carbon-14, a age of specimens which are thought to newly produced element, combines with be very old, since carbon-14 has only a oxygen in the atmosphere, forming short half-life. Carbon-14 dating is re- another radioactive compound, C-14 garded as giving accurate results for

O2. As we know, plants use CO2 (car- specimens between 10,000 and 60,000 bon dioxide), H2O (water) and solar years old. rays in order to produce their nutrients. Carbon-14 testing is one of the da- Some of these carbon dioxide molecules ting tests most frequently employed. the plant absorbs into its body are mole- Evolutionists use this method in order to cules formed from radioactive carbon- determine age when examining the fos- 14. The plant accumulates this radioac- sil record. However, as with other radi- tive substance in its tissues. ometric tests, there are serious doubts Some animals feed on plants; other concerning the reliability of carbon-14 living things feed on the creatures that dating. The most important of these is feed on plants. Via this food chain, the the high likelihood of gas exchange bet- radioactive carbon that plants have ab- ween the specimen to be dated and the sorbed from the air is transferred to ot- outside environment. This exchange her living things. In this way, every li- mostly comes about by means of waters ving thing on Earth absorbs an equal le- containing carbonate or bicarbonate. If vel of carbon-14 into its body. these natural waters—which contain When that plant or an animal dies, it carbon-14—come into contact with the is of course no longer able to feed and specimen, then some of the carbon-14 absorb any more carbon-14. Since car- atoms they contain will pass into the bon-14 is a radioactive substance, it has specimen. In that event, the specimen a half-life, and gradually begins losing will test younger than it really is. electron. Thus the age of a once-living The exact opposite of this situation thing can be calculated by measuring the may also arise. Under certain conditi- amount of carbon-14 left in its tissues. ons, the amount of carbon-14 in the spe-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 66

Sunlight

Chlorophyll

6C02 Carbon dioxide C6H12O6 Glucose

6O2 6H2O Oxygen Water

Plants use CO2 (carbon dioxide), H2O (water), and sunlight to produce food. Part of these carbon dioxide molecules absorbed into the body of the plant are molecules consisting of radioactive Carbon-14. The plant collects this radioactive substance in its tissues and, by way of the food chain, the radioactive carbon that plants absorb from the air is transferred to other living things.

cimen to be dated can be released into as 5.340, 9.310 and 10.320 years old.72 the external environment in the form of A piece of tree bark was dated as carbonate and/or bicarbonate. In that 1.168 and 2.200 years old.73 Carbon-14 event, the specimen will appear to be ol- dating gave an age of 6.000 years for the der than it actually is. city of Jarmo in northern Iraq, where pe- Indeed, various concrete findings ha- ople have been living for 500 years.74 ve revealed that carbon-14 dating is not For all these reasons, carbon-14 da- all that reliable. Carbon-14 dating tests ting, like other radiometric tests, cannot on specimens whose age is known for be regarded as wholly reliable. certain have often given false results. For instance, the skin of a newly dead seal was depicted as being 1.300 years old.70 Carbon-based life A living shell was dated as 2.300 years The theory of evolution, maintaining old.71 A deer antler was variously dated that all living things evolved by chance

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 67 from a common ancestor, makes frequ- verse based on other elements. ent use of the concept of adaptation. Carbon is the sixth element in the pe- Evolutionists claim that by adapting to riodic table. Its atoms are the basis of li- their environments, living things deve- fe on Earth because all basic organic lop into entirely new species. In fact, the molecules (such as amino acids, proteins concept of evolution through adaptation and nucleic acids) form as the result of is a hangover from the primitive scienti- carbon atoms combining with certain ot- fic understanding of Lamarck’s day and her atoms in particular ways. Carbon has long since been refuted by scientific forms the various types of protein in our findings. (See Adaptation) bodies by combining with hydrogen, However, despite having no scienti- oxygen, nitrogen and other elements. No fic basis, the idea of adaptation still inf- other element can replace carbon, becau- luences most people. When told that the se no other element has the ability to ma- Earth is a special planet for life, they im- ke so many unlimited types of chemical mediately assume that since life emer- bonds. ged under the conditions on such a pla- Therefore, if there is to be life on any net, so other forms of life could develop other planet in the universe, it will inevi- on other planets. Science-fiction writers tably have to be carbon-based life. 75 imagine, for example, that while human In addition, carbon-based life has a beings live on Earth, there could be li- number of immutable laws. For examp- ving things on the planet Pluto that pers- le, carbon-based organic compounds pire at -238°C degrees, that breathe heli- (proteins) can only exist in a specific um instead of oxygen, or that drink sulp- temperature range. Above 120 degrees huric acid instead of water. Celsius, they begin to break down, and Yet such imaginative ideas are actu- at temperatures below -20 degrees they ally based on ignorance. Evolutionists begin to freeze. Other factors such as with knowledge of biology and bioche- light, gravity, atmospheric make-up and mistry do not actually support such fan- magnetic forces must all fall within nar- tasies, since they are well aware that life row and specific ranges in order to per- can exist only with specific elements and mit carbon-based life. when specific conditions are established. The Earth possesses just those nar- The adaptation error in question is row and specific ranges. If any one of also the result of such ignorance. The these is exceeded—if the Earth’s surface only model of life with any scientific va- temperature exceeds 120 degrees, for lidity is that of carbon-based life, and example—then life on this planet will be scientists have concluded that there can- impossible. not be any other physical life in the uni- Life can exist only when very special

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 68

and specific conditions are met. To put it own perfect systems. another way, living things can only exist Evolutionists sought to avoid this di- in an environment specially created for lemma by giving it a name suggestive of them. The Earth is an environment speci- evolution, describing it as the “evolutio- ally created by our Lord, and all its deta- nary explosion.” But of course, that des- ils reveal God’s mercy on us. cription only shows that evolutionists have no explanation to offer on this subject. Plants were performing photosynthe- Carboniferous-Era Plant sis millions of years ago, just as they do Fossils today. Even then, they possessed hydrau- (Between 360 and 286 Milli- lic systems powerful enough to crack on Years Old) stone, pumps capable of raising water absorbed from the soil to many meters in The most important characteristic of height, and chemical factories producing the Carboniferous Period is the enormo- foodstuffs for living things. This shows us variety of plant fossils belonging to it. that plants were created millions of years There is no difference between fossils ago. Their creator, God, Lord of the belonging to this period and plant speci- Worlds, continues to create them today. es alive today. This variety, which appe- It is impossible for human beings see- ars suddenly in the fossil record, repre- king to understand the miracles of creati- sents a major dilemma for evolutionists, on in plants, even using the most advan- because each of these plant species ap- ced means provided by present-day tech- peared suddenly on Earth, each with its nology, to create a single plant from not-

A 300-million-year-old horse shoe plant fossil from the Carboniferous Period possesses an identical structure to present-day specimens. 69 hing—or even a single leaf. materials brought in from the outside, and cell-membrane proteins that regulate the entry and departure of various mate- Cell rials from the cell. And this is only a part The complex structure of the cell of the cell’s complex structure. was unknown in Darwin’s time. For that The evolutionist scientist W. H. reason, evolutionists of the day believed Thorpe writes, “The most elementary that it was perfectly reasonable to ans- type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' wer the question of “How did life emer- unimaginably more complex than any ge?” by saying “Through coincidences machine yet thought up, let alone cons- and natural events.” Darwin suggested tructed, by man.” 76 that the first cell would have had no tro- So complex is the cell that even to- uble forming in a day’s advanced technology cannot dupli- small, warm cate one. All the research drop of water. aimed at making an ar- (See The Abi- tificial cell has en- ogenesis View, ded in failure. The the) But the fact theory of evoluti- is that 20th -cen- on, on the other tury technology, which hand, maintains made visible even to that this sys- the tiniest microscopic tem—which man details, revealed that has been unable to the cell was actually replicate with all the most complex the knowledge structure yet encoun- and technology tered. Today we at his dispo- know that the cell sal—once for- contains energy-producing plants, facto- med by chance ries that produce the enzymes and hor- on the primeval Earth. This is far less li- mones essential to life, a data bank con- kely, for instance, than even an explosi- taining all the information about the pro- on in a publishing house resulting in the ducts to be manufactured, a complex coincidental printing of an encyclopedia. transportation system that carries raw The British mathematician and astro- materials and products from one region nomer Sir Fred Hoyle offered a similar to another, pipelines, advanced laborato- analogy in the 12 November 1981 editi- ries and refineries that break down raw on of Nature magazine. Despite being a

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) Nucleus membrane

Nucleus Nucleoli Nuclear membrane Nuclear plasma

Microtubules Centriole pair

Vacuole

Lysosome

Golgi body Mitochondria Granulated endoplasmic Endoplasmic reticulum reticulum 71 materialist, Hoyle stated that there was cure point in the whole study of the evo- no difference between a living cell co- lution of organisms. 78 ming into being by chance and a Boeing The cell is the building block of any 747 jet spontaneously assembling itself living organism. Therefore, it is impos- when a whirlwind hit a scrap yard.77 In sible for a theory—which cannot even short, it is not possible for a cell to form explain the emergence of the proteins spontaneously, as the result of coinci- and amino acids that comprise the cell— dence. to account for the appearance of living One of the main reasons why the the- things on Earth. On the contrary, the cell ory of evolution cannot explain how the constitutes one of the clearest pieces of cell came into being is the irreducible evidence that all organisms, including complexity it possesses. (See Irreducib- human beings, are created. le Complexity.) A cell thrives through Yet evolutionists still manage that li- the its large number of organelles all ving things emerged by chance in the working together in harmony. It cannot most uncontrolled environment possib- survive in the absence of any one of the- le—that existed on the primeval Earth. se. The cell cannot wait for such uncons- This claim can never agree with the sci- cious mechanisms as mutation and natu- entific facts. In addition, even the simp- ral selection to develop it. Therefore, the lest mathematical calculations have pro- first cell to appear on Earth must have ven that chance cannot give rise to even been fully formed, together with all the one of the millions of proteins in cells, organelles and biochemical functions es- let alone to a cell in its entirety. This sential for its survival. shows that the theory of evolution, far In the human body, there are more from being rational and logical, is a col- than 100 trillion cells, some of them so lection of scenarios based on imaginati- small that a million of them would cover on, fantasy and implication. only the tip of a needle. However, biolo- Despite holding evolutionist views, gists unanimously agree that, despite its the zoologist David E. Green and the bi- minute size, the cell is the most complex ochemist Prof. Robert F. Goldberger ha- structure that science has yet confronted. ve this to say in a paper in a scientific jo- The cell, continuing to harbor a great urnal: many unresolved mysteries, represents The popular conception of primitive cells one of the major dilemmas facing the as the starting point for the origin of the theory of evolution. The well-known species is really erroneous. There was Russian evolutionist A. I. Oparin says: nothing functionally primitive about such Unfortunately, however, the problem of cells. They contained basically the same the origin of cell is perhaps the most obs- biochemical equipment as do their mo-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 72

In Darwin’s day, no one knew that the cell has an exceedingly complex structure and system. As technology progressed, however, it became clear that these complex structures could not possibly have formed by chance, placing evolutionists in an impossible position.

dern counterparts. How, then, did the into existence through the division and precursor cell arise? The only unequ- multiplication of a single embryonic ivocal rejoinder to this question is that cell. And all the information regarding 79 we do not know. the present structure of our bodies— The perfect harmony and coopera- their shape, design and all their featu- tion between cells is just as astonis- res—is present in the chromosomes in hing as the existence of a single cell. the nucleus of that first cell, from the All the cells in a human being come very beginning.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 73

The continuity of any human’s life regarding the synthesis of the amino depends on the harmonious functio- acids that gave rise to life in the sup- ning of the components of the cells posedly primitive atmospheric conditi- and of those cells with one another. ons are as chemical evolution. (See Even while the cell works together Primordial soup fantasy, the) Before with other cells in great order, it also they move on to scenarios about the maintains its own life in a state of and evolution of living things, evolutio- a delicate equilibrium. The cell identi- nists must first account for the forma- fies and produces a great many subs- tion of DNA nucleotides and amino tances, including the energy necessary acids, the building blocks of life. Ac- for its survival and to maintain that or- cording to their claims, which are ba- der and equilibrium. Those of its ne- sed on no evidence whatsoever, simple eds it cannot meet by itself, it selects compounds containing carbon, oxy- very carefully from the outside—so gen, nitrogen and phosphorus were selectively that none of the random dissolved in water and then exposed to substances in the external environ- a constant bombardment of ultraviolet ment can enter by chance without the rays and lightning, thus giving rise to cell’s permission to do so. There are different compounds. These small mo- no aimless, unnecessary molecules in lecules, supposedly produced by chan- the cell. Their controlled exit from the ce, subsequently bonded chemically, cell also takes place as the result of thus increasingly enriching their strict monitoring. complex combinations. Eventually, it In addition, the cell possesses a de- is suggested that the water turned into fense system to protect it from all ex- a thick soup containing new forms of ternal threats and attack. Despite all molecules in copious amounts. If one the structures and systems it contains waits long enough, it was said, even and the countless activities that take the most unlikely reactions will take place in it, an average cell is not the si- place.80 ze of a small city, but just 1/100 milli- Yet none of these hypotheses are meters in diameter. Each of the cell’s supported by any scientific findings. functions listed above is a miracle in Indeed, evolutionists themselves ad- its own right. (See DNA.) mitted that their account is actually a hypothesis which can never be proven. To suggest that these claims, which Chemical Evolution cannot be verified or duplicated even Deception, the under present-day conditions, , actu- Evolutionists refer to all the claims ally came about spontaneously as the

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 74

work of chance, is therefore incompatib- racteristics. The information in this le with logic and reason. (See Primordi- “encyclopedia” is equivalent to that fo- al soup fantasy, the.) und in a 32-volume edition of the Ency- clopedia Britannica. The chromosomes containing the Chromosomes DNA molecule actually consist of much The DNA molecule in the cell nucle- smaller special packaging systems. This us is wrapped up in special coverings DNA molecule is first tightly surrounded known as chromosomes (See, DNA). by special proteins known as histones, The total length of the DNA molecule just like cotton wound round a spool. packaged in the chromosomes in a single Those parts of the DNA attached to the cell reaches 1 meter (3.3 feet). The total histone spools are known as the nucle- thickness of the chromosome is 1 nano- osomes, which have been designed to meter, or 1 billionth of a meter. The one- protect the DNA from any harm. When meter-long (3 feet, 3 inches long) DNA nucleosomes are combined end to end, molecule is twisted and folded into this they constitute chromatins, which cling tiny volume. tightly to one another and fold over, for- Inside the nucleus of every human ming dense coils. Thus it is that the cell (except for reproduction, or germ DNA molecule is able to be squeezed so cells) there are 46 chromosomes. If we perfectly into an area just 1 millionth of compare every chromosomes to a book its actual length. made up of pages of genes, then we can compare the cell to a six-volume ency- Coacervates clopedia containing all a person’s cha- Alexander I. Oparin, a leading pro-

DNA molecules, roughly 1 meter long, are squeezed into chromosomes just 1 billionth of a meter thick.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 75 ponent of evolution, describes coacerva- However, some circles who have tur- tes as blobs of organic matter (mostly ned evolution into an ideological slogan containing sugars and short polypepti- continue to portray coacervates as major des), supposedly the precursors of mo- evidence for evolution in their publicati- dern cells.81 At one time evolutionists ons, without admitting the slightest sci- maintained that coacervates were the fo- entific doubt on the matter. As always, rerunners of the cell, and that proteins their aim is to portray the theory of evo- emerged as a result of the evolution of lution as backed by extensive scientific coacervates. However, this claim, devo- evidence and to deceive those who lack id of any scientific evidence—was later detailed information about the subject abandoned as invalid by even the evolu- about and the means to investigate it. tionists themselves. Even the simplest looking organism has energy producing and transforming Coelacanth mechanisms for its own survival, as well The Coelacanth is a species of fish as complex genetic mechanisms to ensu- that used to be put forward as evidence re the survival of the species concerned. for vertebrates’ “transition from water to Coacervates, however, are simple collec- land” thesis. Fossil Coelacanths were tions of molecules lacking any such sys- once regarded as evidence of an interme- tems and mechanisms. Their structures diate form between fish and amphibians. are prone to be broken down by even the Based on fossil remains of the creature, slightest natural effects. It is totally uns- evolutionist biologists suggested it con- cientific to claim that they gradually and tained a primitive (and not yet fully spontaneously came to life by develo- functional) lung in its body. ping such complex systems. This organ was described in a great One evolutionist reference describes many scientific sources. Drawings were how coacervates cannot represent the even published showing the Coelacanth basis of life: moving from the sea onto dry land. On 22 December 1938, however, a Droplets with metabolism such as coacer- most significant discovery was made in vate cannot of course be regarded as li- the Indian Ocean. A living member of ving. Because they lack two fundamental the species , a member of the characteristics as inheritance and mutati- Latimeria on. In addition, the primitive cell, in other Coelacanth species that had been portra- words the protobiont, cannot be regarded yed as having become extinct 70 million as a pre-formative stage. Because the years ago, was caught in the open sea! substances used in these droplets are for- The discovery of a living Coelacanth de- med from present-day organisms.82 finitely came as a major shock to evolu-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 76

tionists. The evolutionist paleontologist J. L. B. Smith said that he could not have been more astonished if he had met a dinosaur in the street.83 In the years that followed, more than 200 Coela- canths have been caught in various regions of the sea. When the first few of these fish were examined, it was realized that the After examining Coelacanth fossils, evolutionists used to say that it was an intermediate speculation concerning them had been form in the transition of vertebrates from sea to groundless. Contrary to what had been dry land. However, the capture of living claimed, the Coelacanth had no primiti- Coelacanth specimens, beginning in 1938, ve lung or a large brain. The structure showed just how far evolutionist speculation could be carried. that evolutionist researchers had thought to be the fish’s a primitive lung was ac- in Nature magazine: tually nothing more than an oil sac in its body.84 Moreover, it was also realized The discovery of [living specimen of] Lati- meria raised hopes of gathering direct in- that the Coelacanth, which had been de- formation on the transition of fish to amp- picted as a amphibian-to-be preparing to hibians, for there was then a long-held be- emerge from the water, actually lived in lief that coelacanths were close to the an- deep ocean waters and hardly ever rose cestry of tetrapods. . . .But studies of the 85 to above 180 meters (590 feet). anatomy and physiology of Latimeria have At this news, the popularity of the found this theory of relationship to be wan- Coelacanth among evolutionist publica- ting and the living coelacanth's reputation tions suddenly waned. An evolutionist as a missing link seems unjustified.86 paleontologist by the name of Peter L. As his admission shows, no interme- Forey made this admission in an article

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 77

diate form between fish and amphibians Cloning ever existed. The Coelacanth, the only With advances in the science of ge- serious intermediate form proposed by netics, the possibility of genetically dup- evolutionists, is nothing more than a li- licating living things—and therefore hu- ving species of fish with nothing what- man beings came to the agenda as well. soever to do with evolution. Such a copying process is feasible, tho-

Blackhead A pregnant Sheep white sheep Super Ovulation The issue of cloning A mammary gland recently became an impor- biopsy tant item on the scientific Surgery; Serum administered to the fallopian tubes agenda. Although cloning Egg cell meioses collected in the 2nd phase is a process that occurs Pellucid Preparation Growing mammary gland Polar corpuscle (n chromosome) membrane according to known laws, for mitosis cells Yumurta Hücresi Kromozomlar› (n evolutionists sought to Plasma Mitosis, cell Kromozom) membrane division use it to support their own theories, in the same way Cell Cell cycle halted after five days’ growth in a Egg cells growth restricted environment receive they do with every new sci- 2n chromosome energy entific development. A

Quiescent number of media organiza- cells tions that give evolution Mammary gland cells at rest Egg cells’ their ideological support electrical activity raised the subject to the headlines with pro-evolution slogans. The subject Two cells “Embryo” Phase 1 cell Electrical make contact. of cloning was portrayed current 2n as if it were proof of evolution. Yet it was actually obvious that it had noth- Joining ing to do with evolution at together all. The scientific world did Six-day not take these ridiculous embryo evolutionist endeavors seriously at all.

“Dolly” Relocation inside black- To the side: A scientific headed sheep oviduct Relocation inside the uterus of a black- publication describing how Pregnancy: at five months headed sheep cloning is carried out. As an American biologist stated, “We can now do away with human beings.” This cloning technique, if its validity is confirmed, basically permits the production of a female without A pregnant white sheep male involvement, as in some species that are more complex than ourselves. It needs to be made clear that in this situation, only females can be produced. However, Scottish researchers have no doubt about the possibility of males being produced from an adult male cell.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 78

periment, the; and also Miller Experi- ment, the.)

Cold Trap, the When analyzed realistically, the Mil- ler experiment—first performed to prove that life could have emerged by chance in the primitive atmosphere—can be seen to be riddled with various inconsis- Cloning consists of the duplication of genetic information that already exists. No tencies. new mechanisms or new genetic informa- One factor that invalidates the Miller tion are added during the process. experiment is the mechanism known as the cold trap, a mechanism that isolates ugh evolutionist scientists in particular amino acids the moment they form. Ot- refer to this process as “creating living herwise, the conditions giving rise to things.” This most striking logic is far amino acids would immediately destroy removed from the true facts, because these same molecules. Yet it is absurd “creation” means making something even to consider the possibility that any from nothing—and that verb belongs such protective arrangement came about exclusively to God. under in primeval conditions that inclu- If genetic science can produce an ded ultraviolet rays, lightning, various identical copy of a living chemicals and high levels of thing, that does not imply the oxygen. In the absence of creation of an organism from any mechanism like a cold nothing. Because in copying trap, any amino acids that a human being or any other were obtained would be im- organism, a living thing’s mediately broken down aga- cells are extracted, and then in. induced to replicate The chemist Ric- themselves. Not one In the absence of a cold trap mech- hard Bliss describes single cell can ever be anism, even if some kind of amino this contradiction: brought into existence acid were obtained, these mole- "Cold trap", being the from nothing. This im- cules would immediately be broken down by conditions in the same crucial part of Miller’s portant distinction environment that created them. tools, has the duty to shows that creation be- collect the products as longs to God alone. (See DNA; Fox Ex- they were formed out of chemical reacti-

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 79

ons. Actually, without this cold trap, the the result—according to evolutionists— chemical products would be destroyed by that they all evolved from a common fo- the energy source (electrical spar- rerunner, namely the first fish assumed 87 king). to have survived on land. In Miller’s previous experiments, in The theory of evolution has domina- fact, he had used the same materials, but ted the world of science since the late had failed to obtain even a single amino 19th century, and its interpretation of si- acid without setting up a cold trap mec- milarities has also been widely accepted. hanism. Every similarity in living things is inter- Miller’s aim was to obtain amino preted as evidence of some “ancestral” acids, and the methods and equipment evolutionary relationship between them. he employed were specially arranged in Yet findings obtained over the last 20 order to achieve that objective. Above to 30 years show that this is not at all the all, however, even if we postulate the case. To summarize: existence of intelligence capable of en- 1) Homologous (similar) organs are suring such a method, order and arrange- found in living things belonging to to- ment in the primitive atmosphere, this tally different classes, among which evo- conflicts with the theory of evolution’s lutionists can construct no evolutionary own logic. link. 2) The genetic codes of these animals’ similar organs are entirely diffe- Comedy of Life from rent. Space, the 3) The stages of embryological deve- See Inconsequence of Panspermia lopment of these organs are very diffe- hypothesis. rent. These facts alone show that homology constitutes no evidence for evoluti- “Common Ancestor” on. Fallacy, the Indeed, it has been realized that living things with similar organs are so far This interpretation was put forward apart from one another genetically that by Darwin and repeated by all the evolu- no evolutionary links can be found bet- tionists who followed him. According to ween them. this claim, living things have similar or- In order for Darwin’s “common an- gans because they evolved from one cestor” explanation to be true, these si- common ancestor. For example, the fact milarities in living things would have to that all vertebrate land dwellers have fi- be genetically very close to one another. ve digits at the end of their four limbs is

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 80

Conversely, if such similarities are gene- which is why they resemble one another. tically far apart, then the possibility of Today’s scientific findings demons- any common ancestor is not tenable. On trate that the claim of common ancestry the contrary, it can be seen that the fact regarding similar organs is invalid, and of creation is the true explanation. (See that the only possible explanation is Common creation, below.) No evolu- common creation. tionary relationship can be claimed between living things that are genetically so very different from one another. (See Communism and Homology.) evolution Communism, elevated to its highest point in the 19th century by the two Ger- Common creation man philosophers Karl Marx and Fried- Similar organs or similar molecular rich Engels, led to such bloodshed as to structures in living things provide no sup- dwarf even the state massacres of the Na- port for the theory that they are evolved zis and Imperialist nations. (See Marx, from any common forerunner. (See Ho- Karl.) Even though communism is gene- mologous organs.) On the contrary, these rally agreed to have collapsed in 1991, similarities refute the possibility of con- this dark ideology still continues to influ- jecturing any hierarchical evolutionary fa- ence people, and its materialist philo- mily trees among living things. If one sophy turns them away from religion. comparison of proteins suggests that hu- This ideology caused a wave of glo- man beings are similar to chickens; and bal terror in the 20th century, but actu- another comparison, similar to the nema- ally represents a stream of thought that’s tode worms; in, and a third analysis to been around since ancient times. Mate- crocodiles, then it cannot be proposed that rialism was a philosophy that regarded these living things evolved from one anot- matter as all that exists. Communism her—or from any other common ancestor. was base in turn constructed upon that Scientists such as Carolus Linnaeus philosophy, and first made its appearan- or Richard Owen, who both first raised ce in the 19th century. the subject of similar organs in living Marx and Engels, communism’s in- things, regarded such organs as examples tellectual founders, sought to describe of common creation. (See Linnaeus, Ca- materialist philosophy in terms of a met- rolus) In other words, similar organs did hod known as Dialectics (which see) not evolve by chance from any shared fo- Marx maintained that the entire history rerunner. Quite the contrary; they were of humanity was one of conflict, that on- created to perform similar functions, going struggle of his time was between

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I The aim of communism is to take the theory of evolution that Darwin applied in the field of biology and apply it to human societies as well—and for human beings to be in a state of war and conflict as wild animals supposedly do in nature.

workers and capitalists, and that soon survival”, in other words, through dia- the workers would rise up and organize lectical conflict. In addition, he rejected out a communist revolution. Both dyed- religious beliefs by denying creation. In in-the-wool atheists, Marx and Engels those terms, Darwinism provided an in- regarded the elimination of religion as tellectual support for the assertions of essential for communism to succeed. communism. However, the actions and struggle to be Hostility towards religion formed the waged had to be placed on a legitimate basis of the alliance between Darwinism philosophical footing. and communism. The most important The theory of evolution, proposed by reason for the communists’ devotion to Darwin in his book the Origin of Speci- Darwinism was the support it gave to at- es, became the scientific guise their heism. In his book Soviet Marxism and ideology had been waiting for. Darwin Natural History, David Jorafsky descri- claimed that living things emerged and bes this relationship: developed as the result of a “struggle for In spite of its scientific deficiencies, evo-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 82

lution's alleged scientific character has tebrate Paleontology Institute in China, been used to justify all kinds of ungodly discovered a new fossil bird they named systems and practices. The most success- Confuciusornis. This winged vertebra- ful of these, thus far, seems to be commu- te—the same age as Archaeopteryx, ap- nism, and its adherents all over the world proximately 140 million years old and have been deluded into thinking that com- long considered to be the earliest ances- munism must be true because it is based tor of all birds and regarded as semi-rep- on the science of evolution. 88 tilian. Yet Confuciusornis bore a very Communism’s objective was to apply close similarity to birds living today. It the theory of evolution, which Darwin had no teeth, and its beak and feathers had applied to biology, to human societi- have exactly the same characteristics as es, advocating that for human beings, li- those of birds alive today. This bird’s ke wild animals, are in an inevitable state skeletal structure is identical to that of of conflict and war. today’s birds, but as with Archaeopteryx, its wings had claws. Also apparent was a structure known Confuciusornis as the pygostyle, which supports the tail In 1995, Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe feathers. Naturally, its presence undermi- Zhou, two paleontologists from the Ver- ned the evolutionist thesis that Archa- eopteryx was the primitive ancestor of all birds.89 Confuciusornis, so similar to modern-day birds, has conclusively disqu- alified Archaeopteryx, which evolutionists for decades pointed to as the prime evidence for their scenario of evolution.

Conjugation This is one means by which organisms such as bacteria transmit genes between themselves. In conjugation, two bacteria from the same species come alongside one another and form a temporary cytoplasmic bridge, over which a Confuciusornis, which lived at around the mutual exchange of DNA takes place.90 same time as Archaeopteryx, bears a close resemblance to modern birds. Genetic variety in bacteria is increa-

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 83 sed by means of conjugation. However, urse, is proof of creation. since no separate bacterial cell emerges One such calculation was performed as a result, this mechanism cannot be re- by Robert Shapiro, a professor of che- garded as sexual reproduction.91 (Bac- mistry and DNA expert from the Univer- terial reproduction by way of mutual sity of New York. An evolutionist, Sha- contact is known as sexual reproduction piro calculated the probability of the with conjugation.) 2.000 varieties of protein in a simple Evolutionists, however, do regard bacterium having emerged by chance. these newly emerging genetic variations (There are some 200.000 varieties of as a universal feature of sexual repro- protein in the human body.) The result duction. Since the initial bacteria have he obtained was 1 in 1040.000. 92 This different characteristics from those that figure, 1 followed by 40.000 zeroes, has emerge subsequently, evolutionists take no equivalent in the entire universe. this as evidence for evolution. In fact, The fact revealed by this figure is what is happening here is actually vari- that materialism, and Darwinism, its co- ation. The genes from the two bacteria unterpart in the natural sciences—both do give rise to further variety, but no of which seek to account for life in terms new genes or genetic data are added to of chance, are equally invalid. Chandra the genetic pool. As a result, the bacteria Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied remain the same species of bacteria, and Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff no new subspecies emerges. University, says this about Shapiro’s calculations: Creationism The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one The question of the origin of life—of to a number with 40,000 noughts after it. how the first living things came into . . . It is big enough to bury Darwin and existence on Earth—was one of the the whole theory of evolution. There was greatest dilemmas confronting materia- no primeval soup, neither on this planet lism for the last 150 years. That is be- nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore cause the cell, once regarded as the have been the product of purposeful in- simplest component of any organism, telligence.93 actually possesses a complexity incom- parably greater that any technology pro- On the same subject, the famous as- duced by humans. Probability calculati- tronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made this com- ons prove that not even proteins, the bu- ment: ilding blocks of the cell, could ever have . . . such a theory [that life was assemb- come into being by chance. This, of co- led by an intelligence] is so obvious that

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 84

one wonders why it is not widely accep- ly complex structure of life cannot be the ted as being self-evident. The reasons are work of coincidences; and that intelli- psychological rather than scientific.94 gence, consciousness, knowledge and Both Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are ability are all essential for life to emerge. people that have long engaged in science This demolishes the theory of evolution and adopted materialism. Yet the truth while revealing proof of the existence of that confronted each of them is that life God. However, the adherents of evoluti- was created, and they have been forced on ignore the scientific facts and produ- to admit it. Today, a great many biologists and biochemists have also abandoned the myth that life was born as a result of chance. The fact of creation conflicts with no scientific facts. On the contrary, all scientific findings tend to support it. The Big Bang Theory, for instance, confirms Francis Crick that the universe had a beginning, confirming creation while refuting materialism. In the fossil record, living species appear suddenly and in their present forms with no trace of any forerunners behind them. Not a single intermediate- form fossil has ever been found of the kind that evolutionists ce a dogma in the defense of their the- hypothesize must have ory. existed. This proves the Crick, Francis fact of creation whi- Advances in genetic science and the le refuting evoluti- discovery of nucleic acids—DNA and on, revealing that RNA, in other words—posed new prob- the excee- lems for the theory of evolution, which ding- seeks to account for the origin of life in terms of chance and which was already unable to offer any consistent explanation for the cell’s most basic molecules. Francis Crick's discovery In 1955, two scientists, James Wat- of DNA shed light on its son and Francis Crick, revealed the extraordinarily complex structure.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 85 unbelievably complex structure and design in the DNA molecule. (See DNA.) DNA is found in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in the body, containing the flawless blueprint for the human body. Francis Crick had spent years defending the theory of molecular evolution. But after his discovery of DNA, even he admitted that it was impossible for such a complex molecules to come into being by chance, spontaneously, as the result of a process of evolution: A Cro-Magnon skull An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be al- sed on this resemblance, Cro-Magnon is 95 most a miracle. estimated to be an ancient race that origi- nated in Africa. Certain other paleontological findings show that Cro-Magnon Cro-Magnon Man and Neanderthal men interbred and for- The Cro-Magnon classification was med the basis of certain races alive to- given to a European race of humans esti- day. In addition, it is agreed that ethnic mated to have lived around 30,000 years groups resembling Cro-Magnon Man are ago. They had a dome-shaped skull and a still alive today in various regions of Af- broad forehead. Their skull volume of rica and in the Salute and Dordogne regi- 1,600-cubic centimeters is actually grea- ons of France. Humans with the same ter than the average skull volume of mo- characteristics have also been encounte- dern humans. On account of the thick red in Poland and Hungary. eyebrow protrusions on its skull and All this goes to show that Cro-Magnon another bony protrusion on the back of man is not, claim, the evolutionary ances- the head, Cro-Magnon Man was propo- tor of human beings living today, as evolu- sed as an intermediate form. tionists suppose. The differences between However, the volume and structure the fossils and modern Europeans are no of the Cro-Magnon skull are very similar greater than that between an Eskimo and to those of certain human races living to- an African or between a pigmy and a Eu- day in Africa and in tropical climes. Ba- ropean. In conclusion, Cro-Magnons rep-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 86

resent a distinct human race that either be- (See Invalidity of Micro-evolution the; came extinct or was assimilated by inter- Macro-evolution Myth, the.) breeding with other races. The biologist Edward S. Deevey Jr. describes how crossing-over takes place Crossing-over within specific genetic bounds:

This is the term for the exchange of Some remarkable things have been done genes during cell division among similar by cross-breeding . . . but wheat is still (homologous) chromosomes from the wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit. mother and father. Homologous chromo- We can no more grow wings on pigs than somes make non-sibling chromatids spi- hens can make cylindrical eggs. A more ral. Gene exchange takes place where contemporary example is the average in- the two chromosomes touch one another. crease in male height that has occurred Crossing-over leads to a change in the the past century. Through better health chromosome gene sequence. Thanks to care, males have reached a record adult height during the last century, but the in- this phenomenon, genetic variations ari- crease is rapidly disappearing, indica- se in living things, which in turn lead to ting that we have reached our limit.96 intra-species variation. However, there is no question of one species changing into In short, such research into plants and another. animals merely gives rise to certain chan- Crossing-over makes for variation ges within the genetic information of a within a given species. Exchange of species. No new genetic information is single or paired components takes place ever added. No matter how much you in- between similar chromosomes during terbreed different types of dogs, cows or crossing-over. Since this will give the horses, the result will still be dogs, cows chromosomes new combinations of ge- or horses. No new species will emerge. nes, offspring can possibly display characteristics that do not exist in either of Crossopterygian their parents. This is an example of a typical variati- The theory of evolution hypothesizes on. Genes already present in the mother that quadrupeds (four-footed life forms) and father are brought together, and new evolved from fish. But in fact, this claim combinations formed. But contrary to is inconsistent, both physiologically and what evolutionists would have us believe, anatomically, and has no basis in the fossil there can be no question, of a new species record. If water-dwelling creatures acqui- emerging. Therefore, the examples of va- red characteristics appropriate to dry land, riation proposed by evolutionists actually which evolutionists supposed happened constitute no evidence at all for evolution. by chance, it would give no advantage to

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 87

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FINS AND FEET

1 3

Cœlacanth fin Cœlacanth

2 4

Ichthyostega foot

Ichthyostega

These fishes’ bony fins are the main reason why evolutionists imagined that the Coelacanth and similar fish are the ancestors of terrestrial animals. They assumed that these bones slowly turned into feet. However, there is a fundamental difference between the bones of these fish and the feet of such land animals as Ichthyostega. As shown in Diagram 1, the bones in the Coelacanth are not connected to its backbone. The bones in Ichthyostega, however, as shown in Diagram 2, are directly attached to the backbone. Therefore, the claim that these fins slowly turned into feet is totally groundless. Furthermore, as can be seen from Diagrams 3 and 4, the structure of the bones in the Coelacanth fin and in the feet of Ichthyostega is completely different.

these marine animals. There is thus no lo- Evolutionist biologists have no consis- gical basis for suggesting that legs came tent fossil records they can point to on about by way of natural selection. this matter. On the contrary, any living thing un- Evolutionists generally regard fish dergoing “pre-adaptation” should be eli- belonging to the class Rhipidistian or minated by way of natural selection, be- Cœlacanth as the ancestors of quadru- cause the more characteristics it deve- peds. These fish belong to the group lops that are appropriate to dry land, the Crossopterygian. Their only features more disadvantaged it will be in water. that inspire hope in evolutionists are the- In short, the scenario of transition from ir fins, being fleshier than those of other sea to land is totally self-contradictory. fish. However, these fish are not inter-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 88

mediate forms at all, and between them fraud. (See Piltdown Man Fraud, the; and amphibians there exist enormous Nebraska Man Fraud, the and Nean- fundamental anatomical and physiologi- derthal: A Human Race.) cal differences. Despite all the research For example, the Neanderthals (Ho- that has been conducted, not a single mo neandertalis), which evolutionists fossil has ever been found to fill this suggest were a transitional species bet- gap.97 (See Transition from water to ween apes and human beings, were actu- land thesis, the.) ally human, as their genus name implies. They emerged suddenly in Europe 100,000 years ago, and disappeared, qu- Cultural Evolution ickly and silently, some 35,000 years Myth, the ago, or else were assimilated into other Paralleling their hypothesized biolo- human races. The only difference betwe- gical evolution, evolutionists also sug- en them and modern human beings is gest that mankind has undergone a cultu- that their skeletons were rather more ral progression from the primitive to the massive and their average skull volumes more advanced. They relate a great were slightly larger. many narratives of no scientific validity Today, almost everyone agrees that in line with human evolution, which the Neanderthals were a human race. For consists of no more than an imaginary a long time, some evolutionist paleoant- family tree, and conjectures about the li- hropologists regarded these human be- ves of people in the Paleolithic, Mesolit- ings as a primitive species, although sci- hic and Neolithic ages. entific findings have shown that Nean- The idea of human evolution is to- derthal Man was no different from the tally fictional: In order for such a family stockier humans who can be seen wal- tree to exist, apes must have gradually king the streets today. evolved into human beings, and the rele- The University of New Mexico pale- vant fossils should have been found. But oanthropologist Erik Trinkhaus, regar- in fact, there is a clear gulf between apes ded as an eminent authority on the sub- and man. Features such as their skeletal ject, writes: structures, skull sizes, and walking on Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal two legs or four, clearly distinguish apes skeletal remains with those of modern from human beings. It is now recognized humans have shown that there is nothing that the supposedly intermediate forms in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusi- between ape and man proposed by evo- vely indicates locomotor, manipulative, lutionists (Australopithecus, Homo habi- intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferi- 98 lis, H. erectus, etc.) are simply biased in- or to those of modern humans. terpretations, distortions and outright Nonetheless, evolutionists still des-

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 89 cribe Neanderthals as a subspecies of needle, is exceedingly straight and has a modern man, suggesting that they pos- hole for a thread to be passed through.101 sessed a more primitive cultural level. People who possess clothing of such a Fossil findings, however, show that kind as to require sewing needles cannot, contrary to what evolutionists claim, Ne- of course, be regarded as primitive. anderthal Man actually had an advanced Steven L. Kuhn, a professor of ant- culture. One of the most interesting hropology and archaeology at University examples of this is a fossilized whistle of New Mexico, and Mary C. Stiner— made by Neanderthals from the thigh despite being proponents of evolution— bone of a bear, and found in a cave in said that their research and analysis re- northern Yugoslavia in July 1995 by the vealed that Neanderthals who lived archaeologist Ivan Turk. thousands of years ago in caves on the Later on, the musicologist Bob Fink southeast coast of Italy engaged in acti- analyzed this whistle, whose age of vities requiring complex thought like which is thought to be between 43,000 that of modern human beings.102 and 67,000 years according to carbon-14 Margaret Conkey of the University dating results. He determined that this of California describes how implements instrument produced four different no- belonging to periods before the Nean- tes, with both full and semi-tones. derthals were made by conscious, intelli- This discovery shows that Neandert- gent communities: hals used the seven-note scale, which If you look at the things archaic humans now represents the basis of Western mu- made with their hands, Levallois cores sic. Fink stated that the distance between and so on, that's not a bumbling kind of the first and third holes was twice that thing. They had an appreciation of the between the third and fourth. “These material they were working with, an un- 103 three notes . . . are inescapably diatonic derstanding of their world. and will sound like a near-perfect fit wit- All this proves that the cultural “evo- hin any kind of standard diatonic sca- lution” proposed by evolutionists is ut- le,”99 wrote Fink, adding that Nean- terly groundless. derthals had a musical ear and musical knowledge. Other fossil findings show that the Cursorial Theory, the Neanderthals buried their dead, cared for This is one of the two main explana- the sick, and wore necklaces and similar tions proposed by evolutionists as to adornments.100 how terrestrial reptiles began to fly. Ac- During the course of excavations, a cording to this theory, reptiles took to 26,000-year-old needle made out of bone the air vertically, by hopping from the by Neanderthal Man was discovered. This

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 90

The idea that dinosaurs turned into birds by growing wings as they hunted flies is not a comic story, but in fact, evolutionist theoreticians’ most serious thesis regarding the origin of birds. ground. The basic concept is that certain forearms, it is still irrational to expect reptiles flapped their forearms very ra- that any wing could emerge by chance pidly and for long periods as they chased through the addition of cumulative mu- insects, and that over the course of time, tations. Any incremental mutation taking these forelegs developed into wings. Not place in its forearms would not endow the slightest explanation is offered, ho- the reptile with functional wings, but wever, for how such a complex structure would leave it deprived of functioning as a wing could have come into existen- forearms. This would leave the animal ce from forearms being beaten against disadvantaged (in other words, defecti- one another in order to trap flies. ve) compared to other members of its John Ostrom, a prominent adherent of species. According to the rules of the the cursorial theory, admits that the pro- theory of evolution, that deformed cre- ponents of both hypotheses can do no ature would be eliminated through natu- more than speculate: “My cursorial pre- ral selection. dator theory is in fact speculative. But the Furthermore, according to biophysi- arboreal theory is also similarly specula- cal research, mutations take place only tive.” 104 (See Arboreal Theory, the.) very rarely. Therefore, it is impossible Even if we assume that mutations did for these deformed creatures to wait mil- cause undirected changes in a reptile’s lions of years for their deficient, in- THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 91 complete wings to be completed through fossils and thus identified the remains of minute mutations. extinct life forms. Since Cuvier believed that animals possessed certain fixed and natural characteristics, he thus opposed Cuvier, Georges both the theory of evolution and La- The French scientist Georges Cuvier marck’s theory that “species could pass (1769-1832), now regarded as the foun- on to their offspring characteristics that der of paleontology, was at the same ti- they had acquired during their lives.” me a geologist and comparative anato- 106 mist. He conducted wide-ranging research into the zoology and paleontology of vertebrates and invertebrates and wro- Cytochrome-C te about the history of science. At the sa- Professor Ali Demirsoy, a leading me time, Cuvier definitively revealed proponent of evolution in Turkey, has that some organisms that had existed in this to say about cytochrome-C, one of the past had become extinct and accoun- the proteins which must be present in the ted for this in a way diametrically oppo- body and which is essential for respirati- sed to the theory of evolution.105 on, and the chances of its coming into Moreover, Cuvier grouped relevant being by chance: “as low as those of a classes into phyla and thus broadened monkey sitting at a typewriter and wri- Linnaeus’s classification. (See Linnaeus, ting the history of mankind.” 107 Carolus.) He also applied this system to Yet it is extremely interesting that Pro- fessor Demirsoy, an evolutionist scientist, should admit the impossibility of this:

The probability of forming a cytochrome- C string is so low as to be zero. In other words, we may say that if life requires a specific sequence there is a very low probability of this occurring once in the whole universe. Or else supernatural forces that we cannot define played a role in this formation. It is incompatible with science to admit the latter possibility, which means we need to investigate the first hypothesis.108 Many evolutionists prefer the im- Georges Cuvier possibility in the above example over accepting supernatural forces—in other words, creation by God. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar)

Darwin, Charles Robert Darwin was highly influenced by the different species he saw during the cour- The first person to propose the these of this voyage, and especially by the ory of evolution in the form it’s accepted different species of finches he observed today was Charles Robert Darwin, an on the Galapagos Islands. He concluded amateur British naturalist. that the differences in these birds’ beaks Darwin never received any genuine stemmed from their adaptation to their training in biology and possessed only surroundings. As a consequence of this an amateur knowledge of nature and li- idea, he assumed that the concept of en- ving things. As a result of his interest he vironmental adaptation lay at the heart took his place as a volunteer on the dis- of all the variety among living things. covery vessel HMS Beagle, which sailed Yet in making that assumption, Dar- from Britain in 1832 and traveled thro- win ignored the scientific facts, opposed ugh various regions of the world over the evidence that God created all living the next five years. species, and suggested that living things were all descended from some common ancestor and became differentia- ted from another due over time, due to environmental conditions. This hypothesis of Darwin’s was based on no scientific facts or experiments. However, with the support and encouragement that he received from eminent materialist biologists of the time, Darwin gradually worked up these hypotheses into a coherent theory, according to which all living things were descended from a single primitive ancestor, but had been subjected to minute changes over very lengthy periods of time, and thus diverged anatomically from one another. The ones that best adapted to their surroundings passed their characteristics on to subsequent generations, and these beneficial changes thus accumu- Charles Darwin, lated in such a way as to turn these in- founder of the theory of evolution that has been refuted by modern scientific findings. 94

dividuals’ offspring into life forms that long period of time, a new species will were very different from their forerun- emerge. ner. (How these beneficial changes came However, this theory of evolution by about unclear, however.) According to way of natural selection, as by Darwin Darwin, human beings were the most proposed it, left unanswered the most advanced product of this hypothetical fundamental questions right from the mechanism. outset. If living things had evolved in Darwin called this product of his stages, as Darwin claimed, then a great own imagination “evolution by way of many transitional forms must have exis- natural selection.” He now imagined that ted as well. Yet the fossil record revealed he had discovered the origin of species. no trace of these theoretical transitional The origin of any one species was anot- life forms. Darwin puzzled over this her, less developed species. He eventu- problem for a long time and eventually ally announced these ideas in his book had to conclude that hopefully, such fos- The Origin of Species, published in sils would be unearthed in the future. 1859. Despite the passage of the intervening Darwin constructed his theory on the 150 years, however, the expected fossils concept of natural selection, which me- have still not been found. ant the survival of the strongest indivi- Darwin was in an equally hopeless duals or those best able to adapt to envi- position when it came to accounting for ronmental conditions in the struggle for such complex organs as the eye, ear and survival in their environment. That is the wing in terms of natural selection. It was claim emphasized in the subtitle of Dar- impossible to maintain that these organs win’s book: The Origin of Species: By developed in stages, since the absence of Means of Natural Selection. even a single component would render Darwin’s groundless logic followed them totally functionless,. (See Irredu- this reasoning: cible Complexity.) Indeed, Darwin was There are natural and random diffe- forced to state the difficulties he experi- rences within any living species. Some enced regarding his theory in his book. cattle are larger than others, for example, (See Origin of Species, the) and others are darker in color. Those Before all, the question of how the characteristics that are most advantageo- organism that by Darwin referred to as us will be favored through natural selec- the ancestor of all living things came in- tion, and the beneficial characteristic in to being remained a complete mystery— question will thus come to predominate because it is impossible for inanimate in that animal population. Through an matter to come alive by means of natural accumulation of these features over a processes. Eventually, advances in sci-

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 95 ence and technology were to fundamen- hand, had lagged behind in the fight for tally undermine his theory, which was survival going on in the world. Darwin the product of Darwin’s primitive know- went even further and suggested that ledge of science. these races would soon lose the struggle entirely and be eliminated altogether: Darwinism At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised ra- — See Evolution Theory, the. ces of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the Darwinism and Racism anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man Most present-day Darwinists claim and his nearest allies will then be wider, that Charles Darwin was not actually a for it will intervene between man in a racist, but that racists have interpreted more civilised state, as we may hope, his ideas in a biased manner in order to even than the Caucasian, and some ape support their own views. They maintain as low as a baboon, instead of as now that the expression “by means of The between the negro or Australian and the 109 Preservation of Favored Races” in the gorilla. subtitle of his book The Origin of Speci- In another chapter of The Descent of es is meant solely for animals. However, Man, Darwin claimed that inferior races those who make such claims ignore what should disappear, and that there was no Darwin actually said about human races need for advanced human beings to pro- in his book The Descent of Man. tect them and seek to keep them alive. According to the views that by Dar- He compared this situation to livestock win set out in that book, the different hu- breeders: man races represented different stages of evolution, and some races were more highly “evolved” and thus advanced than others. Some, in fact, were pretty much at the same level as apes. Darwin suggested that the struggle for survival also applied to human races, (See Struggle for Survival, the.) In the course of that struggle, favored races would be victorious. According to Dar- win, these favored were European whites. Asians and Africans, on the other Enslaved African natives

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 96

With savages, the weak in body or mind In line with these statements, Darwin are soon eliminated; and those that sur- regarded native Australians and blacks vive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of as being at the same level as gorillas and health. We civilised men, on the other maintained that these races would even- hand, do our utmost to check the process tually become extinct. He also advoca- of elimination; we build asylums for the ted the need to prevent other races whom imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we he regarded as inferior from multiplying. institute poor-laws; and our medical men and that these races should therefore be exert their utmost skill to save the life of eradicated. Darwin thus approved of and every one to the last moment. . . .Thus the weak members of civilised societies pro- justified racist and discriminatory practi- pagate their kind. No one who has atten- ces, the remains of which can still be se- ded to the breeding of domestic animals en today. will doubt that this must be highly inju- According to Darwin’s racist ideas, rious to the race of man.110 the duty of any civilized human being

Slavery was the starting point for racism. Whites captured native peoples by force and shackled them to work like animals. Darwinism served as the ideological basis for this barbarism. 97 was to speed up this evolutionary pro- noring fact that man is an entity created cess. That meant that there was no scien- by God and that all human beings are tific reason why these backward races created equal. should not be eliminated right away! This was another factor that accele- Darwin’s racist side revealed itself in rated the rise of racism and its worldwi- several of his writings and analyses. For de acceptance. The American scientist example, in 1871, in describing the nati- James Ferguson states that there is a di- ve people of Tierra del Fuego that he had rect relation between the rejection of seen during the course of his long voya- creation and the rise of racism: ge on the Beagle, he made his racist pre- The new anthropology soon became a conceptions perfectly clear. He depicted theoretical background between two op- them as "wholly nude, submerged in posed schools of thought on the origin of dyes, eating what they find just like wild humans. The older and more established animals, uncontrolled, cruel to every- of these was 'monogenism,' the belief that body out of their tribe, taking pleasure in all humankind, irrespective of colour and torturing their enemies, offering bloody other characteristics, was directly descended from Adam and from the single sacrifices, killing their children, ill-trea- and original act of God's creation. . . . ting their wives, full of awkward supers- [In the 18th century] opposition to the- titions.111 ological authority began to fuel the rival Yet the researcher W. P. Snow, who theory of 'polygenism,' (theory of evoluti- had visited the same region ten years on) which held that different racial com- earlier, described those same people as; munities had different origins.114 … powerful looking, strong, fond of their The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vid- children, having inventive handicrafts, bea- yarthi describes how Darwin’s theory of ring the notion of private ownership for so- evolution imposed racism on the social me goods and accepting the authority of sciences: the elder women in the community.112 His (Darwin’s) theory of the survival of From these examples, it is clear that the fittest was warmly welcomed by the Darwin was a full-fledged racist. Indeed, social scientists of the day, and they be- as Benjamin Farrington, author of the bo- lieved humanity had achieved various le- ok What Darwin Really Said, puts it, Dar- vels of evolution culminating in the white win made many comments about “the man’s civilization. By the second half of evident nature of the inequality among the nineteenth century, racism was ac- human races” in The Descent of cepted as fact by the vast majority of 115 Man.113 Western scientists. Moreover, Darwin’s theory denied Many Darwinists after Darwin set the existence of God, leading to his ig- about trying to prove his racist opinions.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 98

For that purpose, they had no qualms Haeckel and his colleagues also invoked about perpetrating scientific distortions recapitulation [the theory of the repetiti- and fraud. They imagined that if they on of the so-called evolutionary process managed to prove their own superiority, during individual growth] to affirm the they would also have scientifically de- racial superiority of northern European monstrated their own superiority and whites. They scoured the evidence of human anatomy and behavio- their right to oppress, ur, using everything they co- exploit, and if necessary, uld find from brains to belly even eradicate other ra- buttons. Herbert Spencer ces. wrote that “the intellectual Stephen Jay Gould traits of the uncivilized are also stated that some ant- traits recurring in the chil- hropologists twisted the dren of the civilized.” Carl facts in order to demons- Vogt said it more strongly in trate the superiority of 1864: “The grown up Neg- the white race. Accor- ro partakes, as regards his ding to Gould they most intellectual faculties, of the frequently resorted to nature of the child” . . . So- engaging in distortions me tribes have founded states, possessing a peculiar regarding the brain sizes organization, but, as to the of skulls they discove- rest, we may boldly assert red. In one book Gould that the whole race has, ne- describes how many ither in the past nor in the anthropologists sugges- present, performed anything ted there was a direct re- tending to the progress of lation between brain vo- humanity or worthy of pre- lume and intelligence servation.117 and how, despite having In his work Race et no true criteria, they Milieu Social Essais exaggerated the brain Stephan Jay Gould in his book d'Anthroposociologie, the volumes of Caucasians explains the Darwinists’ racism. French Darwinist anthro- in particular and portra- pologist Vacher de La- yed these as greater than those of blacks pouge advanced the view that non-white 116 and Native Americans. races were the representatives of wild Gould sets out some of the unbeli- children who had been unable to adapt to evable claims that Darwinists made to civilization, or classes whose blood had depict certain races as inferior: been corrupted. He drew his conclusions

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 99 from measuring the skulls from the up- by Charles Darwin and set out in greater per and lower classes in Parisian grave- detail. The theory that living things had yards. According to these results, peop- descended from one another in a hapha- le’s skulls determined whether they wo- zard manner took its place in his grand- uld be wealthy, self-confident and in fa- son’s book, The Origin of Species. vor of freedom, while others would be Charles Darwin had received a conservative, content with very little and lengthy religious education. But a year make excellent servants. Classes were before setting out on his voyage on the the product of social divisions. Higher Beagle, he definitively abandoned certa- classes equated with higher races, and in fundamental Christian beliefs. By that degree of wealth was directly proporti- time, he had developed a passionate inte- onate to skull volume. rest in biology and the paradigm he ob- In summary, the racist aspect of Dar- served was incompatible with his religio- win’s theory found very fertile ground in us belief. The most important influence the second half of the 19th century, in making the young Charles Darwin when European whites were hoping for non-religious, and even actively hostile just such a theory to legitimize their own to it, was his grandfather Erasmus.118 crimes. Erasmus Darwin was actually the first person in Britain to put forward the idea of evolution. A physicist, psycholo- Darwin, Erasmus gist and poet, he was someone whose Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of words were listened to with respect. In- Charles Darwin, was one of those who deed, according to his biographer, Des- put forward the first fundamental propo- mond King-Hele, he was the greatest sals for what we now refer to as the the- Briton of the 18th century.119 ory of evolution. According to him, Erasmus Darwin was also one living things were not created as of Britain’s leading naturalists. individually distinct species. (Naturalism is an intellectual On the contrary, they were movement that believes the all descended from a essence of the universe lies common ancestor and in nature, that rejects the were shaped, altered existence of a Creator, and varied according and even regards na- to their subsequent ture itself as a crea- needs. tor.) Erasmus Dar- His ideas were win’s naturalist subsequently adopted outlook gave Char- Erasmus Darwin

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 100

les both an ideological and an or- did happen on only one ganizational direction. Erasmus de- planet, anywhere in the veloped arguments that would later universe, that planet has form the basis of Darwinism from to be our planet-because his research in his eight-hectare here we are talking about 121 botanical garden and collected the- it. se in his books, The Temple of Na- This attitude, on the ture and Zoonomia. In 1784, he part of one of the best- also set up a society that would known authorities on play a leading role in the dissemi- Richard Dawkins evolution, clearly ref- nation of these ideas. In fact, the lects the imperfect logic Philosophical Society would be one of on which the theory is constructed. The the greatest and most passionate adhe- above statements, taken from Dawkins’ rents of the concept put forward decades book Climbing Mount Improbable, boil later by Charles Darwin.120 down to the argument that “If we are he- In short, despite the theology that re, that means evolution must have hap- Charles Darwin learned, the most impor- pened”—a striking example of a logical tant factor in his turning to materialist- paradox that actually explains nothing at naturalist philosophy—and rapidly re- all. jecting religious beliefs, and subsequently publishing his book The Origin of Species—was his grandfather, Erasmus Dawson, Charles Darwin. Charles Dawson was a well-known doctor and amateur paleontologist who claimed to have discovered a jawbone Dawkins, Richard and skull fragment in a pit near Piltdown The British biologist Richard Daw- in England in 1912. Although the jawbo- kins is one of the world’s most promi- ne resembled that of an ape, the teeth and nent proponents of Darwinism. Howe- skull resembled those of a human being. ver, Professor Dawkins also admits the This fossil, known as Piltdown Man and impossibility of the very theory of evo- estimated to be roughly 500,000 years lution that he espouses so passionately: old, was depicted as incontrovertible evidence of the evolution of man. So the sort of lucky event we are looking However, carbon- dating tests carried at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in out from 1949 to 1953 revealed that the the universe, could be as low as one in a skull was indeed human, but only 500 billion billion billion in any one year. If it years old, and that the jaw belonged to a

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 101 recently dead orangutan. In addition, the The evolutionist biologist Francisco teeth had been deliberately added to the Ayala admits this: jawbone afterwards, arranged and filed in . . . the genetic variants required for resis- order to give the impression they belon- tance to the most diverse kinds of pestici- ged to a human. All the fragments had des were apparently present in every one been later dyed with potassium dichro- of the populations exposed to these man- mate in order to give them an aged appe- made compounds. 122 arance. Thereafter, Piltdown Man went Evolutionist sources are clearly mis- down as the greatest scandal in the his- leading on this subject. From time to ti- tory of science. (See Piltdown Man.) me, certain popular science magazines in particular portray it as major evidence for evolution. In fact, however, there is no DDT immunity scientific ground for claiming that in- Evolutionists attempt to portray insects’ DDT immunity is the result of evo- sects’ growing immunity to DDT as evi- lution. dence for evolution. In reality, DDT immunity develops in much the same way as bacterial immunity to antibiotics. (See Denton, Michael Antibiotic Resistance.) There is no qu- Michael Denton, a molecular biolo- estion of a subsequently acquired immu- gist from the University of Otago in Aus- nity to DDT, since some insects already tralia, examined the theory of evolution possess it. in the light of various different branches Following the invention of DDT, tho- of science in his 1985 book Evolution: A se insects that were exposed to the pesti- Theory in Crisis, and concluded that Dar- cide—and had no immunity to it—died winism was very far from accounting for out. However, those individuals with life. such immunity were initially very low in In addition, he compared the theory number, but survived and gradually mul- of evolution with scientific findings in tiplied in number. As a result, the same his book and stated insect species came to consist of indivi- that a major contradic- duals that all possessed genetic immunity. tion emerged: The the- Naturally, as most of the population ory of evolution is in a of insects came to be made up of immune state of crisis in a great individuals, DDT began to have little ef- many areas, including fect on that species. This process is popu- the origin of life, po- larly referred to as “insects becoming im- pulation genetics, mune to DDT.” comparative anatomy,

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 102

paleontology and biochemical sys- propagate their kind. No one who has at- tems.123 tended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.125 Descent of Man, the In his book, Darwin ascribed the sa- (Charles Darwin) me status to Negroes, native Australians, In this book, published in 1871, and gorillas after which he predicted that Charles Darwin suggested that apes and these would gradually be eliminated by human beings shared a common ances- “civilised races”: tor and that the two species had gradu- At some future period, not very distant as ally diverged under the effect of envi- measured by centuries, the civilised ra- ronmental conditions. At the same time, ces of man will almost certainly extermi- Darwin also made a number of inferen- nate, and replace the savage races thro- ces regarding “the evident inequality ughout the world. At the same time the between human races”.124 anthropomorphous apes . . . will no do- According to the views that Darwin ubt be exterminated. The break between stated in his book, human races repre- man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man sented different stages of evolution, and in a more civilised state, as we may hope, some races had evolved and progressed even than the Caucasian, and some ape further than others. Some were still more as low as a baboon, instead of as now or less at the level of apes. In his book between the negro or Australian and the Darwin maintain that these inferior races gorilla.126 should be eliminated. And that there was Ever since Darwinism was first put no need for developed human beings to forward, it has represented the main sup- strive to maintain them and protect posedly scientific basis for racism. Dar- them. He compared this situation with winism, which assumes that living that of livestock breeders: things evolve through a fight for survi- With savages, the weak in body or mind val, was applied to entire societies, the are soon eliminated; and those that sur- result being the scientific movement vive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of known as Social Darwinism. (See Social health. We civilised men, on the other Darwinism.) According to Darwin, the hand, do our utmost to check the process duty of “civilised” individuals was to ac- of elimination; we build asylums for the celerate this evolutionary process and to imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we ensure the elimination of backward races institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of that were, in any case, condemned to di- every one to the last moment. . . . Thus sappear. (See Darwinism and Racism.) the weak members of civilised societies Indeed, the racist and discriminatory

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 103 practices we still encounter today draw needs to have all its structures present support from ideas supposedly legitimi- and fully functional. Therefore, these zed in this way by Darwinism. structures cannot have developed in stages. All the plant fossils discovered so far confirm that plants have displayed Devonian Period the same flawless structures ever since Fossilized Plants they first appeared on Earth. (408 to 306 Million Years Old) Fossil plants from this period have Dino-Bird Fossil, the many features in common with present- day species. The stoma, cuticle, rhizoid —See Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. and sporangia, for example, are some of the structures evident today.127 In or- Dipneuma der for a land plant to survive, it needs to With the discovery of living things protect itself against the danger of its tis- that refuted the thesis regarding the tran- sues drying out. Cuticles are waxy layers sition from water to land, evolutionists that cover the stem, branch and leaves clutched at other theories on the subject. and protect the plant against desiccation. (See Coelacanth.) Some evolutionists If a plant had no cuticles to protect it, regarded lunged fish as the ancestors of then it would have no time to wait for all terrestrial animals. The general name them to form, as evolutionists maintain given to these fish that are able to use must have happened. If a plant has a cu- their lungs as well as gills is Dipneuma. ticle, it thrives; if not, it shrivels up and There are three different species of these dies. The distinction is as sharp as that. fish living in the seas around America, Like the cuticle, all the structures Africa and Australia. possessed by plants are of vital impor- Since the 1850s, it was actually tho- tance to their survival. In order for a ught that these fish had evolved into pri- plant to be able to live and multiply, it mitive amphibians. By the 1950s, howe-

Lungfish do not represent an “intermediate stage” that later then disappeared, but are an original species that has been living since very early times.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 104

ver, they ceased being regarded as tran- Marx claimed that the history of huma- sitional forms because they were very nity was one of conflict, that the existing exceptional specimens. By that time no 19th -century conflict was between wor- one any longer supported the idea that kers and capitalists, and that the workers they were the ancestors of terrestrial life would soon rise up and carry out a com- 128 forms. munist revolution. (See Communism.) As the evolutionist Maria G. Lava- In order to influence large masses of nant describes it, people, however, Marx and Engels nee- Since 1930’s, the Dipneuma assumption ded to give their ideology a scientific ap- has been put aside gradually. When the pearance. The basic claims made in Dar- final years of 1950’s were reached, orga- win’s The Origin of Species published in nisms with double respiratory features the 19th century represented just such a was characterized as very exceptional by supposed scientific basis for Marx and a paleontology publication known to be a Engels’ ideas. Darwin maintained that li- classic.129 ving things emerged as the result of a In addition, the fact that the fossil re- struggle for survival—in other words, mains of these fish are regarded as being through dialectical conflict. (See 350 million years old, and have undergo- Struggle for Survival, the.) Furthermo- ne no change at all in that time, also re- re, Darwin rejected religious beliefs by moved their candidacy as transitional denying creation; and for Marx and En- forms. These animals are not transitional gels, this was an opportunity not to be links between two species that subsequ- missed. ently disappeared, but distinct species Marx and Engels rejoiced to imagine that have been alive since very early times. that Darwin’s concept of evolution represented a scientific backing for their

Dialectics Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the intellectual founding fathers of communism, tried to describe their materialist philosophy in terms of a new method known as dialectics—the hypothesis that all progress in the universe is obtained as the result of conflict. Based on this as- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the intellectual fathers of communism, were delighted to imagine sumption, Marx and Engels sought to in- that Darwin’s theory of evolution gave scientific terpret the entire history of the world. backing for their own atheistic views.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 105 own atheistic world view. However, the theory of evolution received widespread acceptance mainly thanks to the primitive level of science in the 19th century when it was first put forward. Actually, it is devoid of any scientific evidence and is nation for even full of errors. Scientific advances the existence of the th in the second half of the 20 cen- most basic mole- tury revealed the invalidity of the cules in the cell. theory of evolution. This Advances in genetic spelled the collapse of science and the disco- materialist and communist very of the nucleic acids, DNA thinking, and did the sa- and RNA, represented still further me for Darwinism. Yet impasses for the theory. In 1955, rese- scientists with a mate- arch by two scientists, James Watson rialist world view resor- and Francis Crick, brought to light the ted to all kinds of methods to conceal the DNA’s unbelievably complex structure collapse of Darwinism, since they knew and design. that it would also spell the end of their The molecule known as DNA, found own ideologies. in every one of the 100 trillion cells in the human body, contains a flawless DNA structural blueprint for the body as a whole. Information regarding all a per- The theory of evolution, which acco- son’s characteristics, from external ap- unts for the origin of life in terms of pearance to the structures of the internal chance, cannot provide a coherent expla- organs, is recorded in the DNA through a special coding system, via the arrangement of four special molecules that If just one of the codes that make up a constitute the DNA spiral. These mole- gene contains an error, that gene will serve no purpose at all. It is impossible for cules, known as nucleotides, are referred the millions of nucleotides making up the to by their initial letters: A, T, G and C. 40,000 genes in the human body to All the structural differences betwe- assume the correct sequences by chance. 106

en human beings stem from these letters by 600 zeros! Imagine how many univer- being arranged differently from one ses it would take to accommodate 10600 130 another. The arrangement of these mole- DNA chains! cules in DNA determines a person’s Following a small logarithmic calcu- structure, down to the minutest detail. In lation, in 41000 is equivalent to a proba- addition to features such as height and bility of 1 in 10600. That number is 1 the color of the eyes, hair and skin, the followed by 600 zeros. Since 1 followed blueprints concerning the body’s 206 bo- by 11 zeros equals 1 trillion, it is absolu- nes, 600 muscles, 100 billion nerve cells tely impossible to conceive of the num- and 100 trillion cells are all contained in ber represented by 1 and 600 zeros. The the DNA in any single cell. If you were impossibility of nucleotides coming to- to put down all the information in DNA gether by chance to constitute DNA and on paper, you would need to a library of RNA is expressed by the French evolu- 900 volumes of 500 pages each. Yet this tionist scientist Paul Auger: unimaginable amount of information is We have to sharply distinguish the two coded in the components of the DNA stages in the chance formation of comp- known as genes. lex molecules such as nucleotides by che- Any error arising in the arrangement mical events. The production of nucleoti- of the nucleotides making up a gene will des one by one—which is possible—and make that gene totally functionless. Bear the combination of these within very special sequences. The second is absolutely in mind that there are 40,000 genes in impossible. 131 the human body, and it seems absolutely impossible for the millions of nucleoti- Regarding the formation of DNA, des comprising these genes to have assu- the Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali med their correct order by chance. Demirsoy makes the following admissi- Frank Salisbury, an evolutionist bi- on: ologist, expresses this impossibility in The chances of a protein and nucleic acid the following terms: (DNA-RNA) forming are far beyond what is estimated. In fact, the odds of a speci- A medium protein might include about fic protein chain coming about are astro- 300 amino acids. The DNA gene control- nomically small.132 ling this would have about 1,000 nucleotidase in its chain. Since there are four The theory of evolution has not pro- kinds of nucleotidase in a DNA chain, ven any of the evolutionary formations one consisting of 1,000 links could exist alleged to have taken place at the mole- in 41000 or 10600. Ten multiplied by it- cular level. As science progresses, far self 600 times gives the figure 1 followed from producing answers to these questi-

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 107 ons, it actually makes those questions donism, cowardice instead of bravery, more complex and unanswerable, and cheating and exploitation, while group thus confirms creation by default. ethics in virtually all societies tend to co- However, evolutionists have condi- unteract or forbid such 'natural' behavi- tioned themselves to deny creation and or, and to glorify their opposites: kind- are thus left with no alternative than to ness, genero- sity, and even believe in the impossible. In his book self-sacrifice Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, the well- for the good of known Australian molecular biologist others of one's Michael Denton describes the situation: tribe or nation To the skeptic, the proposition that and finally of the genetic programmes of higher orga- mankind.134 nisms, consisting of something close to a Even as the thousand million bits of information, Dobzhansky Theodosius theory of evoluti- equivalent to the sequence of letters in a on found itself small library of 1,000 volumes, contai- facing a literal dead end in the face of ning in encoded form countless thou- genetic laws discovered in the first half sands of intricate algorithms controlling, of the 20th century, Dobzhansky took specifying, and ordering the growth and his place among the founders of neo- development of billions and billions of Darwinism, which was put forth as a cells into the form of a complex orga- new “patch” to Darwinism itself. nism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is ac- Drosophila cepted without a ripple of doubt— the — See . paradigm takes precedence!133 Fruit flies

Dobzhansky, Theodosius The Russian scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the feverish proponents of evolution theory, agrees that the idea of "natural selection," the foundation of Darwinism, gives rise to a morally degenerate society:

Natural selection can favor egotism, he-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar)

109

Contrary to their expectations, the E. coli bacterium selected by evolutionists to prove evolution and discover its supposed mechanisms has remained unchanged for a billion years.

E. coli bacterium Bacteria . . . are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce No living thing has ever undergone the most mutants. [B]acteria . . . exhibit a evolution through the mechanisms of na- great fidelity to their species. The bacil- tural selection and mutation. Yet evolu- lus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have tionist biologists sometimes maintain been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is that we cannot observe the evolutionary surprising, to say the least, to want to effect of the mechanisms of natural se- prove evolution and to discover its mec- lection and mutation because these mechanisms and then to choose as a material hanisms work over very lengthy periods for this study a being which practically of time. stabilized a billion ye- This is no more than a distraction ars ago! with no scientific foundation, because What is the has never been observed in such orga- use of their un- nisms as fruit flies or bacteria, whose ceasing mutati- very short life spans make it possible for ons, if they do not [produ- scientists to study them through thou- ce evolutionary] change? sands of generations. Pierre Paul Grassé comments on the stasis that makes bacterial evolution impossible:

E. coli bacterium 110

In sum, the mutations of bacteria and vi- Earth in the same perfect forms they ruses are merely hereditary fluctuations possess today. around a median position; a swing to the For that reason, Eldredge—who sha- right, a swing to the left, but no final evo- res the same views—claimed that evolu- lutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are tion happened by way of large sudden one of the most venerable living insect changes, a claim that was entirely the groups, have remained more or less unc- product of the imagination. hanged since the Permian, yet they have Actually, this theory was a different undergone as many mutations as Dro- version of the “Hopeful Monster” theory sophila, a Tertiary insect.135 proposed by the German paleontologist In short, it is impossible for living Otto Schindewolf back in the 1930s. Ac- things to have undergone evolution, be- cording to that theory, the first bird cause there is no evolutionary mecha- emerged from a reptile egg through an nism in nature. Indeed, when we look at enormous change caused by a random the fossil record, we see no evolutio- mutation. Certain land-dwelling animals nary process at all, but rather a picture might also have turned into giant whales that represents the exact opposite of through a similarly sudden and wide- evolution. ranging change. But this theory was swiftly abandoned. Eldredge, Niles In order to impart a scientific character to their theory, Eldredge and Gould The well-known evolutionist paleon- sought to develop a mechanism for these tologist Niles Eldredge is one of the sudden evolutionary leaps. But the in- most prominent adherents of the neo- consistencies in this claim soon gave its Darwinist model known as punctuated authors reason for concern. Niles El- equilibrium—in other words, the punc- dredge stated, by way of a question, that tuated model of evolution, first put for- the idea of living things progressing ward in the 1970s. (See Punctuated through evolution was logically flawed: equilibrium.) According to this theory, Do plant and animal species really im- evolution takes place not gradually, thro- prove and develop into the more comp- ugh small changes, but through very lar- lex? If so, then should we consider the ge and sudden ones. simple and unchanged life forms, such The reason behind such a scenario as the sponge, as evolutionary failures? (which actually contradicts the most ba- He then added that the evolutionary mot- sic claim of evolution) is that living spe- to “Progress is inevitable” should be rep- cies appear suddenly in the layers of the laced with “Why apes succeeded.” 136

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 111

Embryology ductive cells of a woman’s, ovary. This theory, proposed long before by Aristot- This branch of science studies the le, maintained that the individual’s spe- developmental stages between the zygo- cialized structures developed gradually te phase that results from the fertilization from non-specialized ones previously in of a living thing right through to birth. the egg.137 But following the disco- However, the concept of embryology is very under the microscope of sperm, the mostly used to describe a branch of bio- male reproductive cell, some scientists logy that studies the development of ani- developed the hypothesis in 1677 that mal embryos. sperm carried the fertilizing agent. th Until the 18 century, embryology Subsequent research in the field of was based more on speculation than on embryology was largely put forwards as facts. The reason was that genetics had evidence for evolution. But with the re- not yet been discovered, and the cell had alization, that drawings and interpretati- not as yet been described. In general ons produced were fake, the situation terms, the theory at that time was that was reversed, and embryological studies initially, all of an animal’s organs were demonstrated that living things are crea- in a miniaturized state and only needed ted with a perfect system with mutually to open up and develop, like the petals of compatible components. (See Embryo- a flower. Many naturalists maintained logical evolution below, also Recapitu- that this initial state existed in the repro- lation.)

Folds Eye Teeth Heart Arm Backbone Food sac

Leg

Umbilical cord

FALSIFIED DRAWING ACCURATE DRAWING

Above is an illustration drawn by Ernst Haeckel in order to prove a resemblance between the embryos of a human and a fish. When Haeckel’s drawing is compared with a genuine human embryo, it can be seen that he has deliberately removed a large number of the organs.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 112

Observations in recent years have revealed that the embryos of different life forms do not resemble each other at all in the manner suggested by Haeckel. The differences between the mammal, reptile and bat embryo shown above are a clear example of this.

Embryological evolution tain circles who have conditioned themselves to support the theory of evolution Any mammal undergoes a develop- still seek to portray his falsified dra- mental process in its mother’s womb. wings as evidence of embryological evo- The claim that embryological develop- lution. ment in living things is evidence for evo- According to Haeckel’s theory emb- lution, however, is known as the Recapi- ryos repeat the evolutionary process du- tulation theory in evolutionist literature. ring their developmental stages. The hu- (See Recapitulation theory.) A number man embryo, for instance, first exhibits of evolutionist publications and textbo- fish-like features and then reptilian ones oks today seek to portray this theory of during its development in the womb be- recapitulation which had previously before finally resembling a human being. en removed from the scientific literature, In later years, however, it emerged as a scientific fact. that this scenario was wholly imaginary. The term “recapitulation” is an ab- The supposed gills that appeared during breviated version of the “Ontogeny reca- an embryo’s earliest stages were deter- pitulates phylogeny” axiom proposed by mined in fact to be the middle ear canal the evolutionist biologist Ernst Haeckel and the beginning of the parathyroid and in the 19th century. Haeckel, the father thymus glands. That part of the embryo of the recapitulation theory, resorted to formerly compared to the yolk sac was fabricated drawings to back up his ficti- revealed to be a sac producing blood for tious thesis. (See Haeckel, Ernst.) Cer- the baby. That part that Haeckel and his

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 113 followers described as the tail is actually phylogeny” theory, the. the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it develops before the legs. Eoalulavis These facts are known to everyone in This is one of the fossils that demo- the world of science. Evolutionists also lishes evolutionist claims regarding Arc- accept them. As George Gaylord Simp- haeopteryx, showing that no evolutio- son, one of the founders of neo-Darwi- nary link can be established between nism, writes, “Haeckel misstated the birds and dinosaurs. The wing structure evolutionary principle involved. It is in Eoalulavis, approximately 30 million now firmly established that ontogeny do- years older than Archaeopteryx, is exact- 138 es not repeat phylogeny.” ly the same as that in slow-flying birds That Haeckel’s theory is mere forgery alive today. This feature considerably in- is also accepted by the leading authorities creases the bird’s maneuvering ability of evolution. The world famous Science and provides extra control during lan- magazine announces this fact in its Sep- ding and take-off. tember 1997 issue under the title, “Haec- The point is that a bird 30 million ye- kel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered.” ars older than Archaeopteryx was able to Not only did Haeckel add or omit featu- fly in a very effective manner.140 res, Richardson and his colleagues re- This proves that neither Archaeop- port, but he also fudged the scale to teryx nor any other birds like it were exaggerate similarities among species, transitional forms. even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in Endosymbiosis Theory, most cases, as if one representative was the accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues This thesis was put forward in 1970 note, even closely related embryos such by Lynn Margulis, who claimed that as those of fish vary quite a bit in their bacterial cells turned into plant and ani- appearance and developmental pathway. mal cells as the result of symbiotic and "It looks like it's turning out to be one of parasitical activity. According to this the most famous fakes in biology," Ric- thesis, plant cells emerged after a bacte- hardson concludes.139 rium swallowed another photosynthetic bacterium cell. The photosynthetic bacterium supposedly evolved inside the de- Embryological recapitu- vouring cell and turned into a chlorop- lation last. Finally, organelles with very comp- — See “Ontology recapitulates lex structures—such as the Golgi appa-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 114

ratus, endoplasmic reticulum and riboso- 2. Again, assume that all these im- me—somehow evolved inside the main possible events actually took place and cell. And thus plant cells came into be- that the cells claimed to be the forerun- ing. ners of chloroplasts were swallowed by This thesis is nothing more than a the main cell. We now face another figment of the imagination. Indeed, it problem: the blueprint for all the orga- has been criticized in many respects by nelles in the cell is encoded in DNA. If many scientists regarded as authorities the main cell is to use as organelles other on the subject—D. Lloyd141 , Gray and cells it has engulfed, then it needs to ha- Doolittle142 and Raff and Mahler, for ve the information concerning them co- example. ded in its DNA beforehand. Indeed, the The fact on which the endosymbiosis DNA of the swallowed cells would have thesis is based is that the chloroplasts in- to possess information regarding the ma- side the cell have their own DNA separa- in cell. Such a thing is of course impos- te from that of the main cell. Based on sible. No living thing carries genetic in- that distinction, it is claimed that mitoc- formation for an organ it does not pos- hondria and chloroplasts were once in- sess. It is impossible for the DNA of the dependent cells. Yet when chloroplasts main cell and that of the engulfed cells are examined in detail, the invalidity of to have later adapted to one another. this claim becomes apparent. 3. Within the cell, there is enormous The points that invalidate the en- harmony. Chloroplasts do not act inde- dosymbiosis thesis are as follows: pendently of the cell to which they be- 1. If chloroplasts had really once belong. In addition to being dependent on en swallowed by a larger cell when they the main DNA in protein synthesis, the were living independently, as is claimed, chloroplasts do not make the decision to then the only one result would have been multiply themselves. In any one cell, their digestion and use as food by the there are more than one chloroplast and main cell. Even if we assume that the mitochondrion. Just as with other orga- main cell did mistakenly absorb these nelles, their numbers rise or fall in line cells instead of food, its enzymes would with cell activity. have digested them. Naturally, evolutio- The fact that these organelles contain nists may try to gloss over this point by their own separate DNA is of particular claiming that the digestive enzymes had benefit when it comes to replication. As disappeared. But this is a manifest con- the cell divides, the chloroplasts also se- tradiction. If the digestive enzymes had parate in two, thus doubling their num- vanished, then the main cell would have bers, so that cell division takes place died for lack of nourishment. more quickly and orderly.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 115

4. Chloroplasts are vitally important Prokaryotic endocytosis [the taking in of generators of energy for the plant cell. If matter by a living cell] is the cellular these organelles are unable to do so, mechanism on which the whole of S.E.T. many of the cell’s functions cannot take (Serial Endosymbiotic Theory) presu- place, and the organism will be unable to mably rests. If one prokaryote could not survive. These vitally important functi- engulf another, it is difficult to imagine ons take place with proteins synthesized how endosymbiosis could be set up. Un- in the chloroplasts. However, the chlo- fortunately for Margulis and S.E.T., no modern examples of prokaryotic endocy- roplasts’ own DNA is not sufficient for tosis or endosymbiosis exist . . . 145 them to synthesize these proteins. The great majority of proteins are synthesi- There is no example of a bacteria zed using the cell’s main DNA.143 that is left intact, without being digested, It is absolutely impossible for such after being engulfed by another and harmony to have developed through trial which ‘contributes’ to the initiation of an and error. Any change in a DNA molecu- even more complex cell in nature. Such le will not gain the organism any new a relationship between two bacteria is characteristic, but will definitely harm it. not definitely demonstrated in any labo- Mahlon B. Hoagland describes the ratory experiments. That means such or- position in his book The Roots of Life: ganisms are not alive in nature or in test tubes, but only in the minds of evolutio- You’ll recall we learned that almost always a change in an organism’s DNA is nists. In reality, genes of eukaryotic cells detrimental to it; that is, it leads to a re- are much different than the ones in produced capacity to survive. By way of karyotic ones and no evolutionary relati- analogy, random additions of sentences onship exists in between them. D.F. to the plays of Shakespeare are not likely Doolittle has a confession in an article in to improve them! . . . The principle that the Scientific American magazine: DNA changes are harmful by virtue of re- ... many eukaryote genes are totally unli- ducing survival chances applies whether ke those seen in the prokaryotes and arc- a change in DNA is caused by a mutation or by some foreign genes we deliberately haea. They seem to come from no-whe- 146 add to it.144 re. Evolutionists did not produce their claims on the basis of any scientific ex- Law of Entropy, the periments. No such phenomenon as one bacterium swallowing another has ever —See, Second law of Thermodyna- been observed. The molecular biologist mics, the. Whitfield describes the situation:

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 116

Fossils of Eohippus, the supposed ancestor of the horse, and breeds of horse still alive today have all been found in the same strata.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 117

Eohippus sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change. . . The horse Evolutionists have set out horse fos- is often cited as the only fully worked-out sils out in a series, from small to larger. example. But the fact is that the line from Yet evolutionists do not agree on regar- Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is ding these family trees concerning the alleged to show a continual increase in horse’s supposed evolution. The only size, but the truth is that some variants point they agree upon is their belief that were smaller than Eohippus [the first in the sequence], not larger. Specimens a dog-like mammal known as Eohippus from different sources can be brought to- (Hyracotherium) that lived in the Eoce- gether in a convincing-looking sequence, ne period 55 million years ago is the first but there is no evidence that they were forerunner of the horse. Yet , Eohippus actually ranged in this order in time.149 portrayed as an equine ancestor that became extinct millions of years ago, is al- All these facts reveal that the horse most identical to the mammal known as evolution-trees, portrayed as one of the strongest pieces of evidences for evoluti- Hyrax that still lives in Africa, but has not the slightest connection with hor- on, are imaginary and worthless. Like ses.147 other species, horses were brought into The invalidity of the claim regarding being with no evolutionary forebears. the evolution of the horse is becoming (See Origin of the Horse, the.) clearer every day with the discovery of new fossils. Eohippus has been identifi- Eukaryote ed in strata containing some fossilized breeds of horse—Equus nevadensis and — See Root of Plant Cell, the. E. occidentalis—that are still alive today—Equus nevadensis.148 This shows that the modern horse lived at the Eugenic slaughter same time as its supposed forebear, pro- The theory of eugenics, which attrac- ving that the horse never underwent the ted many adherents in the first half of the process known as evolution. 20th century, called for the eradication In his book The Great Evolution of deformed and sick people and the im- Mystery, the evolutionist writer Gordon provement of a human race by means of Rattray Taylor describes the horse series the multiplication of healthy individuals. myth: According to the theory of eugenics, hu- But perhaps the most serious weakness of manity can be improved in the same way Darwinism is the failure of paleontolo- that breeds of animals can—by mating gists to find convincing phylogenies or strong, healthy animals together.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 118

The people who first proposed the Following the development of Dar- theory of eugenics were Darwinists. winism and the idea of eugenics, racist Charles Darwin’s nephew, Francis Gal- scientists in Germany began openly ad- ton, and his son Leonard Darwin led the vocating the killing of unwanted indivi- eugenics movement in Britain. From duals. One of these scientists, Adolf Jost, that point of view, the concept of euge- called for unwanted people to be medi- nics emerged as a natural consequence cally put down in his 1895 book Das of Darwinism. That fact was specially Recht auf den Todt (“The Right to Die”). emphasized in publications supporting Jost claimed that “the state needs to as- eugenics – “Eugenics is mankind direc- sume the responsibility for killing indivi- ting its own evolution,” they stated. duals for the health of the social orga- According to K. Ludmerer, the idea nism.” of eugenics was as old as Plato’s famous Jost was the intellectual inspiration work The Republic. However, Ludmerer behind Adolf Hitler, who would emerge states that Darwinism was the reason onto the world stage 30 years later. why interest in the idea increased: Along the same lines, Hitler said, “The . . . modern eugenics thought arose only state must ensure that only healthy chil- in the nineteenth century. The emergence dren exist. The visibly sick and those of interest in eugenics during that cen- carrying infectious diseases must be tury had multiple roots. The most impor- declared to be unfit.”151 tant was the theory of evolution, for Shortly after coming to power, Hitler Francis Galton’s ideas on eugenics—and initiated an official policy of eugenics, it was he who created the term “euge- which he summarized in these words: nics”—were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his Mental and physical education occupy cousin, Charles an important place for the state, but hu- Darwin.150 man selection is just as important. The state has a responsibility to declare that the genetically sick or individuals with infectious diseases are unfit to breed . . . . And that responsibility must be ruthlessly

The current effects of the concept of eugenics are reflected in the way the handicapped are treated. To the right can be seen a handicapped child excluded from society, and whose hands have even been tied.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 119

enforced, showing no compassion and children together. In 1935, special bree- without expecting others to understand. . ding farms were established for this pur- . . To stop the crippled or physically sick pose. Young girls who met racial criteria from reproducing over a period of 600 were sent to these farms, which, were years. . . will lead to improvement in hu- constantly visited by SS units. The ille- man health that cannot be obtained to- gitimate children born on these farms day. If the healthiest members of the race were to be raised as the citizens of the breed in a planned manner. . . then a race 1000-year Reich. will emerge that bears no mentally or physically defective seeds of the kind we 152 still carry today. Eukaryotic cells As a requirement of this policy of Hitler’s, the mentally ill, crippled, those —See, Origin of the plant cell, the born blind and the genetically sick in . German society were regarded as parasi- Eusthenopteron foordi tes who damaged the purity and universal progress of the German race. These After the capture of a living Coela- people were rounded up and sterilized. canth, evolutionists realized that this Not long after, these people who had be- was not a transitional form. So they next en removed from society began being settled on depicting the fish E. foordi as killed, following a secret directive issu- a transitional “missing link.” ed by Hitler. Evolutionists maintained that that the Under a law passed in 1933; 350,000 tailed water frog was descended from E. mental patients, 30,000 gypsies and hun- foordi. However, anatomical compari- dreds of black children were sterilized sons of tailed water frog and Eusthenop- by such methods as x-rays, injection or teron revealed profound differences bet- electric shocks to the genitals. One Nazi ween the two. This meant that evolutio- officer said, “National Socialism is nothing more than applied biology.”153 Hitler sought to accelerate the supposed evolution of the German race with these killings and ruthless measures aimed at innocent people, and also brought in eugenics. Blond, blue- eyed young men and women whom he regarded as representatives of the A Eusthenopteron foordi fossil dating to the German race were encouraged to have late Devonian Period, found in Canada

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 120

nists had to suppose another transitional Evolutionary mecha- form between them. However, no skele- nisms ton belonging to this theoretical transition between Eusthenopteron foordi and The neo-Darwinist model we refer to the tailed water frog Icthyostega has today as the theory of evolution propo- ever been found. ses two basic evolutionary mechanisms; Now, the two favorite subjects for natural selection and mutation. Accor- most of the contemporary evolutionary ding to the theory’s basic proposition, scenarios regarding tetrapod origins are these two mechanisms are mutually Eusthenopteron (an extinct fish) and complementary. The source of evolutio- Acanthostega (an extinct amphibian). Ro- nary changes is random mutations in the bert Carroll, in his Patterns and Proces- genetic structure of living things. Again ses of Vertebrate Evolution, makes com- according to the theory, natural selection ments on these allegedly related forms: favors the most advantageous characte- Eusthenopteron and Acanthostega ristics caused by mutations, and thus li- may be taken as the end points in the ving things evolve. transition between fish and amphibians. However, these proposed mecha- Of 145 anatomical features that could be nisms actually have no evolutionary for- compared between these two genera, 91 ce at all. And there is no question of showed changes associated with adapta- them giving rise to new species, as evo- tion to life on land . . . This is far more lutionists claim. (See Natural selection than the number of changes that occur- and Mutation.) red in any one of the transitions invol- ving the origin of the fifteen major groups of Paleozoic tetrapods.154 There is no process of evolution behind the origin of frogs. The earliest known frogs emerged totally different from fish and with their own unique structures. There is no difference between this frog fossil preserved in amber, discovered in the Dominican Republic, and living specimens. 121

Evolutionary Family Tree myth of evolution thus came together in ancient Greece, whence they were trans- — See Tree of Life and Imaginary planted to Roman culture. family tree of Man, the.) The idea that all living things had one common ancestor, maintained by the Evolution Theory, the theory of evolution, was put forward by the French biologist the Comte de Buf- Many people imagine the theory of fon in the mid-18th century. (See Buf- evolution to have been formulated by fon, Comte de.) Charles Darwin’s Charles Darwin and to be based on sci- grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, developed entific evidence, observations and expe- de Buffon’s idea and came up with the riments. However, the source of the the- first basic propositions representing the ory is not its intellectual founding father, concept we today know as the theory of Darwin, nor any scientific evidence. evolution. (See Darwin, Erasmus.) At a time when pagan religions do- After Erasmus Darwin, the French minated Mesopotamia, many beliefs and natural historian Jean Baptiste Lamarck myths abounded regarding the origin of proposed the first wide-ranging theory life and the universe. One of these, sur- of evolution at the beginning of the 19th prisingly, was a belief in evolution! Ac- century. (See Lamarck, Jean Baptiste.) cording to an inscription from Sumerian According to him, evolution operated times, known as the Enuma-Elish, there through “acquired characteristics being was initially watery chaos, out of which passed on from generation to generati- two gods, Lahmu and Lahamu, suddenly on.” In his view, the changes that living emerged. According to this myth, these things underwent during the course of deities first brought themselves into be- their lives were permanent and could be ing and then gave rise to other substan- passed on genetically to their offspring. ces and living things. In other words, ac- Lamarck’s theory enjoyed enormous cording to the Sumerian legend, life success at the time it was launched. But emerged suddenly out of watery chaos afterwards, that popularity declined ra- and developed by way of evolution. pidly. People with justified doubts regar- The evolution myth later flourished ding Lamarck’s theories began carrying in another pagan civilization—ancient out their own research. Greece. Athenian philosophers regarded In 1870, the British biologist Weis- matter as the only absolute entity. They mann proved that acquired characteris- turned to the myth of evolution, inheri- tics could not be passed on to subsequent ted from the Sumerians, to explain how generations and therefore, Lamarck’s life arose. Materialist philosophy and the theory was wrong. Therefore, the teac-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 122

ving things were created and maintains that they are the product of natural processes and random influences. According to this theory, all living things are descended from one another. A previously existing living species gradually developed turned into another, and eventually, all species emerged in this way. The transition took hundreds of millions of years and was carried forward in stages. Though the theory Like modern-day materialists, the ancient Greek materialist philosopher Democritus was been widely accepted for around a made the error of thinking that matter was century and a half, today it finds itself in eternal and nothing existed apart from mat- conflict with findings from a great many ter. branches of science such as paleontology, biochemistry, anatomy, biophysics hing today imposed on us and the entire and genetics. world as the theory of evolution is not actually based on Lamarck. The birth of Darwinism, known as the theory of evo- Evolutionary gaps lution the world around, came with the Though the theory of evolution has 1859 publication of Charles Darwin’s no scientific foundation, most people book The Origin of Species by Means of around the world regard it as scientific Natural Selection or the Preservation of fact. The most important reason for this Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. error is systematic indoctrination and Darwin removed certain obvious lo- propaganda from the media. gical errors from Lamarck’s theory and In their reports, the media giants produced the thesis rat- natural selection employ an assumption that the theory of her than a genetic explanation for the evolution is as certain as any mathemati- evolution of living things. cal law. The most classic example of this His theory of evolution denies that li- comes with regard to fossil remains.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 123

Sentences such as “According to a Time and from it a very concrete picture emer- magazine report, a very significant fossil ges: different living species appeared filling a gap in the chain of evolution has suddenly and separately on Earth, with been discovered,” or “According to a re- all their different structures, and with no port in Nature, scientists have clarified transitional forms between them. the final missing parts in the evolutionary puzzle” are printed in large, bold face. However, nothing has actually be- Evolutionary humanism en proven at all for the final missing link Julian Huxley, one of Darwin’s lea- in the evolutionary chain to have been ding supporters, sought to place the lat- found. All the evidence put forward is ter’s biological argument onto a philo- false. sophical footing and constructed a new On the other hand, despite there be- religion under the name of evolutionary ing millions of fossils of living things in humanism. perfectly formed states, no transitional The aim of this religion was to “en- form fossil that might confirm an evolu- sure that the evolutionary process on tionary development has ever been fo- Earth reached its maximum conclusi- und. In his 1991 book Beyond Natural on.” This was not restricted to strong or- Selection, the American paleontologist ganisms living longer and trying to rep- R. Wesson describes the significance of roduce more offspring. In addition, “it the real and concrete gaps in the fossil was foreseen that man would develop his record: own abilities to the highest level.” To The absence of a record of any important put it another way, efforts were to be ma- branching is quite phenomenal. Species de to enable mankind to proceed to sta- are usually static, or nearly so, for long ges more advanced than the one that hu- periods, species seldom and genera ne- man beings are in today. Huxley offered ver show evolution into new species or a full definition of the term Humanism: genera but replacement of one by anot- I use the word ‘Humanist’ to mean so- her, and change is more or less ab- meone who believes that man is just as rupt.155 much a natural phenomenon as an ani- This shows that the argument that mal or a plant, that his body, his mind, “Transitional-form fossils have not been and his soul were not supernaturally found yet, but may be in the future,” put created but are all products of evolution, forward by evolutionist for the last cen- and that the is not under the control or tury and a half, no longer has any vali- guidance of any supernatural Being or dity. The fossil record is sufficiently rich beings, but has to rely on himself and his 156 for us to understand the origin of life, own powers.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 124

Huxley’s suggestion that human be- nists, make crystal clear the fundamental ings’ sacred aim was to accelerate their beliefs of the Religion of Evolution. An own evolution had a profound effect on imaginary process of species evolution the American philosopher John Dewey. is first dreamed up, and it is then assu- He developed this line and founded the med that this process is the creator of movement known as Religious Huma- everything. The further, it is thought that nism in 1933, publishing the famous Hu- this process can represent salvation for manist Manifesto. The main idea he humanity, and it is believed that huma- emphasized was that the time had come nity’s sacred destiny is to serve that pro- for the traditional Theistic (God-orien- cess. In short, evolution is both a Crea- ted) religions to be done away with and tor, and a savior, and a sacred purpose. replaced by a new system based on sci- To short, it is worshipped as a deity. entific progress and social cooperation. The deaths of 50 million people in World War II as a result of “scientific Evolutionary paganism progress” rocked the optimism exhibited Some people believe in Divine reli- in the Humanist Manifesto. In the wake gions revealed to them by God. Others, of similar blows, Dewey’s followers we- are devoted to religions they have made re forced to partially revise their views, up for themselves or that have been pro- and they published the second Humanist duced by the society they live in. Some Manifesto in 1973. This one admitted worship totems, others the Sun, while ot- that science may sometimes harm man- hers beseech beings from outer space. kind, but preserved the basic idea: Man These second groups ascribe partners should now direct his own evolution and to God and are commonly defined as pa- could do so through science. As the Ma- gans in Western literature. nifesto said: Evolutionists also adopt the theory of Using technology wisely, we can control evolution, and indeed use science as a our environment, conquer poverty, mar- general religion. These people say they kedly reduce disease, extend our life- place their faith in scientific fact proven span, significantly modify our behavior, by means of concrete evidence. They al- alter the course of human evolution and so regard themselves as representatives cultural development, unlock vast new of a concrete reality, superior to religion. powers, and provide humankind with un- These deceptive claims of evolutionist paralleled opportunity for achieving an pagans place them in an imaginary posi- abundant and meaningful life.157 tion above other religious believers. For In fact these ideas, adopted conscio- them, accordingly, other religions are usly or subconsciously by all Darwi- subjective beliefs, whereas evolution is

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 125 an objective reality. Using the false aut- While this totalitarian approach im- hority bestowed by this deception, they poses the theory of evolution on society call on other religious believers to follow as a scientific fact, it also keeps a tight them. According to the evolutionist’s ar- reign on scientific circles. Most present- gument, if other religions accept evoluti- day biologists worship the pagan religion on and the concepts that follow from it, in question, and any who do not share then all socio-political measures based that belief are silenced. In this system, on evolution will be perceived as a moral the theory of evolution becomes a sacred teaching. cow. Scientists who reject evolution lose George Gaylord Simpson, one of the any chance of rising in their careers. most important figures in the neo-Darwi- The well-known professor of ana- nist movement, makes this clear: tomy Thomas Dwight describes this as

Of course there are some beliefs still cur- an intellectual dictatorship: rent, labeled as religious and involved in The tyranny of the zeitgeist in the religious emotions that are flatly incom- matter of evolution is overwhelming to patible with evolution and therefore are a degree of which outsiders have no idea. intellectually untenable in spite of their Not only does it influence (as I admit it emotional appeal. Nevertheless, I take it does in my own case) our manners of as now self-evident, requiring no further thinking, but there is oppression as in the special discussion, that evolution and tru- days of the Terror. How very few of the 158 e religion are compatible. leaders of science dare tell the truth con- This implies that evolution and the cerning their own state of mind.159 scientific teachings developed on the basis of it have the authority to judge other religions. It will be up to evolutionist science to decide which religions or which interpretation will be regarded as the “true” one. The teaching referred to as true religion makes no claims regarding the observable universe and that makes do solely with setting out moral criteria for human beings. Everything to do with the observable universe—science, eco- nomics, politics, law, etc—is to be determined in the light of an evolutionary conception.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar)

127

False god of chance, the ing in a forest. Because the sudden emergence of a fully-formed complex One evolutionist claim demolished structure shows that it was brought into th by 20 -century science is that of chan- existence by a conscious will. A system ce. Research conducted since the 1960s as complex as the cell is of course the has revealed that all the physical balan- product of a sublime knowledge and ces in the universe have been delicately will—in other words, it was created by regulated for human life. All the physi- our Almighty Lord, God. cal, chemical and biological laws in the Evolutionists believe that coinciden- universe, basic forces such as electro- ces can give rise to flawless structures, magnetism, and the structures of the though here they part ways with reason atom and the elements have all been re- and logic. The famous French zoologist gulated in such a way as to make human Pierre Grassé, formerly president of the life possible. Western scientists today French Academy of Sciences, is also a call this extraordinary creation the Ant- materialist, but maintains that Darwinist hropic Principle. In other words, every theory cannot account for life. He says detail in the universe possesses a special this about the logic of coincidence that creation that enables human life. (See represents the foundation of Darwinism: Anthropic Principle, the.) The opportune appearance of mutations The sudden emergence of a complex permitting animals and plants to meet structure is very definitely not anything their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the that can be explained in terms of chance. Darwinian theory is even more deman- For example, if you see a brand-new ma- ding: a single plant, a single animal wo- ke of car among the trees in a forest, you uld require thousands and thousands of will not imagine that various elements lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles combined to produce it over the course would become the rule: events with an of millions of years. All the raw materi- infinitesimal probability could not fail to als in a car, such as iron, plastic and rub- occur. . . . There is no law against day ber, either come directly from the Earth dreaming, but science must not indulge 160 or are products of it. Yet this does not in it. imply that these substances were ran- Grassé goes on to summarize what domly synthesized and then combined to the concept of coincidence means for produce a car. evolutionists:

Any rational, logical person will na- . . . chance becomes a sort of providence, turally realize that the car was designed which, under the cover of atheism, is not by intelligent humans and constructed in named but which is secretly worship- a factory, and will wonder what it is do- ped.161

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 128

Feathered Dinosaur The fossils described in the National deception, the Geographic article are: 1. Archæoraptor With every new fossil discovery, 2. Sinornithosaurus evolutionists engage in speculation on 3. Beipiaosaurus the link between birds and dinosaurs. According to the information provi- However, detailed analyses constantly ded in National Geographic, all three refute the conjecture that these fossils fossils are around 120 million years old, constitute evidence for reptile-to-bird and members of the theropod dinosaur evolution. class. (A theropod is the name given to A report titled “Feathered Dinosaur such carnivorous dinosaur species as Fossils Unearthed in China” in National Tyrannosaurus rex and Velociraptor.) magazine in 1996 was tho- Geographic However, National Geographic also ma- ught to represent definitive proof of evo- intained that these dinosaurs had bird-li- lution. But there was an error and a lack ke characteristics. These fossil dinosaurs of knowledge here. Since there is no evi- were covered in feathers, similar to tho- dence that feathered dinosaurs evolved, se in birds. the report concerning them later proved Over the months that followed, ho- fictitious. wever, detailed analysis of the fossil The article dealt with three theropod known as Sinosauropteryx showed that dinosaur fossils discovered in China. the structures evolutionists had descri- Great media propaganda sought to por- bed as bird feathers were in fact nothing tray these as important evidence for evo- of the sort. An article in Science magazi- lution. Even in Turkey, certain media or- ne called “Plucking the Feathered Dino- ganizations devoted wide space to those saur” stated that the structures evolutio- specious claims. nist paleontologists portrayed as feathers

Evolutionist paleontologists claimed this fossil was a feathered dinosaur, but later it was determined that the creature did not possess such a characteristic.

Sinornithosaurus 129 actually had nothing to do with feathers part birds and part dinosaurs. The evolu- at all: tionist paleontologist Chris Sloan who

Exactly 1 year ago, paleontologists were interpreted the fossils suggests that these abuzz about photos of a so-called "feat- creatures were unable to fly, but used hered dinosaur." . . The Sinosauropteryx their wings for balance when running. In specimen from the Yixian Formation in other words, they need to be regarded as China made the front page of The New the forerunners of birds and were as yet York Times, and was viewed by some as incapable of flight. confirming the dinosaurian origins of There is an enormous inconsistency birds. But at this year's vertebrate pale- here, because these fossils are only 120 ontology meeting in Chicago late last million years old. Yet Archaeopteryx, the month, the verdict was a bit different: oldest known bird, is already 150 milli- The structures are not modern feathers, on years old. Archaeopteryx had exactly say the roughly half-dozen Western pale- the same flying ability as modern-day ontologists who have seen the specimens. birds. It possessed the requisite broad . . . .Paleontologist Larry Martin of Kan- sas University, Lawrence, thinks the wings, asymmetric and complex feather structures are frayed collagenous fibers structure and sternum (breast) bone for beneath the skin—and so have nothing to flight. Evolutionists have for long at- do with birds.162 tempted to portray Archaeopteryx as the Following the failure of their specu- primitive forerunner of birds. Yet the greatest problem they face is that this lation with regard to Sinosauropteryx, evolutionists moved their attention to vertebrate already possessed all bird-like new fossil discoveries known as features and was fully capable of flight. In short, proves that Archæoraptor, Sinornithosaurus and Be- Archaeopteryx ancient birds were flying through the air ipiaosaurus. (See Archaeoraptor). A dogmatic approach to evolution, a lack 150 million years ago. This naturally of thought and belief in a preconception makes it impossible for fossil dinosaurs lead to such errors and erroneous inter- that are younger by 30 million years to pretations. The fossils in question estab- be regarded as the primitive forerunners lish no connection between birds and di- of birds that were as yet incapable of nosaurs, but rather raise a number of in- flight. This shows an evident contradicti- consistencies and contradictions, some on in evolutionist claims regarding of which may be summed up as follows: Archæoraptor, Sinornithosaurus and Be- The fossils discovered in China and ipiaosaurus. known as Archæoraptor, Sinornithosau- rus and Beipiaosaurus are depicted as

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 130

Feduccia, Alan South American continent spread over the islands, and as a result of geographic The evolutionist claim seeking to de- isolation, variations began to predomi- pict as a transitional form Archaeopteryx nate between the two groups. (See Ge- is based on the supposition that birds ographic isolation.) evolved from dinosaurs. However, Pro- The speciation among these birds fessor Alan Feduccia emerged at exactly this point. It has been of the University of seen that when birds belonging to diffe- North Carolina, one rent variations are brought back together of the world’s leading again in any e way, they lose the instinct ornithologists—des- to mate with one another. This stems not pite being an evolu- from any biological difference, but from tionist himself—abso- completely different behavior patterns. lutely opposes the One bird does not regard as a potential theory that birds are Alan Feduccia mate another variation it has not pre- related to dinosaurs: viously lived together. As a result, these Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years variations failure to interbreed stems and I don't see any similarities whatsoe- not from their turning into biologically ver. I just don’t see it. . . . The theropod different species, but because their living origins of birds, in my opinion, will be in different geographical regions leaves the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.163

Finch (Fringilla coelebs) The finches that some evolutionists claim to represent evidence of micro-evolution are actually an example of speciation. It is true that initially, the ancestors of the finches on the Galapagos Islands were rather few in number. However, some finches that arrived on the islands from the 131

The finches with varying beaks that Darwin saw on the Galapagos Islands—and which he thought constituted evidence for his theory—are in fact examples of variation and represent no evidence for the claim of the evolution of species. them feeling no impulse to do so. new information—being added to the In an effort to use this observation to species’ gene pool. support their own theories, evolutionists To give an analogy of how evolutio- propose a groundless, unscientific dis- nists distort this evident truth on the ge- tortion along the lines of “Finches spe- netic variation in finches for their own ciate among themselves thanks to geog- advantage, pick up a pack of playing raphic isolation. This means that if they cards and shuffle it a few times. No new are exposed to greater natural selection or different cards will ever emerge. All they will soon turn into totally different that happens is that the order of the cards species.” changes. But this variation in finches has not- The variation within finches is exact- hing to do with the formation of new ly the same. No new gene is added to the species, as evolutionists maintain. The these birds’ gene pool, and the finches phenomenon consists of new variations newer turn into another species of bird. within a species emerging through diffe- They merely exhibit variation within rent gene combinations within the entire themselves. Many living things in nature finch gene pool. The species is still the display even extensive variations, but same species, and there is no question of none of them is evidence for evolution. any new genes—in other words, any

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 132

Five-digit homology The hands and feet of a frog, a lizard, a squirrel or a monkey are all of this Just about every book about evoluti- kind. Even the bone structures of birds on points to the hand and foot structure and bats agree with this basic design. of tetrapods —that is, land-dwelling ver- Therefore, evolutionists claim that all tebrates—as an example of homology. these life forms are evolved from a sing- Tetrapods have five digits on their front le common ancestor and for long, they and rear feet. Even if these do not al- regarded the phenomenon of pentadact- ways fully resemble fingers or toes, the- ylism as evidence of this. In our own ti- se creatures are still regarded as penta- me, however, it was realized that this dactyl (having five digits) because of claim actually lacked any scientific vali- their bone structure. dity.

The fact that almost all terrestrial vertebrates have five digits on their hands and feet was for years portrayed by evolutionists as great evidence for Darwinism. However, the latest research has revealed that these bone structures are controlled by very different genes. Thus the five-digit homology hypothesis has now collapsed. 133

Even evolutionists admit that penta- similar to the forelimbs in bone structure dactylism is a characteristic found in dif- and in their detailed embryological deve- ferent living groups among which they lopment. Yet no evolutionist claims that cannot construct any evolutionary relati- the hind limb evolved from the forelimb, onship. For example, in two separate ar- or that hind limbs and forelimbs evolved ticles published in 1991 and 1996, the from a common source. . . . Invariably, as biological knowledge has grown, com- evolutionist biologist M. Coates states mon genealogy as an explanation for si- that the phenomenon of pentadactylism milarity has tended to grow ever more te- emerged on two separate occasions, in- nuous. . . . Like so much of the other cir- dependently of one another. According cumstantial “evidence”" for evolution, to Coates, a pentadactyl structure emer- that drawn from homology is not convin- ged in both Anthracosaurs and in amphi- cing because it entails too many anoma- bians, quite independently of each ot- lies, too many counter-instances, far too her.164 This finding indicates that pen- many phenomena which simply do not fit tadactylism cannot represent any eviden- easily into the orthodox picture.165 ce for the hypothesis of a common an- The real blow to the claim of five-di- cestor. (See Common ancestor.) git homology, so long propagated in Another difficulty for the evolutio- evolutionist publications, was dealt by nists is that these vertebrates have five molecular biology. The hypothesis col- digits on both their front and hind feet. lapsed when it was realized that finger Yet nowhere in the evolutionist literature structure was controlled by different ge- is it suggested that front and back feet nes in different species with a penta- developed from a common ancestor and dactyl digit structure. it is not hypothesized that they then de- The biologist John Randall describes veloped independently. Therefore, we the collapse of the evolutionist thesis re- would expect front and back feet to have garding pentadactylism: different structures as a result of diffe- The older textbooks on evolution make rent random mutations. much of the idea of homology, pointing Michael Denton has this to say on out the obvious resemblances between the subject: the skeletons of the limbs of different ani- [T]he forelimbs of all terrestrial verteb- mals. Thus the ‘pentadactyl’ [five bone] rates are constructed according to the limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, same pentadactyl design, and this is at- the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, tributed by evolutionary biologists as and this is held to indicate their common showing that all have been derived from origin. Now, if these various structures a common ancestral source. But the hind were transmitted by the same gene coup- limbs of all vertebrates also conform to les, varied from time to time by mutations the pentadactyl pattern and are strikingly and acted upon by environmental selecti-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 134

on, the theory would make good sense. by bacteria.” At a conference on “The Unfortunately this is not the case. Homo- Collapse of the Theory of Evolution: logous organs are now known to be pro- The Fact of Creation” held by the Scien- duced by totally different gene complexes ce Research Foundation on 5 July 1998, in the different species. The concept of he responded to evolutionist claims at homology in terms of similar genes han- the biochemical level: ded on from a common ancestor has broken down.166 Modern biochemistry proves that organisms are marvelously designed, and this fact alone proves the existence of the 167 Fliermans, Carl Creator. Indiana University Professor of Mic- Flying reptiles robiology Carl Fliermans, a renowned This interesting subclass of reptiles scientist, carried out research supported first emerged some 200 million years by the U.S. Department of Defense on ago in the Upper Triassic Period and la- “the neutralization of chemical wastes ter became extinct. All are reptiles, be-

Eudimorphodon, one of the oldest species of flying reptile. This fossilized specimen, found in northern Italy, is around 220 million years old.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 135

The wing membranes of flying reptiles are attached to a fourth finger some 20 times longer than the other digits. The important feature is that this unique wing structure appears suddenly in the fossil records. There are no intermediate forms to show how the fourth finger developed gradually—in other words, that it extended through evolution. cause they bear fundamental reptilian fe- to fly. In that case, according to the logic atures: cold-blooded metabolisms (unab- of evolution itself, they would have le to produce their own heat), and bodies swiftly gone extinct. covered in scales. However, thanks to When examined, the wing structure their powerful wings, they were able to of flying reptiles is seen that as too flaw- fly. less and sophisticated to be explained in Various popular evolutionist publica- terms of evolution. Flying reptiles have tions portray flying reptiles as a paleonto- five fingers on their wings, as do other logical discovery that supports Darwi- reptiles do on their front limbs. However, nism—or at least, give such an impressi- the fourth finger is some 20 times longer on. In fact, however, their origin constitu- than the others, and the wing stretches tes a major dilemma for the theory of out from it as a membrane. Had terrestri- evolution: The flying reptiles emerge in al reptiles actually evolved into flying the fossil record suddenly and fully for- reptiles, then the fourth finger in question med, with no intermediate form between could only have lengthened gradually— them and terrestrial reptiles. They have and in stages. Not just the fourth finger perfectly created powerful wings, which but all structural wing changes must have no land reptiles possess. Yet no fossil of a come about through mutations, and the half-winged creature has ever been disco- entire process must have constituted an vered. advantage for these animals. In fact, it is impossible for half-win- Professor Duane T. Gish, a foremost ged creatures ever to have existed. Had critic of the theory of evolution on the pa- such fictitious animals ever lived, they leontological level, makes this comment: would have been at a disadvantage com- The very notion that a land reptile could pared to other species, having lost the use have gradually been converted into a fly- of their front legs, but still being unable ing reptile is absurd. The incipient, part-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 136

way evolved structures, rather than con- since for most people the word reptile ferring advantages to the intermediate implies a land-dwelling vertebrate, evo- stages, would have been a great disad- lutionist publications seek to lump the vantage. For example, evolutionists sup- pterodactyls in with dinosaurs and write pose that, strange as it may seem, mutati- about “reptiles opening and closing their ons occurred that affected only the fourth wings.” But in fact, land reptiles and fly- fingers a little bit at a time. Of course, ot- ing reptiles emerged with no evolutio- her random mutations occurring concur- nary links between them. rently, incredible as it may seem, were responsible for the gradual origin of the wing membrane, flight muscles, tendons, Fluoride testing nerves, blood vessels, and other structures necessary to form the wings. At some One method used to determine the stage, the developing flying reptile would age of fossils is fluoride testing, first tri- have had about 25 percent wings. This ed on a number of ancient fossils in 1949 strange creature would never survive, by Kenneth Oakley of the British Muse- however. What good are 25 percent um’s Paleontology Department. Using wings? Obviously the creature could not this technique, an experiment was per- fly, and he could no longer run.168 formed on the Piltdown Man fossil and It is impossible to account for the showed that the “fossil” jawbone contai- origin of flying reptiles in terms of Dar- ned no fluoride—thus revealing that it winist evolutionary mechanisms. Inde- had been in the earth for no more than a ed, the fossils make it clear that no such few years. evolution ever took place. All that exists The skull, which contained a small in the fossil record are perfect, flying amount of fluoride, however, could have reptiles, along with land-dwelling repti- been only a few thousand years old. les of the kind we are familiar with to- Subsequent research conducted on day. the basis of fluoride testing revealed that Robert L. Carroll, an evolutionist the skull was indeed only a few thousand himself and one of the most eminent fi- years old. It was also determined that the gures in the world of vertebrate paleon- teeth in the jawbone were those of an tology, makes this confession: orangutan and had been artificially abra- . . . all the Triassic pterosaurs were high- ded, and that the primitive tools found ly specialized for flight . . . They provide near the fossil were replicas that had be- … no evidence of earlier stages in the en created using steel tools.170 Detai- 169 origin of flight. led analysis by Joseph Weiner definiti- None of the flying reptiles provides vely revealed the fossil’s fraudulent na- any evidence for evolution. However, ture in 1953. The skull was human, but

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 137

only 500 years old, whereas the jawbone decay, but the mould or cast remains. If belonged to a newly deceased orangu- minerals subsequently fill the hollow, tan! (See Piltdown Man.) the result is an exact copy of the organism’s outline. If the body parts are replaced with different minerals, this is Fossil known as petrifaction. So perfect can This is the name given to the remains this petrifaction sometimes be that ana- or traces of a plant or animal preserved tomical studies can even be carried out in the Earth’s strata. The word itself is of on fossilized specimens.172 Latin origin, signifying to dig. Fossils Fossils may include not only the hard collected from all over the world provide parts of living things such as bones, te- detailed information about the orga- eth, and shells, but can even preserve nisms that have lived on Earth since life moulds of various organs and even sug- began. gest lifestyles. The shape of bones and Under normal conditions, when an how muscles were attached to them can animal dies, all traces of it quickly di- tell us an animal’s posture and how it sappear. The body may be removed by moved.173 scavengers or broken down by micro-or- Fossil research also enables us to ob- ganisms, after which no trace of the ani- tain information about extinct animals mal is left. Remains are only preserved and plants, and when these particular under exceptional circumstances.171 species lived. However, evolutionists al- For that reason, only a very few orga- so regard fossils as vital in terms of nisms are preserved as fossils after they constructing genetic relationships bet- die. The fossilization of any organism ween living things and indicating simila- generally depends on two conditions be- rities in their development. They use fos- ing met: sil remains to prove their claim that li- 1. Swift burial, so that it is protected ving things supposedly developed from against attacks by scavengers, one another in stages. However, altho- 2. The presence of hard body parts, ugh some 80% of the fossil records have capable of being fossilized. today been uncovered, they have no evi- The most efficient environment for dence to offer, apart from a few fossils fossilization is a muddy, clay-rich one. that subsequently proved to be fakes or After any organism that falls—or is the product of distortion. In fact, the fos- dragged—into such an environment, the sils in the layers of the Earth confirm elements around harden, forming a mo- that living things have existed in their uld. Later, the soft tissues of the orga- perfect forms ever since they were first nism itself generally disappear, due to created. (See Fossil records, below.)

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) Ever since Darwin’s theory came to dominate the world of science, paleontology has been based upon that theory. Yet despite this, excavations in many regions of the world have provided results that have refuted the theory rather than supporting it. Fossils show that the different living groups on Earth emerged suddenly with all their particular characteristics—in other words, that they were created. 139

In his 1991 book Beyond Natural Se- with all species eventually coming into lection, the American paleontologist Ro- being in this way. According to the the- bert Wesson describes how the gaps in ory, this transition took place over hun- the fossil records are real and objective: dreds of millions of years and proceeded

The gaps in the fossil record are real, ho- in stages. That being the case, countless wever. The absence of a record of any im- transitional forms should have appeared portant branching is quite phenomenal. and persisted over a fairly lengthy time Species are usually static, or nearly so, frame. (See Transitional Forms.) for long periods, species seldom and ge- Indeed, the number of these transitio- nera never show evolution into new spe- nal forms should be even greater than cies or genera but replacement of one by that of the species we know of today. another, and change is more or less ab- Darwin admitted that this represented an 174 rupt. enormous difficulty for his theory in the chapter “Difficulties on Theory” of his book The Origin of Species: Fossil records Why, if species have descended from ot- Observational biological findings do her species by fine gradations, do we not not support the claim that different li- everywhere see innumerable transitional ving things are descended from a com- forms? Why is not all nature in confusi- mon forebear, and it is paleontology, the on, instead of the species being, as we se- study of fossils, which clarifies this fact. e them, well defined. . . . But, as by this Evolution, they say, is a process that to- theory innumerable transitional forms ok place in the past, and our only scienti- must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in fic source of information about the his- the crust of the earth? . . . Why then is not tory of life is fossil findings. every geological formation and every The famous French zoologist Pierre stratum full of such intermediate links? Paul Grassé has this to say: Geology assuredly does not reveal any Naturalists must remember that the pro- such finely graduated organic chain; and cess of evolution is revealed only through this perhaps, is the most obvious and fossil forms. . . Only paleontology can gravest objection which can be urged 176 provide them with the evidence of evolu- against my theory. tion and reveal its course or mecha- The argument that Darwin proposed 175 nisms. 140 years ago in the face of the absence According to the theory of evolution, of transitional form fossils—that there living things are descended from one may be no transitional forms now, but another. One living species already in these may be discovered through later existence gradually turned into another, research—is no longer valid. Today’s

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) f b D i d l o l i r THE NATURALHISTORYTHATMUSTHAVETAKENPLACEACCORDINGTO Period Cambrian Pre- l k y i v o a T T THE FOSSILREC Period Cambrian Today u THE FOSSILREC f

Today e e f m h h r s d e

w r e e t e t

r h t i THE TRUENATURALHISTORYREVEALEDBYFOSSIL RECORD e

a v a n h f t e n e o h t i e s s

e t l s e b

o i

m s c n s b o r p o

a g i a r , t i l

y TIME

u n

n l h s l e e r

i r g c i e o i f

s s c e

h c c f a e

e o TIME DIFFERENCEBETWEENLIFEFORMS o c l TIME e f n

i s m l v o o r v a d d i

r f o n i o

m m

, m b l e

g f u h o

e s

o : THEO t THEO a g o

n c

i n A

o r m w o

t s o c a n r m e THE DIFFERENCEBETWEENLIFEFORMS . u u e c n

v m s p T e o i c e n t h s . r e a r

g d e

h , s i (

THE THEORYOFEVOLUTION i

a p n m t r a a o e t v h g a b o r e v

R i o R t r e l

a n o e a O d O v a n s

) e i Y O l Y O c

d s

a t e o d

RD ARGUESAGAINSTTHE h RD ARGUESAGAINSTTHE

r d t r m i o a h g a i v s t e p e g

e e t d l r e r h a g F EVO F EVO x e m e d e a d p T E d b h x p h i i e a S a f a e y p f f r r o g e , t l c r e a h L r m L e r t b a a e

u b a o e m r UTI w n UTI e t e p p

t a

d c p p a b s s 0 a e o c e s t m 0 t a n r s l u u u o r

i o d e t a b e c w

e ON ON d

t l a s d , e l

u e y

u s

o x t r s

n i b f h e t a c u

l i s e t s y n

d h d l e

c i i d d c v i e q n t s e i o i . c u

n f . t t n m f r

e g h e e A l

n y p e r a s c e

t l

a l e

C n a c r e n t i a t s a e s , d

s m l e l b

i y

e v w

b e

b i i s d n n i e c r t

e i g

h a (

a t p s v

u h n g a e e h s e

r l l e y P o l o e e i

l r n e a u t p

s h

n r ) p e i i o e n u o s d m i

m d

. r t o

h . e - n e 141 paleontological data show exceedingly put forward the truth that not “even one rich fossil records. On the basis of the intermediary form” exists and living be- billions of fossils discovered in various ings which existed for millions of years regions of the world, some 250,000 dif- have “not changed” at all. Evolutionist ferent species have been described. They writer Gordon R. Taylor describes this as bear an extraordinary resemblance to the follows: 177 1.5 million or so species alive today. One of the most astonishing features in It seems impossible that any transitional the fossil record is the way in which new forms will be unearthed by new excava- phyla have quietly appeared and carried tions, given the absence of any transitio- on without making much impact for a nal forms so far in such a rich array of while, and then have suddenly diversified fossil specimens. into numerous life forms. This is called T. Neville George, a Glasgow Uni- by paleontologists “explosive radiation”. versity professor of paleontology, admit- (The word is used merely in its basic sen- 180 ted as much years ago: se of lines radiating from a point.) George Gaylord Simpson, evolutio- There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In so- nist paleontologist at the American Mu- me ways it has become almost unmana- seum of Natural History makes the con- geably rich, and discovery is outpacing fession: integration. . . . The fossil record nevert- This is true of all the thirty-two orders of heless continues to be composed mainly mammals. . . The earliest and most pri- 178 of gaps. mitive known members of every order al- Niles Eldredge, the well-known Har- ready have the basic ordinal characters, vard University paleontologist, refutes and in no case is an approximately conti- Darwin’s claim that the fossil records are nuous sequence from one order to anot- inadequate, which is why we are unable her known. In most cases the break is so to find any transitional forms: sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much dis- The record jumps, and all the evidence puted.... This regular absence of transi- shows that the record is real: The gaps tional forms is not confined to mammals, we see [in the fossil record] reflect real but is an almost universal phenomenon, events in life's history—not the artifact of as has long been noted by paleontolo- 179 a poor fossil record. gists. It is true of almost all classes of Darwinists no longer claim the fossil animals, both vertebrate and invertebra- record is not adequate on the account te . . . it is true of the classes, and of the that fossil findings have almost provided major animal phyla, and it is apparently all the samples. Main part of the earth is also true of analogous categories of 181 already examined and paleontology has plants.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 142

In the journal Science, D.S. Woodroff possible for a reaction that gives off wa- of California University sets out this gra- ter (a so-called condensation reaction) to ve disappointment suffered by evolutio- take place in an environment containing nists: water. (See Le Chatelier’s Principle, the.) Therefore, the oceans—where evo- But fossil species remain unchanged thro- lutionists say that life began—are defini- ughout most of their history and the re- tely unlikely, unsuitable places for amino cord fails to contain a single example of a acids to combine and produce proteins. significant transition.182 Given this “water problem” that so demolished all their theories, evolutio- Fox Experiment, the nists began to construct new scenarios. Sydney Fox, the best-known of these re- Amino acids release water molecules searchers, came up with an interesting as they combine chemically to form pro- theory to resolve the difficulty. He theori- teins. According to this behavior, known zed that immediately after the first amino as the Le Chatelier’s principle, it is not acids had formed in the primitive ocean,

FOX’S “PROTEINOIDS” Under the influence of Miller’s scenario, Stanley Fox combined certain amino acids to form the molecules above, which he called proteinoids. However, these useless amino acid chains had nothing to do with the real proteins that make up living organisms. In fact, all his endeavors confirmed that life cannot be created in the laboratory, let alone come into being by chance.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 143 they must have been splashed onto the archer used the useless amino acids that rocks by the side of a volcano. The water Miller produced.184 in the mixture containing the amino acids This experiment of Fox’s was not re- must then have evaporated due to the ceived all that positively by evolutionist high temperature in the rocks. In this circles because it was obvious that the way, amino acids could have distilled amino acid chains (proteinoids) he obtai- and combined—to give rise to proteins. ned were not only meaningless, but co- But his complicated account pleased uld not have emerged under natural con- nobody. Amino acids could not have ex- ditions. In addition, proteins—the buil- hibited a resistance to heat of the kind ding blocks of life—had still not been that Fox proposed. Research clearly sho- obtained. The problem of proteins had wed that amino acids were destroyed at still not been solved. higher temperatures. Even so, Fox refu- An article published in Chemical En- sed to abandon his claim. gineering News, a science magazine in He combined purified amino acids the 1970s, said this about the experiment by heating them in a dry environment in conducted by Fox: the laboratory under very special condi- Sydney Fox and the other researchers tions. The amino acids were duly combi- managed to unite the amino acids in the ned, but he still obtained no proteins. . shape of "proteinoids" by using very spe- What he did obtain were simple, disor- cial heating techniques under conditions dered amino-acid sequences, bound to which in fact did not exist at all in the one another in a random manner, that primordial stages of Earth. Also, they are were far from resembling the proteins of not at all similar to the very regular pro- any living thing. Moreover, had Fox teins present in living things. They are kept the amino acids at the same tempe- nothing but useless, irregular chemical rature, the useless links that did emerge stains. It was explained that even if such would have immediately broken down molecules had formed in the early ages, 185 again.183 they would definitely be destroyed. Another point that makes his experi- The proteinoids that Fox obtained ment meaningless is that Fox used pure were certainly far from being true prote- amino acids from living organisms, rat- ins in terms of structure and function. her than those obtained in the Miller Ex- There were as different from proteins as periment. In fact, however, the experi- a complex technological device is from a ment, claimed to be an extension of the heap of scrap metal. Miller Experiment, should have continu- Furthermore, these irregular collecti- ed from the conclusion of that experi- ons of amino acids had no chance of sur- ment. Yet neither Fox nor any other rese- viving in the primitive atmosphere. Un-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 144

der the conditions of that time, destructi- Fox, Sydney ve chemical and physical effects produced by the intense ultraviolet rays reac- Sydney Fox maintained that proteins, hing the Earth and by uncontrolled natu- the building blocks of life, had formed by ral conditions would have broken down chance from amino acids and carried out these proteinoids and made it impossible an experiment in an attempt to demons- for them to survive. Because of the Le trate this. (See Fox Experiment, the.) Chatelier’s principle, there Under the influence of can be no question of these Miller’s scenario, Fox amino acids being under- combined various amino water where ultraviolet acids and produced mole- rays could not reach them. cules he named “proteino- In the light of all these ids”. However, these facts, the idea that prote- functionless amino acid inoid molecules represen- chains had nothing to do ted the beginning of life with the actual proteins that compose living increasingly lost all credi- Sydney Fox bility among scientists. things. In fact, all of Fox’s endeavors documented that life could not be produced in the la-

Eye

Antenna Leg NORMAL MUTANT

Ever since the beginning of the last century, evolutionist biologists have exposed flies to mutations and looked for examples of beneficial ones. However, all that has ever been obtained are sick, deformed and imperfect flies. The picture shows a normal fly’s head and another, belonging to a fruit fly subjected to mutation, with legs emerging from it.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 145 boratory, let alone come into being by tations, practically all trivial or positi- chance. vely deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few Fruit flies of the geneticists' monsters could have All evolutionist efforts to establish survived outside the beneficial mutations have ended in failu- bottles they were re. In order to reverse this pattern, evolu- bred in. In practice tionists have for decades been carrying mutants die, are ste- Douglas Futuyma out experiments on fruit flies, which rep- rile, or tend to revert 187 roduce very quickly and which can ea- to the wild type. sily be subjected to mutations. Scientists In short, like all have encouraged these insects to under- other living things, fruit flies possess go all kinds of mutations, a great many specially created genetic information. times. However, not one single useful The slightest alteration in that informati- mutation has ever been observed. on only leads to harm. The evolutionist geneticist Gordon R. Taylor describes these evolutionists’ Futuyma, Douglas pointless persistence: In his 1986 book Evolutionary Bio- It is a striking, but not much mentioned logy, Douglas Futuyma maintained that fact that, though geneticists have been natural selection was an evolutionary breeding fruit flies for sixty years or mo- mechanism. The example Futuyma’s bore in labs all round the world—flies ok cited was that of the color of a moth which produce a new generation every population turning darker in Britain du- eleven days—they have never yet seen ring the Industrial Revolution—one of the emergence of a new species or even a the best known such examples. (See In- 186 new enzyme. dustrial-Revolution moths, the.) Ho- Another researcher, Michael Pitman, wever, he admitted, “Organisms either expresses the failure of the experiments appeared on the earth fully developed, on fruit flies: or they did not. If not, then they must have developed from pre-existing species . . . geneticists have subjected generati- by some process of modification. If they ons of fruit flies to extreme conditions of did appear in a fully developed state, heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by they must indeed have been created by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mu-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar)

147 some omnipotent intelligence.”188 Galapagos Islands In addition, Futuyma—one of the This group of islands in the Pacific best-known exponents of the theory of Ocean off the coast of Ecuador contain a evolution in our time—indicates the true great many living species, particularly reason for the importance of the theory: birds and reptiles. The miraculous diver- “Together with Marx's materialist the- sity that Darwin observed here led him ory of history and society. . . Darwin he- to conclude, in contrast to many others wed the final planks of the platform of at the time, that all living things had co- mechanism and materialism.” 189 me into existence as the result of chance. He was unable to appreciate the infinite might of God, the Creator of them all. He should have been influenced by the artistry in the universe and as a researcher, have immediately comprehended this fact. But he actually followed a logic that was diametrically opposed. Although he collected thousands of specimen and preserved them in alcohol, he was interested only in finch species and when he investigated them, made very narrow-minded deductions. Natu- rally, the thinness, length of shortness of finch beaks can be examined. Yet nobody who thinks along rational and scientific lines should make a deduction solely on the basis of such an investigation about the origin of all living things—for instance how giant whales, different kinds of elephant, flies with their wondrous acrobatic ability, the butterflies with marvelous symmetry on their wings, different fish living under the sea, shellfish, birds, reptiles and, most important of all human beings possessed of reason and consciousness.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 148

Galton, Sir Francis nucleus is made up of nucleic acids expressed in shorthand form by the letters Like his cousin, Charles Darwin, Sir A, T, G and C. The molecules represented Francis Galton was interested in biology. by these letters combine together in pairs, In contrast to Darwin, he investigated fi- with each pair forming a rung in the elds about which little was known: here- DNA. Genes emerge through these rungs, dity and intelligence. Galton supported one on top of the other. Every gene, part the idea of eugenics (which sought to of the DNA molecule, controls a particu- improve the human race by way of here- lar characteristic in the human body. dity) for the development of inherent All the physical information regar- characteristics an individual possessed ding a living thing—from height to eye since birth. Galton’s genetic concept was color, from the shape of the nose to blo- adopted by Hitler, Churchill and many od group—is encoded in its genes. There people who sought to eliminate “unfit” are some 30,000 genes in the human races. DNA. Every gene consists of between K. Ludmerer states that Darwinism 1,000 and 186,000 nucleotides, depen- was the reason for the 19th century’s in- ding on the kind of protein it corres- creased interest in eugenics: ponds to, set out in a specific sequence. . . . modern eugenics thought arose only These genes contain some 30,000 codes in the nineteenth century. The emergence controlling the production of these proof interest in eugenics during that cen- teins. The information contained in these tury had multiple roots. The most impor- 30,000 genes represents just 3% of the tant was the theory of evolution, for total information in the DNA. The re- Francis Galton’s ideas on eugenics—and maining 97% is still a mystery. it was he who created the term “euge- Genes are found inside chromoso- nics”—were a direct logical outgrowth of mes. The nucleus of every human cell the scientific doctrine elaborated by his (with the exception of reproductive cousin, Charles Darwin.190 cells) has 46 chromosomes. If each chromosome were compared to a volume and each gene to a page, there is enough in- Genes formation in one cell—which contains The DNA data bank found in the cell all the features of a human being—to fill

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 149 a 46-volume encyclopedia. That encyclopedia is equivalent to 920 Encyclope- dia Britannica volumes. The letters in the DNA of every human being are arranged differently. That is why all the billions of people who have ever lived on Earth have been different from one another. The basic structure and functions of organs and limbs are the same in everyone. But everyone is specially created with such finely detai- creation. led differences. Even though each human being is the product of a single cell Gene frequency dividing, nobody looks exactly the same as anyone else. Every population—every commu- All the organs in your body are cons- nity consisting of living members of the tructed within the framework of a bluep- same species, spread over a specific are- rint describes by the genes. For example, a—has its own particular genetic struc- according to scientists, the skin is con- ture. This genetic structure is determined trolled by 2,559 genes, the brain by by the population’s genotype (or indivi- 29,930, the eye by 1,794, the salivary dual genetic structure) and gene frequ- glands by 186, the heart by 6,216, the ency. breast by 4,001, the lung by 11,581, the Gene frequency means the percenta- liver by 2,309, the intestines by 3,838, ge of the gene concerned with a specific the skeletal muscle by 1,911 and blood feature of a living thing in the gene pool cells by 22,092. (a population’s genetic structure) in the The secret behind your survival as a total genes. In pea populations, for normal human being lies in the fact that example, there are two genes for straight the billions of letters in your cells’ 46- and for bent pod characters. The percen- volume encyclopedia are all arranged tage of straight-pod genes in the overall flawlessly. It is of course impossible for total number gives the straight-pod gene these letters to organize and arrange frequency. (See .) themselves through their own conscious- Gene Pool One gene frequency being higher ness and will. The genes we have com- than another means that the gene in qu- pared to the pages of an encyclopedia, and their flawless arrangement that rules estion is found more frequently in the out the concept of chance, are proof of gene pool and therefore plays a more do- minant role in any genetic variation.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 150

Evolutionists, however, seek to depict that the genetic information that already greater variation within a species as evi- exists rearranges itself, but the boundari- dence for their theories. But in fact, that es of that change remain fixed. In gene- variation constitutes no evidence for tics, this limit is described as the gene evolution, because variation is only the pool. product of different combinations of All the features in the gene pool of a existing genetic information. Variation given species may emerge in various cannot endow genetic information with forms thanks to variation. For example, any new characteristic. (See Variation.) as a result of variation breeds with Populations do not exhibit homoge- slightly longer or shorter legs may emer- neous distribution with regard to gene ge in a species of reptile, because the in- frequency. Within them, there will be formation for leg length already exists in small groups whose members resemble the reptiles’ gene pool. But variation can one another more closely than others. never attach wings to reptiles, add feat- Such groups may be separated from one hers and change their metabolisms, thus another for a time through geographic turning them into birds. Any such a isolation, but gene transmission between transformation would require an increa- them is not interrupted. (See Geograp- se in genetic information, and there is no hic Isolation theory, the.) question of any such thing in variation. Many breeds of chicken have been bred from wild forest cocks. Yet in our Gene pool day, the formation of new breeds has co- Evolutionists attempt to depict vari- me to an end because the limits of chan- ations within a species as evidence for ge possible in the wild birds’ genetic in- their theories. However, variation is no formation have been reached, and no evidence for evolution, because variati- new breeds can be produced. This kind on consists of only the emergence of dif- of variation represents no evidence for ferent combinations of already existing evolution in any way. genetic information. It does not endow The same applies in plant techno- new genetic information with its appa- logy. Sugar beet is an excellent example. rently new characteristic. Starting in the 1800s, famers began pro- Variation provides a restricted diver- ducing new strains of sugar beets by sity within any one species. These chan- cross-pollination. Following 75 years of ges are limited because they only diver- research, it became possible to increase sify already-existing genetic information the beets’ sugar level from 6% to 15%. within a population. It cannot add any Shortly afterwards, however, improve- genetic information. All that occurs is ment came to a stop. The sugar level co-

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 151

Celera Genomics, the company that carried out the Human Genome project uld not be raised any further, because the only be one like the cell, in which all the limits of change permitted by the sugar raw materials and energy sources are beet’s genetic information had been represent, and which is completely isola- ached, and it was not possible to enhan- ted and controlled. (See DNA, Riboso- ce it any further by cross-pollination. mes; RNA World Thesis, the.) This is one of the main examples of the limits to change in genetic data. Genetic homeostasis Twentieth-century science revealed Genetic information this principle as a result of various expe- The genetic system does not consist riments on living things. All their efforts of DNA alone. Enzymes must read the to produce a new species through cross- DNA code; mRNA will be produced breeding were pointless, revealing that from that reading. The mRNA will take there are insuperable walls between li- that code to ribosomes and bond to them ving species. It was definitely impossib- for production. Carrier RNA will trans- le to livestock breeders breeding new va- port the amino acids to be used in pro- riations of cows to turn cows into anot- duction to the ribosome. And countless her species altogether, as Darwin had other highly complex enzymes that will claimed was possible. permit intermediate processes to be car- Norman MacBeth revealed the inva- ried out must all be present. lidity of Darwinism in his book Darwin In addition, such an environment can Retried:

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) The heart of the problem is whether living things do indeed vary to an unlimited extent. . . . The species look stable. We have all heard of disappointed breeders who carried their work to a certain point only to see the animals or plants revert to where they had started. Despite strenuous efforts for two or three centuries, it has never been possible to produce a blue rose or a black tulip.191

Genome Project, the Evolutionist circles claim that the Genome Project has proven their theory, but there is no scientific basis to this. Evolutionists engage in hollow claims that the Genome Project has definitively proven the theory of evolution, because they actually have no concrete evidence, and there is no connection at all between the Genome Project’s findings and the claims of the theory of evolution. It is a grave error to think that cau- sing physical changes by tampering with genes constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. True, within the Human Genome Project defective genes in living things may be able to be put right. Certain inherited diseases may be cured, and a species may be perfected even further through altering its genes. So long as all such interventions take place at the hands of rational human beings possessed of abilities and technology, they will continue to give cures and improvements. But the most important criticism of

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 153 the theory of evolution actually arises at Creating means bringing into exis- this exact point. The theory claims that tence from nothing. And evolutionists genes, proteins, all the building blocks are perfectly aware that they are quite of life—and therefore, life itself—came unable even to produce a single cell into being spontaneously as the result of from nothing. All their endeavors in this chance, with no consciousness involved area have ended in failure. (See Fox Ex- at all. periment, the and Miller Experiment, Neither science nor logic can accept the.) such a claim of chance. With the Geno- Far from proving evolution, the fin- me Project, it was yet again realized that dings of the Genome Project have once life consists of exceedingly complex again revealed the fact of creation. structures, all interrelated to one another, and that any one cannot exist without all the others. Each one of these structures Geographic Isolation has a flawless blueprint and design, and theory, the it is therefore impossible for such perfect (Allopathic isolation) and complex structures to come into Living things that reproduce sexually existence spontaneously and—again by may be subjected to geographic isolation chance—to further develop themselves when a land bridge collapses or conti- into even more complex structures. This nents drift apart one another. In that shows us one certain fact: God, the Om- event, the same species in two separate niscient and Almighty, created life. regions may display different genetic Another error in this regard is that characteristics. To put it another way, some scientists think that since they can geographic obstacles may divide popula- effect changes by altering genes, it is actions from one another. For example, tually man who is a creator. This claim is land-dwelling animals may become se- linked to the groundless, atheistic propa- parated from one another by deserts, wa- ganda that evolutionists bring up at ters, or high mountain ranges.192 If a every available opportunity because of population is divided into two or more their denial of God. Tempering with a li- regions, the genetic differences between ving organism’s genes to produce chan- them will increasingly broaden and ges is not the same as creating it. To take eventually, the life forms in these diffe- cloning, for example, to place a living rent regions will develop into different thing’s stem cell in a womb and produce breeds or races.193 an exact copy of the life form in question When this separation reaches such a is not the same as creating it in the first level as to prevent gene transfer between place. populations, then the similarity of cha-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 154

fic characteristics in their genes come to the fore. Yet there is no question of any new species emerging. The same applies to human beings. The different races on Earth have acquired different characteristics because of geographic isolation. The feature of dark skin came to predominate in one human group, and since these people lived in Africa and reproduced among themselves, a dark-skinned race was the result. The same thing applies to Far Eastern races with their almond-shaped eyes. Were it not for geographic isolation—in other words if human races had inter-married for hundreds of years—then everyone would now The different races on Earth came to have differ- be a crossbreed. No one would ap- ent features due to geographic isolation. The feature of black skin came to predominate in one pear to be black, white, or orien- group, and since these people lived on the same tal; everyone would be an average continent and reproduced among themselves, a of all racial characteristics. black-skinned race developed. Sometimes, when variations once divided from each other due racteristics between the different variati- to geographic reasons are reunited, they ons of a species is diminished. are unable to reproduce with one anot- Evolutionists erroneously maintain her. Since they are unable to reproduce, that living things on different continents they cease being sub-species, according or in different environments develop in- to modern biology’s definition, and be- to different species. However, the diffe- come separate species. This is known as . rent characteristics arising in different speciation Evolutionists, however, take this regions are nothing more than populati- concept and infer that since there is spe- on differences. The genetic combination ciation in nature, and new species form of those life forms obliged to reproduce through natural mechanisms, that impli- in any one region is restricted, and speci-

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 155 es that all species formed in this way. Yet that inference actually conceals a grave deception. There are two significant points to be made: 1. Variations A and B, which have been isolated from one another, may be unable to reproduce when reunited again. But this generally stems from mating behavior. In other words, individuals belonging to variation A are regarded as foreign by variation B, and Duane T. Gish’s books criticizing therefore fail to mate, even though the- the theory of evolution re is no genetic incompatibility to prevent mating. In terms of genetic infor- rished in terms of genetic information. mation, therefore, they are still members Therefore, nothing about speciation of the same species. supports the theory of evolution. Becau- (Indeed, for that se the theory of evolution maintains that very reason the con- all living species developed from the cept of “species” simple to the complex through chance. continues to be de- In order for that theory to be taken serio- bated in biology.) usly, therefore, it needs to be able to po- 2. The really im- int to mechanisms that enhance genetic portant point is that speciation represents information. It must explain how life a loss of genetic information, rather than forms lacking eyes, ears, a heart, lungs, an increase. The reason for the division wings, feet or other organs and systems is not that either or both variations have came to acquire them—and where the acquired new genetic information. There genetic data for these features arose. A is no such genetic acquisition here. Neit- species being divided into two through a her variation has acquired any new pro- loss of genetic information has nothing tein, enzyme or organ. No development to do with evolution. has gone on. On the contrary, instead of a population that previously contained genetic data for different characteristics Gish, Duane T. (for example, for both long and short fur, In his address titled “The Origin of or dark and light coloring), there are Man,” presented to the Collapse of the now two populations, both been impove- Theory of Evolution: The Fact of Creati-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 156

on conference, held by the Science Re- search Foundation on 5 July 1998, the world-famous expert on evolution Pro- Gould, Stephen Jay fessor Duane Gish described why the Although the late Harvard University thesis that man evolved from apes is gro- paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould is one undless: of the leading proponents of evolution The fossil record refutes the evolutionary theory, he criticizes evolutionary biolo- theory and it demonstrates that species gists in stuffing scientific literature with appeared on Earth fully-formed and non-evident tales. Gould describes such well-designed. This is a concrete eviden- stories in his following words: ce for that they were created by God.194 Evolutionary biology has been severely With his books—mainly on the sub- hampered by a speculative style of argu- ject of paleontology—and the more than ment that records anatomy and ecology 500 conferences he has held, Professor and then tries to construct historical or Gish is one of the founders of the Institu- adaptive explanations for why this bone te for Creation Rese- looked like that or why this creature lived arch (ICR), and one here… Scientists know that these tales of the world’s most are stories; unfortunately, they are pre- eminent critics of the sented in the professional literature whe- theory of evolution. re they are taken too seriously and literally. Then they become [scientific] The ICR was foun- "facts" and enter the popular literatu- ded in San Diego, re…195 Stephen Jay California in the Gould early 1970s, and has Gould, an evolutionist paleontolo- since become one of gist, was also one of the leading theoreti- the most important cians of the punctuated model of evoluti- organizations in the world to criticize the on. (See Punctuated evolution.) Phillip theory of evolution. The ICR has more Johnson, one of the world’s leading cri- than 20 scientists, laboratories, a large tics of the theory of evolution, describes number of researchers, a faculty that of- Gould as the “Gorbachev of Darwi- fers postgraduate training, a Museum of nism.” Mikhail Gorbachev sought to re- Creation that attracts thousands of visi- vise the system in the former Soviet Uni- tors every year, a team that carries out on out of a belief that it was imperfect. scientific research in various countries, But in fact, the problems he regarded as and also publishes books and magazines imperfections actually stemmed from and broadcasts radio programs. the nature of the system itself, and Com-

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 157 munism finally collapsed entirely. ding to a living thing’s requirements. This belief has no scientific basis, but rather conflicts with all the scientific Gradual Evolution facts and is based solely on abstract lo- comedy, the gic. But it was most recently proposed —See, Punctuated Model of evolu- under the name of the theory of evoluti- tion myth, the Great Chain of Being, on. the Initially, the Great Chain of Being was advanced as an entirely philosophi- According to the Greek philosopher cal view and made no scientific claims. Aristotle, there is a hierarchy among However, for those seeking to answer species, from the simple to the complex, the question of how life came to be, asi- and these are set out in a linear manner, de from the fact of creation, the Great just like the rungs of a ladder. Aristotle Chain of Being was literally a lifesaver, gave this thesis the name Scala naturae. and was given a scientific air for that This idea would have a profound effect purpose. on Western thought up until the 18th How these organisms actually turned century, and belief in the Great Chain of into one another, however, is a great Being, would later develop into the the- mystery. Because this chain is based on ory of evolution. an abstract and superficial logic rather The belief that all living things evol- than on any scientific observation. In ot- ved from inanimate matter constitutes her words, it consists of a hypothesis the basis of Darwinism, but it can first dreamed up by early philosophers, wit- be encountered in Aristotle’s accounts. hout engaging in any scientific research. Belief in the Great Chain of Being was There is a strong parallel between the enthusiastically adopted by philosophers theory of evolution, which represents the who denied the existence of God. basis of materialist and atheist philosop- According to this view, life came in- hies, and the Scala naturae and Great to being spontaneously and everything Chain of Being that form the vital source evolved—minerals into organic matter, of ancient pagan materialist philosophi- and the first living primitive organisms es. (See Evolutionary Paganism.) To- into animals, plants and human beings, day, materialism draws strength through and from there to so-called deities, or the theory of evolution, as in the past, gods. According to this irrational belief, materialist thinking was based on the new organs arise spontaneously accor- Great Chain of Being.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar)

159

Darwin was strongly influ- finally emerged as the greatest enced by this concept and even deception in the history of sci- constructed his theory on its ence. principal logic. In several places in his book Darwin’s Century, Loren Eiseley emphasizes that the logic of this “ladder” was used in the 18th century and that this, in particular, was where the idea of organic Ernst Haeckel substances moving inevi- tably towards perfection was born.196 Therefore, Darwin did not propose any new scientific theory. He merely restated a superstition whose roots lay in ancient Sumerian pagan myths and which developed fully within ancient Greek pagan beliefs. He employed contemporary scientific terminology and a few distorted observations, and further enriched it with a number of additions made by some scientists who lived in the 17th and 18th centuries—after which it acquired a scientific appearance in Dar- win’s book The Origin of Species, and

This Hallucigenia fossil, one of the life forms that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Period, has spines for protection.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 160

Haeckel, Ernst The famous evolutionist biologist Hallucigenia Ernst Haeckel was a close friend and This is one of the life forms that supporter of Darwin. To support the the- emerged suddenly in the Cambrian Peri- ory of evolution, he put forward the the- od in its perfect form. (See Cambrian ory of recapitulation, which maintained Period.) This Cambrian fossil has sharp that the embryos of different life forms spines to protect it against attack—and resembled one another in their initial sta- evolutionists are unable to explain how ges. It was later realized that in putting this creature came to have such excellent forward that claim, Haeckel had produ- protection at a time when there were no ced forged drawings. (See Embryologi- predators around. The absence of preda- .) cal evolution tors makes it impossible to account for While perpetrating such scientific this in terms of natural selection. frauds, Haeckel also engaged in propaganda in favor of eugenics. He was the first to adopt and disseminate the idea of Heterotrophic view, the eugenics in Germany. (See Eugenic sla- The heterotrophic view is one of the ughter.) He recommended that deformed newborns babies should be killed without most researched theses regarding the delay and that the evolution of society emergence of the first life. According to would thus be accelerated. He went even this view, a consuming life form absorbs further, maintaining that lepers, patients from its outside environment the organic with cancer and the mentally ill should molecules it needs for the formation of be ruthlessly done away with, lest such structures and to meet its energy require- people prove to be a burden on society ments. This theory maintains that the and slow its evolution. first life form fed on organic compounds George Stein summarized Haeckel’s that formed spontaneously within a high- blind devotion to the theory of evolution: ly complex framework. It had no need for a gene system to enable it to synthesi- . . . [Haeckel] argued that Darwin was ze the simple organic molecules it absor- correct . . . humankind had unquestio- bed from the environment. In other nably evolved from the animal kingdom. . words, this hypothetical first living thing . humankind’s social and political existen- was able to maintain its vital functions as ce is governed by the laws of evolution, natural selection, and biology, as clearly a simple-structured feeder in a complex shown by Darwin. To argue otherwise environment. was backward superstition.197 According to this view, chemical evolution took place before life formed. As

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 161

were gradually transported to the seas and oceans where, it’s assumed, they gave rise to simple organic compounds. All the research conducted to confirm this hypothesis has ended in failure. This has not even been possible in controlled laboratory experiments, let alone as the work of chance. (See Fox Experiment, the and Miller Ex- periment, the.)

Hoatzin bird, the The points on which evolutionist base their portrayal of Archaeopteryx as a transitional form are its skeleton, which resembles that of dinosaurs, the claws on its wings, and the teeth in its The wings of the modern bird Opisthocomus mouth. (See Archaeopteryx.) They hoatzin have claw-like talons, just like therefore claim that Archaeopteryx was a Archaeopteryx. transitional form that still had many reptilian features, but had newly acquired some bird-like ones. the result of the lengthy evolution of ina- However, the “reptilian” features in nimate substances, heterotrophic life question do not actually make Archaeop- forms emerged. Again according to this teryx a reptile at all. The claims put for- view, there was no free oxygen in the pri- ward pointing to its claws are particularly meval atmosphere. The gasses assumed invalid, because there are birds with cla- to have existed then—ammonia (NH ), 3 wed wings alive today. Just like Archa- methane (CH ), hydrogen (H ) and water 4 2 eopteryx, the Australian Hoatzin has cla- vapor (H 0)—underwent chemical reac- 2 wed wings.198 Again like Archaeop- tions with high-energy ultraviolet rays teryx, it flies with a small breastbone. and gave rise to more complex compo- However, for that reason alone, evolutio- unds. At the end of these reactions, the nists claim that Archaeopteryx was unab- substances that emerged by chance first le to fly, or could not fly very well. This combined in tiny droplets of water and demonstrates that such features as claws,

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) HOMO ERECTUS’ MARITIME CULTURE

According to “Ancient Mariners: Early humans were much smarter than we suspected” an article published in New Scientist magazine on 14 March 1998, the human beings whom evolutionists refer to as Homo erectus were building boats some 700,000 years ago. It is of course out of the question to regard people possessed of boat- building knowledge as primitive. 163

HOMO ERECTUS’ MARITIME CULTURE According to “Ancient Mariners: Early humans were much smarter than we suspected” an article published in New Scientist magazine on 14 March 1998, the human beings whom evolutionists refer to as Homo erectus were building boats some 700,000 years ago. It is of course out of the question to regard people possessed of boat-building knowledge as primitive. teeth and skeletal structure like those in beings identical to the H. sapiens were Archaeopteryx make it a unique species living nearly a million years ago. of bird, not a reptile. The findings on this subject199 we- However, all kinds of biased inter- re rejected by some evolutionist pale- pretations can be made from the evolu- oanthropologists, because of their dama- tionist perspective. Were a fossil Hoatzin ging implications for the evolutionary discovered today in the appropriate ge- family tree. One fossil discovered in ological strata, very likely it would be Atapuerca in Spain in 1995 revealed in a proposed as a transitional form, in the most striking manner that H. sapiens same way as Archaeopteryx was. But the was far older than had been thought. fact that this creature is still alive and (See Atapuerca.) This fossil indicated manifestly a bird does not let evolutio- that the history of H. sapiens needed to nists make any such claim. be put back to at least 800,000 years ago. However, once they had got over their Homo antecessor initial shock, evolutionists decided that The most astonishing fact to tear up the fossil belonged to a different species, the imaginary tree of life by its very ro- because—according to the evolutionary ots is the way that Homo sapiens dates family tree—H. sapiens could not have back to unexpectedly early times. Pale- been alive 800,000 years ago. They the- ontological findings show that human refore came up with an imaginary speci-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 164

es known as Homo antecessor, to which However, it was gradually realized that they ascribed the Atapuerca skull. these two remains were not reliable. (Se- e Java Man, Peking Man.) For that reason, more and more importance began to Homo erectus be attached to the H. erectus fossils dis- Evolutionists regard the classificati- covered in Africa. (Also, some evolutio- on Homo erectus, meaning “upright- nists included some of the fossils descri- walking human,” as the most primitive bed as H. erectus in a second class, Ho- species on the fictitious human family mo ergaster. by. The matter is still a sub- tree. They have had to separate these hu- ject of debate.) mans from other, earlier classes by me- The best-known of the H. erectus ans of the title upright, because all the H. specimens discovered in Africa is Nari- erectus fossils we have are erect in a okotome homo erectus or the so-called manner not seen in specimens of Austra- Turkana Boy. The fossil’s upright skele- lopithecus or Homo habilis. There is no ton is identical to that of modern man. 201 difference between H. erectus skeletons Therefore, H. erectus is a human ra- and those of modern human beings. ce that is still in existence today. (See Evolutionists’ most important gro- Turkana Boy, the.) unds for regarding H. erectus as “primi- Professor William Laughlin of the tive” are the fact that its brain volume University of Connecticut carried out (900 to 1100 cubic centimeters) is smal- lengthy anatomical research into Inuit ler than the modern human average, and and the inhabitants of the Aleut Islands also its thick protruding eyebrow ridges. and noted that these people bore an asto- The fact is, however, that a great many nishingly close resemblance to H. erec- human beings today have a brain size tus. Laughlin’s conclusion was that all identical to that of H. erectus (pygmies, these races are actually different races all for example), and eyebrow protrusions belonging to H. sapiens, ¸or today’s man: can also be seen in various contempo- When we consider the vast differences rary human races, such as native Austra- that exist between remote groups such as lians. It is a known that there is no corre- Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to lation between brain size and intelligen- belong to the single species of Homo sa- ce and ability. Intelligence varies not ac- piens, it seems justifiable to conclude cording to brain size, but according to its that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen] internal organization.200 belongs within this same diverse species 202 The fossils that introduced H. erectus [H. sapiens]. to the world were Peking Man and Java There is an enormous gulf between Man fossils, both discovered in Asia. Homo erectus, a human race, and the

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 165 apes that precede it (Aus- That is why they insist on gi- tralopithecus, Homo having H. erectus an ape-li- bilis, H. rudolfensis) in ke appearance in the re- the scenario of human constructions they pro- evolution. In other duce. (For detailed in- words, the first hu- formation, see The mans to appear in the Evolution Deceit by fossil records emerged Harun Yahya.) suddenly, all at the same time, and in the absence of any process of evoluti- Homo ergaster on. There could be no clearer Some of the fossils des- indication that they were crea- cribed as Homo erectus (“upright- ted. walking human”) are classified as Homo However, acceptance of this fact wo- ergaster by certain evolutionists. There is uld constitute a violation of evolutio- no agreement among evolutionists regar- nists’ dogmatic philosophies and ideolo- ding this second classification. (See Ho- gies. Therefore, they seek to depict H. mo erectus.) erectus, a human race, as a semi-ape.

Analyses of the teeth of the species Australopithecus and Homo habilis (at side) shows that these belong to the same category as African apes. 166

Homo habilis totally altered that view. Researchers such as Bernard Wood and Loring Brace The fact that is ne- Australopithecus said that the term Australopithecus habi- arly identical to chimpanzees in terms of lis or “tool-using South African ape” their skull and skeletal structures, plus should be employed instead of Homo the emergence of concrete evidence that habilis, which means “tool-using hu- demolished the claim that these creatu- man,” because H. habilis shared a great res walked upright, left evolutionist pa- many characteristics with the apes leoanthropologists in a rather difficult known as Australopithecus. position. Because Australopithecus is Just like Australopithecus, it had a followed by in the imagi- Homo erectus long-armed, short-legged and ape-like nary course of evolution. skeletal structure. Its fingers and toes As can be seen from the use of the were suited to climbing. Its jaw structure term in its Latin name, Homo Homo ha- completely resembles that of modern is a human group and has a comple- bilis apes. Its 500-cubic-centimeter brain size tely upright skeleton. Its skull volume is was the best indication that it was in fact up to double that of Australopithecus. an ape. In short, H. habilis, portrayed as According to the imaginary family tree, a separate species by some evolutionists, H. erectus with a skeleton identical to was actually an ape just like all other that of modern man, coming immedia- Australopithecus. tely after Australopithecus, a species of Detailed analyses conducted by the ape similar to chimpanzees, cannot be explained in terms of the theory of evolution. Therefore, links or transitional forms are necessary. It is this difficulty that gave rise to the concept of Homo habilis. In the 1960s, the Leakeys, the fossil hunter family, proposed the classification Homo habilis. According to the Lea- keys, this new species classified as H. habilis possessed the ability to walk upright, had a relatively large brain, and was able to use tools made of stone and

wood. It may therefore have been an an- Homo heilderbergensis fossils show that cestor of modern man. human beings bearing a close resemblance New fossils belonging to the same to modern Europeans were living in Britain species discovered after the mid-1980s and Spain some 740,000 years ago.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 167

American anthropologist Holly Smith in Homo heidelbergensis 1994 again showed that H. habilis was not homo at all, but rather a monkey. The classification referred to as H. Smith said this about these analyses of heidelbergensis in evolutionist literature the teeth of Australopithecus, Homo ha- is actually the same as Homo sapiens bilis, H. erectus and H. neandertalensis: archaic. The reason why these two separate names are used to describe the same Restricting analysis of fossils to speci- human race is the differences of opinion mens satisfying these criteria, patterns of among evolutionists. All the fossils inc- dental development of gracile australo- luded under the classification pithecines and Homo habilis remain Homo hei- classified with African apes. Those of delbergensis show that human beings Homo erectus and Neanderthals are very anatomically similar to modern Eu- classified with humans.203 ropeans were living in Britain and Spain 500.000 and even 740,000 years ago. That same year, three experts in anatomy—Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, and Frans Zooneveld—arrived at the same Homo rudolfensis conclusion using another method. This was based on a comparative analysis of This is the Latin name given to a few the semi-spherical canals that serve to fossil fragments discovered in 1972. Since establish balance in the inner ears of hu- these were unearthed near the River Ru- man beings and monkeys. The inner ear dolf in Kenya, the species they were assu- canals of all the Australopithecus and H. med to represent was given the name Ho- habilis specimens that Spoor, Wood, and mo rudolfensis. The majority of paleoant- Zonneveld examined by were identical hropologists, however, regard these fossils to those of modern apes. That of H. erec- not as a new species but as H. habilis—in tus, on the other hand, was the same as other words, a species of monkey. that of modern human beings.204 Richard Leakey, who discovered the This finding led to two conclusions: fossils, presented the skull—which he 1. The fossils known as Homo habi- estimated to be 2.8 million years old and lis actually belong to the classification which was given the official designation Australopithecus, not to Homo, or mo- of KNM-ER 1470, as the greatest disco- dern man. very in the history of anthropology—and 2. Both H. habilis and Australopithe- thus aroused an immense reaction. Ac- cus walked with a stoop, and had mon- cording to Leakey, this creature, with a key-like skeletons. They have nothing to small skull volume like that of Australo- do with human beings. pithecus and with a human-type face, was the missing link between Australo-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 168

pithecus and man. on regarding the KNM-ER 1470 skull, However, it was later realized that based on analyses of its jaw and teeth the human facial features of KNM-ER structure:

1470, which had appeared on the covers . . . from the size of the palate and the ex- of various scientific journals, were er- pansion of the area allotted to molar ro- rors, made perhaps even deliberately in ots, it would appear that ER 1470 retai- assembling the skull fragments. Profes- ned a fully Australopithecus -sized face sor Tim Bromage, who conducted rese- and dentition.207 arch into the anatomy of the human face, John Hopkins University Professor summarized his findings produced with of paleoanthropology Alan Walker, who the aid of computer simulations in 1992: has examined the KNM-ER 1470 skull When it [KNM-ER 1470] was first re- at least as much as Leakey, maintains constructed, the face was fitted to the that like Homo habilis or H. rudolfensis, cranium in an almost vertical position, the creature should not be classified as much like the flat faces of modern hu- Homo but should be included in the clas- mans. But recent studies of anatomical sification Australopithecus.208 relationships show that in life the face Classifications such as Homo habilis must have jutted out considerably, crea- or H. rudolfensis, which evolutionists ting an ape-like aspect, rather like the fa- depict as transitional forms between ces of Australopithecus.205 Australopithecus and Homo erectus, are On the same subject, the evolutionist completely fictitious. Most present-day paleoanthropologist J. E. Cronin says this: researchers accept the fact that these are ... its relatively robustly constructed face, members of the series Australopithecus. flattish naso-alveolar clivus, (recalling All their anatomical characteristics point australopithecine dished faces), low ma- to the fact that they were monkeys. ximum cranial width (on the temporals), strong canine juga and large molars (as indicated by remaining roots) are all re- Homo sapiens latively primitive traits which ally the specimen with members of the taxon A. The history of Homo sapiens, which africanus..... KNM-ER 1470, like other represents modern man on the imaginary early Homo specimens, shows many evolutionary family tree, goes back morphological characteristics in com- much further than evolutionists expec- mon with gracile australopithecines that ted. Paleontological findings indicate are not shared with later specimens of that human beings identical to us were 206 the genus Homo. alive nearly a million years ago. C. Loring Brace from Michigan Uni- One of the discoveries in this regard versity arrived at the following conclusi- is a fossil found in the Atapuerca region

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 169 of Spain. The fact that this fossil has the identical to those of modern human be- same characteristics to those of modern ings, have been calculated to date back man rocked evolutionist beliefs regar- some 3.6 million years. ding the evolution of man. Because ac- These footprints discovered by Mary cording to the evolutionary family tree, Leakey were later examined by such no Homo sapiens should have lived well-known paleoanthropologists as 800,000 years ago. Don Johanson and Tim White. Indeed, many findings showed that Examinations of the morphological H. sapiens goes back even further than structure of the footprints again showed 800,000 years. One of these was the dis- that they had to be regarded as belonging coveries made in Olduvai Gorge by Lou- to a human and, what is more, to modern is Leakey in the early 1970s. Leakey deman, Homo sapiens. Russell Tuttle in- termined in the Bed II stratum that Aus- vestigated the prints and later wrote: tralopithecus, Homo habilis and H. erec- A small barefoot Homo sapiens could ha- tus had all lived there together and at the ve made them. . . In all discernible morp- same time. hological features, the feet of the indivi- However, the really interesting thing duals that made the trails are indistingu- was a structure—the remains of a stone ishable from those of modern hu- 210 hut—found by Leakey in that same stra- mans. tum (Bed II). Its most interesting aspect Unbiased investigations described was that such a structure, which is still in the owners of these two sets of foot- use in some African regions today, could prints: There was a total of 20 fossilized have been made only by Homo sapiens! footprints belonging to a human being According to Leakey’s findings, Austra- aged around 10, and 27 fossilized foot- lopithecus, Homo habilis, H. erectus and prints belonging to someone slightly yo- modern man must all have been living unger. They were very definitely normal together around 1.7 million years ago. human beings just like ourselves. 209 This fact of course invalidates the The fact that evolutionists persist in theory of evolution that maintains that their theory that clearly conflicts with modern human beings evolved from the the scientific findings, and the way that monkeys described as Australopithecus. they distort or ignore every discovery Moreover, there are findings of tra- that works against it, clearly reveals that ces of modern human beings that go theory’s unscientific nature. back even further than 1.7 million years. The most important of these is the footprints found in the Laetoli region. (See Homo sapiens archaic Laetoli footprints, the.) These prints, Homo sapiens archaic represents the

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 170

At the molecular level, no organism is the ancestor of any other, nor more primitive or advanced than any other.

rung before modern man on the illusory lutionist claims regarding homologous evolutionary ladder. In fact, evolutio- organs to be taken seriously, these or- nists have nothing to say about these pe- gans would have to be coded by similar ople because they are distinguished from DNA codes. Yet these homologous or- modern man only by very minute diffe- gans are generally determined by differences. Some researchers even suggest rent genetic (DNA) codes. that representatives of this race are still In addition, similar genetic codes in alive today, citing native Australians as different life forms also correspond to an example. Just like this race, native very different organs! In his book Evolu- Australians have heavy eyebrow ridges, tion: A Theory in Crisis, the Australian a retracted jaw structure and a rather professor of biochemistry Michael Den- smaller brain volume. And native Aus- ton describes the predicament represen- tralians are a normal human race. (See ted by the evolutionist interpretation of Aborigines.) homology: Homologous structures are often specifi- ed by non-homologous genetic systems, Homology and the concept of homology can seldom (Common origins) be extended back into embryology.211 In biology, structural similarities In order for that same claim to be ta- among different living species are refer- ken seriously, the embryological develop- red to as homologous. Evolutionists at- ment process of these similar structures— tempt to use these similarities as eviden- in other words, the phases of development ce for evolution. Pointing to homologo- in the embryo in the mother’s womb—ha- us organs in different life forms, they ve to be parallel to one another. Yet the maintain that these species are descen- embryological stages for similar organs ded from a common forebear. (See Ho- are different in all living things. mologous organs.) Yet in order for evo- Genetic and embryological research

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 171 has shown that the concept of homology, cestral” or “primitive” or “advanced” which Darwin took as proof that living compared with its relatives . . . . There is things are descended from a common little doubt that if this molecular eviden- ancestor, does not in fact provide any ce had been available a century ago. . . backing for such a definition. Thus it is the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.212 that science has revealed the unrealistic nature of yet another Darwinist thesis. The evolutionist claim regarding homology is not only invalid at the level of Homologous organs organs, but also at the molecular level. Anyone examining the different li- (See Molecular homology thesis, the.) ving species on Earth will observe that There are enormous molecular differen- there are certain similar organs and cha- ces between living things that outwardly racteristics among species. This pheno- appear very similar and closely related menon has attracted the notice of biolo- to one another. Professor Michael Den- gists ever since the 18th century, but the ton comments: first to link it to the theory of evolution was Darwin, who maintained that there Each class at a molecular level is unique, was an evolutionary link between living isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed things with similar (i.e. homologous) or- to provide the elusive intermediates so gans, and that such organs were a legacy long sought by evolutionary biology . . . from their common ancestor. At a molecular level, no organism is “an- Accordingly, since pigeons and eag-

TWO UNRELATED MAMMALS WITH GIANT TEETH

The existence of extraordinarily similar species, one a placental and the other a pouched mammal, deals a severe blow to the claim of homology. For example, Smilodon (right) and Thylacosmilus (left) both have very large front teeth. The fact that the skull and tooth structures of these two life forms, between which no evolutionary relationship can be established, are exceedingly similar refutes the claim of homology—that similar structures represent evidence for evolution. 172

les have wings, that means that pigeons, the octopus and man are two very diffe- eagles and other such winged birds all rent life forms—mollusk and mammal— evolved from a common forebear. between which no evolutionary link can Homology is a superficial hypothesis be construed. In terms of their structure put forward solely on the basis of exter- and function, however, their eyes are ac- nal appearances. The hypothesis has not tually very similar. Not even evolutionists been confirmed by any concrete finding will claim that human beings and octopi since Darwin’s time. In particular, no had a common ancestor with a similar trace has ever been found of the imagi- eye. These and countless other similar nary common ancestors of life forms examples make it clear that there is no with homologous structures as proposed scientific basis to the evolutionist claim by evolutionists. And there are additio- that homologous organs prove that living nal hurdles: things are descended from a common 1. The existence of homologous or- evolutionary ancestor. In fact, these organs in life forms belonging to totally gans represent a major impasse for them. different classes, among which evolutionists also cannot establish any evolutionary link “Hopeful Monster” the- 2. The fact that such homologous or- ory, the gans have very different genetic codes, and The “Hopeful Monster” theory cla- 3. The fact that the stages of the emb- ims that one day, a reptile laid an egg ryological development of these organs all show that homology represents no and that quite by chance, a creature with basis for evolution. brown fur hatched out of it. According to Among the examples of species bet- evolutionists, when this mammal grew ween which evolutionists cannot estab- up, it found a mate that had also sud- lish any evolutionary link but which pos- denly emerged from a reptile egg—and a sess homologous structures are those new species resulted. with wings. The bat—a mammal—has The reaction from scientists with any wings, and so do birds, and there were common sense ran along the lines of “Is once species of dinosaurs that also had this a scientific account, or a Greek wings. However, not even evolutionists myth, or a Hans Christian Anderson fa- can construct any evolutionary relations- iry tale?” Yet for some reason, a number hip among these three different classes. of scientists still imagine that it repre- Another striking example in this con- sents a solution to an evolutionary prob- text is the astonishing similarity and lem. What it actually represents, howe- structural resemblance between the eyes ver, is total despair. One paleontologist, of different living things. For example, Otto Schindewolf, proposed that all ma-

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 173 jor evolutionary transformations must was so inconsistent that it was swiftly have occurred in single large steps, like a abandoned. reptile laying an egg from which a bird But due to the lack of any transitio- hatched.213 As you see, some evolutio- nal forms in the fossil record, the Har- nists believe that a perfectly formed but vard University paleontologists Stephen totally different species can hatch out of Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge were aga- any viable egg! in obliged to resuscitate the idea to acco- Of course, the sudden emergence of unt for that situation. Gould’s famous ar- different living groups in the fossil record ticle “Return of the Hopeful Monsters” showed that living species did come into was an expression of this obligatory abo- being with no evolutionary process be- ut-face.216 hind them.214 Naturally, this was a sour- Although they did not repeat Schin- ce of major concern for evolutionists. dewolf’s theory to the letter, Gould and The “Hopeful Monster” theory was Eldredge sought to come up with a mec- put forward in the 1930s by hanism for sudden evolutio- the European paleontologist nary leaps in order to endow Otto Schindewolf, who pro- the theory with a scientific posed that living things gloss. (See Punctuated evolu- evolved not with the accu- tion myth, the.) In the years mulation of small mutations that followed, Gould and El- over time, as neo-Darwi- dredge’s theory was adopted nism maintained, but by by some other paleontologists, sudden and very large ones. who duly fleshed out its bones. (See Macro-Mutation de- In fact, however, that the the- ception, the.) In citing Julian Huxley ory of punctuated evolution examples for his theory, was based on even greater in- Schindewolf claimed that the first bird consistencies and contradictions than the had emerged from a reptile egg by way of neo-Darwinist theory of evolution. a gross mutation—by some enormous, random change in its genetic structure.215 Huxley, Julian According to his theory, some land In his 1958 book Religion without animals may have turned into giant wha- Revelation, the zoologist Julian Huxley, les through sudden and wide-ranging one of the architects of neo-Darwinism, changes. Schindewolf’s fantastical the- described it not as a scientific theory, but ory was adopted and supported in the as a ideological dogma. (See Neo-Dar- 1940s by the Berkeley University gene- winism.) ticist Richard Goldschmidt, although it

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar)

175

Hypothesis hypothesis or his experiment is flawed. If the observation is correct, he rejects A hypothesis is a temporary solution the hypothesis, or else refashions it. or explanation proposed for a problem The most important thing in science raised by various facts or phenomena. In is for every new observation to conform order for a good hypothesis to be confir- to the hypothesis. med, it needs to be open to experiment When it comes to the theory of evo- and observation, besides conforming to lution, however, it appears not to be sup- the available facts. At the same time, it ported by any hypothesis in any branch must be open to new facts and estimates, of science. Nonetheless, this is wholly and partial changes must be made if re- ignored for the sake of keeping the the- quired.217 ory viable. (See, Evolution theory, the.) Scientists first generalize from the observations they carry out or describe a Ichthyostega possible cause-and-effect relationship between a chain of events in order to gi- Evolutionists claim that water-dwel- ve a temporary explanation for those ob- ling organisms gradually turned into servations. The first step towards rese- land-dwelling ones. In order to verify arch is taken by means of a hypothesis. these claims, they depict all terrestrial li- Assumptions made in forming that ving things and those living in water hypothesis must be capable of being tes- with similar characteristics as transitio- ted through controlled experiments. If a nal forms. Ichthyostega is a marine cre- hypothesis cannot be based on experi- ature that lived in the Devonian Period mental testing that may confirm it, it re- and which, in the evolutionists’ view, mains mere speculation.218 represents a transitional form. These cre- A theory is constructed with a hypot- atures were specially created to live in hesis, supported by a great many obser- water, and the only reason why evolutio- vations and experiments (See Theory.) nists regard them as transitional forms and includes hypothesis and observation between fish and amphibians is that they in various different disciplines. For compare a structure on their fins to a fo- example, the theory of evolution inclu- ot capable of walking on dry land. des hypotheses and observations from However, there is no scientific vali- paleontology, anatomy, physiology, bi- dity to this unfounded claim. Living ochemistry, genetics and other sciences. mammals such as the bat are capable of When a scientist makes an observation flight, mammals such as the Platypus that is not compatible with the hypothe- that lay eggs, and mammals such as sis, he must conclude that either the whales and dolphins live in the sea.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 176

Such life forms also existed in the tely groundless scenario. past. Ichthyostega lived in the sea, like Despite being an evolutionist, even dolphins, but that does not indicate that Henry Gee, editor of the well-known it was a transitional forms. On the con- magazine Nature, admitted the mistaken trary, it shows that they were an original and biased attitudes adopted towards and stable species. Indeed, according to Ichthyostega:

the theory of evolution, there is no ratio- A statement that Ichthyostega is a mis- nal basis to proposing them as transitio- sing link between fishes and later tetra- nal forms at all. pods reveals far more about our prejudi- All the supposedly transitional forms ces than about the creature we are sup- referred to today are the result of such posed to be studying. It shows how much distortions. According to evolutionists, we are imposing a restricted view on rea- the first movement made using the feet lity based on our own limited experience, was made by life forms resembling amp- when reality may be larger, stranger, and 219 hibians that walked on the floors of shal- more different than we can imagine. low waters. These fish, which include As his admission shows, there is not the Coelacanth, were for long described a single piece of concrete evidence for as transitional forms that moved in such any transition from water to land. This a way. Evolutionists claimed that the came to light with the discovery of a li- Coelacanth evolved over the course of ving Coelacanth and once again de- time and turned into Ichthyostega, an monstrated that all the scenarios drea- amphibian. However, this was a comple- med up by evolutionists were a fantasy.

One of the reconstructions frequently employed by evolutionists, despite their having no scientific foundation

Austrolopithecu s afarensis (“Lucy”)

Homo Homo Homo sapiens sapiens erectus neanderthalensis sapiens 177

give the impression that each one is the ancestor of the one succeeding it. Yet the Imaginary Human latest paleoanthropological findings Family Tree, the show that Australopithecines, Homo ha- The Darwinist claim assumes that bilis and H. erectus all lived in the same modern humans evolved from various period in different regions of the world. ape-like creatures. The assertion is that Moreover, some humans belonging to various transitional forms between mo- the species Homo erectus were living dern man and his supposed forbears until very modern times and were pre- must have lived during this period, sent in the same surroundings as Homo which is assumed to have begun 4 to 5 sapiens neandertalensis and Homo sapi- million years ago. This totally fictitious ens sapiens (modern man). This, of co- scenario consists of four basic species: urse, clearly invalidates the claim that 1. Australopithecus these forms are one another’s ancestors. 2. Homo habilis 3. Homo erectus Impasse of Chaos 4. Homo sapiens Theory, the Evolutionists attach the name Aus- tralopithecus, meaning “southern ape,” — See Second Law of Thermody- to the first supposed ape-like ancestors namics, the (The Law of Entropy). of man. These creatures are in fact an extinct species of ape. There are various Aware that the Second Law of Ther- types of Australopithecines, some of modynamics makes evolution impossib- which are large apes and others of which le, various evolutionist scientists have are smaller and more delicate. (See Aus- recently engaged in speculation in order tralopithecus, the) to bridge the gulf between the Second The subsequent stage—and genus— Law and the theory of evolution and to in human evolution is classified as Ho- clear away this obstacle. mo, in other words “man.” According to Of these advocates, the Belgian sci- the claim, living things in the Homo ge- entist Ilya Prigogine is the best-known nus are more developed than Australo- with his claims made in the hope of re- pithecus. It is then claimed that H. sapi- conciling Termodynamics and evolution. ens, or modern man, emerged in the final Starting from the concept of Chaos The- phase of this genus’ evolution. ory, Prigogine put forward a number of In coming up with the series Austra- hypotheses to the effect that order could lopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo emerge from chaos. Yet despite all his erectus > Homo sapiens, evolutionists endeavors, Prigogine failed to reconcile

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 178

thermodynamics and evolution. This can This problem is far from being sol- clearly be seen in his following words: ved.221

There is another question, which has pla- The final point reached by the con- gued us for more than a century: What cept of Chaos Theory and the conjecture significance does the evolution of a living based on it is that no concrete result sup- being have in the world described by porting and confirming evolution and thermodynamics, a world of ever-increa- eliminating the dichotomy between ther- 220 sing disorder? modynamics and evolution has ever be- Prigogine was aware that at the mo- en obtained. As in all other spheres, sci- lecular level, the theories he had produ- ence once again reveals that with regard ced did not apply to living systems—a to thermodynamics, evolution is impos- living cell, for instance. He set out the sible and that there cannot be other exp- problem in these terms: lanation for the emergence of life than

The problem of biological order involves creation. the transition from the molecular activity to the super molecular order of the cell.

A species that does not already exist in nature cannot emerge through natural selection. Only handicapped or weak individuals can be eliminated from a species. The peppered moths are an excellent example of this. Trees became darker with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. In consequence, the lighter-colored moths that alighted on these trees became more visible to birds, and their numbers declined. There was also an increase in the numbers of surviving, darker moths. This is not, of course, evolution. No new species formed, and all that happened was the ratios changed of differently colored moths of the same species.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 179

Industrial Melanism In the 18th and 19th centuries, enormous changes took place in the industrial sphere first in Britain and then in other West European countries and America. Particularly in Great Britain, color changes were observed in some populations of animals due to the air pollution that increased with the Industrial Revolution. Industrial melanism is an expression of color changes allowed animals to camo- uflage themselves better. Evolutionists attempt to account for these observed differences in color as natural selection under the pressure of en- The peppered moths in Britain are portrayed as one of the contemporary proofs vironmental conditions. In fact, however, of evolution by way of natural selection. Yet the situation stems from a complete mi- there is no evolution at work here, because sinterpretation of observed phenomena. no new species of moth emerged. The picture at top left shows pre-Industrial One evolutionist source sets out the Revolution moths, and the one on at right position as follows: shows trees and the moths on them following the Industrial Revolution. The most striking contemporary example of this directed selection is the evolution of protective colouring demonstrated by areas, since the soot from the chimneys two Oxford University researchers called darkened these lichens, white moths be- Ford and Kettlewell. They discovered that gan to become more visible. In contrast, one kind of moth living in regions of Bri- dark-coloured moths were better adapted. tain with a large number of factory chim- Since birds hunted the white moths, dar- neys were darker than moths living in ot- ker moths began to predominate and the her regions. It is known from collections genotype possessed by these began in- that specimens previously collected (befo- creasing in the population. White forms re industrialisation) were lighter in colo- have today again begun to predominate ur. Since the lighter-coloured moths lived in those regions of Britain in which air on white and light coloured lichens found pollution has been eradicated.222 around tree trunks outside industrial regions, they adapted well to their environ- The point to be noted here is the pre- ment and were able to avoid attracting sence of black moths caught prior to the the notice of predator birds. In industrial beginning of the Industrial Revolution in

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 180

Britain. In fact, this type of moth existed moth would still be the same species and in Britain years before the Industrial Re- would not have turned into any other. volution. The change brought about by Evolution needs to scientifically prove air pollution increased the likelihood of that one species can evolve into another the white form, which had previously What is happening here is not evolu- existed in large numbers, being seen by tion, but only normal variation. Natural predators. As a result, there was a reduc- selection is only a mechanism that pre- tion in the numbers of this type and an vents members of a given species from increase in the numbers of darker moths. disappearing as a result of environmen- (See Peppered moths, the.) tal changes. (See Variation.) It is clear that this change was in the The phenomena of variation and na- numbers of the moths, not in their co- tural selection do not account for evolu- lors. This event can never be put forward tion in the way that by Darwin imagined. as evidence of evolution. Proponents of On the contrary, they’re excellent the original creation of species accept examples of a method of protection fore- this. In addition, even if there were a seen by creation. To put it another way, change in color as a result of mutation, God has created all kinds of living things this would still constitute no evidence with systems to ensure their survival. An for evolution, because the species of organism’s genetic system may be able

Post-Industrial Revolution

Pre-Industrial Revolution

Since tree trunks became darker with soot in the wake of the Industrial Revolution, light-colored peppered moths were easier prey for birds and their numbers declined. This is not an example of evolution by natural selection, however, because no new species emerged. All that happened was that the characteristics of an existing species changed.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 181 to regulate its characteristics within cer- the number of light-colored moths decli- tain bounds, according to changes in the ned, the dark-colored ones increased be- surroundings. Otherwise, even minor cause they were less visible. changes in climate or food sources wo- Evolutionists resort to the misleading uld spell the species’ death. claim that this process represents major Many living things such as mam- evidence for evolution and that those moths, dinosaurs, and flying reptiles have lighter-colored moths gradually “evol- become extinct due to sudden environ- ved” into darker ones. mental or climatic changes). These life The fact is, though, this example forms disappeared when they were unab- cannot stand as evidence for evolution. le to adapt to environmental conditions The natural selection that took place did exceeding the limits of the genetic poten- not give rise to the emergence of any tial they possessed when they were crea- new species that did not exist before. ted. However, there is no scientific evi- Black individuals already existed in the dence that these turned into other species. pre-Industrial Revolution population. All that changed was the characteristics of a species that already existed. Moths Peppered moths, the acquired no new organs or characteris- Douglas Futuyma’s 1986 book Evo- tics that would lead to species change. lutionary Biology, is regarded as a refe- Whereas in order for a moth to turn into rence that most clearly explains the the- another distinct species, countless chan- ory of natural selection. The best-known ges, additions and subtractions would of the examples cited by Futuyma is the have to occur in its genes. To put it anot- darkening of the color of a moth popula- her way, a whole new genetic program tion in Great Britain during the Industri- containing the physical characteristics of al Revolution. a new species would have to be loaded Before the Industrial Revolution be- onto the moth. gan, the bark of trees in the Manchester Contrary to the impression evolutio- area was light in color. Therefore, any nists seek to give, it is impossible for na- dark-colored melanic moths landing on tural selection to add or remove any or- these trees were easily detected by birds gan from a living thing, and for that spe- and thus had little chance of survival. cies to turn into another one. The stron- Fifty years of pollution later, however, gest evidence on this subject since Dar- the bark grew darker, after the death of win’s time is the tale of the peppered the light-colored lichens on the trees, moths in Britain. and now the lighter-colored moths fell Yet there is an even more noteworthy prey to birds more often. As a result, as aspect to the evolutionist “example” of

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 182

It is impossible for the information in DNA to have emerged through coincidences and natural processes.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 183 the peppered moths. Not only is the in- his mind into letters by way of a typew- terpretation of the story wrong, but so is riter or computer. These letters later go the story itself. As the molecular biolo- to the printer and are turned into that bo- gist Jonathan Wells described in his ok consisting of paper and ink. 2000 book, Icons of Evolution, the re- From this, we may draw the general ported tale of the Industrial-Revolution conclusion that if something contains in- Moths does not reflect the true facts at formation, then it must have been set out all. (For detailed information, see The by a mind possessed of information. Evolution Deceit by Harun Yahya.) First, that mind translated the information it possessed into matter, and thus produced a design. Information theory In their DNA, living things possess exceedingly wide-ranging information. This discipline investigates the struc- A literal data bank describes all the ture and origin of the information in the physical details of an organism’s body in universe. As a result of lengthy research, a space just 1/100,000th of a meter in si- the conclusion reached by information ze. In addition, there is also a system that theoreticians is that information is dis- reads this information in the living body, tinct from matter. It can never be reduced analyzes it, and sets about production to matter. The sources of information and accordingly. The information in the matter must be investigated separately. DNA in all of a living thing’s cells is re- For example, a book consists of pa- ad by various enzymes, and proteins are per, ink and the information within it. produced in the light of that information. However, ink and paper are material ele- Millions of proteins are produced every ments. Their origin again lies in matter: second in line with your body’s require- Paper is composed of cellulose, and ink ments. Thanks to this system, dead blo- from various chemicals and dyes. od cells are replaced with living ones. The information in a book, however, All the scientific research conducted is not material and cannot have any main the 20th century, the results of all the terial origin. The source of the informati- experiments and all the observations, re- on in every book is the mind of the aut- vealed that the information in DNA can- hor who wrote it. not be reduced to matter alone, as mate- Furthermore, this author also deter- rialists would have us believe. To put it mines how this paper and ink are to be another way, it definitively rejects the used. A book first takes shape in its aut- idea that DNA is merely a collection of hor’s mind. The writer constructs a pat- organic compounds and that all the in- tern and sets out sentences. He gives the- formation it contains came about as the se a material form—turning the words in result of chance interactions.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 184

Professor Werner Gitt, director of the domains will never be brought together in German Federal Institute of Physics and any kind of the sense usually implied by Technology, says: the term “reductionism.” . . . The gene is a package of information, not an object. . . . A code system is always the result of a In biology, when you're talking about mental process (it requires an intelligent things like genes and genotypes and gene origin or inventor) . . . It should be emp- pools, you're talking about information, hasized that matter as such is unable to not physical objective reality. . . . This degenerate any code. All experiences indi- arth of shared descriptors makes matter cate that a thinking being voluntarily and information two separate domains of exercising his own free will, cognition, existence, which have to be discussed se- and creativity, is required. There is no parately, in their own terms.224 known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which Evolutionists occasionally admit the- can cause information to originate by it- ir despair. One frankly spoken authority self in matter. . . . 'There is no known na- on this subject is the famous French zo- tural law through which matter can give ologist Pierre Grassé, according to rise to information, neither is any physi- whom the most important fact to invali- cal process or material phenomenon date the Darwinist account is the infor- known that can do this.223 mation that constitutes life: Gitt’s words reflect the same conclu- Any living being possesses an enormous sions arrived at from the Information amount of “intelligence,” very much mo- Theory developed over the last 20 to 30 re than is necessary to build the most years and which is regarded as a compo- magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this nent of thermodynamics. George C. Wil- “"intelligence” is called information, but liams, one of the most prominent adhe- it is still the same thing. It is not prog- rents of the theory of evolution alive to- rammed as in a computer, but rather it is day, accepts this fact, which most mate- condensed on a molecular scale in the rialists and evolutions are reluctant to chromosomal DNA or in that of every ot- admit. Despite having vigorously espou- her organelle in each cell. This “intelli- sed materialism for many years, Willi- gence” is the sine qua non of life. Where ams in a 1995 article stated the error of does it come from? . . . This is a problem the materialist (reductionistic) approach that concerns both biologists and philo- that assumes that everything consists of sophers, and, at present, science seems 225 matter alone: incapable of solving it. . . . Contrary to Grassé’s statement that Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less science can never resolve this problem, incommensurable domains: that of infor- all the scientific research that has been mation and that of matter. . . These two carried out invalidates the hypotheses of

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 185

External smooth muscle The human eye func- Ocular Lens tions through its 40 or so components all work- fluid ing in harmoniously Sclera Cornea together. If one of these is absent, the eye will Choroid serve no purpose. Each Retina of these 40 components has its own very complex structure and must have been created simultaneously. The the- Pupil ory of evolution has no Optic nerve answer to the question of how such a complex Internal Ciliary body organ came into being. smooth muscle

materialist philosophy and clearly pro- successive, slight modifications, my the- ves the existence of a Creator—in other ory would absolutely break down. But I 226 words, of God. can find out no such case. Darwinism accounts for the origin of living things in terms of two unconscio- Irreducible complexity us natural mechanisms: natural selection One of the most important resources and random changes, caused by mutati- to question Darwinist theory in the face ons. According to Darwinist theory, these two mechanisms gave rise to the of scientific findings is the criteria put complex structure of the living cell, the forward by Darwin himself! complex body systems of living things, In proposing his theory, Darwin also eyes, ears, wings, lungs, bat sonar and set out a number of concrete measures millions of other complex and sophisti- about how his theory might be dispro- cated designs. ved. There are passages beginning with However, it is unscientific and illogi- the words in “If my theory is true . . .” cal to claim that all these systems with many chapters of The Origin of Species, their exceptionally complex structures are and in those passages, Darwin describes the product of two unconscious natural the findings needed to prove his theory. phenomena. At this point, Darwinism re- One of them reads: sorts to the concept of reducibility. It is If it could be demonstrated that any maintained that all the systems in question complex organ existed, which could not were once far simpler states, and that they possibly have been formed by numerous, then developed in stages. Each stage pro-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 186

vided the living species in question with a consciously determine an objective befo- slightly greater advantage, and it will thus rehand, the whole theory depends on li- be favored by way of natural selection. ving systems being capable of “being re- Yet another small, accidental change will duced” to small, advantageous changes. later take place, and that will also consti- That is why Darwin said, “If it could tute an advantage and improve the indivi- be demonstrated that any complex organ dual’s chances, and the whole process will existed, which could not possibly have continue running along those lines. been formed. . . .” Thanks to this process, according to Given the primitive level of science the Darwinist claim, a species that initi- in the 19th century, Darwin may well ha- ally had no eyes at all would come to ve thought that living things did have a possess a flawless pair, and another spe- reducible structure. However, 20th cen- cies previously unable to fly would de- tury scientific findings revealed that velop wings and take to the air. many systems and organs in living things These evolutionist scenarios are rela- were actually irreducible. This phenome- ted in a very convincing and reasonable- non, known as irreducible complexity, seeming style. Examined in slightly grea- definitively demolished Darwinism in ter detail, however, it appears that there is exactly the way that Darwin feared. a major error in place. The first miscon- The human eye’s structure cannot be ception is that mutations are destructive reduced to a more simple form, and is a occurrences, rather than beneficial ones. clear example of such a system. The eye In other words, the idea that random mu- cannot function at all unless all its com- tations affecting a species can endow it ponents exist together and function pro- with some advantage—and continue to do perly. The consciousness that produces so, thousands of times in succession—is a such a complex structure needs to calcu- violation of all scientific observations. late beforehand the benefits to be obtai- However, there is a still more impor- ned at the very final stage. It is absolu- tant error at work. Note that Darwinist tely impossible, however, for the mecha- theory requires every stage in the prog- nisms of evolution to produce complex ression (for instance, from a wingless organs through consciousness and will. animal to a winged one) to be advantageous. Thus in any evolutionary process Isolation from A to Z, all the intermediate stages— B, C, D … through to W, X and Y— must When populations are divided by so- all bestow separate advantages on the me geographic obstacle, the gene pools species that evolves. Since it is impossib- (representing the populations’ genetic le for natural selection and mutation to structure) of populations living in the

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 187 two different environments may be fo- mongrel breeds among dogs. Since dogs und to change. The further apart popula- all belong to separate breeds they produ- tions move from one another, the greater ce mongrels among themselves. That is why dog breeders take care to use only the potential increase in the differences pedigree breeds in order to maintain spe- between them. Isolation giving rise to cific characteristics. If this were not do- population changes may be geographic, ne, then peculiar mongrel breeds from a economic, cultural or climatic.227 (See mixture of all dogs.229 Geographic Isolation theory, the.) Evolutionists try to account for the These two populations separated from origin of species in terms of isolation. But one another for whatever reason—gene- the question of how so many thousands of rally geographic isolation—may lose the species emerged on Earth is exceedingly ability to interbreed with each other. As a hard for evolutionists to answer. Therefo- natural consequence of this, the genetic re, they deliberately use the concept of combination of each population remains isolation as the mechanism that brings restricted. Evolutionists refer to every ef- new species into being. However, no new fect that prevents mating and effective species comes into being through isolati- fertilization between populations as isolation or as an isolation mechanism. Accor- ding to evolutionists, isolation that res- tricts reproduction is essential for species formation.228 One evolutionist source describes this essential requirement: No species can separate from another in the absence of this; and if ever it did, it could never survive independently. What if all animals mated freely with one another and were able to reproduce among themselves? The result would be a con- vergence leading to the disappearance of all zoological units. In other words, no dog, horse, cat or cow would have a separate existence; they would be just combinations of all animals. Because the distinction between animals and human beings would be lost, there would be many human-like animals and animal-like humans. Eventually a most fascinating mongrel would emerge from the combination of all these. Since reproduction is unrestricted on the streets we see various

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) on. That merely enables the emergence of cause there is no such process going on. different variants, stemming from a nar- rowing of the gene pool. At the basis of speciation, there is no genetic incompati- What is happening consists of different bility stemming from division into two groups. These life forms will still belong to the same species, in terms of their ove- combinations of genetic information that rall genetic information. Therefore, there is nothing about the speciation that supports the theory of already exists in that species’ gene pool evolution, which claims that all living species evolved from the simple to the complex in a random manner. This me- being distribution in different populati- ans that if evolution is to be taken seriously, it must be able to point to mechanisms that increase genetic information. ons of individuals. It must be able to explain how life forms originally lacking eyes, ears, a heart, lungs, wings, feet or other organs and Evolutionists need to answer such systems managed to acquire them, and where the genetic information describing these organs and systems came from. questions as, “How did the first species No doubt that the division of an already existing species into two, suffering a loss of genetic diversity, has absolutely come into existence?” and “How did the nothing to do with this. The fact that subspecies are not evolving into new species is actually admit- categories above species, the classes, or- ted even by evolutionists. For that reason, evolutionists describe examples of variations within a species and of speci- ders, families etc. initially come into ation by division as micro-evolution. (See Micro-evolution.) Micro-evolution is used in the sense of variants emerging existence?” that. within an already existing species. Ho- wever, the use of the term evolution here is deliberately intended to mislead, be- 189

Java Man In 1891, Eugene Dubois, who had dedicated himself to searching for the theory of evolution’s so-called missing link, discovered a skull fragment on the shores of the River Solo on the island of Java in Indonesia. Dubois believed that this skull possessed both human and si- mian (ape-like) properties. A year later, he discovered a thigh bone some 15 meters from where he had found the top of the cranium and concluded that this thigh bone—which was very similar to those of human beings—and the skull might have belonged to the same body. Based on these two pieces of bone, he adopted the idea that this fossil might be a transitional form and gave it an im- pressive scientific name: Pithecanthro- pus erectus, or “upright-walking ape- man.” Popularly referred to as Java Man, the fossil had a skull volume of around 900 cubic centimeters and was suggested to be around 500,000 years old. Dubois thought that the Trinil stratum in which the fossil was found was underneath the border between the Pleis- tocene and Pliocene (Tertiary) periods; and was certain that human beings had evolved during the Middle Pleistocene. For that reason, according to Dubois, the age of Java Man was entirely compatible with its being the missing link. Howe- ver, Dubois had prepared a study of the Javanese fossil fauna before he discovered that fossil—which study totally con- tradicted the information was to provide

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 190

about Java Man. But following his dis- Another discovery that totally refu- covery of Java Man, his comments re- ted Dubois’ ape-man garding the fauna study made an abrupt nonsense came from about-face. Dr. Walkhoff, an ant- Marvin L. Lubenow spent some 20 hropologist, who fo- years researching Java Man. In his book und the upper part of a Bones of Contention, he states that Dubo- human molar tooth in is did not possess sufficient geological a dried-up region of knowledge when he discovered the fossil: the River Solo, no more than three kilo-

When Dubois issued his first description meters (two miles) from where Dubois of the fossil Javanese fauna he designa- had discovered Java Man. This fossili- ted it Pleistocene. But no sooner had he zed molar was human and dated back to discovered his Pithecanthropus than the a period as old as that to which Java Man fauna had suddenly to become Tertiary. supposedly belonged. A team of experts He did everything in his power to dimi- who were all evolutionists carried out nish the Pleistocene character of the fau- this project, with the aim of finding fos- 230 na. sils to verify evolution. Nonetheless, the Dubois said that the thigh bone and head of the team, Professor Selenka, the skull belonged to the same creature. concluded that modern man and Java Yet eminent scientists of the time came Man had lived at the same time, and that to the opposite conclusion. The famous there could therefore be no evolutionary Cambridge University anatomist Sir Art- relationship between Java Man and mo- hur Keith clearly stated that a skull with dern human beings. such a volume could not belong to an In the final chapter of the report, Dr. ape and revealed the absence of structu- Max Blanckenhorn, who acted as project ral features permitting powerful mastica- secretary, apologized to readers for ha- tion and particular to apes. Keith said ving demolished Dubois’ thesis with the- that the skull was very definitely human. ir discovery instead of confirming it! Dubois’ claims on the basis of these All this goes to show that there is no two bones approached the fantastic. A difference between Java Man, depicted directed perspective underlay his claims. as an ape-man, and modern humans. The Since Dubois was an evolutionist, he ac- only thing that can be suggested with re- ted in the light of certain preconceptions gard to Java Man is the small size of the and was unwilling to consider any alter- skull volume, although there are races native possibility. He also harbored ob- with small skulls living today. In additi- vious hostility towards those who critici- on, among these races are native Austra- zed his opinions. lians, who live not so very far from the

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 191 island of Java. Thus the fact that Java In his following words, Johnson cla- Man is a genuine human becomes even rifies why the origin of mind cannot be clearer. explained with theory of evolution: Johnson, Phillip A theory that is the product of a mind can never adequately explain the mind that Phillip Johnson, has been a professor produced the theory. The story of the gre- of law at Berkeley University for 26 ye- at scientific mind that discovers absolute ars, and is one of the world’s most im- truth is satisfying only so long as we ac- portant critics of Darwinism. In Darwin cept the mind itself as a given. Once we on Trial, Johnson states that the philo- try to explain the mind as a product of its sophy behind the theory of evolution own discoveries, we are in a hall of mir- rors with no exit.232 was based on naturalism, and that evolution is supported for ideological reasons: . . . the leaders of science see themselves “Junk” DNA as locked in a desperate battle against religious fundamentalists, a label which Until several years ago, this term was they tend to apply broadly to anyone who given to collections of DNA whose func- believes in a Creator who plays an active tions were unknown to scientists. For the role in worldly affairs. These fundamen- time being, they referred to these long talists are seen as a threat to liberal free- sequences that they were unable to des- dom, and especially as a threat to public cribe as genes as “junk DNA.” They also support for scientific research. As the suggested that these long sections of creation myth of scientific naturalism, DNA, which served no purpose accor- Darwinism plays an indispensable ide- ding to their understanding at the time, ological role in the war against funda- were evidence of evolution. mentalism. For that reason, the scientific organizations are devoted to protecting According to this thesis, junk DNA Darwinism rather than testing it, and the was composed of segments that had ac- rules of scientific investigation have been cumulated during the evolutionary pro- shaped to help them succeed.231 cess, but which now had no use. 192

This claim, based on no scientific not constitute genes help regulate it. For grounds, consisted solely of unfounded that reason, any scientist interested in speculation. The reason why it was so genetics or who closely monitors deve- easily able to find a place in the literatu- lopments no longer attaches any worth re was that in those days, very little was to the concept of junk DNA. known about DNA. The functions of The fact that these DNA segments those parts of DNA known as “junk” had are in a constant state of activity has ac- not yet been brought discovered. tually been known for a considerable ti- However, with the Human Genome me, whether evolutionists like it or not. Project and other similar genetic rese- Molecular biologists from the Harvard arch, it emerged that genes were cons- University Medical Faculty and physi- tantly interacting with one another du- cists from Boston University shed light ring the protein-production process. (See on this matter in a report titled “Does Genome Project, the.) During the cour- nonsense DNA speak its own dialect?” se of this production, It was realized that published in Science magazine in no one gene works independently of ot- 1994.233 As a result of their research her DNA segments. The point we are at into 37 DNA strands containing 50,000 today shows that while one gene works, base pairs, taken from various living especially during the initial protein codi- things, they reported that the “empty” fication phase, parts of the DNA that do DNA that makes up 90% of human DNA They said, “Glory be to You!

We have no knowledge except

what You have taught us.

You are the All-Knowing,

the All-Wise.”

(Surat al-Baqara, 32) 194

is actually written in a special language. Evan Eichler, an evolutionist scien- 1 Ozer Bulut, Davut Sagdic, Selim Korkmaz, tist from Cleveland University, made the Biyoloji Lise 3, (“Biology High School 3”) MEB Publishing, Istanbul, 2000, p. 182. following admission: 2 From Rene Vallery-Radot, The Life of Pas- The term “junk DNA” is a reflection of teur, 1920, Garden City, NY: Garden City Publis- our ignorance.234 hing Company, Inc., p.109. http://www.founder- sofscience.net/interest1.htm In fact, this concept is simply the la- 3 Grolier International Americana Encyclope- test example of the “vestigial organs” dia, Vol 2, Danbury:Grolier Incorporated, 1993, that evolutionists have been proposing pp. 345-346. th since the beginning of the 20 century. 4 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd (See Vestigial Organs thesis, the.) At Edition, New York: A L. Burt Co., 1874, p.178. that time, many evolutionists suggested 5 Jani Roberts, “How neo-Darwinism justifi- that many organs whose functions had ed taking land from Aborigines and murdering them in Australia”, http://www.gn.apc.org/inqui- not yet been discovered (for example, rer/ausrace.html. the appendix and the coccyx) were use- 6 “Ancient Alga Fossil Most Complex Yet”, less, vestigial organs and left behind in Science News, Vol. 108, 20 September 1975, p. the course of evolution. Later medical 181. research, however, revealed that these 7 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, The Silent Night of organs imagined to be useless actually the Dinosaurs, Istanbul: Alan Publishing, Novem- performed important functions. The ap- ber 1996, Trans: Veysel Atayman, p.199. 8 N. Kroger, R. Deutzmann, M. Sumper, pendix, for instance, was shown to be “Polycationic Peptides from Diatom Biosilica That part of the body’s immune system, and Direct Silica Nanosphere Formation”, Science, the coccyx to be an attachment point for 286, pp. 1129, 1999. important muscles. 9 Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami ve Bagnaz- In the words of the evolutionist aut- lik (“The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry”), p.49. hor Steven R. Scadding, “As our know- 10 Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of , 1902, Chapter I, http://www.calres- ledge has increased, the list of vestigial Evolution co.org/texts/mutaid1.htm structures has decreased,” 235 and 11 Bilim ve Teknik magazine, No.190, p. 4. eventually disappeared altogether. 12 Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Today the same thing applies to tho- Evolution, 1902, Part II. se parts of the chromosome that some 13 John Maynard Smith, “The Evolution of would like to consider vestigial DNA. Behavior”, Scientific American, December 1978, Yet as our biological knowledge increa- Vol. 239, No.3, p. 176. ses, so this claim is increasingly unfoun- 14 William R. Bird, The Origin of Species Re- , Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. ded. visited 305. 15 Sarah Simpson, “Life’s First Scalding NOTES Steps,” Science News, 155(2), 9 January 1999, p.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 195

25. 23. 16 Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology 31 Hubert Journal of Molecular Evolution, and Evolution, New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., Vol. 26, pp. 99-121. 1988, p. 304. 32 Sarich et al., Cladistics, Vol: 5, 1989, pp. 17 Edwin H. Colbert, M. Morales, Evolution 3-32. of the Vertebrates, New York: John Wiley and 33 Karen Hopkin, “The Greatest Apes,” New Sons, 1991, p. 99. Scientist, May 15, 1999, p. 27. 18 Robert L. Carroll, “Problems of the Origin 34 “Fruit Fly Gene Success,” BBC News, 18 of Reptiles,” Biological Reviews of the Cambridge February, 2000. Philosophical Society, Vol. 44. p. 393. 35 Mike Benton, “Is a Dog More Like Lizard 19 Stephen Jay Gould, “Eight (or Fewer) Litt- or a Chicken?” New Scientist, Vol. 103, August 16, le Piggies,” Natural History, No. 1, Jan 1991, Vol. 1984, p. 19. 100, p. 25. 36 John Ostrom, “Bird Flight: How Did It Be- 20 Musa Özet, Osman Arpac›, Ali Uslu, Biyo- gin?”, American Scientist, January-February 1979, loji 1 (“Biology 1”), Istanbul: Surat Publishing, Vol. 67. 1998, p. 129. 37 Kevin Pedian, “Early Bird in Slow Moti- 21 Dean Kenyon, Davis Percical, Of Pandas on,” Nature, 1 August 1996, p. 401. and People: The Central Question of Biological 38 Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, New Origins, Dallas: Haughton Publishing, 1993, p. 33. York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961, p. 310. 22 Prof. Dr. Eﬂref Deniz, T›bbi Biyoloji (“Me- 39 L.D. Martin, J.D. Stewart, K.N. Whetsto- dical Biology”), 4th Edition, Ankara, 1992, p. 369. ne, “The Origin of birds: Structure of the tarsus 23 N.F. Hughes, Paleology of Angiosperm and teeth,” The Auk, Vol. 97, 1980, p. 86. Origins: Problems of Mesozoic Seed-Plant Evolu- 40 Pat Shipman, “Birds Do It . . . Did Dinosa- tion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, urs?.” New Scientist, 1 February 1997, p. 31. 1976, pp.1-2. 41 “Old Bird,” Discover, Vol. 18, No. 3, 21 24 Daniel Isaac Axelrod, “The Evolution of March 1997. Flowering Plants,” in Evolution After Darwin: Vol. 42 Ibid. 1: The Evolution of Life, Ed. by S. Tax, Chicago, 43 Pat Shipman, “Birds Do It . . . Did Dinosa- IL: University of Chicago Press, 1960, pp. 264- urs?, New Scientist, p. 31. 274. 44 Terry D. Jones, John A. Ruben, Larry D. 25 Georges Politzer, Principes Fondamentaux Martin, Evgeny N. Kurochkin, Alan Feduccia, Pa- de Philosophie, Paris: Editions Sociales, 1954, p. ul F. A. Maderson, Willem J. Hillenius, Nicholas 84. R. Geist, Vladamir Alifanov, “Nonavian Feathers 26 Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, Lon- in a Late Triassic Archosaur.” Science, 23 June don, 1984, p. 184. 2000, pp. 2202-2205; “Earliest feathers fan contro- 27 Bilim ve Teknik [“Science and Technique”] versy,” 22 June 2000, BBC News, magazine, Vol. 201, p. 16. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natu- 28 Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny, New re/802009.stm. York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9. 45 S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, Paleobiology, 28 Stuart B. Levy, “The Challenge of Antibio- Vol. 3, 1977, p. 147. tic Resistance”, Scientific American, March 1998, 46 Timothy Rowe, Richard A. Ketcham, p. 35. Cambria Denison, Matthew Colbert, Xing Xu, and 30 Medical Tribune, 29 December 1988, pp.1, Philip J. Currie, “Forensic palaeontology: The Arc-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 196

haeoraptor forgery,” Nature, 29 March 2001, Vo.: 65 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 410, pp. 539-540. p. 229. 47 Robert Kunzig, “The Face of an Ancestral 66 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, p. Child,” Discover, December 1996, pp. 97-100. 197. 48 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory To- 67 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A wer, New York: Taplinger Publications, 1970, pp. Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University 75-94. Press, 1964, p. 302. 49 Charles E. Oxnard, “The Place of Austra- 68 Stefan Bengtson, “The Solution to a Jig- lopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Do- saw Puzzle” Nature, Vol. 345, 1990, p. 765. ubt,” Nature, Vol. 258, p. 389. 69 Mark Czarnecki, “The Revival of the Cre- 50 Isabelle Bourdial, “Adieu Lucy,” Science ationist Crusade,” MacLean’s, January 19, 1981, p. et Vie, May 1999, No. 980, pp. 52-62. 56. 51 Ozer Bulut, Davut Sagdic, Selim Kork- 70 W. Dort, Antarctic Journal of the US, maz, Lise Biyoloji 3 (“High School Biology 3”), 1971, p. 210. Istanbul: MEB Press, 2000, p. 183. 71 M. S. Kieth, G. M. Anderson, “Radiocar- 52 Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box. bon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk New York: Free Press, 1996, pp. 232-233. Shells,” Science, August 16, 1963, p. 634. 53 H. S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolu- 72 G. W. Barendsen, E. S. Deevey, L. J. Gra- tion", Physics Bulletin, vol. 138, 1980, p. 138. lenski, “Yale Natural Radiocarbon Measure- 54 Özer Bulut, Davut Sa¤d›ç, Selim Kork- ments,” Science, Vol. 126, p. 911. maz, Biyoloji Lise 3, p.182. 73 H. R. Crane, “University of Michigan Ra- 55 Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose, Molecular Evo- diocarbon Dates I,” Science, Vol. 124, p. 666, spe- lution and The Origin of Life, New York: Marcel cimen M-19. Dekker, 1977, p. 2. 74 Charles Reed, “Animal Domestication in 56 http://www.apologetics.org/articles/foun- the Prehistoric Near East,” Science, Vol. 130, p. der2.html; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchma- 1630. ker, Longman, England, 1986, p. 1. 75 Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, p. 106. 57 Ibid. 76 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisi- 58 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, ted, pp. 298-299. London: W.W. Norton, 1986, p. 159. 77 “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, 59 http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/confe- November 12, 1981, p. 105. rences.php. 78 A. I. Oparin, Origin of Life, p. 196. 60 D.R. Oldroyd, Darwinian Impacts, Atlan- 79 David E. Green, Robert F. Goldberger, tic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1983, pp. Molecular Insights into the Living Process, Acade- 23, 32. mic Press, New York, 1967, s. 403. 61 Trends in Genetics, February 1999. 80 Mahlon B. Hoagland, Hayat›n Kökeni 62 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, (“The Roots of Life”), Ankara: Tubitak, 1998, p. New York: Pantheon Books, 1983, p. 197. 40. 63 Levinton, Jeffrey S.,“The Big Bang of 81 www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1- Animal Evolution,” Scientific American, 267:84, 55683967.html. November 1992. 82 M. Y›lmaz Öner, Canl›lar›n Diyalekti¤i ve 64 Richard Monastersky, “Mysteries of the Yeni Evrim Teorisi, Belge Publishing, 2000, p. 165. Orient,” Discover, April 1993, p. 40. 83 Jean-Jacques Hublin, The Hamlyn Ency-

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 197 clopaedia of Prehistoric Animals, New York : The 102 Mary C. Stiner, Steven L. Kuhn, “Subsis- Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., 1984, p. 120. tence, Technology, and Adaptive Variation in 84 Jacques Millot, “The Cœlacanth,” Scienti- Middle Paleolithic Italy.” American Anthropolo- fic American, December 1955, No. 193, p. 39. gist, Vol. 94, No. 2, 1992, pp.309-310. 85 103 Roger Lewin, The Origin of Modern Hu- http://www.cnn.com/TECH/scien- mans, New York: Scientific American Library, , ce/9809/23/living.fossil/index.html. 1993, p. 131. 86 Peter L. Forey, “Golden jubilee for the co- 104 John Ostrom, “Bird Flight: How Did It elacanth Latimeria chalumnae,” Nature, Vol. 336, Begin?.” American Scientist, p. 47. 1988. p. 729. 105 87 Richard B. Bliss and Gray A. Parker, Ori- http://www.strangescience.net/cuvier.htm. gin of Life, California, 1979, p. 14. 106 Ibid. 88 David Jorafsky, Soviet Marxism and Natu- 107 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kal›t›m ve Evrim ral Science, New York: Columbia University (“Heredity and Evolution”), Ankara: Meteksan Press, 1961, p. 4. Publishing, 1995, p. 61. 89 Pat Shipman, “Birds Do It . . . Did Dinosa- 108 Ibid. urs?,” New Scientist, p. 31. 109 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 90 Ozer Bulut, Davut Sagdic, Elim Korkmaz, 2nd Edition, New York: A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. Lise Biyoloji 3 (“High School Biology 3”), p. 135. 178. 91 Musa Ozet, Osman Arpaci, Ali Uslu, Bio- 110 Ibid., p. 171. logy 1, Istanbul: Surat Publishing, 1998, p. 138. 111 Ibid. 92 Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide 112 W. Parker Snow, “A Few Remarks on the to the Creation of Life on Earth, New York: Sum- Wild Tribes of Tierra del Fuego from Personal Ob- mit Books, 1986, p. 127. servation,” Transactions of the Ethnological Soci- 93 Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, ety of London, Vol. 1, 1861 (1861), pp. 261-267. Evolution from Space, New York: Simon & Schus- 113 Benjamin Farrington, What Darwin Re- ter, 1984, p. 148. ally Said, London: Sphere Books, 1971, pp. 54-56. 94 Ibid, p. 130. 114 James Ferguson, “The Laboratory of Ra- 95 Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and cism,” New Scientist, Vol. 103, September 27, Nature, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88. 1984, p. 18. 96 Edward S. Deevey, Jr. 1967, “The Reply: 115 Lalita Prasad Vidyarthi, Racism, Science Letter from Birnam Wood,” Yale Review, 61, pp. and Pseudo-Science, Unesco, France, Vendôme, 631-640. 198, p. 54. 97 Maria Genevieve Lavanant, Bilim ve Tek- 116 Rebekah E. Sutherland, “Social Darwi- nik magazine, April 1984, No. 197, p. 22. nism,” http://www.rebsutherland.com/SocialDar- 98 Erik Trinkaus, “Hard Times Among the winism.htm. Neanderthals.”, Natural History, Vol. 87, Decem- 117 Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin, ber 1978, p. 10. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992, pp. 99 “Neandertals Lived Harmoniously,” The 217-218. AAAS Science News Service, 3 April 1997. 118 Glen McLean, Roger Oakland, Larry 100 Ralph Solecki, Shanidar: The First Flo- McLean, The Evidence for Creation: Examining wer People, New York: Knopf, 1971, p. 196. The Origin of Planet Earth, Pittsburgh: Full Gos- 101 D. Johanson, B. Edgar, From Lucy to pel Bible Institute, Whitaker House, 1989, p. 94. Language, pp. 99, 107. 119 Desmond King-Hele, Doctor of Revoluti-

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 198

on: The Life and Times of Erasmus Darwin, Lon- tory_1500.htm. don: Faber & Faber, 1977, p. 361. 138 G.G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction 120 William R. Denslow, 10,000 Famous to Biology, New York: Harcourt Brace and World, Freemasons, Vol. I. Richmond: Macoy Publishing 1965, p. 241. & Masonic Supply Co., 1957, p. 285. 139 Elizabeth Pennisi, “Haeckel's Embryos: 121 Richard, Dawkins, Climbing Mount Im- Fraud Rediscovered”, Science, 5 September 1997: probable, New York: W.W. Norton, 1996, p. 283. Vol. 277. no. 5331, p. 1435. 122 Francisco J. Ayala, “The Mechanisms of 140 Pat Shipman, “Birds Do It. . . Did Dino- Evolution.” Scientific American, Vol. 239, Septem- saurs?,” New Scientist, p. 28. ber 1978, p. 64. 141 D. Loyd, The Mitochondria of Microor- 123 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in ganisms, 1974, p. 476. Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985. 142 Gray & Doolittle, “Has the Endosymbi- 124 Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of ant Hypothesis Been Proven?,” Microbiological Man, New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Review, Vol. 30, 1982, p. 46. 1981, p. 72. 143 Wallace-Sanders-Ferl, Biology: The Sci- 125 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, p. ence of Life, 4th Edition, Harper Collins College 171. Publishers, p. 94. 126 Ibid., p. 178. 144 Mahlon B. Hoagland, The Roots of Life, 127 Malcolm Wilkins, Plantwatching, New p. 145. York: Facts on File Publications, 1988, pp. 25-26. 145 Whitfield, “Book Review of Symbiosis in 128 Jacques Millot, “The Cœlacanth.” Scien- Cell Evolution”, Biological Journal of Linnean So- tific American, December 1955, Vol. 193, p. 39. ciety, Vol. 77-79 1982, p. 18. 129 Maria Genevieve Lavanant, Bilim ve Tek- 146 W. Ford Doolittle, "Uprooting the Tree of nik, April 1984, No. 197, p. 22. Life," Scientific American, 282:90, February 2000. 130 Frank B. Salisbury, “Doubts about the 147 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraf- Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution.” American fe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, pp. 16-17, 19 Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336. 148 Ibid. 131 Paul Auger, De La Physique Theorique a 149 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolu- la Biologie, 1970, p. 118. tion Mystery, London: Sphere Books, 1984, p. 230. 132 Ali Demirsoy, Kal›t›m ve Evrim, Ankara: 150 K. Ludmerer, Eugenics, In: Encyclopedia Meteksan Yay›nlar›, 1984, p. 39. of Bioethics, edited by Mark Lappe, New York: 133 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in The Free Press, 1978, p. 457. Crisis. London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351. 151 http://www.trufax.org/avoid/nazi.html; 134 Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Ethics and Va- Theodore D. Hall, Ph. D., Scientific Background of lues in Biological and Cultural Evolution", Zygon, Nazi ‘Race Purification’ Program, Leading Edge The Journal of Religion and Science, as reported International Research Group. in Los Angeles Times, part IV (June 16, 1974), p. 6 152 A. E. Wilder Smith, Man’s Origin, Man’s 135 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Destiny, A Critical Survey of the Principles of Evo- Organisms, New York: Academic Press, , 1977, p. lution and Christianity, The Word For Today Pub- 87. lishing 1993, pp.163, 16. 136 Niles Eldredge, “Is Evolution Progress?” 153 Henry Morris, The Long War Against Science Digest, September 1983, pp. 40, 160. God, p. 78; Francis Schaeffer, How Shall We Then 137 http://www.repromed.org.uk/history/his- Live?, Old Tappan, NJ: Revell Books, , 1976, p.

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 199

151. logy and Evolution. p. 336. 154 Maria Genevieve Lavanant, Bilim ve Tek- 170 “Piltdown,” Meydan Larousse, Vol. 10, p. nik magazine, April 1984, No. 197, p. 22. 133. 155 R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, 171 Bilim ve Yaflam Ansiklopedisi, Istanbul: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991, p. 45. Geliflim Publishing, 1976, p. 4. 156 Huxley, J. as cited in The Best of Huma- 172 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Yaflam›n Temel nism, ed. Roger E. Greeley. Buffalo, NY: Promet- Kurallar›, Genel Biyoloji/Genel Zooloji, Vol.I, heus, 1988. pp. 194-5. Chapter I0, Ankara, 1993, pp. 629-630. 157 http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html. 173 Ibid, p. 629. 158 Phillip E. Johnson, “Evolution as Dogma: 174 Robert Wesson, Beyond Natural Selecti- The Establishment of Naturalism,” on, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991, p. 45. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm. 175 Pierre Grassé, Evolution of Living Orga- 159 Thomas Dwight, Thoughts of a Catholic nisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 82. Anatomist. London: Longmans Green & Co, 1927, 176 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 20-21. pp. 172, 280. 160 Pierre P. Grassé, Evolution of Living Or- 177 David Day, Vanished Species, New York: ganisms, p. 103. Gallery Books, , 1989. 161 Ibid., p. 107. 178 T. N. George, “Fossils in Evolutionary 162 Ann Gibbons, “Plucking the Feathered Perspective,” Science Progress, Vol. 48, January Dinosaur,” Science, Vol. 278, no. 5341,14. Novem- 1960, pp. 1, 3. ber 1997, pp.1229–1230. 179 N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths 163 Pat Shipman, “"Birds Do It. . . Did Dino- of Human Evolution, New York: Columbia Univer- saurs?,” New Scientist, p. 28. sity Press, 1982, p. 59. 164 Coates M. 1991. New palaeontological 180 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolu- contributions to limb ontogeny and phylogeny. In: tion Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, J. R. Hinchcliffe (ed.) Developmental Patterning 1984, p. 82. of the Vertebrate Limb 325-337. New York: Ple- 181 George G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in num Press; Coates M. I. 1996. “The Devonian tet- Evolution, Columbia University Press, New York, rapod Acanthostega gunnari Jarvik: postcranial 1944, pp. 105, 107. anatomy, basal tetrapod interrelationships and pat- 182 D.S. Woodroff, Science, Vol. 208, 1980, terns of skeletal evolution,”, Transactions of the p. 716. Royal Society of Edinburgh 87, pp. 363-421. 183 Richard B. Bliss and Gary E. Parker, Ori- 165 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in gin of Life, California, 1979, p. 25. Crisis, pp. 151, 154. 184 Ibid. 166 John Randall, quoted in William Fix’s 185 S. W. Fox, K. Harada, G. Kramptiz, G. The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, New York: Mueller, “Chemical Origin of Cells,” Chemical Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 189. Engineering News, June 22, 1970, p. 80. 167 186 Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/conferen- Mystery, p. 48. ces.php. 187 Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 168 Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70. Still Say No, ICR, San Diego, 1998, p. 103. 188 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, 169 Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleonto- New York: Pantheon Books, 1983, p. 197.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 200

189 Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 1992, pp. 38-41. 2. b., MA: Sinauer, Sunderland, 1986, p. 4. 206 J. E. Cronin, N. T. Boaz, C. B. Stringer, 190 K. Ludmerer, “Eugenics” in Encyclopedi- Y. Rak, "Tempo and Mode in Hominid Evolution," a of Bioethics, Edited by Mark Lappe, New York: Nature, vol. 292, 1981, pp. 117. The Free Press, , 1978, p. 457. 207 C. L. Brace, H. Nelson, N. Korn, M. L. 191 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Brace, Atlas of Human Evolution, 2nd Edition, Appeal to Reason, New York: Harvard Common New York: Rinehart and Wilson, 1979. Press, 1971, p. 33. 208 Alan Walker, Scientific American, Vol. 192 Ibid. 239 (2), 1978, p. 54. 193 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Yaﬂam›n Temel 209 A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1st Kurallar›, Genel Biyoloji/Genel Zooloji, Vol. I, Edition, 1970, p. 221; M. D. Leakey, Olduvai Gor- Part I, Ankara, 1993, p. 606. ge, Vol. 3, Cambridge: Cambridge University 194 Press, 1971, p. 272. http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/conferen- 210 I. Anderson, “Who made the Laetoli Fo- ces.php. otprints?” New Scientist, Vol. 98, 1983, p. 373. 195 Stephen Jay Gould, "Introduction," in 211 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Björn Kurtén, Dance of the Tiger: A Novel of the Crisis, p. 145. Ice Age (New York: Random House, 1980), xvii- 212 Ibid., pp. 290-291. xviii) 213 Dr. David N. Menton, “The Hopeful 196 Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century, p. 283. Monsters of Evolution,” http://www.gen- 197 George Stein, “Biological science and the net.org/facts/metro12.html. roots of Nazism,” American Scientist, Vol. 76(1), 214 Ibid. 1988, p. 54. 215 Stephen M. Stanley, Macroevolution: 198 J. Lear Grimmer, National Geographic, Pattern and Process, San Francisco: W. H. Free- August 1962, p. 391. man and Co., 1979, pp. 35, 159. 199 L.S. B. Leakey, The Origin of Homo sa- 216 S. J. Gould, "Return of the Hopeful piens, ed. F. Borde, Paris: UNESCO, 1972, pp. 25- Monster," The Panda's Thumb, New York: W. W. 29; L.S.B. Leakey, By the Evidence, New York: Norton Co., , 1980, pp. 186-193. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974. 217 Musa Özet, Osman Arpac›, Ali Uslu, Bi- 200 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention, yoloji 1 (“Biology 1”) Istanbul: Sürat Publishing, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992, p. 83. 1998, p. 7. 201 Boyce Rensberger, The Washington Post, 218 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Yaﬂam›n Temel November 19, 1984. Kurallar›, Genel Biyoloji/Genel Zooloji, Vol. I, 202 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention, Part I, Ankara, 1993, pp. 12-13. p. 136. 219 Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time: Be- 203 Holly Smith, American Journal of Physi- yond The Fossil Record To A New H›story Of Life, cal Anthropology, Vol. 94, 1994, pp. 307-325. New York: The Free Press, A Division of Simon & 204 Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, Frans Zonne- Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 54. veld, “Implication of Early Hominid Labryntine 220 Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, Order Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Lo- Out of Chaos, New York: Bantam Books, 1984, p. comotion,” Nature, Vol. 369, June 23, 1994, pp. 129. 645-648. 221 Ibid. p. 175. 205 Tim Bromage, New Scientist, Vol. 133, 222 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kal›t›m ve Evrim,

THE EVOLUTION IMPASSE I 201

Ankara: Meteksan Yay›nlar›, 1984, p. 644.

223 Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Infor- mation, CLV, Bielefeld, Germany, p. 80. 224 George C. Williams, The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution, ed. John Brock- man, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995, p. 43.

225 Pierre P. Grassé, The Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p. 168. 226 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 189.

227 Özer Bulut, Davut Sa¤d›ç, Elim Kork- maz, Biyoloji Lise 3, p. 152. 228 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Yaﬂam›n Temel Kurallar›, Genel Biyoloji/Genel Zooloji, Vol. I, Part I, Ankara, 1993, p. 605.

230 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kal›t›m ve Evrim, p. 689.

231 Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contenti- on, p. 88. 232 Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, p. 155. Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995, p. 62. 233 “Does nonsense DNA speak its own dialect?,” Science News, Vol. 164, December 24, 1994.

234 Service, R.F., Vogel, G, Science, Febru- ary 16, 2001. 235 S. R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’

Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar)