The Origin of Life

ADNAN OKTAR  Darwin imagined that the appendix had no function in the body. He therefore claimed that it was an evolutionary remnant since the organ had not been used in the process of evolution. Yet contemporary scientists have now refuted this claim of Darwin’s.

ADNAN OKTAR . Beaked Whales presented as a proof to evolution by the evolutionists through illogical and unscientific arguments, the beaked whales, in all their attributes, actually lay bare the truth of creation

ADNAN OKTAR . From Darwin to Dawkins, over and over, this dogmatic stance has led the evolutionist to insist on the existence of imaginary flaws and "useless" vestigial organs in living systems.

A Stop to the Evolution Journey Of Birds

How Fossils Refute Darwinism

ADNAN OKTAR In 2014, a Burmese Amber (tree resin) fossil dating back 99 million years was discovered in Myanmar. The fossil was exhibited in museums in 2017. The fossil, which was initially thought to be a saurian by many, contained the remains of a newly-hatched bird. As a result of studies, it was stated that the fossil belonged to the Cretaceous period (145 to 66 million years ago)


 

As a result of studies carried out by researchers from China, the US and Canada, it was stated that the fossil belonged to the Cretaceous period (145 to 66 million years ago); the bird's neck, skull, clawed foot and a partial wing were preserved in the amber. However, the scientists stated that the tissues in the fossil are damaged and there are no usable DNA samples.

enantiornithine hindlimb

This bird fossil, called "Belone", is thought to belong to an extinct major group of birds who had teeth in their beaks and clawed fingers on their wings and belonged to the Cretaceous period in which the dinosaurs existed. This extinct bird species, which is also known as enantiornithes (toothed birds), has only three characteristics that distinguish them from today's birds. These characteristics include that they had teeth in their breaks, clawed fingers on their wings and different type of wing connection. Apart from these, they show the same characteristics with today's birds.

Evolutionists try to present some bird species that are similar to the aforementioned fossil, as living beings with "underdeveloped flying skills" by asserting that they had teeth in their beaks and clawed fingers on their wings. They introduce these creatures as a so-called "intermediate form" between dinosaurs and modern birds. Nonetheless, the toothed and clawed birds which lived in the past had remarkable flying skills. The presence of teeth and claws doesn't make that bird an intermediate form. The toothed birds are extinct today, but babies of Tauraco corythaix and Opisthocomus hoatzin species, which exist today, also have claws on their wings. These birds are excellent flyers.

amber bird_hatchling

If you pay attention, Belone is a newly-hatched bird and has claws on its wings. Today's Tauraco corythaix and Opisthocomus hoatzin hatchlings have claws on their wings too. The hatchling, still incapable of proper flight, can hide from predators by climbing among dense tree branches thanks to these claws. Hence, the reason for the inability of the aforementioned living being to fly is not because it is an intermediate form as claimed by evolutionists, but because it is a baby. The living being's ability o fly develops within three or four weeks. Now that the hatchling can fly, it does not need the claws. After this stage, as the Tauraco corythaix and Opisthocomus hoatzin approach adulthood, the claws would fall off their wings after a while, so these claws are no longer found in adults. This rejects the unfounded claims of the evolutionists and shows a miracle in creation. The claws are vital when young, but there is no need for them afterwards. Although the living being has the same genetics both in babyhood and adulthood, the genetic information is used in a great way at the right time and in the appropriate way.

bird in_amber

It is most likely that the claws on the hatchling Belone were the type that fall off in time. The existence of Tauraco corythaix and Opisthocomus hoatzin proves this to us. More importantly, the presence of claws in the wings is presented as a reason for introducing the living being as an "evolving creature". The presence of claws in the wings of a creature does not prove that the creature is incapable of flight. This is nothing but mere speculation that evolutionists, who are used to demagogy, have used for years instead of science.

Before Belone, there was little information about birds that existed in the Cretaceous period, so the evolutionists – as a requisite of their imagination and their ideology- made all their comments on the subjects about which there is no evidence, in favor of the so-called evolution. They have introduced birds with different anatomical characteristics, such as Archeopteryx, as so-called "transitional forms". The claims about this matter came to an end with the successive discovery of Archeopteryx fossils, and especially with the discovery of a fossil preserved along with soft tissues inside an amber. All the anatomical features of Archeopteryx scientifically documented that it is a perfect flying bird. As you might recall, Archeopteryx is a clawed bird as well.

The feather structure of "Belone" is also frustrating for evolutionists. Because complex structures such as feathers and wings should exhibit a gradual development according to evolutionist logic; evolutionists claim that the so-called primitive birds should not be fully capable of flight, and that there should be a number of impediments in their wing and feather structures that restrict proper flight. Despite the fact that Belone is a newly hatched bird, it has primary and secondary flight feathers asymmetrically arranged with features providing excellent aerodynamics, as observed in today's birds.  In other words, the anatomical structure providing the aerodynamic characteristics of the feathers has not undergone any changes for 100 million years. This is one of the most significant blows dealt to the theory of evolution.

Although Belone is a newly hatched bird, it still has feathers suitable for flight. Today's birds usually do not have feathers suitable for flight when they hatch. They need the care of their parents for a certain period of time. The flight feathers begin to form after a while. This is not because they are primitive creatures, but because they are babies. This type of feature is very similar to the Australian brush-turkey (Australian megapodes) which exists today. It has been observed that Belone has excellent and intact feather structure that will allow it to fly just like the Australian brush-turkey hatchlings. Australian brush-turkey hatchlings’ unique characteristic that separates them from other modern birds is that they do not need special care from the parents after they hatch; that is, the hatchlings come out of their eggs with all the characteristics that will enable it to survive. Again, unlike other birds, Australian brush-turkey eggs are placed not on the trees but on nests built in the soil by the father turkey and kept at a constant 33°C. The newly-hatched baby must immediately climb the trees and acquire the ability to fly to be protected from danger. For this reason, it has feathers that enable it to fly from the first day. The fact that the feathers of Belone are also suitable for flying shows that it does not need much parental care after it hatches. The fact that a baby bird hatches with the characteristics enabling it to survive on its own is another miracle of Creation and refutes the claims of evolution.

Briefly, with its flying ability and anatomical structure, "Belone" has the characteristics of an excellent bird. It has no half, missing, dysfunctional organ or structure. Furthermore, it shows similar anatomic characteristics with Tauraco corythaix, Opisthocomus hoatzin and Australian brush-turkeys which exists today.

opisthocomus hoazin

The discovery of the fossil of a living being, which existed 99 million years ago with the characteristics of a fully developed bird, clearly shows that birds existed during this period and did not evolve from flying dinosaurs.

Adnan Oktar's piece in News Rescue (USA):

http://newsrescue.com/99-million-year-old-hatchling-fossil-ended-evolution-journey-birds/#axzz4vbMZguL3

ADNAN OKTAR The theory of evolution claims that a particular species transforms into a brand-new species with very small changes. However, to prove such a claim it is necessary to find proof of these transitional species with the aforementioned changes and to present them as scientific evidence.


The alleged transitional species must originate from an imaginary ancestor species and possess new developing organs, systems or limbs. However, such imaginary transformations, which involve trial and error and are claimed to have lasted for millions of years, will result in an unsuccessful transitional species with half-limbs or missing organs. It is interesting that THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM in the fossil record that would bear witness to such changes. Contrary to the expectations of evolutionists, the fossil record is instead full of species with intact and complete organs and systems. This shows us that the millions of species we have witnessed so far all had the same characteristics 100 million years ago.

There is NO CHAOS in the fossil records

It can be expected that a world governed by coincidences would bring along chaos as well. In such an imaginary system, it is impossible for species to have symmetry or aesthetics. Even the existence of life itself would be impossible in a world prevailed by coincidences. Mutations, claimed to be the so-called mechanism of evolution, lead to distortions and deficiencies in DNA, and as a result, distorted and irregular structures, defects in organs and systems occur. According to the claim of evolution, we should frequently encounter fossil samples of different species that have undergone mutation, and therefore have not survived and went extinct. However, there is not even a single sample of it.

transition lie

This fact, posing a problem for the evolutionists, was first admitted by Charles Darwin:

“Why if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see INNUMERABLE transitional forms? Why is not all nature in CONFUSION instead of the species being, as we see them, WELL DEFINED?” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p.108)

Despite being the founder of the theory, Darwin admitted that the fossils, witnessing the history of life, were not confusing and that the fossils were perfectly in order. Strange- looking transitional species have never existed throughout history. The very moment a species appeared in the fossil record, they had intact organs and symmetrical limbs.

There is no such thing as “Innumerable Transitional Species”

We always find fossil samples of complete and intact species in the fossil record. Some of them belong to species that emerged with perfect limbs and organs, and then went extinct, and some belong to existent species that emerged millions of years ago with their perfect and present appearance. As claimed by evolutionists, the intermediate forms, which developed intermediate features that proved to be disadvantageous and caused the extinction of that species, certainly do not exist. The fossil record offers NOT A SINGLE FOSSIL OF AN INTERMEDIATE FORM.

According to the claim of evolution, the number of imaginary transitional species is supposed to be geometric multiples of the number of species known today. The so-called evolutionary tree must be full of unsuccessful species and must have innumerable subsections that have ceased to exist. This number could have been expressed in the trillions. Charles Darwin always emphasized that the amount of transitional species, which he hoped for but never found its existence, is INNUMERABLE:

INNUMERABLE transitional forms must have existed, why we not find them embedded in COUNTLESS NUMBERS IN THE CRUST OF THE EARTH?.. Why then is not EVERY GEOLOGICAL FORMATION AND EVERY STRATUM full of such intermediate links?" (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p.172-280)

As Darwin pointed out, if the claim of evolution were true, almost every geological stratum would be full of such unsuccessful attempts, namely strange-looking transitional forms. These imaginary transitional life forms, trillions of which should be found in every fossil layer thus far excavated, should have been encountered by now; however, the situation is exactly the opposite. Fossils refute evolution by not showing a single transitional form.

The fact that species have remained unchanged

Paleontology, the study of fossils, reveals that species have not changed and have always remained stable throughout the time they remained on earth. The famous evolutionist paleontologist Niles Eldredge also stated that this is an undeniable fact:

Stasis is now abundantly well documented as the preeminent paleontological pattern in the evolutionary history of species.(Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin, 1995, p. 77 - http://bevets.com/equotese.htm)

It is an obvious fact that species emerged on the earth fully developed and have remained unchanged throughout their existence. This is a situation that can never be contradicted by any paleontologist and is always confessed. One of the leading evolutionists, American paleontologist and science historian Stephen Jay Gould, wrote the following about these two most prominent features of the fossil record:

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

(1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

(2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.' (S. J. Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977)

Gould again continues his confessions in an article in the Natural Historymagazine as follows:

Statis, or non-change of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans, was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly... The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, but left as a manifestation of nothing (that is, non-evolution). (S.J. Gould, "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15)

Atlas of Creation and Fossils Say 'We Have Not Changed'

As is seen, comparing fossils with their living counterparts and showing that they have not undergone any change is nothing but disclosing a well-known fact to the public. This fact, which has always been withheld from the public, reached and was spread to the public at large through the Atlas of Creation, the magnum opus of the author Adnan Oktar, writing under the pen name Harun Yahya. Paleontology has shown that species do not emerge slowly in millions of years as claimed, but that they emerge miraculously, in their perfect forms. With the work of Mr. Adnan Oktar, the findings and fossils that have been hidden from the public for so many years have been revealed at last and the secrets of the evolutionists have been shown for all the world to see.

Although this extraordinary piece of work exhibits only about 2,000 fossils in detailed photographs, the number of classified fossils that are stored in repositories in universities or in museums with date tags, is about 700 million. The fact that some evolutionists, who feel upset about these facts write stories about merely three or four fossils out of the thousands mentioned in the Atlasand try to make unfair criticisms shows just how desperate they actually are. These criticisms are far from being scientific and typically do not go beyond ill-advised sarcasm as obviously, in the scientific literature, there are thousands of other examples of the fossils in question.

Seeking Imaginary Ancestors through Mathematics

Evolutionists claim that humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Speculations go on and on, one day claiming that chimpanzees are closer to humans, and the next the bonobos. While there is no evidence of any transformation, according to what exactly can Darwinists establish a relationship between those two? At this point, evolutionists produce statistical formula that they invented from scratch and which have no scientific validity.

The deception here is based on the comparison of some selected base-pairs of specific genes of the two species. Here it should not be assumed that all the codes of the two species' genomes have been compared one by one. This fact is better understood when we examine this trick used to create the imaginary family tree:

When studies of genetic similarity between man and apes are conducted, only certain genes are compared. For example, while drawing the family tree of living primates, 34,927 base pairs of 54 genes were considered. There are about 25,000 genes in the human body and not all of them are compared here.

Evolutionists initially claimed that there is a 1% difference between the chimpanzee and the human genome, but later this difference was generally accepted as 4%; this rate corresponds to about 35 million nucleotides. Evolutionists are in search of an imaginary mechanism in which this difference is made up. Therefore, they suggest mutations that altered the DNA, added or subtracted codes, all of which would completely harm the organism. They claim that history worked backwards like this and that mutations worked regularly, and had only beneficial effects all the time- which in fact is impossible - and thus they make fake calculations about the dates when the two species may have split. There is no fossil of the imaginary common ancestor, and there are no intermediate species either; nevertheless, evolutionists present calculations, which do not have scientific validity, as if they are true under the rubric of "prediction" to the public. The imaginary data, entered into a computer on the basis of this claim, is executed under the name of the Bayes formula and the lie that they can reach out to their imaginary common ancestor that existed some five to seven million years ago as a result of the calculations made through this imaginary data, is put forth.

The Bayesian Approach in Statistics and Scientific Errors Arisen from Presupposition

The Bayesian formula used in some statistical calculations enables a retrospective analysis of a particular claim. The Bayesian formula is used to calculate conditional probabilities. So if a person claims that 'two species were derived from a common ancestor', the formula works to verify this fake hypothesis and calculates how many millions of years must elapse to make up the 35 million nucleotide difference. In reality, however, the 35 million nucleotide difference has never been made up, but the formula provides a result because the claim is entered in this way. Therefore, the Bayesian approach is regarded as a scale of a person’s belief for any fact rather than physical evidence.

As we can see, the gaps in the genes are closed in the minds through computer formulas, and the history of life is arbitrarily written. It is evident that such studies, carried out through the postulate of 'evolution exists', have no scientific aspect and completely serve ideological purposes. This mentality, which is far from being able to explain how even a single gene, encoded with information, emerged by itself, uses genetics as a cover.

Paleontology, histology, biochemistry and all other branches of science reveal that life is so complex that it is not possible for it to have come about by pure chance. All species, a single cell - and even a single protein belonging to these species - constitute indisputable proof for the infinite knowledge and power of God.

Adnan Oktar's piece in News Rescue (USA):

http://newsrescue.com/transitional-forms-richard-dawkins-darwinists-dream/#axzz4uvROXrAH

ADNAN OKTAR  One of the classical tactics of Darwinists is to bring old fossils back to the agenda and to make up new stories about the same fossil. This is because evolutionists do not want to admit their defeat, yet there is nothing left in their hands to put forth. The most recent example is the news reports coming through media organizations.


The most recent example is the news reports coming through media organizations such as National Geographic and the Washington Post regarding the fossils known as Homo Naledi. Although new claims and attempts are being made about the fossil in question almost every year since 2013, all of these efforts have been in vain.

As it could be remembered, about 1,500 bone fragments were found inside a 1,450- meter deep cave in South Africa in 2013, which are claimed to belong to 15 separate individuals. The information initially disclosed to the public was that the skull volume of these individuals was the size of an orange and that their finger bones were curved; it was thus claimed that the fossils showed "the characteristics of an ape". Actually, there was no proper skull;, four worn out parietal pieces were placed in way that they were suspended in the air without touching each other. Despite this, the claims continued that the creature had a brain weighing some 500 grams and a cranial capacity about the size of an orange.

homo naledi_scenario

We have documented in our previous articles that the news reports regarding this fossil do not reflect the truth and that the prejudiced evolutionist comments were made without fully determining the age and characteristics of the fossils. You can read our responses - given in 2015 and 2016 - in two separate articles on the fact that the so-called evolutionary gradation cannot be made according to the volume of the skull.

(http://harunyahya.com/en/NetCevap/209368/The-Evolutionist-Scenario-over-“Homo-naledi”-Has-Come-to-Nothing and http://harunyahya.com/en/NetCevap/241668/Darwinist-Tales-Are-Repeated-on-CNN-Homo-Naledi) However, since  speculative news continues to be published in 2017 regarding the Homo Naledi fossils, it will be useful to bring the issue back to the agenda and to decipher the Darwinists' schemes:

Homo naledi doesn't belong to 2.5 million-year-old species, but to a 250,000 -year-old species

The Homo Naledi fossils were first presented to the public as 2.5 million-years-old when first discovered. Moreover, the gradation was made to fit this scenario of evolution according to this age, and imaginary evolutionary trees of life were thus drawn up. It was so exaggerated that it was alleged that the creature was the so-called "missing link" that existed between Australopithecus and H. erectus. In many media outlets, these claims were presented to the public as if they were scientific. However, as a result of the latest age determination measures it was understood that H. Naledi fossils were between 236,000 and 335,000  years-old. This result shocked evolutionist circles and it was once again understood that the scenario of an intermediate form on Naledi's age was simply  a fictional story, far from being scientific. These are important in showing that it is necessary to adopt a suspicious approach to all so-calledevolutionary grading carried out by the evolutionists through anatomical measurements such as skull volume.

According to evolutionary scenarios before 2017, H. Naledi was presented as an intermediate form in the so-called evolutionary gradation of mankind. However, it became clear that H. Naledi, with its 250,000 year-old age as verified by the latest studies, existed almost in the same period with a human species which is estimated to date back about 200,000 years ago. This is important in demonstrating how wild the evolutionists’ imagination gets when there is no scientific evidence.

 

Age determination methods are far from providing exact results

Today, two main methods are used for age determination. One of these is the comparison method based on the idea that the fossils, lying in the same stratum, existed in the same period, which is determined through conducting an age determination of various strata. The second is a radioactive dating method based on the decomposition of radioactive atoms, such as carbon and uranium, found in the collagen tissue samples of fossil remains. Both methods have an intrinsic margin of error.

The age determination of strata is only applicable for volcanic and sedimentary rocks. Even if the age determination of the strata is carried out, one cannot be certain whether the strata changed place after the fossil formation. In places such as caves, where stratification is limited or in places washed by rivers, the margin of error in information provided by the strata increases.

Likewise, the methods based on radioactive decomposition are far from providing precise information. The radioactive method should be a "closed system" in order to be used in age determination. The closed system is conducted assuming that the transfer of radioactive material is stopped after the fossil remains are buried in the soil and there is no subsequent exchange of new material. The "open system", in which the material exchange continues, won't be used for age determination as the amount of decomposition will not be accurate. However, since there is no method that can detect whether a fossil is exposed to a closed or open system, no definitive conclusion can be reached to state that “the fossil was not exposed to an open system.”

Another limiting case, questioning the reliability of age determination methods, is that samples taken from different regions of the same fossil can give different ages. The aforementioned open system exposure that causes different effects in different tissues, is shown as the reason of this.

As a matter of fact, the age determination range estimated for the Naledi fossils offers an extended period of time, as much as 100,000 years. This is an indication of the fact that the method is not entirely reliable. In spite of such a wide range regarding the dating of the fossil, it is not certain that Naledi is younger or older than calculated.

Comments made without any knowledge of DNA are unscientific

All of the comments based on the anatomical features on  ancient fossils, as in the case of Naledi, are speculative. The interspecies and intraspecies phenotypic differences only allow interpretations concerning which species the discovered fossil belongs to be based on evolutionist belief rather than being scientific. As a matter of fact, history is full of pseudo-scientific misconceptions and frauds based on topographic features.

Definitively proving which species a fossil belongs to is only possible with the knowledge of the DNA sequence of the concerned fossil. But since the DNA cannot remain intact for many years due to its structure, it is not possible to obtain DNA sequences in fossils. DNA studies, conducted by evolutionist circles on fossils from time to time, cannot give definitive results because these studies are based on statistical calculations and the DNA can be mixed with other species' DNA or degenerate and decompose. The comments made without the knowledge of DNA are bound to be far from being scientific.

A new scenario is written for Naledi after our knowledge regarding its age is corrected

After the discovering that H. Naledi, which was presented as a 2.5 million-year-old so-called intermediate form, was only about 250,000 years old, the whole evolutionist scenario collapsed. However, the Darwinists would not rest. The intermediate form claim is revised; another scenario is put forward. This time, they claimed that Homo Naledi, having lived with Homo sapiens 250,000 years ago, was a so-called "hominid" that came into existence 2 million years ago and remained unchanged until 250,000 years ago.

Just as the first scenario was groundlessly put forward, this scenario is not based on any scientific basis either. There is no fossil of a H. Naledi which existed 2 million years ago. The only thing that exists is the boundless and non-scientific imagination of evolutionists.

The effort to associate an ape to human is in vain.

Only based on its brain size, H. Naledi was assumed to have lived 2.5 million years ago. Since humans suddenly appeared in the fossil records, there should have been intermediate forms according to the so-called evolution scenario. Darwinists, who considered H. Naledi open to speculation, tried to use H. Naledi for this purpose, but this lasted but a short time. When Naledi’s real age was discovered, these claims became invalid.

It is understood from the obtained fossil structures that H. Naledi is an ape species with a small brain volume and curved phalanges. Naledi existed in the same period with humans. In this case, Darwinist claims that H. Naledi was the “ancestor of humans”, became meaningless. Moreover, even if Naledi had existed 2.5 million years ago, this would not place it in the intermediate form category  because Naledi was a fully developed living being with all its organs and functions. As is, it has nothing to serve the purposes of evolutionists.

Infinite number of scenarios can be produced when there is no need for scientific evidence. However they would have no importance as delusions can never cover the truth.  Having existed in one stage of history and gone extinct, H. Naledi is an ape species and just like every other life form was created by God.

References:

  1. http://harunyahya.com/en/NetCevap/241668/Darwinist-Tales-Are-Repeated-on-CNN-Homo-Naledi
  2. http://harunyahya.com/en/NetCevap/209368/The-Evolutionist-Scenario-over-“Homo-naledi”-Has-Come-to-Nothing
  3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/05/09/humanitys-strange-new-cousin-is-shockingly-young-and-shaking-up-our-family-tree/?utm_term=.e492420cbe60
  4. https://elifesciences.org/articles/09561#fig6
  5. https://elifesciences.org/articles/09560
  6. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044

ADNAN OKTAR  The Cambrian Period is the name given to the geological age when all the multi-celled groups living today suddenly emerged. This was so sudden and so wide-ranging that scientists refer to it as the “Cambrian explosion.”

ADNAN OKTAR  Excavations performed in Cambrian rock beds in China produced results that completely overturned evolutionist scenarios regarding vertebrates.

ADNAN OKTAR  The Cambrian Period is one of the oldest in natural history and took place 543-490 million years ago. Prior to that, life consisted of single-celled organisms and a few multi-celled organisms, but during it the whole extraordinary variety of life emerged suddenly, in fully formed and perfect states.

FAZALE RANA  Why do I think God exists? In short: The elegance, sophistication, and ingenuity of biochemical systems—and their astonishing similarity to man-made systems—convinces me that God is responsible for life’s origin and design.

While many skeptics readily acknowledge the remarkable designs of biochemical systems, they would disagree with my conclusion about God’s existence. Why? Because for every biochemical system I point to that displays beauty and elegance, they can point to one that seems to be poorly designed. In their view, these substandard designs reflect life’s evolutionary origin. They argue that evolutionary mechanisms kludged together the cell’s chemical systems through a historically contingent process that co-opted preexisting systems, cobbling them together to form new biochemical systems.

According to skeptics, one doesn’t have to look hard to find biochemical systems that seem to have been put together in a haphazard manner, and DNA replication appears to be an example of this. In many respects, DNA replication lies at the heart of the cell’s chemical operations. If designed by a Creator, this biochemical system, above all others, should epitomize intelligent design. Yet the DNA replication process appears to be unwieldy, inefficient, and unduly complex—the type of system evolution would generate by force, not the type of system worthy to be designated the product of the Creator’s handiwork.

Yet new work by Japanese researchers helps explain why DNA replication is the way it is.1 Instead of reflecting the cumbersome product of an unguided evolutionary history, the DNA replication process displays an exquisite molecular logic.

To appreciate the significance of the Japanese study and its implication for the creation/evolution controversy, a short biochemistry primer is in order. For readers who are familiar with DNA’s structure and the DNA replication process, you can skip the next two sections.

DNA

DNA consists of chain-like molecules known as polynucleotides. Two polynucleotide chains align in an antiparallel fashion to form a DNA molecule. (The two strands are arranged parallel to one another with the starting point of one strand in the polynucleotide duplex located next to the ending point of the other strand and vice versa.) The paired polynucleotide chains twist around each other to form the well-known DNA double helix. The cell’s machinery forms polynucleotide chains by linking together four different subunit molecules called nucleotides. The nucleotides used to build DNA chains are adenosine, guanosine, cytidine, and thymidine, famously abbreviated A, G, C, and T, respectively.

The nucleotide molecules that make up the strands of DNA are, in turn, complex molecules consisting of both a phosphate moiety, and a nucleobase (either adenine, guanine, cytosine, or thymine) joined to a 5-carbon sugar (deoxyribose).

blog__inline--logic-of-dna-replication-makes-case-for-intelligent-design-1

Image 1: Adenosine Monophosphate, a Nucleotide

Repeatedly linking the phosphate group of one nucleotide to the deoxyribose unit of another nucleotide forms the backbone of the DNA strand. The nucleobases extend as side chains from the backbone of the DNA molecule and serve as interaction points when the two DNA strands align and twist to form the double helix.
blog__inline--logic-of-dna-replication-makes-case-for-intelligent-design-2

Image 2: The DNA Backbone

When the two DNA strands align, the adenosine (A) side chains of one strand always pair with thymidine (T) side chains from the other strand. Likewise, the guanosine (G) side chains from one DNA strand always pair with cytidine (C) side chains from the other strand.

DNA Replication

Biochemists refer to DNA replication as a template-directed, semi-conservative process. By template-directed, biochemists mean that the nucleotide sequences of the “parent” DNA molecule function as a template, directing the assembly of the DNA strands of the two “daughter” molecules. By semi-conservative, biochemists mean that after replication, each daughter DNA molecule contains one newly formed DNA strand and one strand from the parent molecule.

blog__inline--logic-of-dna-replication-makes-case-for-intelligent-design-3

Image 3: Semi-Conservative DNA Replication

Conceptually, template-directed, semi-conservative DNA replication entails the separation of the parent DNA double-helix into two single strands. By using the base-pairing rules, each strand serves as a template for the cell’s machinery to use when it forms a new DNA strand with a nucleotide sequence complementary to the parent strand. Because each strand of the parent DNA molecule directs the production of a new DNA strand, two daughter molecules result. Each one possesses an original strand from the parent molecule and a newly formed DNA strand produced by a template-directed synthetic process.

DNA replication begins at specific sites along the DNA double helix, called replication origins. The DNA double helix unwinds locally at the origin of replication to produce what biochemists call a replication bubble. The bubble expands in both directions from the origin during the course of DNA replication. Once the individual strands of the DNA double helix unwind and are exposed within the replication bubble, they are available to direct the production of the daughter strand. The site where the DNA double helix continuously unwinds is called the replication fork. Because DNA replication proceeds in both directions away from the origin, there are two replication forks within each bubble.

blog__inline--logic-of-dna-replication-makes-case-for-intelligent-design-4

Image 4: DNA Replication

DNA replication can only proceed in a single direction, from the top of the DNA strand to the bottom. Because the strands that form the DNA double helix align in an antiparallel fashion with the top of one strand juxtaposed to the bottom of the other strand, only one strand at each replication fork has the proper orientation (bottom-to-top) to direct the assembly of a new strand, in the top-to-bottom direction. For this strand—referred to as the “leading strand”—DNA replication proceeds rapidly and continuously in the direction of the advancing replication fork.

DNA replication can’t proceed along the strand with the top-to-bottom orientation until the replication bubble has expanded enough to expose a sizable stretch of DNA. When this happens, DNA replication moves away from the advancing replication fork. DNA replication can only proceed a short distance for the top-to-bottom oriented strand before the replication process has to stop and wait for more of the parent DNA strand to be exposed. When a sufficient length of the parent DNA template is exposed for a second time, DNA replication can proceed again, but only briefly before it has to stop again and wait for more DNA to be exposed. The process of discontinuous DNA replication takes place repeatedly until the entire strand is replicated. Each time DNA replication starts and stops, a small fragment of DNA is produced. Biochemists refer to these pieces of DNA (that will eventually comprise the daughter strand) as “Okazaki fragments,” named after the biochemist who discovered them. Biochemists call the strand produced discontinuously the “lagging strand,” because DNA replication for this strand lags behind the more rapidly produced leading strand.

One additional point: The leading strand at one replication fork is the lagging strand at the other replication fork, since the replication forks at the two ends of the replication bubble advance in opposite directions.

Before the newly formed daughter strands can be produced, a small RNA primer must be produced. The protein that synthesizes new DNA by reading the parent DNA template strand—DNA polymerase—can’t start production from scratch. It has to be primed. A massive protein complex, called the primosome, which consists of more than 15 different proteins, produces the RNA primer needed by DNA polymerase.

Once primed, DNA polymerase will continuously produce DNA along the leading strand. However, for the lagging strand, DNA polymerase can only generate DNA in spurts to produce Okazaki fragments. Each time DNA polymerase generates an Okazaki fragment, the primosome complex must produce a new RNA primer.

Once DNA replication is completed, the RNA primers are removed from the continuous DNA of the leading strand and the Okazaki fragments that make up the lagging strand. A protein called a 3’–5’ exonuclease removes the RNA primers. A different DNA polymerase fills in the gaps created by the removal of the RNA primers. Finally, a protein called a ligase connects all the Okazaki fragments together to form a continuous piece of DNA out of the lagging strand.

DNA Replication and the Case for Evolution

This cursory description of DNA replication clearly illustrates the complexity of this biochemical operation. (Many details of the process were left out of the discussion.) This description also reveals why biochemists view this process as cumbersome and unwieldy. There is no obvious reason why DNA replication proceeds as a semi-conservative, RNA primer-dependent, unidirectional process involving leading and lagging strands to produce DNA daughter molecules. Because of this uncertainty, skeptics view DNA replication as a chance outcome of a historically contingent process, kludged together from the biochemical leftovers of the RNA world.

If there is one feature of DNA replication that is responsible for the complexity of the process, it is the directionality of DNA replication—from top to bottom. At first glance, it would seem as if the process would be simpler and more elegant if replication could proceed in both directions. Skeptics argue that the fact that it doesn’t reflects the evolutionary origin of the replication process.

Yet work by the team from Sapporo, Japan indicates that there is an exquisite molecular rationale for the directionality of DNA replication.

Why DNA Replication Proceeds in a Single Direction

These researchers recognized an important opportunity to ask why DNA replication proceeds only in a single direction with the discovery of a class of enzymes that add nucleotides to the ends of transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules. (tRNA molecules ferry amino acids to the ribsosome during protein synthesis.) If damaged, tRNA molecules cannot properly carry out their role in protein production. Fortunately, there are repair enzymes that can fix damaged tRNA molecules. One of them is called Thg-1-like protein (TLP).

TLP adds nucleotides to damaged ends of tRNA molecules. But instead of adding the nucleotides top to bottom, the enzyme adds these subunit molecules to the tRNA bottom to top, the opposite direction of DNA replication.

By determining the mechanism employed by TLP during bottom-to-top nucleotide addition, the researchers gained important insight into the constraints of DNA replication. As it turns out, bottom-to-top addition is a much more complex process than the normal top-to-bottom nucleotide addition. Bottom-to-top addition is a cumbersome two-step process that requires an enzyme with two active sites that have to be linked together in a precise way. In contrast, top-to-bottom addition is a simple, one-step reaction that proceeds with a single active site. In other words, DNA replication proceeds in a single direction (top-to-bottom) because it is mechanistically simpler and more efficient.

One could argue that the complexity that arises by the top-to-bottom DNA replication process is a trade-off for a mechanistically simpler nucleotide addition reaction. Still, if DNA replication proceeded in both directions the process would be complex and unwieldy. For example, if replication proceeded in two directions, the cell would require two distinct types of primosomes and DNA polymerases, one set for each direction of DNA replication. Employing two sets of primosomes and DNA polymerases is clearly less efficient than employing a single set of enzymes.

Ironically, if DNA replication could proceed in two directions, there still would be a leading and a lagging strand. Why? Because bottom-to-top replication is a two-step process and would proceed more slowly than the single step of top-to-bottom replication. In other words, the assembly of the DNA strand in a bottom-to-top direction would lag behind the assembly of the DNA strand that traveled in a top-to-bottom direction.

Bidirectional DNA replication would also cause another complication due to a crowding effect. Once the replication bubble opens, both sets of replication enzymes would have to fit into the replication bubble’s constrained space. This molecular overcrowding would further compromise the efficiency of the replication process. Overcrowding is not an issue for unidirectional DNA replication that proceeds in a top-to-bottom direction.

The bottom line: In light of this new insight, it is hard to argue that DNA replication has been cobbled together via a historically contingent pathway. Instead, it is looking more and more like a process ingenuously designed by a Divine Mind.

 

FAZALE RANA  Before joining Reasons to Believe in 1999, I spent seven years working in R&D at a Fortune 500 company, which meant that I spent most of my time in a chemistry laboratory alongside my colleagues trying to develop new technologies with the hope that one day our ideas would become a reality, making their way onto store shelves.

From time to time, my work would be interrupted by an urgent call from one of our manufacturing plants. Inevitably, there was some crisis requiring my expertise as a chemist to troubleshoot. Often, I could solve the plant’s problem over the phone, or by analyzing a few samples sent to my lab. But, occasionally, the crisis necessitated a trip to the plant. These trips weren’t much fun. They were high pressure, stressful situations, because the longer the plant was offline, the more money it cost the company.

But, once the crisis abated, we could breathe easier. And that usually afforded us an opportunity to tour the plant.

It was a thrill to see working assembly lines manufacturing our products. These manufacturing operations were engineering marvels to behold, efficiently producing high-quality products at unimaginable speeds.

The Cell as a Factory

Inside each cell, an ensemble of manufacturing operations exists, more remarkable than any assembly line designed by human engineers. Perhaps one of the most astounding is the biochemical process that produces proteins—the workhorse molecules of life. These large complex molecules work collaboratively to carry out every cellular operation and contribute to the formation of all the structures within the cell.

Subcellular particles called ribosomes produce proteins through an assembly-line-like operation, replete with sophisticated quality control checkpoints. (As discussed in The Cell’s Design, the similarity between the assembly-line production of proteins and human manufacturing operations bolsters the Watchmaker argument for God’s existence.)

Ribosomes

About 23 nanometers in diameter, ribosomes play a central role in protein synthesis by catalyzing (assisting) the chemical reactions that form the bonds between the amino acid subunits of proteins. A human cell may contain up to half a million ribosomes. A typical bacterium possesses about 20,000 of these subcellular structures, comprising one-fourth the total bacterial mass.

Two subunits of different sizes (comprised of proteins and RNA molecules) combine to form a functional ribosome. In organisms like bacteria, the large subunit (LSU) contains 2 ribosomal RNA (rRNA) molecules and about 30 different protein molecules. The small subunit (SSU) consists of a single rRNA molecule and about 20 proteins. In more complex organisms, the LSU is formed by 3 rRNA molecules that combine with around 50 distinct proteins and the SSU consists of a single rRNA molecule and over 30 different proteins. The rRNAs act as scaffolding that organizes the myriad ribosomal proteins. They also catalyze the chain-forming reactions between amino acids.

Ribosomes Make Ribosomes

Before a cell can replicate, ribosomes must manufacture the proteins needed to form more ribosomes—in fact, the cell’s machinery needs to manufacture enough ribosomes to form a full complement of these subcellular complexes. This ensures that both daughter cells have the sufficient number of protein-manufacturing machines to thrive once the cell division process is completed. Because of this constraint, cell replication cannot proceed until a duplicate population of ribosomes is produced.

Is There a Rationale for Ribosome Structure?

Clearly, ribosomes are complex subcellular particles. But, is there any rhyme or reason for their structure? Or are ribosomes the product of a historically contingent evolutionary history?

New work by researchers from Harvard University and Uppsala University in Sweden provides key insight into the compositional make up of ribosomes, and, in doing so, help answer these questions.1

As part of their research efforts, the Harvard and Uppsala University investigators were specifically trying to answer several questions related to the composition of ribosomes, including:

  1. Why are ribosomes made up of so many proteins?
  2. Why are ribosomal proteins nearly the same size?
  3. Why are ribosomal proteins smaller than typical proteins?
  4. Why are ribosomes made up of so few rRNA molecules?
  5. Why are rRNA molecules are so large?
  6. Why do ribosomes employ rRNA as the catalyst to form bonds between amino acids, instead of proteins which are much more efficient as enzymes?

Ribosome Composition Is Optimal for Efficient Production of Ribosomes

Using mathematical modeling, the Harvard and Uppsala University investigators discovered that if ribosomal proteins were larger, or if these biomolecules were variable in size, ribosome production would be slow and inefficient. Building ribosomes with smaller, uniform-size proteins represents the faster way to duplicate the ribosome population, permitting the cell replication to proceed in a timely manner.

These researchers also learned that if the ribosomal proteins were any shorter, inefficient ribosome production also results. This inefficiency stems from biochemical events needed to initiate protein production. If proteins are too short, then the initiation events take longer than the elongation processes that build the protein chains.

The bottom line: The mathematical modeling work by the Harvard and Uppsala University research team indicates that the sizes of ribosomal proteins are optimal to ensure the most rapid and efficient production of ribosomes. The mathematical modeling also determined that the optimal number of ribosomal proteins is between 50 to 80—the number of ribosomal proteins found in nature.

Ribosome Composition Is Optimal to Produce a Varied Population of Ribosomes

The insights of this work have bearing on the recent discovery that within cells a heterogeneous population of ribosomes exists, not a homogeneous one as biochemists have long thought.2 Instead of every ribosome in the cell being identical, capable of producing each and every protein the cell needs, a diverse ensemble of distinct ribosomes exists in the cell. Each type of ribosome manufactures characteristically distinct types of proteins. Typically, ribosomes produce proteins that work in conjunction to carry out related cellular functions. The heterogeneous makeup of ribosomes contributes to the overall efficiency of protein production, and also provides an important means to regulate protein synthesis. It wouldn’t make sense to use an assembly line to make both consumer products, such as antiperspirant sticks, and automobiles. In the same manner, it doesn’t make sense to use the same ribosomes to make the myriad proteins, performing different functions for the cell.

Because ribosomes consist of a large number of small proteins, the cell can efficiently produce heterogeneous populations of ribosomes by assembling a ribosomal core and then including and excluding specific ribosomal proteins to generate a diverse population of ribosomes.3 In other words, the protein composition of ribosomes is optimized to efficiently replicate a diverse population of these subcellular particles.

The Case for Creation

The ingenuity of biochemical systems was one of the features of the cell’s chemistry that most impressed me as a graduate student (and moved me toward the recognition that there was a Creator). And the latest work by researchers on ribosome composition from Harvard and Uppsala Universities provides another illustration of the clever way that biochemical systems are constructed. The composition of these subcellular structures doesn’t appear to be haphazard—a frozen accident of a historically contingent evolutionary process—but instead is undergirded by an elegant molecular rationale, consistent with the work of a mind.

The case for intelligent design gains reinforcement from the optimal composition of ribosomal proteins. Quite often, designs produced by human beings have been optimized, making this property a telltale signature for intelligent design. In fact, optimality is most often associated with superior designs.

As I pointed out in The Cell’s Design, ribosomes are chicken-and-egg systems. Because ribosomes are composed of proteins, proteins are needed to make proteins. As with ingenuity and optimality, this property also evinces for the work of intelligent agency. Building a system that displays this unusual type of interdependency requires, and hence, reflects the work of a mind.

On the other hand, the chicken-and-egg nature of ribosome biosynthesis serves as a potent challenge to evolutionary explanations for the origin of life.

The Challenge to Evolution

Because ribosomes are needed to make the proteins needed to make ribosomes, it becomes difficult to envision how this type of chicken-and-egg system could emerge via evolutionary processes. Protein synthesis would have to function optimally at the onset. If it did not, it would lead to a cycle of auto-destruction for the cell.

Ribosomes couldn’t begin as crudely operating protein-manufacturing machines that gradually increased in efficiency—evolving step-by-step—toward the optimal systems, characteristic of contemporary biochemistry. If error-prone, ribosomes will produce defective proteins—including ribosomal proteins. In turn, defective ribosomal proteins will form ribosomes even more prone to error, setting up the auto-destruct cycle. And in any evolutionary scheme, the first ribosomes would have been error-prone.

The compositional requirement that ribosomal proteins be of the just-right size and uniform in length only exacerbates this chicken-and-egg problem. Even if ribosomes form functional, intact proteins, if these proteins aren’t the correct number, size, or uniformity then ribosomes couldn’t be replicated fast enough to support cellular reproduction.

In short, the latest insights in the protein composition of ribosomes provides compelling reasons to think that life must stem from a Creator’s handiwork.

 

 

ADNAN OKTAR   The theory of evolution claims that a particular species transforms into a brand-new species with very small changes. However, to prove such a claim it is necessary to find proof of these transitional species with the aforementioned changes and to present them as scientific evidence. 


 

The theory of evolution claims that a particular species transforms into a brand-new species with very small changes. However, to prove such a claim it is necessary to find proof of these transitional species with the aforementioned changes and to present them as scientific evidence. The alleged transitional species must originate from an imaginary ancestor species and possess new developing organs, systems or limbs. However, such imaginary transformations, which involve trial and error and are claimed to have lasted for millions of years, will result in an unsuccessful transitional species with half-limbs or missing organs. It is interesting that THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM in the fossil record that would bear witness to such changes. Contrary to the expectations of evolutionists, the fossil record is instead full of species with intact and complete organs and systems. This shows us that the millions of species we have witnessed so far all had the same characteristics 100 million years ago.

There is NO CHAOS in the fossil records

It can be expected that a world governed by coincidences would bring along chaos as well. In such an imaginary system, it is impossible for species to have symmetry or aesthetics. Even the existence of life itself would be impossible in a world prevailed by coincidences. Mutations, claimed to be the so-called mechanism of evolution, lead to distortions and deficiencies in DNA, and as a result, distorted and irregular structures, defects in organs and systems occur. According to the claim of evolution, we should frequently encounter fossil samples of different species that have undergone mutation, and therefore have not survived and went extinct. However, there is not even a single sample of it.

This fact, posing a problem for the evolutionists, was first admitted by Charles Darwin:

“Why if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see INNUMERABLE transitional forms? Why is not all nature in CONFUSION instead of the species being, as we see them, WELL DEFINED?” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p.108)

Despite being the founder of the theory, Darwin admitted that the fossils, witnessing the history of life, were not confusing and that the fossils were perfectly in order. Strange- looking transitional species have never existed throughout history. The very moment a species appeared in the fossil record, they had intact organs and symmetrical limbs.

There is no such thing as “Innumerable Transitional Species”

We always find fossil samples of complete and intact species in the fossil record. Some of them belong to species that emerged with perfect limbs and organs, and then went extinct, and some belong to existent species that emerged millions of years ago with their perfect and present appearance. As claimed by evolutionists, the intermediate forms, which developed intermediate features that proved to be disadvantageous and caused the extinction of that species, certainly do not exist. The fossil record offers NOT A SINGLE FOSSIL OF AN INTERMEDIATE FORM.

According to the claim of evolution, the number of imaginary transitional species is supposed to be geometric multiples of the number of species known today. The so-called evolutionary tree must be full of unsuccessful species and must have innumerable subsections that have ceased to exist. This number could have been expressed in the trillions. Charles Darwin always emphasized that the amount of transitional species, which he hoped for but never found its existence, is INNUMERABLE:

INNUMERABLE transitional forms must have existed, why we not find them embedded in COUNTLESS NUMBERS IN THE CRUST OF THE EARTH?.. Why then is not EVERY GEOLOGICAL FORMATION AND EVERY STRATUM full of such intermediate links?” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p.172-280)

As Darwin pointed out, if the claim of evolution were true, almost every geological stratum would be full of such unsuccessful attempts, namely strange-looking transitional forms. These imaginary transitional life forms, trillions of which should be found in every fossil layer thus far excavated, should have been encountered by now; however, the situation is exactly the opposite. Fossils refute evolution by not showing a single transitional form.

The fact that species have remained unchanged

Paleontology, the study of fossils, reveals that species have not changed and have always remained stable throughout the time they remained on earth. The famous evolutionist paleontologist Niles Eldredge also stated that this is an undeniable fact:

Stasis is now abundantly well documented as the preeminent paleontological pattern in the evolutionary history of species. (Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin, 1995, p. 77 – http://bevets.com/equotese.htm)

It is an obvious fact that species emerged on the earth fully developed and have remained unchanged throughout their existence. This is a situation that can never be contradicted by any paleontologist and is always confessed. One of the leading evolutionists, American paleontologist and science historian Stephen Jay Gould, wrote the following about these two most prominent features of the fossil record:

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

(1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

(2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ (S. J. Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace”, Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977)

Gould again continues his confessions in an article in the Natural History magazine as follows:

Statis, or non-change of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans, was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly… The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, but left as a manifestation of nothing (that is, non-evolution). (S.J. Gould, “Cordelia’s Dilemma,” Natural History, 1993, p. 15)

 

Atlas of Creation and Fossils Say ‘We Have Not Changed’

As is seen, comparing fossils with their living counterparts and showing that they have not undergone any change is nothing but disclosing a well-known fact to the public. This fact, which has always been withheld from the public, reached and was spread to the public at large through the Atlas of Creation, the magnum opus of the author Adnan Oktar, writing under the pen name Harun Yahya. Paleontology has shown that species do not emerge slowly in millions of years as claimed, but that they emerge miraculously, in their perfect forms. With the work of Mr. Adnan Oktar, the findings and fossils that have been hidden from the public for so many years have been revealed at last and the secrets of the evolutionists have been shown for all the world to see.

Although this extraordinary piece of work exhibits only about 2,000 fossils in detailed photographs, the number of classified fossils that are stored in repositories in universities or in museums with date tags, is about 700 million. The fact that some evolutionists, who feel upset about these facts write stories about merely three or four fossils out of the thousands mentioned in the Atlas and try to make unfair criticisms shows just how desperate they actually are. These criticisms are far from being scientific and typically do not go beyond ill-advised sarcasm as obviously, in the scientific literature, there are thousands of other examples of the fossils in question.

Seeking Imaginary Ancestors through Mathematics

Evolutionists claim that humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Speculations go on and on, one day claiming that chimpanzees are closer to humans, and the next the bonobos. While there is no evidence of any transformation, according to what exactly can Darwinists establish a relationship between those two? At this point, evolutionists produce statistical formula that they invented from scratch and which have no scientific validity.

The deception here is based on the comparison of some selected base-pairs of specific genes of the two species. Here it should not be assumed that all the codes of the two species’ genomes have been compared one by one. This fact is better understood when we examine this trick used to create the imaginary family tree:

When studies of genetic similarity between man and apes are conducted, only certain genes are compared. For example, while drawing the family tree of living primates, 34,927 base pairs of 54 genes were considered.[1] There are about 25,000 genes in the human body and not all of them are compared here.

Evolutionists initially claimed that there is a 1% difference between the chimpanzee and the human genome, but later this difference was generally accepted as 4%; this rate corresponds to about 35 million nucleotides. Evolutionists are in search of an imaginary mechanism in which this difference is made up. Therefore, they suggest mutations that altered the DNA, added or subtracted codes, all of which would completely harm the organism. They claim that history worked backwards like this and that mutations worked regularly, and had only beneficial effects all the time- which in fact is impossible – and thus they make fake calculations about the dates when the two species may have split. There is no fossil of the imaginary common ancestor, and there are no intermediate species either; nevertheless, evolutionists present calculations, which do not have scientific validity, as if they are true under the rubric of “prediction” to the public. The imaginary data, entered into a computer on the basis of this claim, is executed under the name of the Bayes formula and the lie that they can reach out to their imaginary common ancestor that existed some five to seven million years ago as a result of the calculations made through this imaginary data, is put forth.

 

The Bayesian Approach in Statistics and Scientific Errors Arisen from Presupposition

The Bayesian formula used in some statistical calculations enables a retrospective analysis of a particular claim. The Bayesian formula is used to calculate conditional probabilities. So if a person claims that ‘two species were derived from a common ancestor’, the formula works to verify this fake hypothesis and calculates how many millions of years must elapse to make up the 35 million nucleotide difference. In reality, however, the 35 million nucleotide difference has never been made up, but the formula provides a result because the claim is entered in this way. Therefore, the Bayesian approach is regarded as a scale of a person’s belief for any fact rather than physical evidence.

As we can see, the gaps in the genes are closed in the minds through computer formulas, and the history of life is arbitrarily written. It is evident that such studies, carried out through the postulate of ‘evolution exists’, have no scientific aspect and completely serve ideological purposes. This mentality, which is far from being able to explain how even a single gene, encoded with information, emerged by itself, uses genetics as a cover.

Paleontology, histology, biochemistry and all other branches of science reveal that life is so complex that it is not possible for it to have come about by pure chance. All species, a single cell – and even a single protein belonging to these species – constitute indisputable proof for the infinite knowledge and power of God.

 

[1] A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates Perelman P, Johnson WE, Roos C, Seuánez HN, Horvath JE, et al. (2011) A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates. PLOS Genetics 7(3): e1001342.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001342

ADNAN OKTAR  During the past month, articles appeared in several national and international news outlets, mainly the New Scientist, BBC News and the Independent, claiming that “cesarean section changed the alleged evolutionary process of birth”. An article published on October 26, 2016 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science was used as reference to these claims.


 

The topic of the article was the claim that “human births are difficult due to the incompatibility between the size of the child’s head and the mother’s narrow hip bone” and that “with the cesarean section birth coming into play in the past 50 years, the so-called evolutionary process has been affected and the incompatibility increased.” Based on this article, news outlets ran biased headlines including; “Does the cesarean section [birth] cause babies to evolve into bigger ones?”, “Increasing number of cesarean sections affect human evolution”, “Successful cesarean sections change human evolution process.”

These headlines are usually designed to give the impression that a new scientific finding proved  evolution.  Such reports are often biased and aim to mislead the layman. Their publication in major scientific journals is also for the purpose of making them look credible. However, the scientific journals in question are under the control of the Darwinist dictatorship that tries to keep the theory of evolution alive, which is a completely collapsed theory in terms of science.

A thorough examination of the article shows that the topic is handled entirely ideologically, without any scientific evidence. Let’s now explain why such claims are completely unscientific, do not support the theory of evolution and are purely ideological.

The claim that “over time, baby head – maternal bone structure incompatibility has increased” is unfounded

The basic assertion of the article is that within the past 50 years, from the time the cesarean section has been inaugurated to the present day, head-to-bone inconsistency has increased from 30 to 36 in 1,000 births, which amounts to an increase of 20%. Was this result obtained by evaluating the actual data?

In fact, this article, which was presented by the media as evidence to the so-called theory of evolution, ironically offered its claims with the presumption that evolution is factual. The efforts to prove this claim, were supported not by actual data, but by statistical data derived from purely imaginary models.

The studies conducted showed that the situations of head-bone structure incompatibility resulted from environmental factors, which cannot have any effect on the genetic data.

The main factor in the incompatibility is that the fetuses are bigger. Compared to 50 years ago, there are many factors that can cause fetuses to be bigger today. The birth weight of fetuses may have increased due to reasons such as the better nourishment of the mother during pregnancy period, or owing to the increase in obesity and diabetes. However, this is not a genetic outcome, but rather an environmental outcome. If conditions were reversed, this effect would decrease and the need for cesarean section would decline. In addition, diseases such as hydrocephalus (dropsy in the brain) associated with structural causes may also prevent normal birth. But this does not occur due to a genetic change and is not a gain but a deformation.

In addition, the maternal bone structure, which is the other factor in the said incompatibility, can vary independently of the genetic structure. The studies showed that even in maternal twins, who share the same genetic code, the hipbone size may differ and that the environmental factors play a more pronounced role than genetics. Even as an adult, the bone structures may change shape. Another example relates to the different male and female hipbone structures. Brothers and sisters, although sharing same parents, will have completely different hipbones. A mother with a male-type bone structure could have never given birth to her child.  As the bone structure develops, the cells take shape as if they are conscious whether they are in a male or female body.

Today, social factors also increase the rate of cesarean section births. The fact that the operation conditions are better compared to the past has made the cesarean section safer. This also contributed to the increased diagnosis of the head-bone incompatibility by the doctors. However, it should be noted that the cesarean section is preferred not only for head-bone incompatibility. Expecting mothers prefer cesarean section also to avoid the difficulties of normal birth, even though physicians usually recommend against it.

An unscientific claim without genetic basis

When we examine the article, it becomes evident that no information other than statistical calculations is presented. This shows the unscientific nature of the piece, as the presented statistical data is only related to social preferences. No change in DNA sequence takes place. Furthermore, the accurate development of bone structure requires the harmonious coordination of tens or even hundreds of different gene regions. The difference between the genetic codes of humans is very little if any, and these differences are located at non-coding regions. The immense diversity in the physical appearance of human beings is due to epigenetic and environmental factors. Environmental factors only make some genes dominant and some recessive; they certainly cannot add new information to genetic information. In other words, there is no difference between the genetic code of the first human being that ever lived and those that live today.

No structural change has taken place in the humans, as also shown by the human fossils that have been examined. This also applies to mother’s bone structure as well as the structure and size of the baby’s head. The birth takes place always in the same manner. According to the evolutionist thinking the birth process has to get easier over time through the enlargement of maternal bone structure or the reduction of the size of the baby’s head but such a change has never happened and it cannot happen because the so-called process of evolution is nothing but a deception. Throughout the thousands of years of the history of mankind, difficult births have always existed, but the birth process has always remained the same.

Birth is a miracle.

The timing of birth is perfect. The pregnancy, which lasts about 38 weeks, ends with birth at a very delicate time. If the birth takes place a few weeks earlier, the baby may have a life-threatening condition because she has not completed her development. If birth occurs one to two weeks late, this time there is not enough room for the baby, nutritional problems arise, and the baby can get too big to fit into the birth canal. Neither the mother nor the fetus are aware of these processes. The birth pangs begin at the right time, the cervix opens up and the tissues become more flexible. Moreover, the fetus has to make some movements such as rotation, flexion, and extension to enter the birth canal in the most suitable manner. Nearly every fetus makes these moves  completely and in the right order. Instead of seeing the intricate balances and perfection in the process, trying to find faults and focusing on illogical conclusions, is nothing but a serious lapse of reason.

As seen in this article as well, Darwinists constantly seek to use the fallacy that ‘’life emerged by chance’’ to keep their theory alive. In an attempt to do this, they try to ignore the miraculous structures of human beings and other living beings, and seek to give the impression that there are deficiencies. In this way they try to proselytize the idea that they have has and could have been more perfect. However, these people who know the subject in depth are actually well aware that living things, and most notably the human body, are perfectly equipped with the most flawless structures. However these people insist on ignoring this fact. As they are aware that talking about this fact, will completely destroy the theory of evolution.

The birth process is one of the prominent examples of the miracle in man’s creation. Numerous mechanisms, all of which are indispensable, come into play at the same time. Neither the fetus nor the mother can live in the absence of even one of them. For this reason, these features must have existed since the first birth. While even a single birth is a miracle in itself, billions of miraculous births have taken place until today. The fact that some births are difficult does not mean that this miracle should be ignored. The glorious art of creation of God becomes even more evident as one examines further the details of the birth.

Our Almighty Lord said in a verse: “Did We not create you from a base fluid? Then place it in a secure repository for a recognized term? It is We who determine. What an excellent Determiner!(Surah Al-Mursalat, 20-23)

In conclusion; no cesarean section, nor any other kind of intervention during birth, is a situation that will lead to the formation of larger babies in future generations. Just as the increase in the knowledge and the skills in this age of science cannot lead the new-generation with higher IQ levels than previous generations, the cesarean section, too, cannot change the physical structure of the mother or the baby. The main reason for the increase in cesarean section rates is the change in environmental and social effects. And environmental factors can only affect to the extent that our genetic structure permits.

References

  1. http://www.pnas.org/content/113/51/14680.full
  2. DumontA, deBernisL, BouvierColleMH,Bre ́artG,MOMAStudyGroup(2001)Caesarean section rate for maternal indication in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. Lancet 358(9290):1328–1333.
  3. Sharma K (2002) Genetic basis of human female pelvic morphology: A twin study. Am J PhysAnthropol117(4):327–333.
  4. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/success-caesarean-sections-altering-course-human-evolution-babies-bigger-heads-a7458066.html
  5. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2115103-are-caesareans-really-making-us-evolve-to-have-bigger-babies/?utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=ILC&utm_campaign=webpush&cmpid=ILC%257CNSNS%257C2016-GLOBAL-webpush-BIGBABY
  6. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38210837

ADNAN OKTAR  One of the classical tactics of Darwinists is to bring old fossils back to the agenda and to make up new stories about the same fossil. This is because evolutionists do not want to admit their defeat, yet there is nothing left in their hands to put forth. 


 

One of the classical tactics of Darwinists is to bring old fossils back to the agenda and to make up new stories about the same fossil. This is because evolutionists do not want to admit their defeat, yet there is nothing left in their hands to put forth. The most recent example is the news reports coming through media organizations such as National Geographic and the Washington Post regarding the fossils known as Homo Naledi. Although new claims and attempts are being made about the fossil in question almost every year since 2013, all of these efforts have been in vain.

As it could be remembered, about 1,500 bone fragments were found inside a 1,450- meter deep cave in South Africa in 2013, which are claimed to belong to 15 separate individuals. The information initially disclosed to the public was that the skull volume of these individuals was the size of an orange and that their finger bones were curved; it was thus claimed that the fossils showed “the characteristics of an ape”. Actually, there was no proper skull;, four worn out parietal pieces were placed in way that they were suspended in the air without touching each other. Despite this, the claims continued that the creature had a brain weighing some 500 grams and a cranial capacity about the size of an orange.

homo naledi_scenario

We have documented in our previous articles that the news reports regarding this fossil do not reflect the truth and that the prejudiced evolutionist comments were made without fully determining the age and characteristics of the fossils. You can read our responses – given in 2015 and 2016 – in two separate articles on the fact that the so-called evolutionary gradation cannot be made according to the volume of the skull.

(The Evolutionist Scenario over “Homo naledi” Has Come to Nothing and Darwinist Tales Are Repeated on CNN: Homo Naledi) However, since  speculative news continues to be published in 2017 regarding the Homo Naledi fossils, it will be useful to bring the issue back to the agenda and to decipher the Darwinists’ schemes:

Homo naledi doesn’t belong to 2.5 million-year-old species, but to a 250,000 -year-old species

The Homo Naledi fossils were first presented to the public as 2.5 million-years-old when first discovered. Moreover, the gradation was made to fit this scenario of evolution according to this age, and imaginary evolutionary trees of life were thus drawn up. It was so exaggerated that it was alleged that the creature was the so-called “missing link” that existed between Australopithecus and H. erectus. In many media outlets, these claims were presented to the public as if they were scientific. However, as a result of the latest age determination measures it was understood that H. Naledi fossils were between 236,000 and 335,000  years-old. This result shocked evolutionist circles and it was once again understood that the scenario of an intermediate form on Naledi’s age was simply  a fictional story, far from being scientific. These are important in showing that it is necessary to adopt a suspicious approach to all so-called evolutionary grading carried out by the evolutionists through anatomical measurements such as skull volume.

According to evolutionary scenarios before 2017, H. Naledi was presented as an intermediate form in the so-called evolutionary gradation of mankind. However, it became clear that H. Naledi, with its 250,000 year-old age as verified by the latest studies, existed almost in the same period with a human species which is estimated to date back about 200,000 years ago. This is important in demonstrating how wild the evolutionists’ imagination gets when there is no scientific evidence.

Age determination methods are far from providing exact results

Today, two main methods are used for age determination. One of these is the comparison method based on the idea that the fossils, lying in the same stratum, existed in the same period, which is determined through conducting an age determination of various strata. The second is a radioactive dating method based on the decomposition of radioactive atoms, such as carbon and uranium, found in the collagen tissue samples of fossil remains. Both methods have an intrinsic margin of error.

The age determination of strata is only applicable for volcanic and sedimentary rocks. Even if the age determination of the strata is carried out, one cannot be certain whether the strata changed place after the fossil formation. In places such as caves, where stratification is limited or in places washed by rivers, the margin of error in information provided by the strata increases.

Likewise, the methods based on radioactive decomposition are far from providing precise information. The radioactive method should be a “closed system” in order to be used in age determination. The closed system is conducted assuming that the transfer of radioactive material is stopped after the fossil remains are buried in the soil and there is no subsequent exchange of new material. The “open system”, in which the material exchange continues, won’t be used for age determination as the amount of decomposition will not be accurate. However, since there is no method that can detect whether a fossil is exposed to a closed or open system, no definitive conclusion can be reached to state that “the fossil was not exposed to an open system.”

Another limiting case, questioning the reliability of age determination methods, is that samples taken from different regions of the same fossil can give different ages. The aforementioned open system exposure that causes different effects in different tissues, is shown as the reason of this.

As a matter of fact, the age determination range estimated for the Naledi fossils offers an extended period of time, as much as 100,000 years. This is an indication of the fact that the method is not entirely reliable. In spite of such a wide range regarding the dating of the fossil, it is not certain that Naledi is younger or older than calculated.

Comments made without any knowledge of DNA are unscientific

All of the comments based on the anatomical features on  ancient fossils, as in the case of Naledi, are speculative. The interspecies and intraspecies phenotypic differences only allow interpretations concerning which species the discovered fossil belongs to be based on evolutionist belief rather than being scientific. As a matter of fact, history is full of pseudo-scientific misconceptions and frauds based on topographic features.

Definitively proving which species a fossil belongs to is only possible with the knowledge of the DNA sequence of the concerned fossil. But since the DNA cannot remain intact for many years due to its structure, it is not possible to obtain DNA sequences in fossils. DNA studies, conducted by evolutionist circles on fossils from time to time, cannot give definitive results because these studies are based on statistical calculations and the DNA can be mixed with other species’ DNA or degenerate and decompose. The comments made without the knowledge of DNA are bound to be far from being scientific.

A new scenario is written for Naledi after our knowledge regarding its age is corrected

After the discovering that H. Naledi, which was presented as a 2.5 million-year-old so-called intermediate form, was only about 250,000 years old, the whole evolutionist scenario collapsed. However, the Darwinists would not rest. The intermediate form claim is revised; another scenario is put forward. This time, they claimed that Homo Naledi, having lived with Homo sapiens 250,000 years ago, was a so-called “hominid” that came into existence 2 million years ago and remained unchanged until 250,000 years ago.

Just as the first scenario was groundlessly put forward, this scenario is not based on any scientific basis either. There is no fossil of a H. Naledi which existed 2 million years ago. The only thing that exists is the boundless and non-scientific imagination of evolutionists.

The effort to associate an ape to human is in vain.

Only based on its brain size, H. Naledi was assumed to have lived 2.5 million years ago. Since humans suddenly appeared in the fossil records, there should have been intermediate forms according to the so-called evolution scenario. Darwinists, who considered H. Naledi open to speculation, tried to use H. Naledi for this purpose, but this lasted but a short time. When Naledi’s real age was discovered, these claims became invalid.

It is understood from the obtained fossil structures that H. Naledi is an ape species with a small brain volume and curved phalanges. Naledi existed in the same period with humans. In this case, Darwinist claims that H. Naledi was the “ancestor of humans”, became meaningless. Moreover, even if Naledi had existed 2.5 million years ago, this would not place it in the intermediate form category  because Naledi was a fully developed living being with all its organs and functions. As is, it has nothing to serve the purposes of evolutionists.

Infinite number of scenarios can be produced when there is no need for scientific evidence. However they would have no importance as delusions can never cover the truth.  Having existed in one stage of history and gone extinct, H. Naledi is an ape species and just like every other life form was created by God.

References:

  1. http://darwinism-watch.com/lie-of-human-evolution/darwinist-tales-are-repeated-on-cnn-homo-naledi/
  2. http://darwinism-watch.com/lie-of-human-evolution/the-evolutionist-scenario-over-homo-naledi-has-come-to-nothing/
  3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/05/09/humanitys-strange-new-cousin-is-shockingly-young-and-shaking-up-our-family-tree/?utm_term=.e492420cbe60
  4. https://elifesciences.org/articles/09561#fig6
  5. https://elifesciences.org/articles/09560
  6. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044

ADNAN OKTAR  The book “Sapiens – A Brief History of Humankind”, which was released in 2012 and had its first Turkish edition published in 2015, came out with the claim that “it describes a brief history of humanity”.


 

Similar to many scientific and philosophical publications with an atheistic background, this book begins to describe the history of humanity through the so-called evolutionary process. The title “Sapiens” is deliberately chosen to highlight the claims of evolution, rather than emphasizing historical, political and social aspects of humans. It is obvious that this book, written by Harari, a professor of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is not a history book. In the book, the description of the so-called evolutionary development of men, and subsequently, the propagation of an atheist ideology that depicts social Darwinism is prevalent.

The book claims to provide the history of mankind from an academic point of view, but a Darwinist mentality pervades the book at every turn. Moreover, Darwinism is presented to the reader as a presupposition without any scientific evidence. The so-called development of the history of mankind, built upon this presupposition, is portrayed in a fiction-like narrative. For this reason, the book cannot be regarded as a history book, nor does it posses any scientific value in respect of biology, because it is based on the so-called evolutionary rationale which has no scientific evidence backing it up. The book, written under the complete influence of the author’s atheistic mentality, is no more than a book of philosophy.

The only positive aspect of the book is that it refers to the fact that following Darwinian logic in society would lead the world into a turmoil.

Even though the fact that the corrupt social structure caused by wild capitalism, fascism and communism – the consequences of the Darwinist mentality – would bring unhappiness is explained in the book, no solution is offered for this problem.

Since the book is based on the evolutionist philosophy rather than historical facts, it is extremely important to respond to the so-called evolutionary interpretations it contains. Clearly putting forth the fact that the mankind came into existence through Creation by God, not through evolution, will destroy the entire philosophy of the book. This way, people will also be reminded once again that the only way to get rid of the unhappy and distorted societal order that took the world by storm, is to make the belief in God prevalent in the world.

Answers to all the claims the book contains are included in detail in Harun Yahya’s works and websites. Since it is not possible to answer all the claims here, only the main ones have been answered.

The claim of “a common ancestor that lived six million years ago”

In evolutionist reasoning, the idea that “man is not different from other animals” is suggested and the tale depicting that “man has a common ancestor with animals” is imposed. Likewise, Harari has presented this claim in a tale-like narrative on the first pages of his book:

“Like it or not, we are members of a large and particularly noisy family called the great apes... Just six million years ago, a single female ape had two daughters. One became the ancestor of all chimpanzees, the other is our own grandmother.” (Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens- A Brief History of Humankind, McClelland and Stewart, 2014, p.11)

This claim, which is put forward with a fiction-like narrative in a manner far removed from being scientific, is written with an evolutionist presupposition without any proof. First of all, not even a single intermediate fossil has been found to this day that proves the Darwinists’ claim. It is impossible to find one, and more than 700 million fossils obtained so far belong to living creatures that have never changed, that is, never gone through any evolutionary process. The source of these superstitious beliefs of evolutionists, who have no scientific evidence proving the existence of a “common ancestor”, is the similar physical features found in different species known as “homology”. According to evolutionists, the reason why apes have hands like ours is that they are our so-called “evolutionary relatives”.

Evolutionists try to present living creatures that they observe as similar as the relatives of one another, or as relatives coming from a common ancestor. This claim, which is not supported by scientific evidence, can only be considered as a superstition. Having homologous organs does not equate to having a common ancestor. Structural similarities between different species are called homology in biology and for the evolutionist claim about homology to be taken seriously, these similar organs should have been coded by similar DNA codes, however similar organs mostly have very different genetic codes. Similar genetic codes in the DNA of different living beings correspond to very different organs.  In addition to that, intermediary forms must be found in the fossil records in order for the common ancestor claim to be valid. However, the living organisms encountered in the fossil records are species that have come to exist with perfect organs and survived for generations unchanged. This is the greatest proof for the fact that no evolutionary process has taken place and that life has been created.

The so-called mechanism of evolution must progress from commonality to diversity (divergent). However, even in evolutionary tree scenarios that the evolutionists themselves have prepared, it has been observed that some species showed similar characteristics with species they have no relation to. This is utterly in conflict with the logic that stipulates evolution must be divergent. Having all their, theories reach an impasse, evolutionists at this point came up with an another imaginary hypothesis, “convergent evolution” (from diversity to commonality). This is the point where the logic of evolution collapses. Richard Dawkins argues that the eyes have evolved 40 times, the absurdity of which is obvious for everyone. An organ cannot evolve 40 times based on coincidence, and reach the same point. This is only possible if it was created by a conscious superior mind.

One of the major problems for evolutionists who try to prove their theories by basing them on similarities in living organisms is the manifestation of the same physical characteristics in completely different gene structures. For example, many creatures who can camouflage themselves adapt perfectly to the environment they inhabit. The genetic sequencing of an insect species we see in the pictures is different from the genetic sequencing of the plant on which it resides. The fact that such identical physical characteristics can emerge from different genetic structures is, indeed, awe-inspiring. It is not possible for such an artistic marvel to exist without also the existence of a superior Creator Who has full control over gene structures of both the plant and the bug. These creatures that camouflage also refute the homology-based common ancestor hypothesis of evolutionists.

Constructing a homology-based evolutionary hypothesis was only acceptable in Lamarck’s or Darwin’s times, where the technology was inadequate and the existence of genetic information was unknown. Insisting on a claim like this today, where the advanced science allowed us to examine the structures of DNA, RNA, and protein in detail and understand that the development of living organisms progress under very delicate balances, can only be interpreted as the stubborn continuation of the evolutionist beliefs of the past.

The claim that “100,000 years ago 6 different human species lived”

One of the mechanisms that classical Darwinist thinkers put forth as triggering the so-called evolution is natural selection. Natural selection requires diversity in society. Evolutionists are always striving to find variety and genetic diversity as natural selection’s claim of “the survival of the fittest” fails in an environment where there is no diversity in the social structure. The environment for which these efforts are carried out finds basis in the fossil findings of the past, which evolutionists consider to be open to speculation and difficult to refute. The emergence of humankind is also one of the subjects that is often speculated on. Since the inception of the idea of evolution, claims about the existence of so-called humanoid intermediate forms or new human species have been put forward based on speculations, even frauds -which do not reflect the truth- on the fossil records of human and ape species. At the beginning of his book Harari claims that 100,000 years ago, six different human species have lived at he same time and that Homo sapiens dominated the others, thus survived as the only hominid species on earth. Humans that are claimed to be different species of humans are in fact different races of humans, namely, H. Neanderthalensis, H. Erectus, H. Soloensis, H. Floresiensis, H. Denisovan and H. Sapiens. Just as how today we have different races of humans such as Eskimos, Chinese, and Turks, there have been different human races during that period too. The characteristics of human races of that time are:

Neanderthals:

A bulky and muscular human race that lived between the years 200,000  and 30,000  BC in Europe and Asia.  Even though they were initially introduced as an “intermediate species that cannot walk upright” when their fossils were first found, it is later proven that this claim is false. When the claims that suggest they were an intermediate species or an ancestor to humans fizzled, evolutionists came up with another claim which suggests that they were a species that lived at the same time as Sapiens, but was then eliminated by them, as Harari himself claims. Knowing that anatomical differences are not enough to prove that Neanderthals constitute another species, evolutionist circles have also added genetic studies to their so-called scientific evidence. Supposedly, modern humans carried 1-4% Neanderthal DNA, meaning that they weren’t actually eliminated, they were assimilated. However, this claim is completely illogical:

It is impossible to find intact DNA from 100,000 years ago, separate it from other organisms and microorganisms, and to determine its correct genetic sequence. Claiming that Neanderthals share only 1-4% of their genes with humans while also claiming apes and humans have 95-98% similarity in genetic structure is another eclipse of reason. Both Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals are different races of the same species; efforts to create different species in laboratories and pseudo-scientific journals are futile attempts to prove evolutionist claims.

(For further reading: He Claim That “Neanderthals Are The Ape-Like Ancestors Of Man” Is Fraudulent)

Soloensis:

Fossil remains found in Kenya, made up of 12 skulls with missing faces. Initially, evolutionists couldn’t decide what the Soloensis skulls are but eventually the skulls are identified as tiger (!), Neanderthal man and finally “modern man” skulls. The names given to the solo skulls are significant in reference to the state the evolutionists are in. These skulls are named: Homo (Javanthropus) soloensis. Homo soloensis, Homo primigenius asiaticus, Homo neanderthalensis soloensis, Homo sapiens soloensis, Homo erectus erectus, Homo erectus, and finally Homo sapiens.

This is a clear indication of the unreliability of anthropology, which examines the scenario of the imaginary evolution of humans.

Floresiensis:

Floresiensis, one of the 18,000-year-old fossil remains belonging to some eight to twelve humans found in Flores, Indonesia, was about one meter tall and had a 380cc brain volume; it displayed different characteristics from “normal” Homo sapiens in terms of jaw and wrist anatomy. Evolutionists distorted and interpreted these characteristics as ape-like features and identified the remains as a separate species from Homo sapiens in the so-called evolution of man. In later studies, however, it has been determined that this individual has a disease called “Cretinism” caused by congenital deficiency of thyroid hormone which severely stunts physical and mental growth. So H. Floresiensis is not a separate species, but a human with a disease. (Homo Floresiensis And The Facts Emerging About The Evolution Myth)

Denisovan:

These are the last fossils that are revealed. In fact, we can’t exactly say there is a fossil. Findings consist of only a 0.5cm piece of phalanx (finger) bone and two teeth. Evolutionists have tried to rewrite human history and gene transfer based on these tiny fossil pieces. Like Neanderthal, Denisovan was also tried to be supported with so-called genetic studies. However, there was no evidence supporting the existence of a different human species, in this scenario either. (A Made-up ‘Hominid’ Tale from Science Mag: Denisovans)

As is seen, Harari’s “six different species of man” claim is incompatible with scientific facts. Some of those mentioned fossils are fabricated and derived fossils and some belong to humans with certain diseases and others to individuals with different physical characteristics. Just as how different human races differ physically from each other today, they also displayed physical differences 100,000 years ago. This proves that they are individuals with different phenotypes. Since their creation, humans have always existed as one species.

Big brain, high intelligence misconception

One of the main points that evolutionists base their efforts to identify different species as ancestors of one another on is brain volume. Allegedly, as the brain volume increased in time, intelligence increased as well and reached its highest point with the modern man.

The factor that enables evolutionists to freely compose unreal scenarios is the lack of evidence, especially fossil evidence, in this area. Brain consists of soft tissues. Soft tissues are more difficult to fossilize except under certain special conditions. That is why, there is no fossil record for the structure of the human brain. Harari has made this baseless claim one of his anchor points. The story-like narrative in Harari’s book says the following:

“ The earliest men and women, 2.5 million years ago, had brains of about 600 cubic centimeters. Modern Sapiens sport a brain averaging 1,200–1,400 cubic centimeters. Neanderthal brains were even bigger.” (Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens : a brief history of humankind, McClelland & Stewart, 2014, p.14)

However, Homo habilis, which was put forth as the first man, with a 600 cc brain, actually belongs to the ape class called Australopithecus. It has the same long-armed, short-legged and ape-like skeletal structure as the Australopithecus. Its phalanges are suitable for climbing. In short, Homo habilis, which is presented as a separate species by some evolutionists, is actually a species of ape, like all other Australopithecines. (http://harunyahya.com/en/Evrim-Sozlugu/16417/Homo-habilis)

When we consider that Neanderthal brain is 1600 cc, attempting to portray Neanderthals as less advanced than modern humans leads to the collapse of this brain volume-based claim. However, the Neanderthals were just a bulkier human race. The average female brain today has a volume of 1200 cc while the male brain has 1400 cc. Differences in human brain size are caused by phenotypic changes based on growth factors and hormonal differences. Despite the differences between brain volumes of males and females, no difference was found between the two genders in regard to  IQ and brain function in the studies conducted. Besides, obviously there are big differences between the IQ levels of people with the same brain volume. In the light of this information, evidently evolutionists’ attempts to classify and sort humans by brain volume alone are unfounded.

With their ability to see and perceive images, to think and comment of them, to speak, to reason and judge, humans are completely different from other living beings. Just as how it is impossible to attribute the order in a bee hive or an ant colony to the little brains of these creatures, it is also impossible to explain these characteristics humans possess with the structure of their brains. The most important difference between human beings and other beings is that humans have consciousness and awareness. Other creatures act instinctively within the limits of inspiration God granted to them.

Darwinists get excited over some human-like behaviors of apes and think that apes are humans’ evolutionary relatives. Nowadays, the studies conducted on ape and human brains haven’t revealed a difference that can explain the aforementioned characteristics when examined in terms of structural anatomy. Therefore, it is not possible to explain human characteristics such as intelligence, consciousness and reasoning, which distinguish humans from other living beings, based on their anatomical and physiological characteristics. The most fundamental characteristic that separates humans from other living beings is that it has a “soul”. That soul belongs to Almighty God, the Creator of all beings.

The claim that, “in the past, humans produced very little” is not true

Another claim from Harari and other evolutionists is that “past generations produced very little.” The main purpose behind this claim is to prove that humanity has undergone a process from simple to complicated in terms of intelligence and culture. Darwinists argue that early humans had so-called primitive brains with thinking skills similar to animals, and that with the development of their brains, they were able to produce more. As evidence, they present the fact that there are no tools other than a few sticks and a knives made from flint found in the imaginary period simply referred to as the “Stone Age”. Such evidence, however, is far from providing reliable information on how life was in the past.

It is known by everyone that even objects from as little as 300 to 500  years ago undergo deterioration due to natural processes. Sometimes even protecting old objects from deterioration under special conditions is not good enough. It is evident that under natural conditions deterioration will accelerate. We know that it is not possible for metal objects to remain intact for more than 1,500 years. Even stones erode in time and lose their properties. The structure of the 3,000 year old pyramids is severely eroded. Therefore, it is very clear that a few pieces of stone objects obtained from well-preserved environments, which evolutionists try to present as proofs of their claims, will not reflect the living conditions of 100,000  or even 10,000  years ago.

Therefore the claim that there had been a stone age’ during which the so-called “primitive people” lived is a fallacy. In no period of history, had there been ‘primitive humans’, and there had been no primitive period in which only stone tools were made. Every period of human history hosts great civilizations. So much so that we are far from accomplishing some of the discoveries of ancient civilizations.

The physical structure of humans has always been the same since the creation of the first human. The earlier humans had the same level of reasoning and consciousness as the people today. There was no societal structure that progressed from primitive to advanced, it only displayed fluctuations like today. In different periods of history, many advanced civilizations were established and disappeared after a while. During these disappearances, the knowledge accumulated until that time has also disappeared, and cultures and scientific developments have had to be experienced again and again. Just as how today societies living in the space age exist simultaneously with societies that have a simple lifestyle, removed from science and technological possibilities, there had been culturally, scientifically and technologically advanced societies in the past.

The lie that “the ability to walk upright has developed over time”

One of the tale-like narrations in Harari’s book is the following:

“Standing up, it’s easier to scan the savannah for game or enemies, and arms that are unnecessary for locomotion are freed for other purposes, like throwing stones or signaling. The more things these hands could do, the more successful their owners were, so evolutionary pressure brought about an increasing concentration of nerves and finely tuned muscles in the palms and fingers.” (Yuval Noah Harari. Sapiens: A Brief History Of Humankind, McClelland & Stewart, 2014, p. 15)

This tale-like narration belongs to the times of Lamarck, the times when the existence of genetic information was unknown. However, as we know very well today, our capabilities are determined by the knowledge inside the genes influencing our physical structure. But the opposite, that is, our actions and behaviors affecting our genes, is simply out of the question. At a time when the existence of genes was unknown, an observer watching people lifting weights, doing sports, may have made such an incorrect deduction by observing that muscle/bone structure is strengthened only when lifting weights. Actually, even in that period, if the fact that the musculo-skeletal structure of children of athletes wouldn’t look like their parents’ if they, themselves, do not exercise had been observed, no such claim would have been made.

Robin Crompton, a British engineer who did research in 1996 on humans’ upright gait, as a result of computer simulations he made, found out that there is no intermediate movement style between apes’ gait and humans’. Crompton’s work showed that a living being could either walk upright on two feet, or move bent forward on four feet. A intermediary walking model between these two is extremely inefficient.

Moreover, the fossil records shows that no living being has ever had a movement style between the gait of an ape and that of a human. Detailed examinations on the fossil records demonstrate that the living beings classified under Australopithecus and Homo Habilis walk bent forward on four legs like an ape while human races like Homo Erectus and Neanderthal walk upright just like we do. In other words, the two-legged upright gait emerged suddenly and for the first time on earth with humans.


The Danger of Social Darwinism

Following the discourse intended to support the theory of evolution, the book also features the philosophy built upon the atheistic mentality extensively. An analysis of the twisted systems removed from religion that our world has been  drawn into and may continue to be stuck in, has been made. What is striking here is that the author of the book saw that the dangerous Darwinist messages, either clearly stated or veiled, would have an even more intensifying effect on this erroneous order:

“According to the science of biology, people were not “created” (may God forbid the thought). They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. … if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are “equal”? .. There are no such things as rights in biology. There are only organs, abilities and characteristics… But “liberty”? There is no such thing in biology. Just like equality, rights and limited liability companies, liberty is something that people invented and that exists only in their imagination.. From a biological viewpoint, it is meaningless to say that humans in democratic societies are free, whereas humans in dictatorships are unfree.” (Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History Of Humankind, McClelland & Stewart, 2014, pp. 97-98)

Even reading these few lines is very important in terms of understanding how brutal the world can be with a Darwinist mindset. In a society shaped by evolutionist thought, without belief of God, it is obvious how extreme and boundless people can get. When the moral values ​​of religion are destroyed, virtues such as solidarity, sacrifice, compassion, protection of the poor and the weak, equality and love which exist in the essence of religion would be replaced with a dangerous and cruel way of life filled with oppression, torture, selfishness, lovelessness, enslavement and murder. Concepts such as rights, justice, equality and freedom will lose their meanings; an environment in which the strong and rich oppress the weak and the poor will emerge and become intolerable in a very short time. Since struggle is essential to the theory as evolutionist thought regards this way of life as a part of so-called “natural selection”; it is claimed that in this way the strong, healthy and intelligent generations would contribute more to the advancement of so-called evolution.

We have many times experienced the examples of this cruel mentality in the 20th Century, when the Darwinist mentality dominated the world. The whole world witnessed the cruelty of dictators such as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, how they slaughtered millions of people, how Hitler killed people whom he regarded as “inferior races” in gas chambers; how hundreds of thousands of people in many Western countries have been forcefully sterilized or left to die just because they were sick, disabled or old. Everybody knows that people were oppressed and exploited all over the world due to ruthless competition; that racism has become the state ideology of some countries and that some races are not even considered human; that there have been conflicts, hot and cold wars between the communists and the capitalists, the right and left; that even the peoples of the same country, brothers, become hostile to each other.

An atheist who has an evolutionist mindset is actually aware that a world based the moral values of religion would offer a much better life. However, saying “let’s live according to the moral values ​​of religion” will not change their ideology all of a sudden, and the desired result will not be achieved. At this point, a good explanation of the invalidity of the so-called theory of evolution will undermine and destroy the mindset Harari described in his book and other atheistic systems. Proving the fact that the claims of the theory of evolution and of a life emerging from evolutionary processes are invalid with scientific evidence, will make everyone realize that the universe could only be created by a conscious power. When a belief in God becomes prevalent in a society, the moral values of religion that constitute the origin of love, quality, freedom, democracy, respect and all kinds of beauty, will pervade the society; the world will thus be like heaven on earth.

So far we have responded to some of the evolutionist claims Harari included in his book Sapiens. There are many other topics in the book that we can refute, but we didn’t think it was necessary to go into so much detail here. You can find our answers to other claims in our website www.harunyahya.com and in Mr. Adnan Oktar’s other books and articles.

 

ADNAN OKTAR Some populations of killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus) living in the northeastern coasts of the US have adapted to the severe pollution, which was the result of toxic wastes (aromatic hydrocarbons) mixing with seawater due to recent increases in industrialization, presumably through the process of evolution. 


 

An article published in the Science Magazine on December 8, 2016 was presented as a so-called proof of evolution. This article claims that some populations of killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus) living in the northeastern coasts of the US have adapted to the severe pollution, which was the result of toxic wastes (aromatic hydrocarbons) mixing with seawater due to recent increases in industrialization, presumably through the process of evolution.  Again, it is alleged that this so-called evolutionary process developed rapidly and was repeated independently in different regions and produced the same results. Obviously in light of scientific facts, these claims of an evolutionary process have no grounds.

fundulus heteroclitus

The killifish were collected from eight locations along the 300 km coastline adjacent to the city of New York. The fish were paired in two populations: sensitive and tolerant to toxins. In these pairings, the distance between the specimens was as short as a few kilometers. In the article, it is suggested that tolerance to aryl hydrocarbon receptor-based (AHR) signaling pathways were rendered ineffective and caused this tolerance. As part of this claim, the Atlantic killifish supposedly lived in a location that was quite convenient to adapt to this fast and lethal change through a so-called process of evolution.

Now let's respond to the inconsistencies and false conclusions in this article.

science magazine_and_the_tale_about_rapid_repeated_evolution_of_fishAs we have mentioned above, the fish samples are taken only from a very small range: In fact, the locations where the presumed sensitive and tolerant fish populations are said to be living are very close to each other. It is not possible for two killifish groups that live so close together to be isolated from each other. Fish that live in one area can be found in the other area after a while. Since they are not isolated, the sampled fish are but individuals of the same species that manifest different physical characteristics (phenotypes). This also demonstrates that the study was conducted erroneously right from the start. In fact, no matter where the samples are taken from which part of the world, the results will not change. Each individual killifish carries all the characteristics of the species but different individuals may have different phenotypes. These physical expressions can also lead to lethal outcomes in a variety of difficult situations.

We can explain this with the following example. Every year millions of people catch the flu, which is an infection. A small proportion of these people lose their lives while most get through the disease alive. The reason some people die is due to the weaknesses stemming from their immune system or other factors.  However, in general, those who remain alive or die due to the disease all have the same DNA structure. The human genome has the same structure in all human beings. The resulting difference is caused by phenotypes, which is, in turn, caused by the expression of the genes. The offspring of those ones who lived on after the disease may also be infected with the same virus. The situation is similar with the killifish; it doesn't mean that those tolerant to toxins are superior to those that are genetically sensitive.

AHR Signaling Pathways Have Vital Functions

One of the claims in the article is that the AHR signaling pathways supposedly differs between sensitive and tolerant fish. While the AHR function is reduced in tolerant fish, it continues at normal levels in the sensitive ones. There is absolutely no evolutionary mechanism at work here. All killifish have AHR genes; the difference stems from the regulation of these genes. The important point here is that the AHR signaling pathways are also responsible for the continuation of many vital cellular activities. The immune system, cell division and hypoxia alarm are among these functions. While providing resistance against toxicants, these vital functions should also be regulated in equilibrium. Since the obstruction of AHR pathways would result in the failure of other vital functions and eventually death, it needs to be adjusted precisely. A conscious entity is imperative in achieving this.

Claims of Rapid and Repeated Change are Against the So-Called Concept of Evolution

The basic assertion of evolutionists is that new features are being added to living organisms as a result of coincidental mutations, which occur in long periods of time. In this sense, to prove the allegations of evolution, it should be demonstrated that living beings have developed from simple to complex organisms. However, throughout the years, no evidence has been found to prove that life emerged through such small changes over the years. For such development to occur there should have been numerous intermediary forms between the initial state and the final state of living organisms but there is not even one intermediary form among the more than 700 million fossils discovered up until this day. Any member of a species appears on the fossil records as complete organisms, bearing every trait of that species, and maintains its existence along with its characteristics for millions of years.  If the natural surroundings were not suitable for the persistence of that species, it would die out and become extinct, otherwise continue to exist up to our day.

Feeling compelled to explain every biological phenomenon with so-called claims of evolution, evolutionists tend to explain any finding that is against their claims with the same prejudice. This allows us to notice once again the ideological grounds of evolutionary ideas, as these are not scientific at all. A person, who sees that life  emerged instantaneously, should also accept that there is no such thing as evolution, and living beings have come into existence through Creation. However, in face of this truth, evolutionists try to account for the existence of a living being with terms like "evolutionary leap, spontaneous generation." These definitions are completely contradictory to the basic rationale of evolution, as we mentioned at the beginning. These are hollow terms and they never explain through which mechanism the life emerged because they can't. Evolutionary theory has no mechanism it can resort to, since life is created.

Another fictitious term is "repeated evolution". Again, according to the allegations of evolution, if two living beings share a common feature, they must have come from a so-called common ancestor. However, there are numerous examples that contradict this. A similar evolutionist definition used is "convergent evolution" which makes the groundless claim that living beings with different features manifest a common feature over time. By defending that living beings diversified from a common origin over time (divergent), while at the same time defending a "convergent" structure, evolution in fact refutes itself. For example, Richard Dawkins says that the eye went through 40 independent evolutions. A theory, which cannot explain how a complex system such as the eye and vision formed as a result of coincidences, claims that such impossibility has been repeated 40 times. This only leads evolutionary claims to a deeper dead end for the theory. There is only one explanation for the fact that a magnificent system like vision appeared on different living organisms and at 40 different times; Creation. In fact, there is no "divergent" or "convergent" development; there is even not single evidence found which proves that living beings underwent a change over time. Evolutionists, as a requirement of their ideology, sink to dodging this fact by saying it is "repeated evolution."

If we are to examine this article; it is another logical error to claim that the adaptation of killifish to the pollution, which arose in the last short 30-40 years in the New York region is indicated as a "rapid and repetitive evolution". The adjustment here is an example of adaptation, not evolution. The living being has encountered an environment that enables it to use a feature that it already genetically possesses. When faced with pollution, if these fish do not have the physical ability to cope with this difficult situation they will die, or otherwise, if they can cope with it, they will sustain their lives.

Adaptation and Variation are not Evidence for Evolution

We frequently come across evolutionist circles' attempts at utilizing the adaptability to various natural conditions, examples of which we encounter in many living beings, as Darwinist propaganda material. Variation, which means that individuals within a species manifest some minor differences from birth, is not caused by changes in the DNA, but from differences in working speed of existing genes. For example, if the growth hormone over-performs its function, the person will be taller and more burly; if it under-performs, the person will be shorter. If melanin pigment producing cells over-produce, the skin color will be darker; if the pigment production is lacking, the skin color will be lighter. As you can see, DNA structure is the same in all cases. It cannot be considered as an evidence for so-called evolution.

Adaptation, on the other hand, is the ability to adapt to changing natural conditions within the limits allowed by genes. When a white-skinned person is exposed to the sun, skin cells try to protect the skin from harmful sunrays by starting to produce more melanin; thus the skin darkens.  When the sun's effect is eliminated, the cells return to their old production speed and the skin color lightens. In the same way, the strength of an athlete increases with the increasing amount of protein in muscle cells. In this way, the athlete can lift three or four times more weight than before yet his children will not be born with strong muscles, because his genes have not changed. If the requirements of natural conditions exceed the limits of adaptation of the living beings, the consequence will be death; there is no spare time to wait. If you remove a fish from the sea, it will die after three or four minutes at most if it does not return to the water. No matter how many times you repeat this, it will not adapt to living on land, and the subsequent generations will not have the ability to survive more out of water. To claim that it can develop lungs over time is a ridiculous suggestion that raises a problem with claimer's mental faculties.

Yet, the ability to adapt is an indication of God’s perfect Creation. Being able to respond to the changing natural conditions via changes in the organism is a proof of the manifestation of God’s wisdom in the cells of that living being. One has to ponder on: Who made the decision to increase the melanin production; moreover, Who possesses the knowledge that Sun has harmful effects on the organism? Or where is that power, which regulates the metabolism of the killifish in accordance to the changing lethal environment in the cell? In a dark environment, rendering some metabolic pathways more active in line with the knowledge of changes in the surroundings, while rendering others less active can only be undertaken under the control of an Intelligent Mind.     

Conclusion

As one can see, the ability of killifish to adapt to adverse conditions is not  evidence for evolution. The fact that we are all created with the ability to adapt to the natural conditions is a gift from God to us all and to all living beings.

Is He Who creates like him who does not create?  So will you not pay heed? If you tried to number God’s blessings, you could never count them.  God is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Surat an-Nahl, 17-18)

Source:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6317/1305

Imagine that you set out on a journey through our Solar System. During this journey, you will come across planets with freezing cold or scorching hot temperatures, with atmospheres comprising of toxic gases, with severe storms raging on their surfaces, or without any water at all.  Only the ‘blue planet’ Earth that we live on was created in a way that is fully hospitable for life with all sorts of ideal balances it maintains, from its atmosphere to its landforms, from its temperature to its magnetic field, from the elements it contains to its distance from the Sun.

Arrest jet remainder examine quarrel

The Lie of the Evolution of Speices

ADNAN OKTAR One of the biggest dilemmas of the evolutionary theory is the existence of species that are different from one another and variety of species in the nature.

ADNAN OKTAR  All divine religions have taught that God created the universe by commanding "Be!" and that its flawless functioning is proof of His great power of creation. Many verses in the Qur’an also reveal this truth.


 

Religion has taught the truth of creation, which all people can grasp through reason and personal observation, since the creation of first human being. All divine religions have taught that God created the universe by commanding "Be!" and that its flawless functioning is proof of His great power of creation. Many verses in the Qur’an also reveal this truth. For example, God reveals how He miraculously created the universe from nothing: "The Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, 'Be!' and it is" (Surat al-Baqara, 117).

We are also told in the Qur’an:

He created the heavens and Earth with truth. The day He says "Be!" it is. His speech is Truth. The Kingdom will be His on the Day the Trumpet is blown, the Knower of the Unseen and the Visible. He is the All-Wise, the All-Aware. (Surat al-An'am, 73)

We all know that present day science demonstrates the invalidity of the materialist-evolutionist claim and confirms the fact of creation. Contrary to the claims of the theory of evolution, all the proofs of creation that surround us show that chance had no role in the universe's coming into existence. Every detail that emerges as we observe the sky, Earth, and all living things is intended as evidence of God's great power and wisdom.

God Created the Universe from Nothing

God creates everything, in the form and at the time that He chooses, without the use of any model and out of nothing. Since He is exalted above any defect and is rich beyond any need. He has no need of any cause, vehicle, or stages for His creation. Nobody should be deceived by the fact that everything is linked to given causes and natural laws. God is beyond all these causes and laws, since He created them.

God, the Lord of the Earth and the Heavens, can also do away with these causes if He so wills. For instance, He can create people who do not need oxygen to survive, and therefore do not need any lungs. Given this, why would He "need" to perfect the lung by making it evolve over time or through any other mechanism? It is therefore completely wrong for people to think of God's greatness and might as being limited to their own feelings and reason. We can have knowledge only to the extent that He permits.

God can use particular stages in His creation if He so wills. For example, He produces a plant from a seed or a human being from the coming together of a sperm and an egg cell. Yet these stages have nothing to do with evolution and have no room for chance or coincidence. Every stage in the emergence of a plant, or the turning of a single cell into a human being "in the best of forms," happens thanks to the perfect systems created by God’s infinite might.

God willed and created the Earth and the Heavens, all that lies between, and all living and non-living things. This is very easy for Him, as indicated in the Qur'an:

He created the heavens and Earth with truth. The day He says "Be!" it is. His speech is Truth... (Surat al-An'am, 73)

Our Word to a thing when We will it is just to say to it "Be!" and it is. (Surat an-Nahl, 40)

He gives life and causes to die. When He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is. (Surah Ghafir, 68)

Creation is very easy for God. As revealed in these verses, God says to a thing "Be!," thereby willing it to be so. God reveals in many verses that He created the universe and living things in perfect form. It is a grave mistake for believers to adhere to forced explanations in the face of this evident truth and to make such specious claims that God employed evolution to create and used mutation, natural selection, and transitional stages between apes and humans. It is quite wrong to put forward such accounts, for which there is no evidence in either the Qur'an or science, in the hope of being accepted by evolutionists.

God makes all the laws in the universe and gives them the form He chooses, brings about what He wills and when He wills it, permeates everything in the Earth and the Heavens, and rules everything with His power. Yet some people do not fully comprehend His might and thus judge Him based upon their own limited powers.

God reveals their existence in the Qur'an:

They do not measure God with His true measure when they say: "God would not send down anything to a mere human being."... (Surat al-An'am, 91)

They do not measure God with His true measure. God is All-Strong, Almighty. (Surat al-Hajj, 74)

They do not measure God with His true measure. The whole Earth will be a mere handful for Him on the Day of Resurrection the heavens folded up in His right hand. Glory be to Him! He is exalted above the partners they ascribe! (Surataz-Zumar, 67)

Contrary to what those who believe in evolutionary creation suggest, God did not first create apes and then cause them to evolve into humans through flawed transitional forms with missing organs. Rather, as the Qur'an reveals, God created man in the most perfect manner:

We created man in the finest mold. (Surat at-Tin, 4)

He created the heavens and Earth with truth and formed you, giving you the best of forms. And He is your final destination. (Surat at-Taghabun, 3)

These verses are some of the proofs that God created man in perfect form, in other words, the form that he has now.

Of course, man also has several incapacities and weaknesses, all of which remind him of his poverty before our Lord. Deformities and disabilities are the results of a purposeful creation, for they serve as reminders for those who see them and as a test for those who carry them. They are not imperfections caused by evolutionary process as falsely claimed by the evolutionists.

In the Qur'an,  God describes how easy creation is for Him:

Does He Who created the heavens and Earth not have the power to create the same again? Yes indeed! He is the Creator, the All-Knowing. (Surah Ya Sin, 81)

Your creation and resurrection is only like that of a single self. God is All-Hearing, All-Seeing. (Surah Luqman, 28)

Advertisement
Sign up via our free email subscription service to receive notifications when new information is available.

Weather

Istanbul Turkey Partly Cloudy (night), 13 °C
Current Conditions
Sunrise: 8:21 am   |   Sunset: 5:36 pm
78%     14.0 mph     34.338 bar
Forecast
Tue Low: 13 °C High: 15 °C
Wed Low: 12 °C High: 15 °C
Thu Low: 11 °C High: 16 °C
Fri Low: 11 °C High: 15 °C
Sat Low: 12 °C High: 15 °C
Sun Low: 8 °C High: 11 °C
Mon Low: 7 °C High: 10 °C
Tue Low: 6 °C High: 7 °C
Wed Low: 6 °C High: 7 °C
Thu Low: 6 °C High: 8 °C
Sign up via our free email subscription service to receive notifications when new information is available.