22
" Imaginary Mechanism of Evolution
The second important point that negates Darwin's theory
is that both concepts put forward by the theory as
"evolutionary mechanisms" were understood to have, in
reality, no evolutionary power.
Darwin based his evolution allegation entirely on the
mechanism of "natural selection." The importance he
placed on this mechanism was evident in the name of his
book: The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural
Selection…
Natural selection holds that those living things that are
stronger and more suited to the natural conditions of their
habitats will survive in the struggle for life. For example, in
a deer herd under the threat of attack by wild animals,
those that can run faster will survive. Therefore, the deer
herd will be comprised of faster and stronger individuals.
However, unquestionably, this mechanism will not cause
deer to evolve and transform themselves into another living
species, for instance, horses.
Therefore, the mechanism of natural selection has no
evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this fact and
had to state this in his book The Origin of Species:
Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual
differences or variations occur. "
― Harun Yahya , Those Who Exhaust All Their Pleasures In This Life
23
" Some think that money and what it can buy will make
them happy and so concentrate on earning it. But acquiring
a better car, a nicer house, a better position, or more
comfort will never satisfy them, for they are filled with the
desire to have more. For example, some people have a
passion for cars. It is very important that their car is a good
make and the latest model; it has to have good engineering
and a quality music system. They grow very emotionally
attached to their auto and do not want it to have the
slightest dent or scratch. But their satisfaction from driving
a nice car does not last long. Soon a new model comes
out, and theirs becomes an outdated model. It pains them
to read that a faster car with more accessories and more
advanced engineering is now on the market, and in an
instant moment they lose all the pleasure they had in their
once-coveted possession. Also, their wardrobe becomes a
major problem for ignorant people. Some people want to
follow the latest clothing fashions, even though they may
not have enough money to do so. They buy an outfit that
they like and find attractive, but stop liking it when it goes
out of style or they see it on someone they do not like or,
even worse, a rival. The outfit abruptly loses its appeal and
becomes a source of irritation. In much the same way, seeing
someone wearing nicer clothing than theirs makes
them quite miserable. No matter how nice their own outfits
are, they are worried that they are no more than ordinary,
which makes then unhappy. Their habits, social activities,
material means, or possessions will not make them happy,
and their constant search for more will make them even
more miserable. When they realize that they have really
consumed and wasted all of this life’s pleasures, they generally
get “angry at life.” Unwilling to solve their problems
through belief, they remain mired in confusion and unhappiness.
Therefore, in spite of all their efforts, they remain
confused and unhappy. However, if they practiced religious
morality, they would have a joy deeper than they
could imagine. "
― Harun Yahya , Those Who Exhaust All Their Pleasures In This Life
24
" Lamarck’s Impact
So, how could these "favorable variations" occur?
Darwin tried to answer this question from the standpoint of
the primitive understanding of science at that time.
According to the French biologist Chevalier de Lamarck
(1744-1829), who lived before Darwin, living creatures
passed on the traits they acquired during their lifetime to
the next generation. He asserted that these traits, which
accumulated from one generation to another, caused new
species to be formed. For instance, he claimed that
giraffes evolved from antelopes; as they struggled to eat
the leaves of high trees, their necks were extended from
generation to generation.
Darwin also gave similar examples. In his book The
Origin of Species, for instance, he said that some bears
going into water to find food transformed themselves into
whales over time.
However, the laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor
Mendel (1822-84) and verified by the science of genetics,
which flourished in the twentieth century, utterly demolished
the legend that acquired traits were passed on to
subsequent generations. Thus, natural selection fell out of
favor as an evolutionary mechanism. "
― Harun Yahya , Those Who Exhaust All Their Pleasures In This Life
25
" Neo-Darwinism and Mutations
In order to find a solution, Darwinists advanced the
"Modern Synthetic Theory," or as it is more commonly
known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930s. Neo-
Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed
in the genes of living beings due to such external factors
as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable
variations" in addition to natural mutation.
Today, the model that stands for evolution in the world
is Neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living
beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous
complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes,
lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic
disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally
undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living
beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful.
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex
structure, and random effects can only harm it. The
American geneticist B. G. Ranganathan explains this as
follows:
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly,
most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather
than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random
change in a highly ordered system will be for the
worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake
were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building,
there would be a random change in the framework of
the building which, in all probability, would not be an
improvement.
Not surprisingly, no mutation example, which is useful,
that is, which is observed to develop the genetic code, has
been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be
harmful. It was understood that mutation, which is presented
as an "evolutionary mechanism," is actually a
genetic occurrence that harms living things, and leaves
them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on
human beings is cancer.) Of course, a destructive mechanism
cannot be an "evolutionary mechanism." Natural
selection, on the other hand, "can do nothing by itself," as
Darwin also accepted. This fact shows us that there is no
"evolutionary mechanism" in nature. Since no evolutionary
mechanism exists, no such any imaginary process called
"evolution" could have taken place. "
― Harun Yahya , Those Who Exhaust All Their Pleasures In This Life
26
" The Fossil Record: No Sign of Intermediate
Forms
The clearest evidence that the scenario suggested by
the theory of evolution did not take place is the fossil
record.
According to this theory, every living species has
sprung from a predecessor. A previously existing species
turned into something else over time and all species have
come into being in this way. In other words, this transformation
proceeds gradually over millions of years.
Had this been the case, numerous intermediary species
should have existed and lived within this long transformation
period.
For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have
lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in
addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should
have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird
traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had.
Since these would be in a transitional phase, they should
be disabled, defective, crippled living beings. Evolutionists
refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to
have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."
If such animals ever really existed, there should be millions
and even billions of them in number and variety. More
importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should
be present in the fossil record. In The Origin of Species,
Darwin explained:
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties,
linking most closely all of the species of the same group
together must assuredly have existed... Consequently,
evidence of their former existence could be found only
amongst fossil remains. "
― Harun Yahya , Those Who Exhaust All Their Pleasures In This Life
27
" Darwin’s Hopes Shattered
However, although evolutionists have been making
strenuous efforts to find fossils since the middle of the
nineteenth century all over the world, no transitional forms
have yet been uncovered. All of the fossils, contrary to the
evolutionists' expectations, show that life appeared on
Earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.
One famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager,
admits this fact, even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in
detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find
– over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the
sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.
This means that in the fossil record, all living species
suddenly emerge as fully formed, without any intermediate
forms in between. This is just the opposite of Darwin's
assumptions. Also, this is very strong evidence that all living
things are created. The only explanation of a living
species emerging suddenly and complete in every detail
without any evolutionary ancestor is that it was created.
This fact is admitted also by the widely known evolutionist
biologist Douglas Futuyma:
Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible
explanations for the origin of living things.
Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed
or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed
from pre-existing species by some process of modification.
If they did appear in a fully developed state, they
must indeed have been created by some omnipotent
intelligence.
Fossils show that living beings emerged fully developed
and in a perfect state on the Earth. That means that "the
origin of species," contrary to Darwin's supposition, is not
evolution, but creation. "
― Harun Yahya , Those Who Exhaust All Their Pleasures In This Life
28
" The Tale of Human Evolution
The subject most often brought up by advocates of the
theory of evolution is the subject of the origin of man.
The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from ape-like
creatures. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is
supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, some "transitional
forms" between modern man and his ancestors are
supposed to have existed. According to this completely
imaginary scenario, four basic "categories" are listed:
1. Australopithecus
2. Homo habilis
3. Homo erectus
4. Homo sapiens
Evolutionists call man's so-called first ape-like ancestors
Australopithecus, which means "South African ape."
These living beings are actually nothing but an old ape
species that has become extinct.
Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world famous anatomists from England and the USA, namely,
Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, shows
that these apes belonged to an ordinary ape species that
became extinct and bore no resemblance to humans.
Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution
as "homo," that is "man." According to their claim, the living
beings in the Homo series are more developed than
Australopithecus. Evolutionists devise a fanciful evolution
scheme by arranging different fossils of these creatures in
a particular order. This scheme is imaginary because it has
never been proved that there is an evolutionary relation
between these different classes. Ernst Mayr, one of the
twentieth century's most important evolutionists, contends
in his book One Long Argument that "particularly historical
[puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are
extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying
explanation."
By outlining the link chain as Australopithecus > Homo
habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens, evolutionists
imply that each of these species is one another's ancestor.
However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have
revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo
erectus lived at different parts of the world at the same
time.
Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as
Homo erectus have lived up until very modern times.
Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens
(modern man) co-existed in the same region.
This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the
claim that they are ancestors of one another. Stephen Jay
Gould explained this deadlock of the theory of evolution
although he was himself one of the leading advocates of
evolution in the twentieth century:
What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting
lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines,
and H. habilis), none clearly derived from
another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary
trends during their tenure on earth.
Put briefly, the scenario of human evolution, which is
"upheld" with the help of various drawings of some "half
ape, half human" creatures appearing in the media and
course books, that is, frankly, by means of propaganda, is
nothing but a tale with no scientific foundation.
Lord Solly Zuckerman, one of the most famous and
respected scientists in the U.K., who carried out research
on this subject for years and studied Australopithecus fossils
for 15 years, finally concluded, despite being an evolutionist
himself, that there is, in fact, no such family tree
branching out from ape-like creatures to man. "
― Harun Yahya , Those Who Exhaust All Their Pleasures In This Life
29
" If the information coded in DNA were written
down, it would make a giant library consisting of an estimated
900 volumes of encyclopedias consisting of 500
pages each.
A very interesting dilemma emerges at this point: DNA
can replicate itself only with the help of some specialized
proteins (enzymes). However, the synthesis of these
enzymes can be realized only by the information coded in
DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to
exist at the same time for replication. This brings the scenario
that life originated by itself to a deadlock. Prof. Leslie
Orgel, an evolutionist of repute from the University of San
Diego, California, confesses this fact in the September
1994 issue of the Scientific American magazine:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids,
both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously
in the same place at the same time. Yet it also
seems impossible to have one without the other. And so,
at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could
never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.6
No doubt, if it is impossible for life to have originated
from natural causes, then it has to be accepted that life
was "created" in a supernatural way. This fact explicitly
invalidates the theory of evolution, whose main purpose is
to deny creation. "
― Harun Yahya , Those Who Exhaust All Their Pleasures In This Life
