Saturday, 10 January 2015

The Most Progressive Evolutionists




Not everybody realizes that as the crushing scientific evidence against Darwinism and Neo-­Darwinism continues to pile up, opposition to evolution, long considered to be the domain of cranks, is in the last few years being joined by a progressively increasing number of main stream biologists. As Jeremy Rifkin points out in his recent erudite and devastating critique of the evolution myth, eminent biologists and zoologists such as C.H. Waddington, Pierre-Paul Grasse, and Stephen Jay Gould have played their part in exposing evolution for the pseudoscience (the epithet is Grasse’s) that it is.

Prof Goldschmidt and Prof Macbeth make it clear that there is no scientific proof of evolution. This is the truth behind the theory of evolution, which the semiliterate assume to be established science. Some of the pictures given in books by evolutionists are total fabrications. Despite these eliminatory facts, I would like to explain the inside story underlying certain biological phenomena which evolutionists believe support their case, so that no door should be left open to concession in the minds of those reading the verses and their interpretations.

  1. In accordance with their earlier conceptions, evolutionists still classify cells as primitive or evolved. After 1955, however, it was realized that 99% of cellular structure is identical, and that this value is 100% for DNA, the chemical building block. The difference between cells, lies in their mathematical programs. That is, a plant cell is programmed to process Oxygen, while a liver cell is geared to produce bile. Since one cannot speak of computer. programs serving different purposes as being primitive or evolved versions of one another, evolution, i.e. the gradual attainment of perfection, is not a valid statement. Evolutionists should first disabuse themselves as regards the relation between a cell and its mathematical program.
  2. According to the evolutionists, the reason why evolution cannot be observed today is that it takes place very gradually, in million of years. In 1965, however, a new island (Surtsey) was born near Iceland in submarine volcanic upheavals, and hundreds and thousands of insects and plant species emerged there within an interval of a year. It is still not understood how and whence they came.
  3. According to evolutionists, evolution has occurred through mutation, that is, the alternation of genetic traits. This claim is a distortion of the truth in the clearest sense of the term. Mutation is never constructive; it is destructive. In the experiments of Muller, who discovered mutation, there was no gene alteration, but rather, gene destruction. The same is true for all subsequent mutation experiments: traits are not altered, but destroyed. Either cancer or death is the result, or else the impaired trait leads to a weaker organism (like Muller’s green-eyed flies). In spite of the thousands of experiments conducted today, no one has yet obtained a new organism from the mutation of another. In the bone marrow, on the other hand, millions of different cells are produced from a parent cell each second. Surely if there had been any truth in mutation, the phenomenon should have been firmly established by this time.
  4. Evolutionists claim that skeletons linking man and the primates exist. Piltdown Man, the most famous of these, was proven to be a fake by radioactive experiments, and thrown out of the British Museum together with the trash. Furthermore, the brain of a primate weighs l3Og, whereas, that of a human being weighs 1350g. According to evolutionary theories, there should be at least ten intermediate organisms in between. It is inconceivable that none of these have survived. We must ask the evolutionists: since the ape itself still survives in all its varieties, where are these ten types of organism on the road from primate to man?
  5. Evolutionists have gone so far as to declare that the appendix in the human gut is a useless left-over of evolution. The appendix is, however, one of the most active organs in the body, serving as the ‘tonsils’ of the lower abdomen, it secretes intestinal fluid and regulates the types and quantities of intestinal bacteria. There are no useless organs in the body; quite to the contrary, each organ performs several different tasks simultaneously.
  6. The question of the purpose of evolution: evolutionists do not believe in God, yet look for a purpose in evolution. They assume increasing complexities and perfection in the chain from primitive to (in their view) elevated organisms. But to assume such as ascent is both arbitrary and subjective. What is meant by perfection? In terms of decorative colours, for example, the butterfly is at the zenith. In terms of electronic equipment, the bat is unrivalled, with the terrific radar-vision system in its possession. The most developed organism capable of memory retention in terms of brain weight is the dolphin, and the most evolved animal in terms of warfare is the termite, which is smaller than an ant. The weapons used by termites are poisons with a boiling point of 100oC that can kill an organism in their environment. Who, then, has evolved from whom? In terms of chemical warfare, the ape is a more retarded organism than a termite.
  7. Evolutionists contend that organisms are subject to natural selection or to the ‘survival of the fittest’, and give dinosaurs as examples of species that have become extinct. But among the one and a half million species of organisms, those which have become extinct do not reach a hundred. What is really significant here is the fact that organisms have survived under the most difficult circumstances of life for millions of years. I would like to give three outstanding examples of this.
    1. Blind fish: a kind of fish lacking visual apparatus lives at the bottom of the ocean. Fish possessing sonar (sonic radar) systems and fish that ‘see’ by electric fields also live in the same ecological niche. If the evolutionists were correct, the blind fish should have been displaced by the other two. But the three varieties of fish have peacefully coexisted for millions of years.
    2. The blind snake is actually a kind of lizard. Since it lacks appendages, life is especially difficult for this creation; yet it too has survived for millions of years. It neither becomes extinct, nor evolves into a lizard. Where are the principles of the fable called evolution?
    3. A species of Australian Porcupine carries its offspring over its belly like a kangaroo. Why doesn’t it mutate to get rid of the bothersome quills sticking into its stomach and find peace like other porcupines? The reason is that God has willed it that way, and the porcupine is reconciled to life and servanthood. The evolutionist can never understand this mystery, for he is caught in a whirlpool of blind logic.

      There is no such phenomenon, then, as natural selection; God has created all species in his endless exhibition of organisms.

  8. If the notions of evolutionists were correct, a development would have occurred in every organism starting with the amoeba, and single species would have been formed like the links in a chain. That is, one variety of worm, one kind of fish, of insect, and one type of bird should have succeeded the amoeba, or at most several varieties of each. Yet there are more than 300,000 varieties of insects alone. What sort of evolution is this?
  9. In each species of animal, furthermore, all conceivable types of appearance have been displayed. Almost as many species of organisms have been formed as there are possibilities in geometry and biology. Colours of all kinds have painted more than 10,000 patterns on the wings of butterflies. Furthermore, each species has its large and small sizes, such as the lizard and the crocodile, the cat and the lion, or the guinea-pig and the boar. If evolution existed,’ each organism should have developed in one direction only, whereas God has, as it were, created a grand exhibition from the almost infinitely numerous species of organisms.
  10. The impossibility of evolution from the stand point of various sciences has emerged in recent years.
    1. There can be no evolution in physics. Heavier elements cannot be formed by Hydrogen, at least in peaceful terms. For if you try to obtain Helium by combining 2 or 4 Hydrogen atoms, you obtain a thermonuclear bond, and the entire environment is vaporized in a mushroom cloud.
    2. Mathematically, evolution is an impossibility. For a worn to be formed from an amoeba, 39x1020 alternations are needed in its genetic code, which would take 10 trillion years to produce at the rate of one change per second, or about five hundred times the age of the observable universe. The number of alterations in genetic code needed for an ape to evolve into a man amounts to 3xl0520 changes, which is a number so inexpressibly large that even after taking the fourth power of the total number of particles in the universe, we still could not begin to approach it. For further comparison, the total volume of the universe in terms of the diameter of an electron does not exceed 10124. All this shows that evolution is a mathematical impossibility.
    3. Biologically, there can be no evolution. To this day, no one has been able to change even one cistron (a length of DNA that codes for a particular protein) using scientific methods. There is not one example where this genetic change has been achieved in any organism. The reason is that the genes, which embody the code of architecture, are under the protection of a very special system. If there was not, the world would be filled with bizarre creatures overnight. Evolution, therefore, is biologically impossible: as Nilson Heribert states, species are types that do not change and cannot change.

      Professor Max Westenhofer has proved in his study that the phylum of fish, birds, reptiles and mammals have all been merged coevally, and states that Professor Weismann’s Java Man is a travesty of science. Similarly professor Gish has informed the scientific community that the primitive human skeleton known as Nebraska Man is wholly artificial, and that an entire skeleton has been reconstructed on the basis of a single truth.

      We must always bear in mind that evolution is a deliberate deception and forms the basis for preserved beliefs that spell ruin for societies. Those who are interested can consult the following sources for further reading:
      1. Jeremy Ritkin, Algeny Middlesex: Penguin, 1984. 

      2. Paul S.Moorhead and Martin M.Kaplan, eds. Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretations of Evolution, Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press 1967. 

      3. Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Boston: Gambit 1971. 

      4. Duane T.Gish, Evolution: The fossils Say No! San Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1978

      5. John Moore, On Chromosomes, Mutations and Philogeny, Philadelphia, 1971 

      6. Walter J.Bock, Book review of Evolution by Orderly Law, Science, 164 (1969). 

      7. Harold Francis Blum, Time ‘s Arrow and Evolution, Princeton University Press, 1968. 

      8. Nilson N.Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, University of Lund, Sweden 

      9. Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academix Press, 1977. 

      10. David Raup. ‘Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology’Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979.
      The most famous Jewish and Christian scientists do not believe in evolution, but remain spectators in the game of pandemonium. That fact remains that there is no such scientific creature as evolution: It is an imaginary theory and philosophy. In other words, the claims in the name of science about the origin of man are wholly untrue, There is no scientific proof and evidence today that demonstrates the origin of mankind. What, then is the origin of man? We shall answer this question in the light of the Holy Qur’ān.

0 comments :

Find more