İmaginary Mechanisms Of Evolution

MOLLECULAR COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION

DARWINISTS ARE IN MOURNING IN FRANCE

As may be recalled, the year 2007 has been a turning point for France which is insistently protected by the Darwinist dictatorship. This situation had been due to a bombardment – as Darwinists say – that took place in France. The Atlas of Creation made the impact of a bomb in a flash in the French educational institutions. The French Darwinists were shocked by this magnificent work that exposes hundreds of fossils which demolished Darwinism from its base. France, that was made the stronghold of Darwinism for years by the most senior Darwinists and that was systematically deluded by the Darwinist dictatorship, all of a sudden was made to face the scientific truth by means of the Atlas of Creation.

This, certainly, was followed by a great panic on the side of the Darwinists. The Darwinists in the French schools tried to prevent the students from reading the Atlas of Creation. Some Darwinists institutions even argued the necessity to “burn” the Atlas to make its impact go away. Others tried to ban it by way of laws. The European Council acted at once. The Atlas of Creation was being held by one member of the Council. The Luxembourgen politician Anne Brasseur argued that the Atlas of Creation created a great threat for the European schools and that it should be banned. The reason for her arguments was solely that the book had revealed that the theory of evolution was fraud.

At that time we had stated repeatedly that the said ban would bring no good, that the people had discovered the scientific truths and that it was no more a solution for Darwinists to hide these. We had told them that even kept in a dark room, people who would see a glimse of sunshine outside for an instant, would no longer believe that it is dark outdoors. Furthermore, as much as Atlas of Creation is banned in schools, anybody, any student can have access to this impressive piece through the Internet, CAN HAVE A CLOSE LOOK AT EACH OF ITS PAGES, can DOWNLOAD it, can DISTRIBUTE it to the people around him if he wishes so. Therefore, we had told the Darwinists that trying to ban and hide the scientific facts from people is a futile effort and that they can not prevent people from becoming conscious about these facts.

As a matter of fact all these CAME TRUE.

According to a news dated July 6, 2009 that appeared on the joint website of French Nouvel Obs.com and Science et Avenir, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO BELIEVE IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION in French schools. This situation that surprised and, according to the mentioned news, “considerably disturbed” the French Darwinists is a sign of a great awakening in France, the stronghold of Darwinism. In the aforesaid news the comments of various university professors on the subject were asked and they all replied that they have the same results in their own universities. The Darwinist professors described this serious injury of Darwinism to be “critical”, “distressing” and “disgraceful” on behalf of Darwinism. Plainly France and the Darwinist professors in France have regretfully realised that the students will not be deceived by the theory of evolution anymore.

The aforementioned news spoke of the impact of the work of Mr. Adnan Oktar upon this great turn in France. Undoubtedly it is no surprise that such a great change arose after Atlas of Creation entered the houses and schools. A truth that was kept from the people for 150 years was revealed for the first time by means of  the  Atlas of Creation. For the first time in their lives people saw actual fossils in the name of science and witnessed that all of these fossils refuted the theory of evolution and proved Creation. For the first time in their lives they were shown that Darwinism was not supported by a single evidence, that Darwinists deceived the whole world, that they hid the scientific evidence supporting Creation, but that in fact the entire 250 million fossils proved the fact of Creation. For the first time in their lives people made judgments based on their own consciences, by taking into account scientific evidence and without being defrauded. And their judgment is clear: THE FRENCH STUDENTS REFUTE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HENCEFORTH.

As much as protected by the Darwinist dictatorship which is under the control of global freemasonry, a thought system that is based on falsehood, lie, fraud and deceit will surely be destroyed and removed. Our Lord has promised this by this verse from the Qur’an: “Say: ‘Truth has come and falsehood has vanished.” (Surat al-Isra:81). The entire world is now accepting the truth that our Lord created everything with His Almighty Power and rapidly turning towards the Almighty and the Most High Allah. Whatever the Darwinists do, they are unable to prevent this turn.

When Allah’s help and victory have arrived and you have seen people entering Allah’s religion in droves, then glorify your Lord’s praise and ask His forgiveness. He is the Ever-Returning. (Surat an-Nasr: 1-3)

DARWINISTS ARE TERRIFIED AND BAFFLED BY THE WORLD THAT ARISES IN OUR BRAINS

This was again clearly demonstrated on the program Sansursuz (Uncensored), broadcast on 14 August, 2009. The concept that panicked Darwinists was the “world inside our brains:”  

The photon strikes the eye, and an electric signal goes from the eye to the brain. The electric signal departs from the eye and reaches an area the size of a lentil called the sight center. And an image then forms in that lentil-sized area. THERE IS AN EYE that looks at the image that forms there. IT IS “THAT” EYE THAT IS ACTUALLY PERFECT. That eye sees the electricity that reaches it. And with a perception of perfect depth, brightly, vividly, in movement, full color and in three dimensions. Yet that region is pitch black. The places the electric signals arrive at, the sight center, and the interior of the brain are all in darkness. Yet the eye there sees a perfect and crystal clear image, a far better one than that produced by any high-tech television. And it interprets these images in such a way as to feel sorrow, joy, love and liking, or to analyze, remember or learn from them.

There is a miracle going on here. 

Atoms that are unable to see cannot combine together, unconsciously and by chance, to produce a visual system that gives a better image then even the most perfect camera and that provides a sharper and more colorful image than those produced by the most highly advanced three-dimensional cinema or television systems.

Unconscious atoms with no ability to hear anything cannot produce a hearing system, as the result of chance, that is far superior to that of the most advanced stereo system, with perfectly sharp and multi-dimensional sounds indistinguishable from the real thing.

Atoms that cannot smell anything cannot produce a system of smell that detects the perfume of a rose under the influence of chance.  Unconscious atoms with no sense of hot, cold or hardness cannot produce a sense of touch as the result of chance.

Unconscious atoms unaware of their own existence cannot turn by chance into human beings that enjoy music, know the tastes of all kinds of food, have memories, think and feel, that make plans, relive their memories in their minds, enjoy laughter and happy times and possess hundreds of other such characteristics, or even turn into scientists that investigate the structure of the atoms itself.

The eye that sees the bright, mobile and three dimensional world on the outside in the brain IS THE SOUL. The soul is entirely metaphysical and cannot be explained through any material concept. For that reason, materialists, atheists and Darwinists who seek to account for the existence of the soul and everything else in terms of matter are in a state of utter panic. The soul bestowed on man by Almighty Allah totally demolishes Darwinism and every intellectual system espoused by Darwinists. That is why, as on the program in question, Darwinists are unwilling to discuss such issues and immediately try to gloss over them. One expects them to run away from the issue. Because they will always be defeated in the face of the perfection of the eye that sees inside our brains that Allah has created.

MOSAIC EVOLUTION DECEIT

   It claims that every organ in the body evolved at different periods and different stages independently.

-    Using this claim Darwinists say, “we can not see a semi-reptile, semi-bird living being because the evolution takes place on the organs’ level.“

-    That is why they try to show tiny details on perfect living beings as an evidence for evolution. Despite being an utterly lemur fossil, they showed the Ida as a transitional fossil because of its bendable thumb and claimed that it is the so-called ancestor of man.

This claim is invalid for the following reason:

-    In case of Ida: until that lemur reaches its perfect form, each organ needs to evolve. Where are the fossils in which these transitional organs exist?

-    While some organs evolve and others wait for their return, there needs to exist a stage where this living being needs to be a semi-primate and semi-lemur. Where are these stages in the fossil records?

-    Ida needs to go through billions and even trillions of mutations until it takes its perfect form. All of these mutations need to be beneficial. However, 99 percent of mutations are harmful while 1 percent of them are inefficient. It is impossible for so many mutations to come together and organize themselves together to bring about an absolute benefit. 

-    Until the living being takes its perfect form mutations must have added brand new structures to it. However, mutations are not able to add new information to the genetic information of a living being. 

-    Besides accordingly, it is not explained why a gradually developing organ is not eliminated by natural selection during the time it remains functionless.

The claim of mosaic evolution is an extremly pitiable claim produced out of sole desperation. Throughout history Darwinists strived to find various pretexts (such as punctuated equilibrium) for the lack of transitional forms but these pretexts delivered no results other than revealing how a great deadlock Darwinism is in. This is exactly the case with the claim of mosaic evolution today. No matter how they name it, they have to find and bring the transitional forms of the species-to-species transitions they claim. If they fail to do it —which they can’t — they have to stop deceiving people with Darwinist hoaxes and act in accordance with genuine scientific evidence.

ARCHAEOPTERYX IS A PERFECT FLYING BIRD

Science:

”Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because ARCHAEOPTERYX WAS, IN A MODERN SENSE, A BIRD.” (Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws "What Evolutionists Don't Want You To Know", W Publishing Group, 2003, p. 19)

-    It is a mosaic animal with teeth and claws. Two bird species living today, the touraco and the hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto branches. Other toothed-birds are also known to have lived in the same period.

-    The tooth structure of Archæopteryx and other birds with teeth is totally different from that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, had serrated teeth with straight roots.

-    These researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archæopteryx and their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them.

-    They formerly claimed that there was no breast bone under the chest cavity for the muscles needed for flight to attach to. But the seventh Archæopteryx fossil, discovered in 1992, did have a breast bone. This entirely does away with all claims that the animal could not fly.

-    Archeopteryx’s asymmetrical feather structure, identical to that of today’s birds, shows that it was capable of perfect flight.

The geometry of the flight feathers of Archæopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds… According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing of  Archæopteryx are similar to that of birds that move through restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves, woodcocks, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds… The flight feathers have been in stasis for at least 150 million years (Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 280-81) 

-    Archaeopteryx's ear structure: A. D. Walker studied the ear structure of Archaeopteryx and stated that it was the same as that in present-day birds

-    Archaeopteryx's wings: J. Richard Hinchcliffe of the University of Wales Biological Sciences Department used modern isotopic techniques in his study of embryos and established that the three dinosaur digits on the forelimbs are I-II-III, whereas bird wing digits are II-III-IV. This is a major difficulty for the proponents of the so-called Archaeopteryx-dinosaur link.  Hinchcliffe's research and observations were carried in the famous magazine Science in 1977

-    The Theropod dinosaurs suggested as the ancestors of Archaeopteryx are actually younger than it.

-    Most important of all, IS THE EXISTENCE OF PERFECT FLYING BIRDS THAT LIVED IN THE SAME PERIOD AS ARCHÆOPTERYX. The 140-million-year LIAONINGORNIS and the 120-million year CONFUCIUSORNIS.

WHAT DARWINISTS SAID, WHAT HAPPENED THEN

Darwinists come up with a sensational claim to deceive public, and when it comes out that it is fake, they remain utterly silent about it and seek another hoax. Here are some of the sensations and confessions of forgery in Darwinists’ own words: 

Piltdown Man: 

What They Said:

During his visit to British Museum in 1935, H. F. Osborn, the renown American paleoantropologist, said: " …Nature is full of paradoxes…[this is] a discovery of transcendant importance to the prehistory of " (Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly", New Scientist, April 5, 1979, p. 44.)

What Happened:

Le Gros Clark, a member of the crew who unveiled the hoax said:  " The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked-how was it that they had escaped notice before?" (Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly", New Scientist, April 5, 1979, p. 44.)

F. Clark Howell “Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an ape’s jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape’s or the skull to be a human’s. Instead, they declared each part as [from] an in-between [species] of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or “Dawson’s Dawn Man”), and wrote some 500 books on it. The “discovery” fooled paleontologists for forty-five years.” (Howell, F. Clark, Early Man, NY: Time Life Books, 1973, p.24-25)

Nebraska Man: 

What They Said: 

“Nebraska's Ape man of the western world,” (The New York Times, Sept. 17, sect. 7, p. 1, 1924)

What Happened: 

Nebraska ape tooth proved a wild pig's. (The New York Times, Feb. 20, p. 1)

"Hesperopithecus (The Nebraska Man) dethroned"  (The Times (London), Feb. 21, p. 16)

Coelacanth: 

What They Said:

Darwinists said it was an extinct transitional form from sea to land with lungs and feet that were about to form.

What Happened: 

“With the discovery of Latimeria (Coelacanth), it was hoped that direct information regarding transition from fish to amphibians could be gathered... However examinations carried out on Latimeria’s anatomy and physiology revealed that this presumption of relation consisted only of a wishful thinking and that depiction of Coelacanth as a “lost ring” had no basis at all.

Lucy: 

What They Said: 

Darwinist Berhane Asfaw from California University said: “We just found the chain of evolution, the continuity through time.”

“One form evolved to another. This is evidence of evolution in one place through time.”

What Happened: 

On May 1999 Science et Vie put Lucy on its cover. The following quotation is from the article, "Adieu Lucy": “…that apes of the species Australopithecus did not represent the origin of man.”

Albert W. Mehlert (evolutionist and paleoanthropology researcher:): “The evidence given above makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The “evidence” for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing.”

Ida: 

What They Said:

Science Daily: “extraordinary”.

Sky News: “eighth wonder of the world”

Darwinist David Attenborough: “The link they would have said until now is missing ... it is no longer missing.”

What Happened:

Darwinist Elwyn Simons from Duke University:

“It’s absurd and dangerous.” “This is all bad science... Darwinius is a wonderful fossil, but IT IS NOT A MISSING LINK OF ANY KIND. IT REPRESENTS A DEAD END IN EVOLUTION.”

Haeckel’s embryo drawings: 

What They Said: 

Haeckel: Being evolved from its ancestors’ long and slow paleontological developments, during its rapid evolution an individual repeats the most important changes in terms of shape.

What Happened: 

Haeckel’s confession of his own forgery: “After this compromising confession of "forgery" I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow-culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of "forgery," for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New York: Ticknor and Fields 1982, p.204) 

Horse Series: 

What They Said: 

Darwinist Bruce J. McFadden said horse fossils have been beneficial in understanding evolution.

Darwinist W. D. Matthew said the geological record of horse’s relatives is one of the classical examples of evolution. (W. D. Matthew The Evolution of the Horse: A Record and Its Interpretation”, The Quarterly Review of Biology, 1(2):139-185.)

What Happened: 

Evolutionist Boyce Rensberger: The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.

Evolutionist paleontologist Dr. Colin Patterson (one of the executives of the British Natural History Museum): There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff

Archaeopteryx: 

What They Said: 

Pat Shipman: [Archaeopteryx] more than the world’s most beautiful fossil…it is] an icon- a holy relic of the past that has become a powerful symbol of the evolutionary process itself. (Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution)

What Happened: 

Science: “Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in a modern sense, a bird.”  (Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws "What Evolutionists Don't Want You To Know", W Publishing Group, 2003 p. 19)

Industrial Melanism

What They Said: 

Michael E. N. Majerus: “the most famous example of evolution in action...”

What Happened: 

A quotation from the Daily Telegraph in 1999: “Evolution experts are quietly admitting that one of their most cherished examples of Darwin's theory, the rise and fall of the peppered moth, is based on a series of scientific blunders.”

Homo Floresiensis (Flores Man – Hobbit):

What They Said: 

BBC: Australian archaeologists unearthed the bones while digging at a site called Liang Bua, one of numerous limestone caves on Flores. The remains of the partial skeleton were found at a depth of 5.9m (19ft). 

The bones unearthed by Australian scientists in the Liang Bua province excavations opens a new era in the history of archaeology. The examinations made on tooth, coccyx and skull revealed that the living being was no different than human beings and walked upright. This new living being (Homo floresiensis) was named after the island (Flores island) where the skeleton was found.

What Happened: 

It came out that these remains belonged to deformed individuals of Homo sapiens.

Neanderthals:

What They Said: 

Darwinists claimed that Neanderthals were a more primitive human race.

What Happened: 

Erik Trinkaus: “Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.” (Erik Trinkaus, "Hard Times Among the Neanderthals," Natural History, vol. 87, December 1978, p. 10; R. L. Holloway, "The Neanderthal Brain: What Was Primitive," American Journal of Physical Anthropology Supplement, vol. 12, 1991, p. 94. )

“What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory.” (Tony Paterson, “Neanderthal Man ‘never walked in northern Europe”, 22 August 2004)

Dino-bird (Archeaoraptor) 

What They Said: 

Christopher P. Sloan, a National Geographic writer said: "We can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals."

What Happened: 

Alan Feduccia: Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it's difficult to tell which ones are fake and which ones are not. I have heard there is a fake-fossil factory in northeast China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feather dinosaurs were found.  Journals like Nature don't require specimens to be authenticated, and the specimens immediately end up back in China, so nobody can examine them. (Discover, February, 2003)

Junk DNA 

What They Said:

Prof. Beyazıt Çırakoğlu: "It is thought that these DNA sequences are no-longer-used junk DNA sequences.”

What Happened:

Evan Eichler, an evolutionist scientist from Washington University " The term ‘junk DNA’ is a reflection of our ignorance."

DARWINISTS COULD NOT SPECULATE ON THE PLATYPUS:

• The platypus is a mosaic life form. In other words, it has characteristics belonging to more than one species.
• Although it is a mammal, it lays eggs. It is covered in fur, has milk glands and suckles its young.
• Its mouth resembles a bird beak and, again like birds, it has webbed feet.
• It has venom and leaves its eggs to hatch in a burrow, like reptiles.
• Fossil remains of the creature dating back to the age of the dinosaurs have been found (208-146 million years ago). And it has never changed over the intervening years.
• Tiktaalik is also a mosaic life form, like the platypus, and all its characteristics show it to be a perfect life form. The only difference between it and the platypus is that Tiktaalik is extinct and thus liable for use as a tool for Darwinist speculation.
• If the platypus were also extinct and if its remains had been discovered by Darwinists, then in all probability it would have been heralded as a prominent intermediate form, just like Tiktaalik.
• The fact is, however, that the platypus IS A FULLY FORMED AND FLAWLESS LIFE FORM that is still alive today and HAS NEVER CHANGED AT ALL OVER THE LAST 200 MILLION YEARS. 

OBSTACLES TO TRANSITION FROM WATER TO LAND

1- Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea. However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40 percent of their energy just in carrying their bodies around. The fish’s bones are not linked to the backbone. Therefore they can’t take on a load-bearing function. Land-dwelling creatures' bones, in contrast, are directly connected to the backbone. For this reason, the claim that these fins slowly developed into feet is unfounded.

 2- Heat retention: Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand great temperature changes. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.

 3- Water: Essential to metabolism, water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something that sea-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.

 4- Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment: In freshwater fish, most of the nitrogenous wastes (including large amounts of ammonia, NH3) leave by diffusion out of the gills. The kidney is mostly a device for maintaining water balance in the animal, rather than an organ of excretion. Therefore, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

 5- Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.

-    The Impasse of transition from Land to Air 

-    There are various structural differences between birds and reptiles, one of which concerns bone structure. Due to their bulky natures, dinosaurs-the ancestors of birds according to evolutionists-had thick, solid bones. Birds, in contrast, whether living or extinct, have hollow bones that are very light, as they must be in order for flight to take place. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal kingdom. Birds, on the other hand, are at the opposite end of the metabolic spectrum. For instance, the body temperature of a sparrow can rise to as much as 48°C due to its fast metabolism. On the other hand, reptiles lack the ability to regulate their body temperature. Instead, they expose their bodies to sunlight in order to warm up. Put simply, reptiles consume the least energy of all animals and birds the most. In land-dwelling creatures, air flow is bidirectional. Upon inhaling, the air travels through the passages in the lungs (bronchial tubes), ending in tiny air sacs (alveoli). The exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place here. Then, upon exhaling, this used air makes its way back and finds its way out of the lung by the same route.eptiles have a diaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal air sac system instead of a diaphragm.

John Ruben, an acknowledged authority in the field of respiratory physiology, observes in the following passage:The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage.

Reptile bodies are covered with scales, and those of birds with feathers. The hypothesis that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionary paleontologist Barbara Stahl admits: How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition.

Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, he states:

To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.

-    The Impasse of Evolution of Reptile to Mammal 

-    Mammals are warm-blooded animals (this means they can generate their own heat and maintain it at a steady level), they give live birth, they suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in fur or hair. Reptiles, on the other hand, are cold-blooded (i.e., they cannot generate heat, and their body temperature changes according to the external temperature), they lay eggs, they do not suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in scales.Mammal jaws consist of only one mandibular bone containing the teeth. In reptiles, there are three little bones on both sides of the mandible. 

-    All mammals have three bones in their middle ear (hammer, anvil, and stirrup). Reptiles have but a single bone in the middle ear. Furthermore, when mammals suddenly made their appearance, they were already very different from each other. Such dissimilar animals as bats, horses, mice, and whales are all mammals, and they all emerged during the same geological period. Establishing an evolutionary relationship among them is impossible even by the broadest stretch of the imagination. The evolutionist zoologist R. Eric Lombard makes this point in an article that appeared in the leading journal Evolution:

-    Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.

Roger Lewin, 

"The transition to the first mammal, ... is still an enigma."

THE CLAIM THAT 'NEANDERTHALS ARE THE APE-LIKE ANCESTORS OF MAN' IS FRAUDULENT

Darwinists employed the same technique they used with Australopithecus for the Neanderthals, an extinct human race.

Neanderthal Man entered the scientific literature with the discovery in 1856 of fossils in the Neander Valley near the German city of Düsseldorf. The curvatures in its skull and bones led it being regarded by evolutionists as a supposed primitive human species.

In 1908 an almost complete skeleton described as belonging to Neanderthal Man was found in the French region of La Chapelle-aux-Saints. The bones re re-assembled by the famous paleontologist and geologist of the time Marcellin Boule.

The Neanderthal Man that emerged from this re-assembly had a stooped posture and a protruding skull. Its legs were also locked at the joints, meaning it lacked a fully upright posture.

Thanks to this appearance, the impression formed in people’s minds that Neanderthal Man was a primitive being. Neanderthals were also depicted as ape-men in fictitious illustrations.

This false impression of the Neanderthals lasted for 100 years. But analysis of the La Chapelle skeleton in the 1950s determined that the Neanderthal to whom it belonged had a kind of joint infection. Healthy individuals were in fact able to walk just like normal human beings.

In 1985 the same skeleton was examined by the anthropologist Erik Trinkhaus. That examination confirmed that Neanderthals walked upright and revealed another fact that had hitherto remained hidden:  Marcellin Boule had deliberately portrayed Neanderthal as being stooped. 1 The joint disorder identified in the 1950s was no obstacle to the individual walking upright. It appeared that the Darwinist Boule was unwilling to admit that the Neanderthal walked like a normal human being. 

E. Trinkaus and W. W. Howells made the following statement in Scientific American magazine:

Today most scientists agree that Neanderthal Man stood fully upright and that in the absence of disease, its features are no different than modern humans. 2

Meanwhile, the size of the Neanderthal skull also forced evolutionists into inconsistency.  The reason was that Neanderthals had a skull volume of around 1700 cc. This is 200cc more of the volume of today’s human beings’. The fact that Neanderthals, supposedly a “primitive” species, had a greater brain volume than Homo sapiens represented a huge contradiction for the theory of evolution. 

The Neanderthal expert Erik Trinkhaus admits:

Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans. 3

There is no doubt that because the Neanderthals were a human race they possessed the same features as modern races. Neanderthal Man was a talented maker of tools and a skilled hunter. He even engaged in music and art. They had a cultural and social structure, just like societies today, and had religious beliefs. 4 The civilization established by the Neanderthals was therefore no different to present-day civilizations.

Something else about the Neanderthals that represent an insuperable dilemma for Darwinists is the problem of dating. Fossils discovered show that Neanderthals were living at the same time as modern human beings and that in some circumstances THEY WERE EVEN LIVING AFTERWARDS. Evolutionist biologist Francisco J. Ayala from the University of California admits:

A few years ago, they [Neandertals] were thought to be ancestral to anatomically modern humans, but now we know that modern humans appeared at least 100,000 years ago, much before the disappearance of the Neandertals. Moreover, in caves in the Middle East, fossils of modern humans have been found dated 120,000-100,000 years ago, as well as Neandertals dated at 60,000 and 70,000 years ago, followed again by modern humans dated at 40,000 years ago. It is unclear whether the two forms repeatedly replaced one another by migration from other regions, or whether they coexisted in some areas. 5

The Neanderthals, tried to offered as a so-called ape-like ancestor of man are therefore actually an extinct human race. In the same way that modern-day humans possess different features unique to their own races, so the Neanderthals also had their own unique characteristics. It is a huge fraud to use these as evidence for evolution. Indeed, the Neanderthal man fossil was removed from the scientific literature in 1978. But the Neanderthals still appear in Darwinist references as if they represented great evidence of evolution.

The aim behind the speculations about Neanderthal Man that is still going on in some evolutionist publications is to influence and mislead people who are ignorant of the true facts about the Neanderthals and who are unaware that they were a transitional form that has been scientifically discredited. It is therefore of the greatest importance is to raise the true facts about Australopithecus and the Neanderthals and to put an end to Darwinist deception. 

_____________

1 Trinkhaus, Erik (1985) Pathology and the posture of the La Chappelle-aux-Saints Neanderthal. American Journal of Physical Anthropology Vol. 67 sf. 19-41.

1 E. Trunkaus - W. W. Howells, Scientific American, 241(6):118 (1979) - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 195

3 Erik Trinkaus, "Hard Times Among the Neanderthals", Natural History, cilt 87, Aralik 1978, s. 10.

4 Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 194

5 Francisco J. Ayala, Darwin and Intelligent Design, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2006, s.45

'PILTDOWN MAN' WAS A HOAX

In 1912, Charles Dawson, a well-known doctor and also an amateur paleontologist, claimed to have found a jaw bone and skull fragment in a depression near Piltdown, England.  Although the jaw bone resembled an ape jaw, the teeth and skull resembled those of human beings. The fossils were given the name “Piltdown Man,” dated at 500,000 years and were put on display in the British Museum as the most significant evidence of so-called human evolution. A great many scientific papers, analyses and illustrations were produced over the next 40 years. Some 500 academics from different universities wrote doctoral theses about Piltdown Man. 1

On a visit to the British Museum in 1935, the well-known American paleoanthropologist H. F. Osborn said, " . . . Nature is full of paradoxes . . . a discovery of transcendent importance to the prehistory of man." ". . Nature is full of paradoxes . . . a discovery of transcendent importance to the prehistory of man." 2  

But Piltdown Man was A HUGE FRAUD, a deliberately manufactured HOAX.

In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the British Museum Paleontology Department sought permission to use the newly developed “fluoride test” on a number of ancient fossils. The Piltdown Man fossil was duly tested using the technique. The test revealed that there was no fluoride in the Piltdown Man jaw bone. This meant that the jaw bone had been underground FOR NO MORE THAN A FEW YEARS.  The skull contained a small amount of fluoride and must have been a few thousand years old.

Subsequent chronological research based on the fluoride technique revealed that the skull was no more than a few thousand years in age. It was also realized that the teeth in the jaw bone HAD BEEN ARTIFICIALLY WORN DOWN and that the primitive tools found beside the fossils were REPLICAS carved using steel equipment. 3

An Oxford professor of physical anthropology Joseph Weiner’s detailed analyses definitively confirmed this fraud in 1953. The skull was human, around 500 years old, while the jaw bone belonged to a newly dead orang utan!  The teeth had been added on and set out afterwards to give the impression of being human, and the insertion points had been planed down. All the fragments had then been stained with potassium dichromate in order to give an aged appearance. This staining disappeared when the bones were placed in acid. Le Gros Clark, from the team that exposed the hoax, was unable to conceal his amazement and said:

"The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked-how was it that they had escaped notice before?" ⁴ 

The science writer Hank Hanegraaff referred to this astonishing state of affairs as follows: As Marvin Lubenov explains, “The file marks on the orangutan teeth of the lower jaw were clearly visible. The molars were misaligned and filed at two different angles. The canine tooth had been filed down so far that the pulp cavity had been exposed and then plugged.” 5

The evolutionist biologist Keith Steward Thomson made this comment about the Piltdown Man lie, “The Piltdown man forgery of 1912 was one of most successful and wicked of all scientific frauds.” 6 

Following this surprising and, for Darwinists, embarrassing discovery, Piltdown Man was hastily removed from the British Museum where it had been on display for some 40 years. The Darwinist deception was so enormous that a hand-made fossil had fooled the whole scientific world and all mankind for 40 years.  This would inevitably go down as one of the blackest marks in the history of evolution. Professor of Anthropology Pat Shipman described the impact of this fraud:

“The Piltdown fossils, whose discovery was first announced in 1912, fooled many of the greatest minds in paleoanthropology until 1953, when the remains were revealed as planted, altered – a forgery.” 7

The journalist, writer and philosopher Malcolm Muggeridge described the position that Darwinism, propped up by hoaxes such as Piltdown Man, had placed all humanity in as follows:  “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsly and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”⁸ 

The Piltdown hoax, committed, at least in the perpetrators’ eyes, in order to eliminate belief in Creation and to convince people of the lie that human beings came into existence spontaneously and with no responsibilities, is actually a stratagem of the antichrist.  But Allah’s glorious creation and matchless works are so apparent and manifest that with today’s science there is nowhere they cannot be seen. These empty endeavors across the world on the part of the antichrist just humiliate him and his followers and clearly reveal the failure of the Darwinism lie. Allah, our Almighty Lord, tells us in verses how He created human beings and makes this sublime creation absolutely clear:

He Who has created all things in the best possible way. He commenced the creation of man from clay; then produced his seed from an extract of base fluid; then formed him and breathed His Spirit into him and gave you hearing, sight and hearts. What little thanks you show! (Surat as-Sajda, 7-9)

_____________________

1 Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59.

2 Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly", New Scientist, April 5, 1979, p. 44.

3 Kenneth Oakley, William Le Gros Clark & J. S, "Piltdown", Meydan Larousse, Vol. 10, p. 133.

4 Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly", New Scientist, April 5, 1979, p. 44

5 Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws "What Evolutionists Don't Want You To Know", W Publishing Group, 2003 p. 34

6 Keith Steward Thomson, "Piltdown Man: The Great English Mystery Story", American Scientist, vol. 79, 1991, p. 194 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 197

7 Pat Shipman, "On the Trail of the Piltdown Freudsters" New Scientist, vol. 128, 1990, p. 52 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 197

8 Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 253-254

RASTGELE MUTASYONLAR CANLILIĞI YOK EDER, BİRBİRİYLE UYUMLU ORGANLAR MEYDANA GETİREMEZLER

Darwinistler, canlıların tesadüfi mutasyonlar sonucu evrimleştiklerini ve kör ve şuursuz mutasyonların şu an yeryüzünde gördüğümüz muhteşem canlı çeşitliliğini meydana getirdiğini iddia ederler.

Bu iddia ciddi bir mantık hezimetidir.

Mutasyonlar, canlı hücresinin çekirdeğinde bulunan ve genetik bilgiyi taşıyan DNA molekülünde, radyasyon veya kimyasal etkiler sonucunda meydana gelen kopmalar, bozulmalar ve yer değiştirmelerdir. MUTASYONLAR %99 ORANINDA ORGANİZMAYA ZARAR VERİRLER. %1 oranında etkisizdirler. Herhangi bir organizmaya FAYDA SAĞLAMIŞ HERHANGİ BİR MUTASYON TESPİT EDİLMEMİŞTİR. Dahası,

• Darwinistlerin iddiasına göre, mutasyon, vücudun her yerinde orantılı ve birbirine uyumlu değişiklikler yapmak zorundadır.
• Örneğin evrimcilerin iddiasına göre rastgele mutasyonlarla sağ tarafta iddia ettikleri şekilde kulak oluştuysa, sol tarafta da rastgele mutasyonların aynı simetride aynı şekilde duyan, aynı özelliklere sahip ikinci bir kulağın oluşturması gerekir. Örs, çekiç, üzengi her birinin aynı şekilde mükemmel olarak eşit şekilde meydana gelmesi gerekir.
• Rastgele mutasyonların kalp kapakçıklarını iki tarafta da aynı şekilde oluşturması gerekir. Darwinistlerin iddiasına göre mutlaka mutasyonların bütün kapakçıkları, kulakçıkları eşit uyumda, hatasız, tam yerli yerinde ve aynı anda meydana getirmesi gerekir. Vücudun her bir organında bunun bu şekilde olması gerekir.
• Yoksa büyük çelişkiler olur, bir kulağı ters, bir dişi farklı, tek gözü alnında tek gözü burunda garip yapıların meydana gelmesi gerekir. Canlılıkta böyle bir dengesizlik olmadığına göre, Darwinistlerin iddiasına göre mutasyonların her şeyi simetrik ve uyumlu şekilde meydana getirmesi geremektedir.
• Fakat % 99’u zararlı, %1’i etkisiz mutasyonların faydalı olması; akılcı, uyumlu, simetrik, organları aynı anda meydana getirebilmeleri imkansızdır.
• Mutasyonlar düzgün bir yapıya adeta makinalı tüfekle ateş etmek gibidir. Sağlam bir şeyin üzerine ateş açılması o yapıyı tamamen ortadan kaldırır. Tek bir tanesinin etkisiz kalması veya vücuttaki mevcut bir enfeksiyonu yakarak iyileştirmesi bir şeyi değiştirmemektedir. Organizma zaten kendisine isabet eden 99 mermi ile yerle bir olmuştur.

ORGANLARIN BİRBİRİNE BENZEMESİ EVRİM DELİLİ OLAMAZ

14 Ağustos 2009 tarihinde Sansürsüz programında, Ergi Deniz Özsoy’un yanılgılarından biri de, farklı canlılardaki organ benzerlikleri ile ilgilidir. Özsoy’un “organlar farklı zamanlarda değişime uğrar. Farklı organlardaki benzeşimden yola çıkarak evrimsel bir bağ kurarız” sözleriyle ifade ettiği Darwinist yanılgı, akla ve mantığa uygun olmayan bir düşünce sistemi örneğidir.

Öncelikle, organlar yaratıldıkları sistemin içinde ancak eksiksiz ve kusursuz işlediklerinde faydalı olabilirler. Eksik, hatalı ve hasta organlar, içinde bulundukları sistemde sorun oluşturur, hatta canlının ölümüne varan hasarlara sebep olurlar. Bu nedenle, bir organın hiç yoktan yavaş yavaş gelişmesi asla söz konusu olamaz. Çünkü canlı organizmalar çok komplekstirler ve sistemlerindeki her parçanın ayrı ayrı mükemmel işlemesi şarttır.

E. Deniz Özsoy’un, organlardaki benzeşimden yola çıkarak evrimsel bağ kurulması konusundaki iddiası ise, hiçbir somut mantığa dayanmaz. Evrimciler farklı canlılardaki benzer görünümlü (homolog) organları öne sürerek, bu canlıların ortak bir atadan geldiklerini savunurlar. Farklı canlı türleri arasındaki yapısal benzerlikler biyolojide "homoloji" olarak adlandırılır. Fakat EVRİMCİLERİN HOMOLOJİ İLE İLGİLİ İDDİALARININ CİDDİYE ALINABİLMESİ ÖNCELİKLE İÇİN BENZER ORGANLARIN, BENZER DNA ŞİFRELERİ TARAFINDAN KODLANMIŞ OLMASI GEREKİR. OYSA BU BENZER ORGANLAR, ÇOĞUNLUKLA ÇOK FARKLI GENETİK KODLAR TARAFINDAN BELİRLENMEKTEDİR, farklı canlıların DNA'larındaki benzer genetik kodlar da, çok farklı organlara karşılık gelmektedirler.

Söz konusu iddianın ciddi sayılabilmesi için ayrıca bu benzer yapıların embriyolojik gelişim süreçlerinin, yani yumurtadaki ya da anne karnındaki gelişim aşamalarının da birbirlerine paralel olması gerekir. Oysa benzer organlar için bu embriyolojik süreç her canlıda birbirinden farklıdır.

Bir kurbağanın ön ayaklarında parmak vardır, insan elinde de parmak vardır, demek ki insanın atası kurbağadır veya sineklerin de kuşlarında kanatları vardır, demek ki bu iki hayvan evrimsel olarak bağlantılıdır mantığı tamamen mantık dışıdır. Bu Darwinist mantık şuna benzer; bir termit yuvası da bir gökdelen de bulundukları ortamda yüksek yapılardır, katlardan oluşurlar, havalandırma sistemleri vardır. Her ikisinde de odalar mevcuttur ve her ikisinin de kullanım amacı barınmak ve dış şartlardan korunmaktır. Her ikisinde de çok sayıda birey barınabilir. Demek ki termit yuvası ile bir gökdelen evrimsel olarak bağlantılıdır.

Konuyla ilgili olarak Avustralyalı biyokimya profesörü Michael Denton, homolojinin evrimci yorumunun genetik açmazını şöyle belirtmektedir:

Homolojinin evrimci temeli, belki de en ciddi olarak, görünürde benzer olan yapıların, farklı türlerde bütünüyle farklı genler tarafından belirlendiği anlaşıldığında çökmüştür. Moleküler düzeyde, her canlı sınıfı özgün, farklı ve diğerleriyle bağlantısızdır. Dolayısıyla moleküller, aynı fosiller gibi, evrimci biyoloji tarafından uzun zamandır aranan teorik ara geçişlerin olmadığını göstermiştir...¹

Moleküler düzeyde hiçbir organizma bir diğerinin "atası" değildir, diğerinden daha "ilkel" ya da "gelişmiş" de değildir... Eğer bu moleküler kanıtlar bundan bir asır önce var olsaydı... organik evrim düşüncesi hiçbir zaman kabul görmeyebilirdi.²

İşte Darwinistlerin homoloji yanılgısı, yani farklı canlılardaki benzer organın evrimsel bir bağlantıya işaret ettiği tezi tamamen yanlıştır. Ayrıca Darwinistlerin sadece organlar düzeyinde değil, moleküler düzeyde öne sürdükleri homoloji iddiası da geçersizdir. Evrimciler, farklı canlı türlerinin DNA şifrelerinin ya da protein yapılarının benzer olduğundan söz ederler ve bunu, bu canlı türlerinin birbirlerinden evrimleştiklerinin delili olarak yorumlarlar.

Canlıların temel yaşamsal işlevleri birbiriyle aynıdır ve insan da canlı bir bedene sahip olduğuna göre, diğer canlılardan farklı bir DNA yapısına sahip olması beklenemez. İnsan da diğer canlılar gibi proteinlerle beslenerek gelişir, onun da vücudunda kan dolaşır, hücrelerinde her an enerji üretilir. Darwinistler, eğer sözde ortak atadan evrimleşme teorisini delillendirmek istiyorlarsa, birbirinin atası olduğu iddia edilen canlıların moleküler yapılarında da bir ata-torun ilişkisi olduğunu göstermek zorundadırlar. EVRİMCİ TEZE GÖRE CANLILARIN KOMPLEKSLİKLERİNDE KADEMELİ BİR ARTIŞ YAŞANMIŞ OLMALI, BUNA PARALEL OLARAK DA GENETİK BİLGİLERİNİ OLUŞTURAN KROMOZOMLARININ SAYISININ KADEMELİ OLARAK ARTMASI BEKLENMELİDİR. FAKAT ELDE EDİLEN VERİLER BU TEZİN TAMAMEN HAYAL ÜRÜNÜ OLDUĞUNU GÖSTERMEKTEDİR. Örneğin, domatesin 24 kromozomu varken, çok daha kompleks bir organizmaya ve sistemlere sahip olan Copepode yengecinin sadece 6 kromozomu vardır. Ya da, tek hücreli bir canlı olan Euglena'da 45 kromozom bulunurken, Amerika'da yaşayan büyük bir timsah türü olan Alligatörde 32 kromozom bulunur. Bununla birlikte mikroskobik bir canlı olan Radiolaria'da 800'den fazla kromozom vardır. Evrimin ünlü teorisyenlerinden Rus bilim adamı Dobzhansky, canlılar ve DNA'ları arasındaki bu kuralsız ilişkinin evrimin açıklayamadığı büyük bir sorun olduğunu şöyle ifade etmektedir:

Daha kompleks organizmaların genelde basit olanlara göre hücrelerinde daha fazla DNA'ları vardır. Fakat bu kuralın dikkat çeken istisnaları vardır. Amphiuma (amfibiyen), Propterus (bir akciğerli balık) ve hatta sıradan kurbağalar ve kara kurbağaları tarafından geçilen insan ise, liste başı olmaktan çok uzaktır. Neden bu durum bu kadar uzun zamandır bir bilmece olarak kaldı?³

Sonuç olarak, canlılarda benzer organların varolması, aralarında evrimsel bağlantı olduğuna işaret etmez. Her canlı Allah tarafından yaratılmıştır.

1. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London, Burnett Books, 1985, s.145
2. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London, Burnett Books, 1985, s.290-291
3. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics of the Evolutionary Process, Columbia University Press, New York & London, 1970, ss.17-18.

VİRÜSLER EVRİM GEÇİRMEZ, SAHTE EVRİMİN KANITI DEĞİLDİRLER

14 Ağustos 2009 tarihinde yayınlanan Sansürsüz programında, virüslerin mutasyon geçirmesinin, canlıların evrimle meydana gelemesine delil olduğu yanılgısı gündeme gelmiştir. Katılımcılardan Ender Helvacıoğlu, domuz gribi ve kuş gribi gibi hastalıkların virüslerinin, kendi kendine oluştuğu iddiasına değinmiştir.

Virüsler, bilinen canlı hücrelerinden farklı organizmalardır ve hayatta kalabilmek için mutlaka bir canlı hücresine ihtiyaç duyarlar. Virüsler, organelleri olmayan protein kılıflarından ibarettirler. Virüslerde de DNA ve RNA yapıları mevcuttur ve bu yapılarda zaman zaman mutasyonlar meydana gelir. Virüslerde meydana gelen mutasyonların, diğer canlı hücrelerinde meydana gelen mutasyonlardan farkı, virüslerde meydana gelen mutasyonların çoğunun virüslere bir zarar vermemesidir. Çünkü virüsler, tek başına fonksiyonel bir özelliğe sahip değildirler, işlev gösterebilmeleri için mutlaka bir başka hücreye yerleşip onun imkanlarından faydalanmaları gerekmektedir. Fakat diğer organizmalar için durum farklıdır. Örneğin aynı mutasyonların meydana geldiği bir bakteri hücresi derhal hastalanacak ve ölecektir.

Darwinistler, virüslerde meydana gelen mutasyonları, kendi teorilerine delil göstermeye çabalamaktadırlar. Bunun için tek dayanak noktaları söz konusu mutasyonların virüse zarar vermemesidir. Oysa mutasyonlar ne kadar fazla gerçekleşirse gerçekleşsin, virüsler hiçbir şekilde bir başka canlıya dönüşmemektedirler. Meydana gelen mutasyonlar sonucunda milyonlarca yıldır hiçbir virüste yavaş yavaş organeller oluşmaya başlamamıştır, virüs bir prokaryot hücreye dönüşmemiştir. Virüsler tarih boyunca içinde DNA barındıran protein kılıfları olarak kalmışlardır. Çünkü MUTASYONLAR DNA YAPISINA YENİ BİRŞEY EKLEYEMEZ VE CANLIYA YENİ ÖZELLİKLER KAZANDIRAMAZLAR. Ayrıca virüslerde meydana gelen mutasyonlar, yalnızca belirli bir genetik ortalamanın etrafında dönüp dolaşan kalıtsal dalgalanmalardan ibarettir.

Virüslerle ilgili, programda bahsedilen diğer konu ise, domuz gribi gibi virüs kaynaklı hastalıkların kendiliğinden oluştuğu yanılgısıdır. Domuz gribine yol açan ve insanlara da bulaşabilen A/H1N1 virüsü, kuş gribi, insan gribi ve domuz gribi virüslerinin birleşimiyle oluşmuş bir virüstür. Bu virüsün oluşabilmesi için çok önemli bir şart vardır. A/H1N1 virüsü, ancak domuzların solunum yollarındaki reseptörlerde oluşabilir. Yani domuzların solunum yollarındaki özel reseptörler olmadan, doğada bu virüs kendi kendine oluşamaz. Dolayısıyla Ender Helvacıoğlu’nun bu konuda vermiş olduğu bilgi hatalıdır. Ayrıca A/H1N1 virüsünün bu reseptörlerde oluşması için, yukarıda da saydığımız 3 virüsün yani kuş gribi, domuz gribi ve insan gribi virüslerinin zaten mükemmel şekilde var olmaları gerekir. Dolayısıyla burada hiç yoktan kendi kendine meydana gelen bir yapı yoktur.

Yüce Allah her canlıyı mükemmel olarak yaratmıştır ve canlılar, hiçbir değişime uğramadan tarih boyunca en mükemmel halleriyle var olmuşlardır. Darwinizm’in en büyük açması, bu gerçeğin apaçık ortada oluşudur.

ARCHAEOPTERYX MÜKEMMEL BİR UÇUCU KUŞTUR

Archaeopteryx muhtemelen ilk kuşlarla ilgili olarak tüylerin ve uçuşun en eski kökeni ile ilgili pek bir şey söyleyemez, çünkü Archaeopteryx, MODERN ANLAMDA, BİR KUŞTUR. (Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws "What Evolutionists Don't Want You To Know", W Publishing Group, 2003 s. 19)

• Darwinistlerin Archaeopteryx’in bir ara form olduğuna dair iddiaları büyük bir aldatmacadır.
• Archaeopteryx dişleri ve pençelerinde tırnakları olan mozaik canlıdır. Günümüzde yaşayan iki tür kuşta, Touraco corythaix ve Hoatzin’de dallara tutunmaya yarayan pençeler vardır. Geçmişte aynı zamanda başka dişli kuşların yaşadığı bilinmektedir.
• Ayrıca dişler, dinozorların diş yapılarından çok farklıdır. Bu kuşların atası olduğu iddia edilen Theropod dinozorlarının dişlerinin üstü testere gibi çıkıntılıdır ve kökleri de dardır.
• Aynı araştırmacılar, aynı zamanda Archæopteryx ile onun sözde ataları olan Theropod dinozorlarının bilek kemiklerini karşılaştırmışlar ve aralarında hiçbir benzerlik olmadığını ortaya koymuşlardır.
• Darwinistler daha önceden uçmak için gerekli kasların tutunduğu gögüs kafesinin altında bulunan göğüs kemiğinin var olmadığını iddia etmişlerdi. Fakat 1992 yılında bulunan yedinci Archæopteryx fosilinde göğüs kemiği vardı. Bu bulgu canlının uçamadığına dair tüm iddiaları ortadan kaldırmıştır.
• Archæopteryx'in günümüz kuşlarınınkinden farksız olan asimetrik tüy yapısı, canlının mükemmel olarak uçabildiğini göstermektedir.
• Archæpoteryx'in uçuş tüylerinin geometrisi modern uçucu kuşlarınki ile tamamen aynıdır, uçucu olmayan kuşların ise tüyleri simetriktir. Tüylerin kanat üzerindeki düzeni de modern kuşlarınkiyle benzerdir... Uçuş tüyleri en az 150 milyon yıldan beri durağandır (değişmemiştir). (Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, s. 280-81)
• A. D. Walker, Archaeopteryx'in kulak bölgesini de incelemiş ve kulak yapısının günümüz kuşları ile aynı olduğunu belirtmiştir.
• Wales Üniversitesi, Biyoloji Bilimleri Enstitüsü'nden J. Richard Hinchliffe embriyolar üzerinde modern izotopik teknik kullanarak, kuşların kanatlarının II, III ve IV. parmaklardan oluşurken, Theropod dinozorlarının ellerinin I, II ve III. parmaklardan oluştuğunu saptamıştır. Bu Archæopteryx-dinozor bağlantısını savunanlar için büyük bir problemdir. Hinchliffe'nin araştırma ve gözlemleri, ünlü bilim dergisi Science'ın 1997 yılındaki bir sayısında yayınlanmıştır.
• Archæopteryx'in atası olarak gösterilen theropod dinozorları, aslında Archæopteryx'ten daha gençtirler.
• En önemlisi, ARCHÆOPTERYX İLE AYNI DÖNEMDE YAŞAMIŞ OLAN MÜKEMMEL UÇUCU KUŞLARIN BULUNMASIDIR. 140 milyon yıllık LIAONINGORNIS ve 120 milyon yıllık CONFUCIUSORNIS mükemmel birer uçucu kuşturlar.