darwinism collapsed

2010-04-03T12:49:00.001-07:00

DARWINISTS RISKING HUMILIATION OVER THEIR SPECULATION ON A SINGLE FOSSIL PINKY FINGER

2010-04-03T08:45:00.000-07:00

Darwinist publications recently and again collectively carried headline pictures of a very interesting-looking life form. This odd creature in the imaginary picture below was heralded to the entire world as a “third species.” The newspapers produced striking captions to support Darwinist claims such as “An unknown hominin!” “A great discovery, neither Neanderthal nor Homo sapiens” and “A Development That Will Re-write the History of Humanity...” Then under these they placed the following picture:

The only source of this picture and the shock propaganda surrounding it WAS A SINGLE FOSSIL FINGER BONE.

Darwinists, who previously produced images of the imaginary Nebraska Man, based on a single pig tooth, together with his family and in a social environment, and who claimed that this shed great light on the supposed evolution of man, have now gone so far in 2010, when the collapse of Darwinism has now been openly declared, as to produce a whole life story on the basis of a young child’s pinky finger, and even to herald it as a third species.

Another example of Darwinists’ Helpless Scenario

Darwinists’ sole justification for resorting to this tale is the fact that this 40,000-year-old fossil was discovered in a cave in the Altai Mountains of Siberia, Asia. This fossil, which they claimed came from Africa to Asia, seems to have come from a different lineage according to the results of an analysis of mitochondrial DNA, the details of which are set out below, but this conflicts with the fictitious scenario on which Darwinists base their ideas of migration out of Africa. For years, Darwinists have been trying to provide some kind of logical framework, in their own eyes at least, for their tale of the human species they refer to as the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens migrating out of Africa into Asia, which tale keeps being refuted by excavated fossils, and the sudden appearance of a different human race has come as a huge shock to them. That is why they refer to this fossil as a “third human species”.

This scenario, the product of a single finger bone, is a weak one that not even a child would believe. But since the report in question was couched in such an astonishing seriousness in all Darwinist publications and dressed up with a variety of scientific terms that it will be advantageous to set out the true scientific evidence demonstrating the invalidity of this illogical claim.

The Irrational Pretext Depicted As Evidence for the Third Species: Mitochondrial DNA Analysis:

Darwinists have again resorted to scientific deception in order to depict a single pinky finger bone as the basis for this tale of a third species. Special terminology was employed in the publications concerned in order to deceive people into thinking the claim was backed up by genetic, and therefore scientific, evidence.

First and foremost, in order to attain an organism’s genetic information, we need to have the DNA in its cells. But we know nothing about the DNA of the life form in question. And without its DNA, it is impossible for us to obtain any information such as what it looked like or its anatomical structure. Indeed, the National Geographic web site, on which the report was published, explicitly stated that it was impossible to talk about the skeletal structure, musculature, brainpower, or appearance, in short about any characteristics of this life form.¹

The sole source of all the fuss about the fossil in question is Darwinists’ baseless claims to have obtained this life form’s mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). In contrast to the main DNA in the cell, mitochondrial DNA is DNA in the mitochondria and that belongs to the mitochondria alone. Consequently, it is impossible to obtain an organism’s genetic information or physical characteristics through mtDNA analysis. Darwinists think that they can determine the forebears of a life form by means of mtDNA analysis. The Darwinist claim is that by this technique it is possible to determine that this living thing comes from a different lineage and is a new species that left Africa and came to Asia 40,000 years ago, and that mtDNA analysis can determine its forebears in a more comprehensive manner. Both content and technique are illusory, however.

For many years, Darwinists claimed that the mitochondrion, an organelle with its own DNA and responsible for producing energy in the cell, was transmitted by the mother alone, and that changes in mitochondrial DNA components could be followed from mother, to grandmother to great-grandmother and thus back to the very earliest forebear. They claimed that a single branch of a family line could be followed directly on the basis of mtDNA analysis and that the starting point of the first mythical hominid could thus be established.

But the Darwinists’ claims about mtDNA were totally refuted by two scientific studies, the first in 1999, the second in 2002.

Scientific Evidence That Denies Darwinists' mtDNA claims

Two reports in Proceedings of the Royal Society on 7, March 1999 has shown that this Darwinist assumptions about mtDNA is unwarranted. It was discovered that population of a tiny Melanesian island possessed mitochondria in their cells inherited from theirfathers. Nature, despite being a Darwinist magazine, confessed that these findings have overturned the mtDNA assumptions.“²

A similar report was published on New Scientist magazine website and it was revealed that ninety percent of the mitochondria of a Danish patient came from his father. In the same report, regarding the blow to the evolutionist biologists’ assumptions, it is stated that, “Even if paternal DNA is inherited rarely, it could invalidate many of their findings.”³

Most recently, an article in the journal Annals of Human Genetics reported that all the mitochondrial databases published to date and on which Darwinists relied had been inaccurately processed.⁴ (You can access the details of the information about mitochondrial DNA here.)

As we have seen, the general belief concerning mtDNA has been refuted by research conducted over the last 10 years in particular. But Darwinists insist on disregarding this report, which appeared in the best-known Darwinist scientific journals and still try to impose their claims about a supposed common forebear on the basis of mtDNA analysis.

Therefore, the definition of a “third species” on the basis of mtDNA analysis applied to the finger is completely deceptive.

Why Are Darwinists So Alarmed by a Different Line?

There is only one answer to this question: Darwinists have produced myths on the basis of an utterly fictitious scenario. In their view, fictitious hominids descended from a fictitious common ancestor emerged over various periods of time, with only Homo sapiens coming down to today. Darwinists have been unable to prove a single one of their claims, and a new branch that would overturn all their accounts represents a new dead-end and a new difficulty for them.

The real facts about this discovery are as follows: The pinky finger fossil discovered belongs to a human being. That human being is the same as man living today. In the same way there are different human races in the world today – Eskimos, negroes, Anglo-Saxons, Caucasians etc. – so there were different races in those times. This life form represents one of the races alive at that time. The ornaments found beside the fossil in question, such as a bracelet, clearly show that these life forms had the same concept of decoration and beauty 40,000 years ago that we have today. Johannes Krause from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who conducted research into the fossil, made the following statement about the findings to BBC News:

"We have ornaments, there is a bracelet, so there are several elements in the layers that are usually associated with modern human archaeology."⁵

The Neanderthals are in fact one of these human races. They are not primitive in the way that Darwinists maintain. They are no different to human races today. The sole basis for the speculation about them is that they are extinct. In the same way that extinct species of ape are constantly used as tools of Darwinist propaganda, so this race is also made the constant subject of Darwinist deception because of its being extinct.

You can read our replies concerning the invalidity of the Darwinist deceptions regarding the Neanderthals here and here.

Flores Man, also used as evidence for the idea of different human races in these reports, and which is still the subject of speculation despite having been refuted countless times by the scientific evidence, and despite this actually having been announced in Darwinist references, was also brought up. Today the scientific world knows that Flores Man is a human species suffering from disease. You can read our response to the claim in question here.

Darwinists, Who Are Unable to Account for Mitochondria, DNA Or a Single Protein in DNA, and Their Hopeless Speculation

It will here be beneficial to recall a most important fact about the Darwinists left helpless in the wake of all these scientific statements refuting their deceptions and who made such a furor about a single fossil pinky finger: Darwinists ARE UNABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR A SINGLE PROTEIN IN THE DNA IN the mitochondria inside that fossilized finger.

How is it that people who are left so helpless in the face of a single protein, and unable to back up their scenarios about the beginning of life, can still speculate about human species, produce a picture of a human being on the basis of a single fossil pinky finger and come up with stories that are so illogical they would make a child laugh? This analysis made on the basis of a single pinky finger fossil is so astonishing that it would normally be utterly humiliating to espouse such a claim. But the Darwinist indoctrination that has deceived the world for the last 150 years has now legitimized such illogicalities in their own eyes. Darwinists, who for years,

- Have maintained that the first cell formed spontaneously in muddy water, even though they could not produce a single protein in the laboratory,

- Claimed that all species turned into one another as a result of random mutations, despite knowing full well that it is impossible to add genetic information and that mutations are fatal,

- Regarded apes (or, according to their latest claims, an odd creature representing the forerunner of the ape) as their ancestors

- And who ascribe all the glorious diversity of life on earth and the astonishing complexity at the molecular level to CHANCE alone,

can still claim such illogicalities. This tale is related in a quite matter of fact manner in the world’s best-known magazines and on web sites and by very eminent scientists. These professors hold conferences on the subject and shamelessly look people in the eye as they relate this unbelievable nonsense. They have no qualms about showing them the shameful pictures of human beings they produce from a single finger fossil.

It is Sufficient to ask Darwinists to account for the formation of a single protein in order to eradicate Darwinist claims

When Darwinists stand up and use such illogical accounts as a propaganda tool it will be appropriate to ask them to account for the formation of a single protein. Since evolution is a lie, all Darwinist claims are of course refuted immediately in great detail by the scientific evidence, as we have seen above. But what really demolished everything to do with evolution, the thing that completely silences Darwinists, is their inability to account for a single protein.

Darwinists no longer have the field all to themselves. Scientific evidence will always be brought forward to confound every new tale they come up with. They will always be reminded how a single protein demolishes their theories. Some people, lacking sufficient knowledge on the subject, may mistakenly think that Darwinists will be able to account for proteins in the future. Every new discovery made regarding proteins shows that their structure is unimaginably complex and possesses an order and discipline that far exceeds human abilities. Therefore, every new finding deals a new lethal blow to Darwinism. Time and science constantly work against Darwinism.

Darwinist trickery can never prevail. Because this is the law of Almighty Allah. This false theory will be condemned to a huge disappointment and failure across the world. Our Lord shows us the evidence of this collapse in countless and magnificent forms. The destiny created by Almighty Allah will manifest itself in the finest manner.

Yes, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Allah. Yes, Allah’s promise is true but most of them do not know it. (Surah Yunus, 55)

LIVE HARUN YAHYA INTERVIEW

2010-03-29T13:30:00.001-07:00

THE DARWINIST TECHNIQUES OF CLAMOR AND DEMAGOGUERY

2010-03-06T12:55:00.001-08:00

There is not one single piece of evidence for Darwinism. For that reason, for the last 150 years Darwinists have used a different technique to providing evidence; clamor and demagoguery.

- Darwinists resort to all possible means to cover up the fact that the theory of evolution is a deception. Academics and scientists questioning evolution and espousing anti-Darwinian views are hurriedly removed from their posts and silenced.

- They attempt to portray the fraud of Darwinism as a highly complex scientific reality. They try to deceive people with complicated formulae and unintelligible terminology. They take advantage of science and people’s respect for it, even though there is nothing scientific to the theory whatsoever.

- They engage in loud and long demagoguery and resort to charlatanry instead of giving scientific responses to people holding other views. Since they are unable to provide any real scientific evidence at all, they imagine that they can invalidate the definitive proofs of Creation by making so-called jokes and using a mocking, improper tone. They imagine they will thus be able to deceive people, even though the evidence is plain for everyone to see.

- They try to prevent people thinking and investigating the true facts. They imagine that only in this way can they prevent the fraudulent nature of Darwinism being exposed. They try to prevent people thinking by means of demagogic accounts and complicated, incomprehensible articles adorned with grotesque-looking formulae.

- Some foreign pro-Darwinist publications are the best example of this. None of these can ever say, “Yes, there are 100 million fossils that prove Creation, and we rebut these in any way.” They never mention the amber containing organisms exactly as they were millions of years ago. They never raise these issues because they know only too well that they all totally refute Darwinism. They merely resort to plenty of unintelligible demagoguery of no scientific value.

- They apply pressure to ensure that students holding anti-Darwinist views are expelled from their schools. For example, in a report on the subject in the British weekly The Observer, Darwinist scientists are reported to say that “if religion stops their students accepting evolution, there is no point in them staying at university.” This is a clear statement from the mouths of Darwinists regarding the Darwinist technique of menaces and intimidation.

- One of the demagogic techniques most frequently employed by Darwinists is the claim that the financing for Harun Yahya’s matchless works that have stunned the whole world comes from outside Turkey. A report that recently appeared in The Observer claimed that the activities in question were backed from Saudi Arabia. Yet it is quite evident that Saudi Arabia attaches no importance to the subject of evolution and that the state has no anti-evolutionary policy. If the Saudi Arabian administration really wanted to engage in anti-evolutionary activity there is no doubt that it would not do this in Turkey. That would be meaningless. The Saudi government has sufficient money and resources to carry out wide-ranging activities in its own country. The demagoguery that Darwinists engage in on this subject is highly illogical and utterly ludicrous.

- It was also suggested in the same paper that poor schools in Turkey were grateful for Harun Yahya’s books. This is another demagogic technique. Harun Yahya’s books are read right across the world because they are of scientific value and make the true facts crystal clear. It is wealthy European countries and America that read these books the most. People buy and like these books because they tell the truth. But Darwinists are unable to swallow this.

- Another aspect of the same demagoguery is the claim that Darwinist scientists are afraid to speak out. In fact these scientists have no fear at all of speaking to the proponents of Creation. Their fear lies in having no evidence in favor of Darwinism despite all the millions of proofs of Creation. There is no reason why they should not take part in debates of this kind if they did have any scientific evidence of their own. They are unable to respond to the 100 million fossils that prove the fact of Creation, and are unable to admit that proteins cannot form by chance. They know that they will be faced with clear and incontrovertible scientific facts during the course of any debate. And they have no answers to them.

- The Council of Europe’s attempt to have the teaching of the Atlas of Creation in schools banned, also described in The Observer, is one of Darwinists’ best-known so-called intimidatory techniques. They imagine than banning books will stop people accessing the scientific facts. The fact is, however, that permitting no alternative view to the one-sided teaching of Darwinism in schools is a disgrace to Darwinists themselves. Fascism is still taught as an opposing view in schools of philosophy that teach communism. Alternative theories to the Big Bang are still taught regarding the formation of the universe. The situation in this example is even more terrible, because Creation is a fact proved by scientific evidence, whereas Darwinism is just nonsense.

If Darwinists had the evidence to prove their theory, and if they genuinely believed that their theory was true, then they would very definitely feel no need to resort to demagoguery, to try to hide the evidence for Creation, and to attempt to intimidate scientists and other proponents of Creation. The main reason for Darwinists’ banning books, mockery, long demagogic accounts and unwillingness to engage in debates is that Darwinism is terrible nonsense that has deceived the world for the last 150 years.

But all these measures, clamor and demagoguery have come to an end now that the existence of 100 million fossils supporting Creation has been made public. People have now seen the daylight. And there is no point in trying to tell them it is still dark outside. The scientific facts are in front of everyone’s eyes. The Darwinist lie has been unmasked. From now on, by the will of Allah (God), Darwinists will always be defeated no matter what demagoguery they resort to.

THE EVOLUTIONIST TRADITION OF CONCEALING FOSSILS

2010-03-06T03:40:00.001-08:00

Darwinism is such terrible a lie that,

- For 150 years it convinced people that living things had evolved.
- It convinced people they were descended from ape-likes.
- The theory was treated as a scientific one, even though it possessed not a shred of scientific evidence.
- Efforts were made to give the impression that intermediate forms existed, though not a single one has ever been found.
- Although not a single protein has ever been manufactured in the laboratory, the diversity of life was still ascribed to chance.
- All of humanity was indoctrinated with the lie that unconscious, uncontrolled, inanimate atoms combined together in a random manner and gave rise to states, civilisations and scientists who examine their own cells in the laboratory.
- In doing all this, of course, it used only lies, fraud and demagoguery.

Darwinism is such a terrible lie that the proponents of this ideology had no hesitation over producing hoax fossils and exhibiting these for 40 years. Darwinists have made a habit of resorting to fraud in order to invent intermediate fossils. They have no reluctance over taking fossils of perfect living things and using them to invent a whole evolutionary scenario. They have countless scenarios about the imaginary first cell, but they are unable to account for the emergence of even one of that imaginary cell’s thousands of proteins. They say that mutations cause evolution, but they have been unable to endow a single living thing with any advantageous trait by way of mutation even in the controlled laboratory environment.

For that reason, they have sought a solution in fraud. Helpless in the face of the fossil record’s failure to support their theory, Darwinists have taken fossils belonging to flawless life forms and interpreted them according to their own desires, and have even resorted to blatant fraud.

They manufactured the Piltdown Man hoax, exhibited for 40 years, by adding the jaw bone of a recently deceased orang utan to a human skull, and the Nebraska Man fraud by producing representations of him and his supposed family on the basis of a single boar’s tooth. They have engaged in propaganda to the effect that natural selection causes evolution, by adding feathers to dinosaur fossils or pinning peppered moths to the trunks of trees. For years, the portrayed the Coelacanth as an intermediate form, and were surprised when it transpired that the creature was still alive today. They came up with an imaginary “scenario of equine evolution,” although horse fossils dating back 53 million years were identical to horses alive today, but eventually had to confess that this, too, was a fraud.

They tried to use hoax embryo drawings to explain the supposed evolution of man. But they then had to retract that false scenario when Haeckel, the author of the drawings, admitted that “many hoaxes had been perpetrated in the name of the theory of evolution, and that he therefore had no compunctions about doing so.”

In short, Darwinism is a lie. EVOLUTIONISTS FEEL THE NECESSITY TO CONCEAL FOSSILS because their hoaxes have constantly been exposed, and because all genuine fossils refute evolution.

Darwinists Hastily Hide away a Fossil the Moment They Find It, As They Did with Cambrian Fossils

Fossils are one of the main forms of evidence to refute evolution. One hundred million fossils unearthed from the various strata of the earth and revealing that living things remain unchanged since the moment of their first creation represent an insoluble dilemma for evolutionists. The fact that each one of the fossils they should have used to verify their own theory in reality confirmed the truth of Creation lead Darwinists to hide fossils away. They were unwilling for people to see and know about them. They did this a great deal in the past and are still doing it today. They spend hours, many pages, talking about the false demagoguery of evolution. Yet to date they have said not a word about the one hundred million fossils that currently exist. Millions of fossils have been unearthed as a result of a constant stream of excavations all over the world. But there are no museums in which Darwinists exhibit these. They have never put them on display. We know that millions of fossils have been unearthed, but they are nowhere to be seen. And this is a Darwinist strategy used all the time.

One of the most significant examples of this is the fossils discovered in Canada’s Burgess Shale region in 1909 by the palaeontologist Charles Doolittle Walcott. He was quick to hide these perfect fossils, the result of 4 years of excavations and some 530 million years old, away.

But why?

The reason is that the 530-million-year-old fossils in question definitively refute and eliminate evolution. These fossils belong to a time known as the Cambrian Period. Yet according to evolutionists that was a time when nothing should have been alive apart from single-celled life forms, or a few multi-celled ones devoid of complex, basic structures. According to the myth of evolution, it was impossible for there to be anything else.

But these Cambrian Period fossils were the harbingers of doom for evolutionists. The fossils in question reveal that life forms from that time had the same complexity as living things today, and declare that the present variety of life, and even a greater variety, emerged all of a sudden. Moreover, no fictitious, primitive forerunner showing that these life forms were descended from others ever existed. These fossils exhibit a perfect complexity at a time when, according to evolutionists, living things were in a completely primitive state, and loudly declare that living things were created in a single moment, with the appearances they still possess today. This tolls the death knell of Darwinism and spells its total collapse. Darwinists have a habit of resorting to demagoguery on subjects they are unable to explain, but it is impossible for them to say anything at all about the variety of life that emerged 530 years ago.

Indeed, as the late Harvard palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould has said, the fossil record, and Cambrian fossils in particular, was Darwin’s greatest worry:

The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs... 1

That explains why Walcott, a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist, RESORTED TO HIDING THE FOSSILS AWAY.

These magnificent Cambrian fossils WERE CONCEALED FOR 70 YEARS.

The Burgess Shale fossils only emerged into the light of day in 1985, when the museum archives were re-examined. The Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder makes this comment on the subject:

Had Walcott wanted, he could have hired a phalanx of graduate students to work on the fossils. But he chose not to rock the boat of evolution. Today fossil representatives of the Cambrian era have been found in China, Africa, the British Isles, Sweden, Greenland. The explosion was worldwide. But before it became proper to discuss the extraordinary nature of the explosion, the data were simply not reported. 2

The Parrot Fossil Concealed for 40 Years

The concealment of the Cambrian fossils was no isolated event. Hiding fossils is a Darwinist tradition. A 65-million-year-old parrot jaw fossil was hidden from the public gaze for many years because it reveals that parrots are living fossils that have remained unaltered for millions of years and thus invalidates the theory of evolution. That was the state of affairs until one researcher, a University of California, Berkeley graduate by the name of Thomas Stidham, decided to investigate the fossil collection in the Berkeley Paleontological Museum. Subsequent analysis of the fossil revealed that it represented the oldest-known parrot fossil to date and was contemporaneous with the dinosaurs. X-ray scans of the 13-cm fossil showed that a “K”-shaped feature on the fossil (constituting blood vessel and nerve pathways) is identical to that in modern-day parrots. Darwinists resorted to HIDING THE FOSSIL AWAY FOR 40 YEARS in order to conceal that fact.

100 Million Fossils Unknown Fossils

The Darwinist tactic of hiding fossils away continues in great secrecy even today. Most people are unaware that to date more than 100 million fossils have been unearthed across the globe. Specimens known as living fossils that reveal that life forms have never changed even over millions of years were hidden away by Darwinists for many long years, with only a few examples ever reaching the public gaze. That explains why people scanning scientific publications or the internet only encountered these few, well-known examples in their search for living fossils: there was a Ginkgo leaf, a nautilus, an okapi… For years, just about everyone imagined that the world contained just a few examples of living fossils and these were very seldom in any way surprising. They had no idea that that there were millions of living fossils, comprised of just about all life forms, wolves, horses, rabbits, turtles, and almost all species of fish, bird and reptile.

The sole reason for this is that Darwinists have kept these 100 million fossils carefully hidden away.

Why Do Darwinists Feel the Need to Conceal Fossils?

Because fossils refute evolution. The fossil record contains not a single intermediate form fossil. The entire existing fossil record, 100 million specimens, consists of perfect-looking, complete and flawless life forms. Living fossils comprise a very significant part of these 100 million fossils. The unearthing of just a few of these, even just 4 or 5, would sound the death knoll of the theory of evolution. That is why Darwinists have panicked when confronted by 100 million fossils.

In the same way that they felt they had to hide away the glorious living fossils from the Cambrian Period for 70 years, they are now trying to keep this magnificent collection that totally refutes evolution from being seen.

That is why Darwinists have made such great efforts to keep the fossil record covered up. The theory of evolution is totally discredited in the face of these 100 million fossils. And it is the Atlas of Creationthat has announced this. The Atlas of Creation has told the whole world of the existence of 100 million sublime-looking living fossils, just when Darwinists were least expecting it.

The Atlas of Creation: The Re-action Darwinists Never Expected

The Atlas of Creation has neutralised the Darwinist strategy. People have suddenly learned that there are more than 100 million fossils in the world and that not one is a transitional form of the kind that might verify evolution. This reality, that they were so keen to keep concealed, has now been put on public display, with full illustrations, and even in fossil exhibitions. People have seen and touched them. All these 100 million fossils are perfect, and all prove the fact of Creation. Some belong to perfect and extinct life forms, and most are living fossils. Darwinists found themselves confronted by the Atlas of Creation when they were least expecting it. People have been given full details of the proofs of Creation. Thus the Darwinists’ attempts to conceal these fossils for so many years has finally exploded in their faces.

The whole world is now aware of the invalidity of evolution. Presidents make unequivocal references to it. The entire world says it now believes in God, with 90% of people in polls conducted on well-known web sites saying they believe that God created living things. The theory of evolution, which was adopted officially in the whole world and protected by national laws, has suddenly become a questionable theory devoid of any evidence, and states are making considerable attempts to have it removed from the school curriculum. That is the result of fossils that had been carefully concealed finally emerging into the light of day.

The fake Darwinist success of the last 150 years or so, obtained through deception, fraud and the concealment of evidence refuting evolution, has suddenly turned to ashes. Darwinists have suffered a shock defeat, just when they thought that they had the whole world in their grasp and had turned their theory into an immutable law. This is a re-action, expected by Muslims and occurring at a time of God’s choosing. Because God has promised Muslims that He will eliminate falsehood and consolidate the truth.

Say: “My Lord hurls forth the Truth – the Knower of all unseen things.” Say: “The Truth has come. Falsehood cannot originate or regenerate.” (Surah Saba’, 48-49)

A 165-MILLION-YEAR-OLD FOSSIL SPIDER FOUND IN CHINA

2010-03-06T03:38:00.000-08:00

A 165-million-year-old fossil spider discovered in the Daohugou region of Northern China is one of the oldest fossil spider specimens found to date. Another noteworthy characteristic of this fossil is that, as can be seen in the picture, it is perfectly preserved. Paul Selden, a paleontologist from the University of Kansas, says, “The level of detail preserved in the fossils is amazing.” (Archeology Daily News)

As shown in the picture, this spider that lived 165 million years ago possessed all the features of those living today. Having remained unchanged for millions of years, spiders represent a huge dead-end for the theory of evolution. Spiders always appear with the same characteristics in the fossil record, and are one of the proofs that living things never evolved. The spider in the picture below is 165 million years old, and there is no difference between it and present-day spiders.

A 165-million-year-old spider

A spider living today is identical to a fossil spider that lived 165 million years ago, and has never changed at all; in other words, it never evolved.

THE SIGNS IN LIVING THINGS

2010-03-06T03:36:00.000-08:00

LIVE INTERVIEW WITH ADNAN OKTAR ON KURV TALK RADIO (TEXAS, USA) (23 February, 2010)

2010-03-06T03:25:00.000-08:00

THE COELACANTH THAT EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIM AS A TRANSITIONAL FORM IS LIVING IN THE SEAS AS A PERFECT LIFE FORM

2010-02-07T21:03:00.000-08:00

Fossils of living things such as the Cœlacanth, which evolutionists heralded as an extinct transitional life form but which has been realized to be still alive today as a bottom-dwelling fish, paint a striking picture that refutes the theory of evolution’s scenario of change.

The Cœlacanth, which according to the fossil record, dates back some 410 million years to the Devonian period, was regarded by evolutionists as a powerful intermediate form between fish and reptile. It had been mysteriously erased from the fossil record 70 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period, and was believed to have become extinct at that time. The truth was very different, however. Since 1938, more than 200 present-day Cœlacanths have been caught, after that first one off South Africa. The second came from the Comoro Islands off north-west Madagascar in 1952, and a third in Indonesian Sulawesi in 1998. The evolutionist paleontologist J. L. B. Smith was unable to conceal his amazement at the capture of the first Cœlacanth, saying,

"If I'd met a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished." (Jean-Jacques Hublin, The Hamlyn Encyclopædia of Prehistoric Animals, New York: The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., 1984, p. 120)

The capture of living Cœlacanths revealed that the claims regarding it were nothing more than deceptions. In addition, evolutionists had always depicted the fish as living in shallow waters, as a potential reptile preparing to crawl onto the land. Yet the Cœlacanth was now found to be living in the deepest ocean waters—a bottom-dwelling fish almost never rising above 180 meters below the surface.

Anatomical investigations conducted following the capture of live Cœlacanths have revealed many findings that refute evolution. It has been realized that theCœlacanth that was living 400 years ago at a time when supposed primitive life forms were meant to have been living possessed exceedingly complex features absent from many present-day fish. One of these was the discovery that theCœlacanth is sensitive to electromagnetic currents around it indicates the presence of a complex sensory organ. Looking at the nerves that connect the fish's rostral organ to its brain, scientists agreed that this organ is responsible for detecting electromagnetic currents.

Focus magazine described the astonishment of evolutionists in the face of the complex nature and characteristics of the Cœlacanth as follows:

According to fossils, fish emerged some 470 million years ago. The Cœlacanth emerged 60 million years after that. It is astonishing that this creature, which would be expected to possess very primitive features, actually has a most complex structure.

ADNAN OKTAR INTERVIEWS

2010-02-07T00:45:00.001-08:00

FOSSILS REFUTE DARWINISM

2010-02-07T00:36:00.001-08:00

EVOLUTION FORGERIES -2

2010-02-07T00:32:00.002-08:00

EVOLUTION FORGERIES - 1

2010-02-07T00:32:00.000-08:00

Fossils says "no" to evolution

2010-02-07T00:22:00.000-08:00

Fossils of Complex Living Things that Existed Hundreds of Millions of Years Ago Refute Evolutionist

IMAGINARY MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION - 1

2010-02-07T00:17:00.001-08:00

The neo-Darwinist model, which we shall take as the mainstream theory of evolution today, argues that life has evolved through two natural mechanisms: "natural selection" and "mutation". The theory basically asserts that natural selection and mutation are two complementary mechanisms. The origin of evolutionary modifications lies in random mutations that take place in the genetic structures of living things. The traits brought about by mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural selection, and by this means living things evolve.
When we look further into this theory, we find that there is no such evolutionary mechanism. Neither natural selection nor mutations make any contribution at all to the transformation of different species into one another, and the claim that they do is completely unfounded.

NATURAL SELECTION

As process of nature, natural selection was familiar to biologists before Darwin, who defined it as a "mechanism that keeps species unchanging without being corrupted". Darwin was the first person to put forward the assertion that this process had evolutionary power and he then erected his entire theory on the foundation of this assertion. The name he gave to his book indicates that natural selection was the basis of Darwin's theory: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection...
However since Darwin's time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London and a prominent evolutionist, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the ability to cause things to evolve:

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.

Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive. That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer.
When we look at the few incidents the evolutionists have put forth as observed examples of natural selection, we see that these are nothing but a simple attempt to hoodwink.

DARWIN'S DILEMMA: THE SOUL

2010-02-07T00:07:00.000-08:00

Darwinists and materialists need to realize that the only absolute Entity is Allah. Confronted by this truth, all false faiths fall into an insuperable quandary. Allah has enfolded all things with His Sublime Might. All things belong to Him and are under His control.

This book considers the materialist error regarding the “absoluteness of matter,” Darwinism’s dilemma and the certain existence of the soul. The world that the soul perceives is merely an illusion, a phantom and the sole absolute Entity Who rules the entire universe is Allah. Henceforth, those with unclouded minds who understand this fact will look at the world from a different perspective and realize that Allah is their only savior. In order to attain salvation in the Hereafter, their true life, people need to behave in the light of that understandinghttp://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/the_soul/the_soul_01.php

DECEPTIONS REGARDING PRION PROTEINS WILL NOT SAVE DESPAIRING DARWINISTS

2010-02-07T00:05:00.001-08:00

A report that recently appeared on various web sites such as the BBC, Science, Scientific American, Discover and CBS claimed that “inanimate prions evolved.” This utterly illogical claim was portrayed as a major scientific discovery in the reports in question, and statements liberally adorned with scientific terminology were laid out one after the other just as they were established fact. As always, the aim was to deceive the majority of people with no knowledge of what prions actually are, using confusing language and accounts.

The subject of the origin of life is a declaration of the most comprehensive and fundamental Darwinist collapse. At the same time, since the subject represents the greatest evidence of the Darwinist defeat, it is one that Darwinists are quite helpless in the face of. They have long been looking for a way of overcoming this hopeless situation, at least in their own eyes. Those Darwinists who have for years claimed that viruses evolved, something that has repeatedly been disproved, are now trying to use “prions,” inanimate structures far smaller than viruses, as evidence for their false theories. The invalidity of this claim can be summarized as follows:

Prions, in brief, are very small structures containing protein. They are entirely inanimate so long as they are not present in the human cell. When prions enter a cell, they may either be harmless or else cause various diseases. Mad Cow Disease is one of those that develops in this way. Although prions are generally compared to viruses, they are actually quite different. Unlike viruses, prions possess no DNA, which determines the structure of proteins and enzymes and this regulates form and development. They are at least 100 times smaller than even the smallest virus.

In the same way that viruses do not evolve, neither do prions. Darwinists have for years heralded the changes they have brought about in the structures of viruses as evidence for evolution and have sought to use them as proof of the origin of life. The fact is, however, that as all Darwinist scientists know perfectly well, viruses are not negatively affected by mutations since they do not have a living structure. In the same way, mutations in viruses do not improve them, either. No virus has ever turned into another structure as the result of mutations, and has never come into possession of organelles. Viruses damage and kill the cells they enter, but they never bestow on those cells any new or improving genetic information. Viruses have been viruses for millions of years, and have never changed over those millions of years, despite all the countless mutations they have been subjected to.

Having suffered a huge defeat when it came to viruses, Darwinists are now trying to use prions, which contain no genetic data, as evidence for their false claims. But this claim contains even greater impossibilities. Prion proteins are synthesized according to the genetic data present in the chromosomes in the cells they enter. It is therefore impossible for prions to survive in the absence of a cell. It is obviously totally illogical to make any claims about evolution regarding a totally inanimate entity with no DNA. Prions are synthesized and folded up inside a cell in the same way that proteins are. They have now power to survive or change on their own.

The Spread Of Disease Is Not Evolution

Sometimes, when sickly prion proteins encounter healthy ones, a number of reactions take place. As a result, the disease infects the healthy prions, and newly manufactured prions become carriers of the disease. This is the spread of the disease. If diseased prion proteins in the brain are taken and transferred into another tissue, they will affect the healthy prion proteins in that tissue and make them diseased, as well. Because of their despair, Darwinists try to depict this spread of disease as evidence for their claims. But there is no question of any mutation or evolution here; all there is, is the spread of prion disease.

The claim that prion proteins resemble viruses in this regard is similarly a deception. Viruses replicate by directly interfering with the genetic data in the cell nucleus. Disease-bearing prion proteins, on the other hand, do not replicate by directly acting on genetic data. They merely damage the structures of healthy prion proteins and make them diseased, as well. This is not evolution; all it is, is a healthy prion protein becoming a diseased one. (As we have already made clear, such activities on the part of viruses are not evolution.)

The way a prion protein will be synthesized is encoded in the genes in the 20^th chromosome in the human cell. In other words, Almighty Allah has created the cell together with the information by which the protein in it will be synthesized. Darwinists are unable to account for even the smallest part of this information encoded in the cell. Darwinists are unable to explain how a single protein within the cell emerged. Darwinists make the most shameless claims about prion proteins, BUT HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE PRION PROTEIN CAME INTO BEING.

Therefore, the Darwinist idea that “we have proved evolution without DNA” is nonsense and an expression of total despair, a huge deception. In order to be able to make such a claim, Darwinists first have to be able to show how protein and DNA came into being. SINCE THEY CAN NEVER DO THAT, AND SINCE A SINGLE PROTEIN LEAVES THEM UTTERLY ROUTED, they rely on deception instead. This is another example of the two-faced technique Darwinists have been employing for the last 150 years.

The elimination of Darwinism by science has left the adherents of Darwinism in a wretched state. Darwinist publications’ despairing wriggling documents the end of this superstitious religion. Darwinists’ attempts to prove anything through prions, proteins and DNA merely makes them a laughing stock. The glorious and artistic existence of life will always defeat the followers of this heretical religion. OUR LORD ALLAH IS MIGHTY AND MAGNIFICENT ENOUGH SO THAT A SINGLE DETAIL IN HIS SUBLIME CREATION DEMOLISHES EVERYTHING MAINTAINED BY SUPERSTITION.

We did not create heaven and Earth and everything between them to no purpose. That is the opinion of those who do not believe. (Surah Sad, 27)

WHY ARE DARWINISTS STILL RESORTING TO FALSE DINO-BIRD MYTHS?

2010-02-07T00:03:00.000-08:00

The reason is this: On the one hand, Darwinists are suffering the tension caused by their terrible rout and collapse, while on the other they are sheltering behind a philosophy of “nothing untoward has happened.” For that reason, they try to portray some fossils that fall into their hands in a deceptive light. This generally involves an extinct ape fossil, but sometimes also a dinosaur fossil, the original of which we have never seen in any Darwinist publication. They then blatantly lie about this fossil, using a false “scientific” mask and drawings made showing it flying with huge, long wings to describe it as a dino-bird.

What we need to remember is this: all the deceptions behind all the Darwinist claims for the last many years have been exposed in these pages, straight away and with incontrovertible scientific evidence. The claims made regarding all the dino-bird fossils brought up in recent months in particular have also been definitively silenced with the exposure of all the details of Darwinist frauds. Darwinists have been unable to rebut this scientific evidence. The extraordinary deceptions that the proponents of evolution have raised in order to deceive people by distorting the facts about fossils and in order to turn perfect dinosaurs into birds have all been clearly exposed. However, exposed to the terror and panic of defeat and ignorant of any other way than deception, Darwinists still have no compunctions about employing the same ready-made and primitive tactics.

The latest example of this is a 160-million-year-old, 3-meter long dinosaur fossil found in China and given the name Haplocheirus sollers. The greatest Darwinist claim about this fossil is that it has feathers, in other words, that it is a dinosaur beginning to become a bird. This impossible and fraudulent claim has appeared, as if it were true, adorned with scientific terminology, false analyses and fake drawings in the pages of all Darwinist scientific journals, including those in Turkey.

The fact is, as always, that the idea that these dinosaurs had feathers is a huge lie. Note how in all Darwinist publications the best-known Darwinist deceptive tactic of “false illustrations” is on show regarding the fossil in question. There is no other evidence, not a single picture, regarding the existence of the fossil. In fact, the original paper published in the journal Science makes no reference to the fossil in question having feathers, but as a requirement of the need to deceive people, feathers were merely mentioned in order to be able to make a link between them and dinosaurs. What other Darwinist publications quickly did was to herald this dinosaur fossil as the oldest ancestor of birds by adding a statement to the effect that “it had feathers on its wings.” The fact is, however, that the animal is a perfect, scale-covered reptile. This is a clear example of the Darwinist demagoguery that has been going on for years.

Not a single example of a transitional fossil exists

No matter how much fuss Darwinists may make about every dinosaur fossil they find, those fossils have always represented perfect, fully formed and complete dinosaurs. According to the claims made by Darwinists, who regard random mutations as their false gods, these life forms allegedly evolved gradually and by chance, and they should be monstrous-looking, abnormal and indescribably entities, with all their organs in totally all the wrong places. But they are not like that at all. Not a single fossil meeting that description has ever been found. On the contrary, all the fossils ever found belong to perfect and flawless life forms. Faced by the fact that living things are perfectly symmetrical, equipped with the Golden Ratio and immaculate and fully formed, Darwinists are in a state of trouble and in a total quandary. Indeed, the fact that most recent dinosaur fossil is a perfect and very ancient one again poses a huge challenge to Darwinism. The artificially manufactured feathered dinosaur tales are a manifestation of this Darwinist rout and the dead-end in which Darwinists find themselves.

Moreover, the number of fossils that all pose such an insuperable quandary for Darwinists is approximately 300 million. But NOT ONE OF THESE 300 MILLION IS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL.

The existence of a single protein is sufficient to inflict a total defeat on Darwinism

The thing that really demolishes Darwinism is A SINGLE PROTEIN, on which Darwinists expend many pages of fanciful tales and which both dinosaurs and all other living things possess. It is utterly astonishing how Darwinists can engage in evolutionary propaganda about perfect life forms when they are unable to account for the emergence of a single protein. Just one of the hundreds of proteins in the 100 trillion cells possessed by Darwinists demolishes and eradicates Darwinism. The way that Darwinists try to pull the wool over people’s eyes, as if there were no such reality, and imagine that they can still deceive us is the most unbelievable blindness.

Darwinists must take this call of ours on board: Before making illogical statements regarding the fictitious theory of evolution, and before resorting to falsehoods, THEY MUST FIRST EXPLAIN HOW A SINGLE PROTEIN CAME INTO BEING. They must not waste time on frauds regarding fossils without doing this first. Darwinists must also not forget this: that their inability to account for a single protein has been announced to the whole world it is no longer possible for them to fool people with false reports about dino-birds. A great many people now laugh at the theory of evolution. Fraud no longer serves any purpose. Belief in our Almighty Lord is increasing all the time and, by Allah’s leave, will continue to do so. This century will be one of belief in Allah. The victory achieved by Darwinists in the 19th century will totally disappear in the 21st. This is Allah’s promise. And no power can change that, unless Allah Himself wills otherwise.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE HORSE SERIES IS A FRAUD

2010-01-12T19:29:00.000-08:00

In 1879, two well-known evolutionists of the time went even further in their activities intended to constitute evidence for the fictitious evolution of the horse scenario and set up the equine series that Darwinists would maintain on the agenda for many years to come. The American fossil researcher Othniel Charles Marsh and Thomas Huxley (known as Darwin’s bulldog) established a series by setting out various hoofed fossils on the number of nails on the front and rear feet and the structure of their teeth. One small mammal fossil previously named Hyracotherium by Sir Richard Owen in 1841 was renamed in such a way as to echo evolution, being given the name Eohippus, meaning “Dawn Horse.” The pair published their claims and diagrams in the American Journal of Science, thus laying the foundations of the horse series laid out from Eohippus to the present day in museums and text books as supposed evidence of evolution. The main stages in this fictitious series were Eohippus, Orohippus, Miohippus, Hipparion and the present-day Equus.

This fictitious series was portrayed as the greatest supposed evidence for the evolution of the horse for the following century. The decrease in the number of toes and the regular increase in size, from smaller to larger, was enough to convince evolutionists.

Shortly afterward, inconsistencies within the horse series began manifesting themselves. New fossils dug up and attempted to be inserted into the false horse series became a problem. Because characteristics such as the fossils’ location, age and toe number formed inconsistencies and impaired the series, which turned into an inconsistent and meaningless mass of fossils in the face of these new specimens.

Many Darwinists were gradually forced to admit that the Darwinist horse series scenario was not based on any genuine evidence. In November 1980 a 4-day conference was held in the Chicago Museum of Natural History, which was attended by 150 evolutionists and considered the problems facing the theory of evolution. Boyce Rensberger, who spoke at the conference, described how the horse series had no basis in the fossil record and that no such gradual process as the evolution of the horse ever happened:

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. ^[i]

Hyracotherium, placed at the beginning of the so-called horse series, was originally identified by Richard Owen, an anti-Darwinist. But later paleontologists sought to conform this creature to evolution.

Another problem in the fictitious evolution of the horse series is that of dating. Doctor Nicholas Comninellis comments:

An additional challenge to the proposal of horse evolution is that the timing is inconsistent. The theory of evolution is based on the concept that one species is prone to evolve into another because it is better adapted for survival. This leads to extinction of the first species. In the case of horses, the three-toed must not have been as hearty as the one-toed. Evolution demands millions of years for transition to occur between species— plenty of time for the first species to die out.

However, today we know that the three-toed and one-toed horses lived together in North America. The fact that varieties of horses co-existed is completely inconsistent with evolution’s explanation. Add to this the fact that missing links between Hyracotherium, Miohippus, and Equus have never been identified. Rather than lending support for evolution, the history of the horse is more consistent with special creation—fully formed beings that were created simultaneously. ⁱⁱ

Although the invalidity of the evolution of the horse series has been brought out into the open day and Darwinists have admitted this state of affairs, this mythical series is still used, like other Darwinist frauds, in Darwinist publications and text books. The series is depicted as concrete fact and placed on display in museums of natural history curated by world-famous paleontologists and scientists. Dr. Niles Eldredge, an evolutionist and paleontologist who served as director of the world-renowned American Museum of Natural History, admitted some 20 years ago that evolutionist claims regarding the horse series on display in his own museum were based solely upon their powers of imagination. Eldredge also criticized the way that this speculative series was portrayed as scientific fact in such a way as to find its way into school books:

I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem. ⁱⁱⁱ

Huxley, known as "Darwin's bulldog," was the first theoretician of the imaginary horse series.

The Darwinist Eldredge's analysis is a most accurate one. Since deliberate distortions represent the essence of the system of the dajjal, this system engages in all kinds of lies, deceptions, hoaxes and distortions. All the examples of Darwinist deception listed above have been exposed, and their false nature has even had to be admitted by Darwinist scientists. These examples are sufficient to show the true face of the system of the dajjal. But it will still be useful to issue the following reminder: the theory of evolution, Darwinist ideology in other words, is built on a lie intended to deny the existence of Allah. Therefore, all the claims, suggestions and evidence produced by Darwinism are false. All the statements to the effect that “proof of evidence has been discovered,” “living things evolved,” “or “human beings are descended from apes” are lies. Darwinists espouse a lie. Their illogical obedience and devotion to the system of the dajjal is blind devotion to the religion of Darwinism solely in order to be able to oppose belief in Allah.

The fact is that they espouse a superstition, a terrible error. Almighty Allah, the Lord and Creator of All, says in His verses:

If anyone desires anything other than Islam as a religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers. (Surah Al ‘Imran, 85)

Everyone in the heavens and everyone on the earth belong to Allah. Those who call on something other than Allah are not really following their partner-gods. They are only following conjecture. They are only guessing. (Surah Yunus, 66)

i Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, 5 November 1980, Part 4, p. 15
ii Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 168
iii Colin Patterson, Harper's, February 1984, p. 60

DARWINISTS: ''WE APOLOGIZE ONCE AGAIN, WE WERE ALSO MISTAKEN ABOUT ARDI''

2010-01-11T07:17:00.000-08:00

Darwinists have had to keep apologizing for the last 150 years; “sorry, that was a hoax,” they said, “our mistake, it was a pig tooth, not a human one,” they said, “sorry about that, the moths were deliberately stuck onto the trees,” “the skull had been planed down,” “feathers had been stuck onto the dinosaur by hand,” “it appears that this fossil is still alive and not an intermediate form at all,” and “the primordial atmosphere was not like that at all,” they said. “Embryos are not like this at all, the illustrations are fakes,” they said. “We said it was the ancestor of man, but it appears it was just an ordinary ape,” they said. They have kept on apologizing and retracting their claims. They have hurriedly withdrawn fossils from museums. Declaring something to be an intermediate fossil in one issue of a journal, they have issued an apology in the subsequent edition. And this has carried on right down to the present day.

The reason is this: DARWINISM IS SIMPLY A DEVIANT IDEOLOGY, WITH NOTHING SCIENTIFIC ABOUT IT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVEN A SINGLE PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. It is for that reason that Darwinists constantly manufacture false evidence. But their frauds are only short-lived.

When their frauds emerge into the light of day, Darwinists then have to stand up before the public and apologize. Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, the peppered moths, Haeckel’s embryo drawings, the Coelacanth, Lucy, Archaeoraptor, the equine evolution series, the skulls which they have tried to be depict as evidence for the myth of human evolution, Archaeopteryx and most recently Ida have all gone down as some of the worst frauds there have ever been. Ida, the subject of great show all over the world, was the most recent instance of this. This fossil, described falsely as “the ancestor of man” and as “the greatest evidence for evolution” on one of the world’s best known TV channels, the subject of documentary films and press conferences, eventually turned out to be nothing more than an ordinary lemur fossil. Following all the clamor they had created, Darwinists then had to apologize yet again. (You can find more detailed information on the subject here.)

ARDI HAS ALSO RECENTLY BEEN A PART OF ALL THIS FUROR. Darwinists took an ordinary monkey fossil and totally rebuilt the completely fragmented pelvic bone, which its millimetrically small pieces continues to shatter , in such a way as to permit it “to walk upright.” One of the main reasons why the fossil in question was chosen as the greatest potential candidate for the imaginary human evolution scenario was the fact that its pelvic bone was reconstructed by Darwinist scientists “in the way they wished.” Darwinists did what needed to be done in the name of Darwinism and Ardi was shamelessly portrayed to the whole world as an “upright-walking ape.” They had no hesitation in depicting it as the greatest evidence for supposed human evolution. But like all the others, this furor was also short-lived, and the Darwinist fraud soon came out into the light of day and directly, from statements made by Darwinist scientists.

Now it’s time FOR THEM TO APOLOGIZE FOR ARDI.

The Darwinist William Jungers, head of the anatomical sciences department of the Stony Brook University, Long Island, medical center made this comment about the claims that Ardi represents an “ancestor of man:”

I think some of the things they said might have been for effect.^[1]

The Darwinist Tim White from the University of California and his team, who examined Ardi and suggested that it might be the missing link in the supposed evolution of man, had to make this admission:

"There are no apparent features sufficiently unique to warrant the exclusion of Ar. ramidus as being ancestral to Australopithecus,"^[2]

The fact that the totally shattered pelvic bone and its surroundings were reconstructed completely in the light of Darwinist scientists’ interpretations was also explicitly set out by Darwinist scientists. Jungers said this on the subject:

Maybe the pieces do fit together nicely, but the reality is they start out with a very damaged specimen, and they end up with something very similar to an australopithecine [an imaginary human-like group including Lucy]". "It's very difficult not to make them look like something you have in your mind if there's any chance of play"
... Ardi, requires a lot of guesswork.^[3]

After examining the fossil remains Jungers said, “there is no way that they could belong to ‘an animal that wasn’t often walking on its hind legs’ unless the data ‘were deliberately ignored or if we had made them up’.”^[4] With that statement it was revealed that Tim White and his team had perpetrated yet another deception in the name of Darwinism.

It is not only the pelvic bone findings that refute the claims made about Ardi. One article published in Science magazine stated that the anatomy of Ardi’s hind feet showed that it was a climbing animal. An article titled “How Humanlike Was Ardi?” by Katherine Harmon of Scientific American magazine said that not a single part of the animal’s feet showed that it stood upright. The feet, and the big toes in particular, exhibit features still found in present-day chimpanzees that assist in climbing. Jungers summarizes the situation by saying:

[Ardi] really doesn’t show any adaptations for bipedalism at all.^[5]

Lacking a single piece of evidence with which to prove their claims, Darwinists are now resorting to the following deception in order to be able to portray this life form as the supposed ancestor of man: “The females were small, because they looked after the young while the males went hunting.” This wretched claim is in fact important evidence of the hopeless position in which Darwinists find themselves. Since they have no evidence in their possession, they have no hesitation over resorting to demagoguery. It is shameful for a scientist to make such a claim and, on the basis of it, to declare that a perfect bonobo monkey is in fact the ancestor of man. But no matter how embarrassing it may be, Darwinists are obliged to repeat these pitiful claims for the sake of deviant Darwinist ideology.

There is little need to take such a claim seriously and respond to it. But it will be useful, from the point of view of showing the wretched state into which those making it have fallen, to make this clear: human beings are not the only living things to have a family life that includes division of labor. Many living things live as families, and both males and females within the family have their own separate tasks. In many it is the males that hunt, while the females take care of the young. Therefore, the fact that the female of a particular life form does not hunt, but looks after the young, DOES NOT, OF COURSE, MAKE IT HUMAN. This ludicrous claim clearly reveals the deception of which Darwinist logic rests.

Conclusion:

The Darwinist dictatorship is now in a hopeless position. They are at a loss how to resurrect the deceased Darwin and his ideas. They are trying to retrieve the position in a state of despair and panic. They are therefore prepared to risk ridicule and espousing nonsensical claims to that end. That is how Darwinism has collapsed and been defeated in the 21st century. Ardi has again made that collapse and rout crystal clear. Darwinists have had to retract all their claims concerning Ardi, and have now realized that they can no longer deceive people as they used to in the past. False fossils that used to be displayed in museums for 40 years are now being exposed for what they really are, and frauds now have a life span of only a few days, or even hours. Darwinists’ efforts to bring evolution back to life with false fossils are all in vain. Darwinists themselves now see and admit this.

[1] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, Scientific American, 19 November 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[2] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, Scientific American, 19 Kasım 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[3] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, Scientific American, 19 Kasım 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[4] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, Scientific American, 19 November 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
[5] Katherine Harmon, How Humanlike Was "Ardi"?, Scientific American, 19 November2009,http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi

PROTEIN CANNOT FORM UNLESS THE CELL EXISTS AS AN INTEGRAL WHOLE

2010-01-11T07:15:00.000-08:00

Darwinists can write as many deceptive books jam packed with formulae, produce as many false fossils as they like, make as many demagogic assaults on the scientific evidence for Creation as they choose or stick posters up full of fantastical illustrations and present these as exhibitions of evolution all over the place, but none of this will ever change the fact of their fundamental defeat. Because the worst nightmare for Darwinists is the very beginning of life. Darwinists HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE A SINGLE EXPLANATION of how just one protein came into being. This is an expression of the despairing situation into which, Dawkins, Futuyma, Tim White and all other Darwinists now find themselves. None of this demagoguery can resolve this great and stupendous rout in the face of a single protein. A SINGLE PROTEIN HAS TOTALLY DEMOLISHED DARWINISM.

One important feature of Darwinist demagoguery is that Darwinists always tended to reduce the question of the origin of life to the very simple, despite all the complexity of life, by portraying everything within it as very simple. That is the reason for such myths as “the cell emerged from muddy water” and “DNA spontaneously began replicating itself.” Darwinists imagined it would be easier to deceive people in this way. But they have now seen that the time for such deception has passed. Not only do people now know that a single protein is far too complex ever to come into being spontaneously, they are also aware that neither a protein, DNA, RNA or any other minute component of the cell WILL SERVE ANY PURPOSE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CELL AS A WHOLE.

This fact is of great important in terms of the defeat of Darwinism:

- DNA is essential for a single protein to form

- DNA cannot form without protein

- Protein cannot form without DNA

- Protein cannot form in the absence of protein

- Sixty separate proteins are needed for a single protein to form

- Protein cannot form in the absence of any one of these

- Protein cannot form with no ribosome

- Protein cannot form with no RNA

- Protein cannot form without ATP

- Protein cannot form without the mitochondria to manufacture ATP

- Protein cannot form without the cell nucleus

- Protein cannot form without the cytoplasm

- Protein cannot form in the absence of a single organelle in the cell

- And proteins are necessary for all the organelles in the cell to exist and function

- There can be no protein without these organelles.

This is an interconnected system that has to function simultaneously. You cannot have one part without the other. Even if one component exists, it will still not function in the absence of the others.

In short,

THE WHOLE CELL IS NECESSARY FOR A PROTEIN TO FORM. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A SINGLE PROETIN TO FORM IN THE ABSENCE OF THE WHOLE CELL, with its perfect complex structure we see today, but of which we understand only a very small part.

Even if this protein did form spontaneously (which is in any case impossible), it will still serve no purpose. It will just wander around alone and die.

Therefore, Dawkins’ claim of “a spontaneously replicating molecule” is utterly ludicrous and solely intended to deceive. NO MOLECULE IN THE HUMAN CELL POSSESSES THE ABILITY TO REPLICATE ITSELF SPONTANEOUSLY WITHOUT THE HELP OF ANY OTHER MOLECULE.

The Cambridge University Professor of Philosophy Stephen C. Meyer describes this in his book The Signature in the Cell:

Following the elucidation of the structure and function of DNA during the 1950s and early 1960s, a radically new conception of life began to emerge. Not only did molecular biologists discover that DNA carried information; they soon began to suspect that living organisms must contain systems for processing genetic information. Just as the digital information stored on a disc is useless without a device for reading the disc, so too is the information on DNA useless without the cell’s information-processing system. As Richard Lewontin notes, “No living molecule (i.e., biomolecule) is self-producing. Only whole cells may contain all the necessary machinery for self-reproduction... Not only is DNA incapable of making copies of itself, aided or unaided, but it is incapable of ‘making’ anything else... The proteins of the cell are made from other proteins, and without that protein-forming machinery nothing can be made.”¹

These statements once again reveal the inconsistency of these accounts by Dawkins, who has recently converted to the religion of outer space. The Earth is the most ideal environment in all of space for the survival of the living cell. But not even these ideal conditions by themselves make it possible for the cell to be able to form spontaneously. Dawkins has looked for a new explanation in the face of this and now maintains that a molecule capable of replicating spontaneously formed in space and subsequently made its way to Earth. The first insoluble problem here is that no such living molecule can form spontaneously. The second is, as set out above, that no living molecule can replicate spontaneously, not even on Earth. Aware of these insoluble problems, Dawkins eventually had to admit that such a molecule was created by a sublime intelligence.²

¹Stephen C. Meyer, The Signature in the Cell, Harper One, 2009, p. 132-133

² Ben Stein, Expelled “No Intelligence Allowed”, 2008, movie

İmaginary Mechanisms Of Evolution

2009-09-24T11:53:00.001-07:00

MOLLECULAR COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION

2009-09-24T11:52:00.000-07:00

DARWINISTS ARE IN MOURNING IN FRANCE

2009-09-24T11:41:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-24T07:09:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-24T07:07:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-24T05:54:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-24T05:53:00.001-07:00

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:

2009-09-24T05:52:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-24T05:51:00.001-07:00

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

2009-09-24T05:50:00.001-07:00

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

2009-09-24T05:49:00.001-07:00

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

2009-08-27T11:18:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-25T20:26:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-25T19:21:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-24T23:32:00.000-07:00

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.

Darwinistlerin masallarını anlatan bir video

2009-08-24T18:23:00.000-07:00

EVRİMCİLER NE DEMİŞLERDİ, NASIL YALANLANDI 2

2009-08-24T17:01:00.001-07:00

Haeckel’in embriyo çizimleri:

Ne demişlerdi:

Haeckel’in çizimlerine bakarak insanın anne karnındaki gelişim evrelerinde kurbağadan insan ceninine sözde bir evrim geçirdiğini, türler arasında da bu tür bir evrimleşmenin yaşanmakta olduğunu iddia etmişlerdir.

Ne oldu:

Haeckel’in embriyo çizimlerinin sahte olduğu, farklı canlıların embriyo resimlerini kullanarak kasıtlı olarak insan embriyosu gibi gösterdiği anlaşıldı. Haeckel sahtekarlığını şöyle itiraf etti:

Bu yaptığım sahtekarlık itirafından sonra kendimi ayıplanmış ve kınanmış olarak görmem gerekir. Fakat benim avuntum şudur ki; suçlu durumda yanyana bulunduğumuz yüzlerce arkadaş, birçok güvenilir gözlemci ve ünlü biyolog vardır ki, onların çıkardıkları en iyi biyoloji kitaplarında, tezlerinde ve dergilerinde benim derecemde yapılmış sahtekarlıklar, kesin olmayan bilgiler, az çok tahrif edilmiş, şematize edilip yeniden düzenlenmiş şekiller bulunuyor. (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New York: Ticknor and Fields 1982, s.204)

At serisi:

Ne demişlerdi:

50 milyon yıl önce dört tırnaklı tilki büyüklüğündeki bir canlıdan bugünkü atın oluştuğunu iddia ettiler ve bunun için soyu tükenmiş birbirleri ile hiçbir tür bağlantısı olmayan canlıları kendilerine göre gitgide boyları büyüyen, fakat tırnak sayıları azalan bir canlı sıralaması yapıp at serileri oluşturdular.

Ne oldu:

Yeni bulunan fosiller nedeniyle at serisi defalarca değiştirildi. Sonunda farklı tarihlere ait farklı tırnak sayısında farklı canlıların oluşturduğu at serisinin bir sahtekarlık olduğu ortaya çıktı. 47 milyon yıllık at kafatasının bulunmasıyla da sahtekarlık iyice ortaya çıktı.

Archaeopteryx:

Ne demişlerdi:

Fosilin pençelerinde tırnakları ve ağzında dişleri olduğu için dinozorlardan kuşlara ara form olduğunu iddia etmişlerdi.

Ne oldu:

Science dergisinin ve pek çok Darwinist’in itiraf etmiş olduğu gibi, canlının mükemmel uçma yeteneğine sahip olan bir kuş olduğu ortaya çıktı. Archeaopteryx ile aynı dönemde yaşamış mükemmel kuşların fosilleri ortaya çıktı. Liaoningornis ve Confuciusornis, Archaeopteryx ile aynı dönemde yaşamış mükemmel kuşlardır.

Sanayi devrimi kelebekleri

Ne demişlerdi:

İngiltere’de sanayi devrimi sırasında, koyulaşan ağaç kabukları üzerinde açık renkli kelebeklerin kuşlar tarafından avlandıkları, koyu renkli kelebeklerin doğal seleksiyonla seçildiklerini ve bu durumun iş başında evrime bir delil teşkil ettiğini söylemişlerdi.

Ne oldu:

Güvelerin hiçbir zaman gündüz ortalığa çıkmadıkları ve ağaç kabuklarına hiçbir zaman konmadıkları, ağaçların görünmeyen iç kavuklarında saklandıklarının ortaya çıkması üzerine yapılan araştırmada koyu renkli kelebeklerin, ağaç kabuklarının üzerine Darwinist bir biyolog olan H.B.D. Kettlewell tarafından yapıştırıldıkları anlaşıldı.

EVRİMCİLER NE DEMİŞLERDİ, NASIL YALANLANDI 1

2009-08-24T16:59:00.000-07:00

Piltdown adamı:

Ne demişlerdi:

İnsanın hayali evrimine en büyük delil demişlerdi. İnsanın atası olarak 40 yıl British Museum’da sergilendi.

Ne oldu:

Günümüz insan kafatasına 500 yıllık bir orangutan çenesinin monte edilmesiyle, dişlerin törpülenip, kafatasının potasyum dikromat ile eskitilmesi yöntemi ile hazırlanmış bir fosil olduğu, tarihin en büyük sahtekarlığı olduğu ortaya çıktı.

Nebraska adamı:

Ne demişlerdi:

İnsanın hayali maymun atası olduğunu iddia etmiş ve Nebraska adamını bütün ailesiyle resmetmişlerdi.

Ne oldu:

Nebraska adamı denen şeyin, yalnızca soyu tükenmiş bir domuz dişinden ibaret olduğu anlaşıldı.

Coelacant:

Ne demişlerdi:

Akciğerleri ve ayakları oluşmakta olan, denizden karaya çıkmak üzere olan soyu tükenmiş bir ara form demişlerdi.

Ne oldu:

Canlısı günümüzde defalarca bulundu. Akciğer dedikleri şeyin yağ kesesi, ayak dedikleri şeyin de yüzgeçler olduğu, sığ sulara hiç çıkamayan mükemmel bir dip balığı olduğu anlaşıldı.

Lucy:

Ne demişlerdi:

İnsanın en eski maymun atalarından biri olduğunu iddia etmişlerdi.

Ne oldu:

Canlının fosili üzerinde yapılan inceleme neticesinde yürüyüşü dahil bütün özelliklerin şempanzelere özgü olduğu ve Lucy’nin bir şempanze olduğu kesin olarak anlaşılmıştır.

İda:

Ne demişlerdi:

% 95’i korunmuş olan fosilinden tam bir lemur olduğu anlaşılan canlının, başparmağının bükülebilmesi ve tırnaklarının olması nedeniyle “insanın atası” ilan etmişlerdi.

Ne oldu:

Bükülen başparmak ve tırnak özelliklerinin primatlara özgü bir özellik olduğu söz konusu fosilin soyu tükenmiş bir lemur olduğu anlaşıldı. Darwinist bilim adamları, bu fosilin insanın evrimine delil gösterilmesini “maskaralık”, “medya sirki”, “utanç kaynağı”, “saçmalık”, “evrim için bir açmaz” olarak nitelendirmişlerdir.

Gözün Evrimleştiğine Dair İddiaların Geçersizliği

2009-08-23T13:35:00.000-07:00

öz, mükemmel indirgenemez komplekslikteki yapısıyla Darwin’in de, ondan sonra gelen Darwinistlerin de açıklayamadıkları konuların en önemlilerinden biridir. Darwin, 19. yüzyılın son derece ilkel bilgisi ile “gözü düşünmek beni bu teoriden soğuttu” diyecek kadar büyük bir paniğe kapılmıştır. Günümüz Darwinistleri ise gitgide artan bu paniğin etkisiyle gözün indirgenemez bir kompleksliğinin olmadığını iddia etmekte çözümü bulmuşlardır. Celal Şengör’ün de iddiası budur. Celal Şengör, terliksi hayvanlarda bile ışığa duyarlı yapılar bulunduğunu iddia ederek, bunun ilkel göz olduğunu ve kompleks gözlerin bu sözde ilkel yapıdan evrimleştiğini iddia etmektedir. Bu geçersiz bir iddiadır çünkü:

- Şengör’ün ve diğer Darwinistlerin iddia ettikleri şekilde ışığa duyarlı hücre, ilkel göz değildir. Darwinistler, tıpkı terliksi hayvanın oluşumunu açıklayamadıkları gibi, bu canlıdaki ışığa duyarlı yapıyı da kesin olarak açıklayamazlar. Nitekim döneminde söz konusu yapıların kompleksliğinin tam olarak farkında olmayan Darwin bile, bu konuda şu itirafı yapmaktadır.

“Sinirlerin ışığa nasıl hassas olduğu bizleri yaşamın nasıl meydana geldiği sorusundan daha çok endişelendirmektedir.”[1]

- En basit şekliyle dahi olsa, "görme"nin oluşabilmesi için, bir canlının bazı hücrelerinin ışığa duyarlı hale gelmesi, bu duyarlılığı elektriksel sinyallere aktaracak bir yeteneğe sahip olması, bu hücrelerden beyne gidecek olan özel sinir ağının oluşması ve beyinde de bu bilgiyi değerlendirecek bir "görme merkezi"nin meydana gelmesi gerekir.

- Işığa duyarlı hücre, ilk veya ilkel göz değildir. Bu hücreden kompleks gözün aşama aşama evrimleştiği iddiası da aldatmacadır. Günümüzden 530 milyon yıl önce bütün canlı özelliklerinin ve kompleks canlıların ortaya çıktığı Kambriyen döneminde yaşamış olan trilobitin gözü, günümüz sinek ve yusufçuklarında bulunan mükemmel petek gözün AYNISIDIR. Bu dönemden önce yeryüzünde SADECE BAKTERİLER VARDIR. Işığa hassas bir hücre veya ondan bir geçiş söz konusu değildir.

- İnsana ait mükemmel göz, parçalarının ayrı ayrı evrimleşmesini imkansız hale getirecek kadar kompleks bir yapıda sahiptir. Gözü oluşturan 40 ayrı parçanın, gözün işlevini gerçekleştirebilmesi için mutlaka bir arada olması şarttır.

- Retina vücuttaki en kompleks doku olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Milyonlarca sinir hücresi retina üzerinde olağanüstü bağlantılar oluşturup minyatür beyin oluşturmaktadırlar. Gözdeki yalnızca retina tabakasının bile tesadüfen kendi kendine meydana gelmesi imkansızdır.

- Kornea ve retina neredeyse milimetrenin binde biri çapla daireler halinde sürekli hareket ederler. Yalnızca bu göz hareketleri dursaydı, retinada ışığa duyarlı hücreler hemen sabitlenir, beyne bilgi göndermeyi durdururdu. Bu da algılanan görüntünün birkaç saniye içinde silinmesine neden olurdu.

- Yalnızca göz sıvısının olmaması bile gözün işlevini yitirmesi için yeterlidir.

- Görüntülerin kaliteli olmasının sebebi bu görüntülerdeki hareketlerin ve renklerin, en ince detayına kadar sürekli güncellenmesi ve “bu harekette bir kesinti” olduğu neredeyse hiç fark edilmeden, inanılmaz hızla gerçekleşmesidir.

- Gözümüzün ve beynimizin süratli verimliliği ve kusursuzluğu, şimdiye dek icat olunmuş herhangi bir aygıt ya da cihazla kıyaslanamayacak kadar benzersizdir.

- Gözü oluşturan 40 ayrı parça, birlikte hareket ederek bir mili saniyede 1,5 milyon elektrik sinyali mesajını yakalar, yerine teslim eder ve yorumlarlar. Buna sadece benzer bir görevi yapabilmek için süper bilgisayarlardan düzinelercesinin kusursuzca programlanarak, hiç hata yapmadan birlikte çalışmaları gerekirdi.

19. yüzyılın bilgisi ve teknolojisiyle bile kendisini oldukça rahatsız eden göz hakkında Darwin şu itirafları yapmıştır:

“Gözün odağını farklı uzaklıklara uydurması, içeri bırakılacak ışık tutarını ayarlaması, küresel ve renksel sapmayı düzeltmesi gibi eşsiz düzenlenişlerinin tümünün doğal seçme ile oluşabildiğini düşünmenin EN ILERI DERECEDE SAÇMALAMAK gibi göründüğünü açık yürekle itiraf ederim…”[2]

Gelişmiş bir göz bana soğuk bir titreme veriyor. Ama aşamalarla gelişen diğer örnekleri düşündükçe, sağduyum bana bu soğuk titremeyi yenmem gerektiğini söylüyor.[3]

Gözün meydana gelişi... Böyle bir zorlukla yüz yüze gelmemenin gerçekten de sahtekarca olduğunu düşünüyorum.[4]

Çok sayıda, birbirini izleyen ve küçük değişikliklerle oluşamayacak bileşik bir organın varlığı gösterilebilseydi, teorim kesinlikle çökerdi.[5]

Göz gibi indirgenemez komplekslikteki olağanüstü organ karşısında panik içinde olan Richard Dawkins de, şu itirafta bulunmuştur.

“... göz gibi komplike, GÖRÜNÜR ŞEKİLDE TASARLANMIŞ objelerin meydana gelişinde aşamalı bir evrim süreci olmalıdır. Eğer bu durumlarda da aşamalı olarak gerçekleşmezse, o zaman EVRİMİN AÇIKLAYICI GÜCÜ KALMAZ. Eğer aşamalar yoksa mucize olması muhtemeldir...”[6]

[1] Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 6. Baskı, 1988, New York University Press, New York, s.151

[2] Charles Darwin, Türlerin Kökeni, Onur Yayınları, 5. baskı, Ankara, 1996, s.198

[3] Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Cilt.II, New York:D. Appleton and Company, 1888, s.67

[4] Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Cilt.II, s.84

[5] Charles Darwin, Türlerin Kökeni, Onur Yayınları, Beşinci Baskı, Ankara 1996, s.202

[6] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, Basic Books, New York, 1995, s.83

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "IDA ARA FORM DEĞİLDİR"

2009-08-23T13:15:00.000-07:00

HAYALİ 'KAYIP HALKA' IDA HAKKINDA DARWİNİSTLERİN HİÇ BAHSETMEDİĞİ ASIL GERÇEKLER

Darwinist David Attenborough, geçtiğimiz günlerde çarpıcı bir buluş iddiasıyla ortaya çıktı! İddiasına göre, insanın hayali evrimindeki “kayıp halka” artık kayıp değildi! Oysa, özel yayınlar ve tanıtımlarla insanlara olağanüstü bir buluşmuş gibi sunulan fosil “Ida”, aslında sadece soyu tükenmiş bir lemura aitti.

Fosil Ida, oldukça kapsamlı bir propagandayla ABC, BBC, Guardian gibi çeşitli internet sitelerinde “insanın atası” olarak lanse edilmeye çalışıldı. Bu öyle bir propagandaydı ki, tüm Darwinist yayınlar el birliğiyle bunun gerçekten de beklenen ama bir türlü elde edilemeyen fosil olduğunda hemfikirlerdi. Fakat ele geçentek şey, oldukça iyi şekilde korunmuş bir lemur fosilinden başka bir şey değildi. Peki Darwinistler Almanya’da bulunan ve yaklaşık 47 milyon yıllık olduğu tahmin edilen bir lemur fosilini hangi iddiayla insanın atası ilan etmişlerdi?

Darwinistlerin fosil üzerinde spekülasyonlarına sebep olan şey, fosil üzerindeBULMADIKLARIYDI! Fosil bir lemura aitti, fakat günümüz lemurlarından biraz daha farklı diş ve pençe yapısına sahipti. Dolayısıyla geçmişte yaşamış ve soyu tükenmiş bir lemur türünü temsil ediyordu. İşte tüm Darwinist yaygara, bunun üzerine bina edilmişti.

%95’i korunmuş ve iç organları bile fosilleşmiş olan bu canlı, aslında mükemmel bir canlı idi. Yapısında tek bir tane bile yarı gelişmiş, eksik veya işlevsiz yapı yer almamaktaydı. Dolayısıyla bir ara form olarak kabul edilmesi imkansızdı. Fakat buna rağmen Darwinist medya, bu mükemmel fosili ara form ilan edip olay haline getirdi. Science Daily fosil için “olağandışı” açıklamasını yapıyordu. Sky News ise daha da ileri giderek fosili “dünyanın sekizinci harikası” ilan etmişti. Darwinist David Attenborough, “bu canlı bize diğer memelilerle olan bağlantımızı gösterecek” diyor ve ardından, “kayıp olduğu söylenen halka, artık kayıp değil” açıklamasını yapıyordu. Attenborough, bu ifadesiyle aslında açıkça, insanın hayali evrimine yıllardır kayıp halka olarak gösterilen kafataslarının geçersizliğini de bir bakıma kabul etmiş oluyordu. Yanıldığı nokta ise, mükemmel bir lemur fosilini insanın atası zannetmesiydi.

Darwinistlerin bazıları bile, bu yaygarayı garipsediler. Nature dergisinin baş editörü Darwinist Henry Gee, “kayıp halka” teriminin bu canlı için kullanılmasının yanıltıcı olacağını açık bir dille ifade etmişti. Ve bu açıklama haberin verildiği tüm Darwinist kaynaklarda belirtilmekteydi.

Bütün bu yaygaralar koparılırken, ortaya çıkan tablo tam olarak şu gerçeği tüm dünyaya gösteriyordu: DARWİNİSTLERİN ZAVALLILIĞINI. Durumlarının çaresiz olduğunun farkına varan Darwinistler, soyu tükenmiş mükemmel bir lemur fosilini alıp, “insanın atası” diyecek kadar zavallılaşmışlardır. Ida'nın bir "kayıp halka" olmadığı ve hiç bir ara form özelliği göstermediği Ağustos 2009 tarihli Scientific American dergisinde de itiraf edilmiştir.

OYSA GERÇEK ŞUDUR:

Dünyada yaşamış türlerin %90’ının soyu tükenmiştir. LEMURUN İSE 99 TÜRÜ VARDIR. Ve bu 99 türün 16’SININ SOYU TÜKENMİŞTİR. Yeni bulunan fosillerle de soyu tükenmiş lemur türlerinin sayısı artmaktadır. Pek çok tür ise tükenip kaybolmuştur.

Bulunan fosil IDA DA SOYU TÜKENİP KAYBOLAN LEMUR TÜRLERİNDEN BİRİDİR. Bu fosil, diğer bulunan soyu tükenmiş türler gibi HİÇBİR ARA FORM ÖZELLİĞİ GÖSTERMEMEKTEDİR, MÜKEMMEL BİR CANLIDIR. Ve bu, YARATILIŞ GERÇEĞİNİN EN BÜYÜK DELİLLERİNDEN BİRİDİR.

Darwinistler, hakkında bolca spekülasyon yaptıkları bu fosil ile ilgili gerçeklerin ortaya çıkmasından korktukları için işte şu gerçeklere değinmemişlerdir:

1. Fosilin %95’i tamdır. Dolayısıyla canlının, iç organları dahil, tüm detaylarını inceleyebilmek mümkün olmuştur. ve canlı, türlere has değişkenlik gösteren birkaç detay dışında tüm özellikleriyleMÜKEMMEL BİR LEMUR TÜRÜDÜR.

2. Darwinist yayınlar, Ida’nın bükülebilen baş parmağının olduğunu ve bu özelliğin diğer memelilerden farklı ama insan ile aynı olduğunu iddia etmişlerdir. Oysa bugün yaşayan lemurların da başparmakları bu şekildedir.

3. Aynı şekilde Darwinistler Ida’nın tırnaklarının olmasını da iddialarına delil olarak göstermeye çalışmaktadırlar. Oysa diğer primatların da tırnakları bulunmaktadır.

4. Darwinistler Ida’nın ayak bileği kemiğinin “insanınki ile aynı olduğunu” iddia etmişlerdir. Oysa canlının ayak yapısı insanınkinden tümüyle farklıdır. Ayaklardaki tek bir kemiğin benzetilerek diğer farklılıkların ihmal edilmesi, Darwinist propagandanın en bilindik yöntemidir.

5. Darwinistler günümüz lemurlarının aksine, fosilin çenesinin ön kısmında sık dişlerin bulunmadığını ve ayrıca tımar pençesinin olmadığını belirtmiş ve bunu iddialarına delil olarak göstermeye çalışmışlardır. Oysa canlının dişleri, maymun dişleri ile benzerlik göstermektedir. Tımar pençesinin olmaması ise türe has bir özelliktir. Bu özelliklerin, türlere has varyasyonlar barındıran soyu tükenmiş bir lemurda bulunmaması, bu canlının evrimleştiğinin delili değildir. Bu canlının “insanın hayali atası olduğunun” ise hiçbir şekilde delili değildir. Canlının dişleri de parmakları da mükemmeldir. Evrimleşmekte olan, yarı gelişmiş, eksik veya anormal bir özellik sergilememektedirler.

6. Fosil aslında 1983 yılında bulunmuştur. Ve bu büyük sansasyonun yapılması için tam 26 yıl beklenmiştir. Bu uzun bekleyişin sebebi, muhtemelen Darwinistlerin en ihtiyaç duydukları anda, tamamen çökmüş ve yıkılmış oldukları anda, fosilin spekülasyon malzemesi olarak kullanılacak olmasıdır. Fosil, herhangi bir lemur fosili olarak niteliğini korurken, birdenbire, Darwinistlerin en büyük buluşu haline getirilmiştir.

Darwinistlerin bu fosil üzerinde yaptıkları tüm spekülasyonlar, “bu özellik insana benziyor” gibi tümüyle bilimsellikten uzak bir mantığa dayanmaktadır. Canlılar elbette birbirlerine benzerlik gösterirler. Fakat bu sahte evrimin kanıtı değildir. Darwinistler benzerlikleri hayali evrimin delili olarak sunacaklarına, gerçek bir ara fosil getirmeli, canlıda gelişmekte olan eksik, yarı gelişmiş, anormal yapıları göstermelidirler. Ancak böyle bir şeyi yapabilmeleri imkansızdır. Çünkü bu lemur da, tüm diğer canlılar gibi, Yüce Rabbimiz tarafından yoktan ve mükemmel hali ile yaratılmıştır. Fosiller bunu kanıtlamaktadır.

Sonuç:

Ida, herhangi bir canlı fosilinin Darwinistler tarafından nasıl çarpıtılabileceğinin, sahtekarlık ve provokasyon ile İNSANIN ATASI OLARAK SUNULABİLECEĞİNİN en net örneğidir. Bu fosil hakkında koparılan yaygara, aynı zamanda uzun zamandır anlattığımız Darwinist propagandanın sahte temellerine yeni ve taze bir örnek olarak kendini göstermiştir. Darwinistler hala bir fosil hakkında yoğun propaganda yaptıkları zaman, insanları istedikleri gibi yönlendirebilecekleri, aldatabilecekleri yanılgısına devam etmektedirler. Oysa insanlar uzun zamandır kendilerine anlatılanlarla Darwinist propagandanın nasıl sahte yöntemlerle işlemekte olduğunu çok iyi bilmektedirler. Dolayısıyla “insanın atası” diye ortaya çıkarılan mükemmel bir lemur fosilinin, bu sahte propagandanın bir parçası olduğunu hemen anlamışlardır.

Ida ile ortaya çıkan sonuç, Darwinistlerin şiddetli bir çaresizlik yaşadıkları gerçeğidir. Yıllar boyunca “ara fosil” ilan ettikleri fosilleri sahte olduğu için birer birer literatürden çıkarmak zorunda kalan Darwinist bilim adamları, şu anda, pervasızca, yepyeni bir sahtekarlığın savunuculuğunu yapmaktadırlar. Darwinizm’e göre, trilyonlarca olması gereken ara formların ise BİR TANESİ BİLE YOKTUR.Bu sahtekarlığa artık kimse inanmamaktadır. Darwinistler, bu sapkın teorinin sonunun geldiğini, gömülüp gittiğini kabul etmek zorundadırlar.

kaynak: www.harunyahya.org

evrimcilerin sahtekarlıkları

2009-08-21T12:00:00.000-07:00

Bilim tarihi her zaman çeşitli sahtekarlıklara sahne olmuştur. Bulduğu ilaçla kötürümleri yürüteceğini, saçsızlarda saç çıkaracağını iddia edenler, tüm hastalıkları iyi edeceğine halkı inandıran Mesmer ya da Rasputin gibi şarlatanlar.

Bu ünlü sahtekarların dışında zaman zaman gazetelere konu olan, başkasının tezini çalarak kariyer sahibi olmaya çalışmak gibi daha küçük çaplı sahtekarlıklar da vardır.

Ancak bilim tarihindeki sahtekarlıkların en büyükleri şüphesiz evrimcilere ait olanlardır. Evrimcilerin yaptıkları sahtekarlıkları diğerlerinden ayıran en önemli fark, evrimcilerin sahtekarlıklarının sistematik bir yapıya sahip olması ve kollektif hilelere, yanıltmalara, saptırmalara başvurmalarıdır. Bunlar, evrim teorisinin ortaya atılmasından bugüne kadar defalarca ve son derece profesyonelce düzenlenmiştir.

Bu yazıda evrimcilerin yapmış oldukları sahtekarlıklardan bazılarını inceleyeceğiz. Ama daha önce yanıtlanması gereken bir soru var: Neden Darwinizm'in tarihi böylesine sahtekarlıklarla doludur?

Çünkü evrim teorisini savunmanın başka herhangi bir yolu yoktur. Bilimsel bulgular evrimi çürüttüğüne göre geriye tek yol olarak sahtekarlıklara başvurmak kalır. Ya bulgular gizlenir veya imha edilir, ya da bunlar çarpıtılarak sanki evrim teorisini destekliyorlarmış gibi gösterilir. Halk bu konular hakkında yeteri kadar bilgi sahibi olmadığı için de, bu sahte delillere bakarak, evrimi ispatlanmış bir teori zanneder. İşte tamamen dayanaksız olan evrim teorisini ayakta tutabilmek için yapılabilecek yagane çaba ancak bunlar olacaktır...

Evrimcilerin en önemli propaganda yöntemi: Rekonstrüksiyonlar, sahte ve hayali çizimler

Evrimciler, teorilerini destekleyecek bilimsel deliller bulma konusunda başarısız olsalar da, bir konuda oldukça başarılıdırlar: Propaganda Bu propagandanın en önemli unsuru ise "rekonstrüksiyon" adı verilen sahte çizimlerdir.

Rekonstrüksiyon "yeniden inşa" demektir ve sadece bir kemik parçası bulunmuş olan canlının resminin ya da maketinin yapılmasıdır. Gazetelerde, dergilerde, filmlerde gördüğünüz "maymun adam"ların her biri birer rekonstrüksiyondur.

Ancak insanın kökeni ile ilgili fosil kayıtları çoğu zaman dağınık ve eksik oldukları için, bunlara dayanarak herhangi bir tahminde bulunmak, bütünüyle hayal gücüne dayalı bir iştir. Bu yüzden evrimciler tarafından fosil kalıntılarına dayanılarak yapılan rekonstrüksiyonlar, tamamen evrim ideolojisinin gereklerine uygun olarak tasarlanırlar. Harvard Üniversitesi antropologlarından David Pilbeam, "benim uğraştığım paleoantropoloji alanında daha önce edinilmiş izlenimlerden oluşmuş teori, daima gerçek verilere baskın çıkar" derken bu gerçeği vurgular. İnsanlar görsel yoldan daha kolay etkilendikleri için amaç onları, hayal gücüyle rekonstrüksiyonu yapılmış yaratıkların geçmişte gerçekten yaşadığına inandırabilmektir.

Burada bir noktaya dikkat etmek gerekir: Kemik kalıntılarına dayanılarak yapılan çalışmalarda sadece eldeki objenin çok genel özellikleri ortaya çıkarılabilir. Oysa asıl belirleyici ayrıntılar, zaman içinde kolayca yok olan yumuşak dokulardır. Evrime inanmış bir kimsenin bu yumuşak dokuları istediği gibi şekillendirip ortaya hayali bir yaratık çıkarması çok kolaydır. Harvard Üniversitesi'nden Earnst A. Hooten bu durumu şöyle açıklar:

"Yumuşak kısımların tekrar inşası çok riskli bir girişimdir. Dudaklar, gözler, kulaklar ve burun gibi organların altlarındaki kemikle hiçbir bağlantıları yoktur. Örneğin bir Neandertal kafatasını aynı yorumla bir maymuna veya bir filozofa benzetebilirsiniz. Eski insanların kalıntılarına dayanarak yapılan canlandırmalar hemen hiçbir bilimsel değere sahip değillerdir ve toplumu yönlendirmek amacıyla kullanılır... Bu sebeple rekonstrüksiyonlara fazla güvenilmemelidir."

Evrimciler bu konuda o denli ileri gitmektedirler ki, aynı kafatasına birbirinden çok farklı yüzler yakıştırabilmektedirler. Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus) adlı fosil için çizilen birbirinden tamamen farklı üç ayrı rekonstrüksiyon, bunun ünlü bir örneğidir.

Fosillerin taraflı yorumlanması ya da hayali rekonstrüksiyonlar yapılması, evrimcilerin aldatmacaya ne denli yoğun biçimde başvurduklarını gösteren deliller arasında sayılabilirler. Ancak bunlar, evrim teorisinin tarihinde rastlanan bazı somut sahtekarlıklarla karşılaştırıldıklarında, yine de çok sıradan kalmaktadırlar.

Medyada ve akademik kaynaklarda sürekli olarak telkin edilen "maymun insan" imajını destekleyecek hiçbir somut fosil delili yoktur. Evrimciler, ellerine fırça alıp hayali yaratıklar çizerler, ama bu canlıların fosillerinin olmayışı, onlar için büyük bir sorundur. Bu sorunu "çözmek" için kullandıkları ilginç yöntemlerden biri ise, bulamadıkları fosilleri "üretmek" olmuştur.

Evrim teorisini desteklemek uğruna yapılan bu tüm bu bilimsel sahtekarlıklar ya da önyargılı değerlendirmeler, bu teorinin bilimsel bir açıklamadan ziyade, bir tür ideoloji olduğunu göstermektedir. Her ideolojinin olduğu gibi, bu ideolojinin de fanatik taraftarları vardır ve bunlar evrimi her ne pahasına olursa olsun ispatlama çabası içindedirler. Ya da teoriye o denli dogmatik bir biçimde bağlanmışlardır ki, ellerine geçen her bulguyu, evrimle hiçbir ilgisi olmasa da, teorinin büyük bir kanıtı olarak algılamaktadırlar. Bu kuşkusuz bilim adına üzücü bir tablodur; çünkü bilim dünyasının temelsiz bir dogma uğruna yanlış yönlendirildiğini gösterir.

İskandinav bilim adamı Søren Løvtrup ise Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth adlı kitabında bu konuda şöyle demektedir:

"Sanırım herkes, bir bilim dalının tamamının yanlış bir teoriye bağımlı hale gelmesinin çok büyük bir şanssızlık olacağını kabul edecektir. Ancak biyolojide yaşanan şey tam da budur: Uzun bir zamandır insanlar evrimsel konuları Darwinistik kavramlarla tartışıyor, "adaptasyon", "seleksiyon basıncı" ya da "doğal seleksiyon" gibi kavramlarla. Sonra da bu tartışmalarla doğal olayların açıklanmasına katkıda bulunduklarını sanıyorlar. Ama gerçekte hiçbir katkı sağlamıyorlar... İnanıyorum ki, Darwinizm efsanesi bir gün bilim tarihindeki en büyük aldanış olarak tanımlanacaktır."

DARWİNİSTLER KENDİ UYDURDUKLARI İNSANIN HAYALİ ATASINA ISRARLA ''MAYMUN'' DENMESİNİ İSTEMİYORLAR

2009-08-21T11:52:00.000-07:00

Darwinistler kendi uydurdukları insanın hayali atasına ısrarla “MAYMUN” denmesini istemiyorlar. Darwinistlerin insanın hayali atası olarak iddia ettikleri, kendi hayallerindeki uydurma varlıklara biz bundan sonra maymun demeyeceğiz. Uygun görürlerse aşağıdaki isimlerle hitab edeceğiz. Eğer memnun kalmazlarsa bu isimleri de değiştirebiliriz. Ama beğeneceklerini umuyoruz:

simdi de doğal seleksiyon

2009-08-21T10:42:00.000-07:00

Doğal seleksiyon, doğada daimi bir yaşam mücadelesi olduğu ve bu mücadelede hayatta kalanların hep "güçlü ve doğal şartlara uygun" canllar olacağ varsayımına dayanır. Örneğin yırtıcı hayvanlarn tehdidi altında olan bir geyik sürüsü içinde, doğal olarak hızlıl kaçabilen geyikler hayatta kalacaktır. Doğal olarak da bir süre sonra bu geyik sürüsü hızlı koşabilen geyiklerden ibaret hale gelecektir.

Dikkat edilirse bu süreç, ne kadar uzun sürerse sürsün, geyikleri bir başka canlı türüne dönüştürmez. Zayf geyikler elenir, güçlüler hayatta kalır; sonuçta geyiklerin genetik bilgisinde bir değişiklik olmadğ için bir "tür değişimi" gerçekleşmez. Geyikler ne kadar seleksiyona uğrarlarsa uğrasınlar, geyik olarak yaşamaya devam ederler.

Geyik örneği tüm türler için geçerlidir. Doğal seleksiyon vasıtasıyla sadece bir popülasyon içindeki sakat, zayıf ya da çevre şartlarna uymayan bireylerin ayıklanmasına vesile olur; yeni canl türleri, yeni genetik bilgi ya da yeni organlar ortaya çkmaz. Yani doğal seleksiyon vasıtasıyla canlılar evrimleşmez. Darwin bu gerçeği "faydalı değişiklikler oluşmadığı sürece doğal seleksiyon hiçbir şey yapamaz" diyerek kabul etmiştir.

Doğal seleksiyon, Darwin'den önceki biyologlar tarafndan da bilinen, ancak "türlerin bozulmadan sabit kalmalarn sağlayan bir mekanizma" olarak tanmlanan bir doğal süreçtir. İlk kez Darwin, bu sürecin evrimleştirici bir gücü olduğu iddiasını ortaya atmış, tüm teorisini de bu iddiaya dayandırmştır. Kitabına verdiği isim, doğal seleksiyonun Darwin'in teorisinin temeli olduğunu gösterir: "Türlerin Kökeni, Doğal Seleksiyon Yoluyla"

Günümüzün en ünlü evrimcilerinden Stephen Jay Gould Darwinizm'in bu büyük yanlgısı hakkında şunlar söyler:

Darwinizm'in özü tek bir cümleye dayanır: Doğal seleksiyon evrimsel değişimde yaratıcı güçtür. Kimse doğal seleksiyonun zayf olanın elenmesindeki rolünü inkar etmez. Ancak Darwin teorisi doğal seleksiyonun uygun olan yaratmasını da istemektedir.

Evrimci C. Loring Brace, American Scientist dergisinde yayınlanan bir makalesinde, Darwinizm'in bilimsel bulgular tarafndan reddedildiğini ve doğal seleksiyonu da türleri oluşturan bir mekanizma olarak göremeyeceğimizi şöyle açklar:

American Scientist okuyucular, biyolojinin büyük bir kısmının ve paleontolojinin tamamnın Darwin'in organik evrim hakkndaki görüşlerini reddettiğini fark etmiyor olabilirler. Doğal seleksiyon sadece "ince ayar" olarak görüldüğü için reddediliyor, adaptasyon ise pratikte kesinlikle geçerli görülmüyor.

mutasyonlarla devam edelim

2009-08-21T10:36:00.000-07:00

Mutasyonlar küçük, rastgele ve zararlıdırlar. Çok ender olarak meydana gelirler ve en iyi ihtimalle etkisizdirler. Bu dört özellik, mutasyonların evrimsel bir gelişme meydana getiremeyeceğini gösterir. Zaten yüksek derecede özelleşmiş bir organizmada meydana gelebilecek rastlantısal bir değişim, ya etkisiz olacaktır ya da zararlı. Bir kol saatinde meydana gelecek rastgele bir değişim kol saatini geliştirmeyecektir. Ona büyük ihtimalle zarar verecek veya en iyi ihtimalle etkisiz olacaktır. Bir deprem bir şehri geliştirmez, ona yıkım getirir.

Yukarıdaki bu sözler ünlü genetikçi B. G. Ranganathan'a ait. Nitekim bugüne kadar hiçbir yararlı mutasyon örneği gözlemlenmedi. Tüm mutasyonların zararlı olduğu görüldü. İkinci Dünya Savaşı'nın ardından nükleer silahların sonucunda oluşan mutasyonları incelemek için kurulan Atomik Radyasyonun Genetik Etkileri Komitesi'nin (Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation) hazırladığı rapor hakkında evrimci bilim adamı Warren Weaver şöyle diyordu:

Çoğu kimse, bilinen tüm mutasyon örneklerinin zararlı olduğu sonucu karşısında şaşıracaktır, çünkü mutasyonlar evrim sürecinin gerekli bir parçasıdır. Nasıl olur da iyi bir etki -yani bir canlının daha gelişmiş canlı formlarına evrimleşmesi- pratikte hepsi zararlı olan mutasyonların sonucu olabilir?

İnsanlar üzerinde gözlemlenen tüm mutasyonlar zararlıdır. Tıp kitaplarında "mutasyon örneği" olarak anlatılan mongolizm, Down Sendromu, albinizm, cücelik, orak hücre anemisi gibi zihinsel ya da bedensel bozuklukların ya da kanser gibi hastalıkların her biri, mutasyonların tahrip edici etkilerini ortaya koymaktadır. Elbette ki insanları sakat ya da hasta yapan bir süreç, "evrim mekanizması" olamaz.

Nitekim Amerikalı patolog David A. Demick, mutasyonlar hakkında yazdığı bilimsel bir makalede bu konuda şunları söyler:

Son yıllarda genetik mutasyonlarla bağlantılı olan binlerce insan hastalığı sınıflandırılmıştır. Yeni yayınlanan bir kaynak kitapta 4500 farklı genetik hastalık sayılmaktadır. Dahası, moleküler genetik analizlerden önce klinik olarak tanımlanan bazı kalıtsal sendromların (örneğin Marfan sendromu) mutasyonların sonucu olduğu anlaşılmıştır...

Mutasyonların, oluşturdukları tüm bu hastalıkların yanında, faydalı etkileri de var mıdır? Tanımladığımız binlerce zararlı mutasyon örneğinin yanında, elbette ki bazı olumlu örnekler de tanımlamak gerekmektedir. -eğer makro evrim doğru ise- Bu olumlu örnekler, hem daha kompleks yapılar oluşturmak için evrime gerekecek, hem de çok sayıdaki zararlı mutasyonun bozucu etkisini dengelemek için lazım olacaktır. Ama iş bu faydalı mutasyonları tanımlamaya gelince, evrimci biyologlar hep garip bir sessizlik içindedirler.

Mutasyonların neden evrimci iddiayı destekleyemeyeceklerini üç ana maddede özetlemek mümkündür:

1) Mutasyonlar her zaman zararlıdır: Mutasyon rastgele meydana geldiği için hemen her zaman canlıya zarar verir. Mantık gereği, mükemmel ve karmaşık olan bir yapıya yapılacak herhangi bir bilinçsiz müdahale, o yapıyı daha ileri götürmez, aksine tahrip eder. Nitekim hiçbir gözlemlenmiş "faydalı mutasyon" yoktur

2) Mutasyon sonucunda DNA'ya yeni bilgi eklenmez: Genetik bilgiyi oluşturan parçalar yerlerinden kopup sökülür, tahrip olur ya da DNA'nın farklı yerlerine taşınır. Ama mutasyonlar hiçbir şekilde canlıya yeni bir organ ya da yeni bir özellik kazandırmazlar. Ancak bacağın sırttan, kulağın karından çıkması gibi anormalliklere sebep olurlar.

3) Mutasyonun bir sonraki nesle aktarılabilmesi için mutlaka üreme hücrelerinde meydana gelmesi gerekir: Vücudun herhangi bir hücresinde veya organında meydana gelen değişim bir sonraki nesle aktarılmaz. Örneğin bir insanın gözü, radyasyon ve benzeri etkilerle mutasyona uğrayıp orijinal formundan farklılaşabilir ama bu, kendisinden sonraki nesillere geçmeyecektir.

mutasyonlarla başlayalım

2009-08-21T10:34:00.000-07:00

Mutasyonlar, canlı hücresinin çekirdeğinde bulunan ve genetik bilgiyi taşıyan DNA molekülünde, radyasyon veya kimyasal etkiler sonucunda meydana gelen kopmalar ve yer değiştirmelerdir. Mutasyonlar DNA'yı oluşturan nükleotidleri tahrip eder ya da yerlerini değiştirirler. Çoğu zaman da hücrenin tamir edemeyeceği boyutlarda birtakım hasar ve değişikliklere sebep olurlar.

Dolayısıyla evrimcilerin arkasına sığındıkları mutasyon, hiç de sanıldığı gibi canlıları daha gelişmişe ve mükemmele götüren tılsımlı bir değnek değildir. Mutasyonların net etkisi zararlıdır. Mutasyonların sebep olacağı değişiklikler ancak Hiroşima, Nagazaki veya Çernobil'deki insanların uğradığı türden değişiklikler olabilir: Yani ölüler, sakatlar... Bunun nedeni çok basittir: DNA çok kompleks bir düzene sahiptir. Bu molekül üzerinde oluşan herhangi rastgele bir etki ona sancak zarar verir.

Mutasyonların uyumlu olarak organlar meydana getirme zorunluluğu

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 gerekiyor. Örs, çekiç, üzengi her birinin aynı şekilde mükemmel olarak eşit şekilde meydana gelmesi gerekiyor.
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. Mutasyonların her şeyi simetrik ve uyumlu şekilde meydana getirmesi gerekir.
% 99’u zararlı, %1’i etkisiz mutasyonların faydalı olması; akılcı, uyumlu, simetrik, organları aynı anda meydana getirebilmeleri ise imkansızdır.

evrim neyi açıklıyor

2009-08-21T10:32:00.000-07:00

aslında bu soruya evrim neyi açıklamıyor diye cevap vermek daha kolay, çünkü evrim neyi açıklıyor sorusunun cevabı büyük bir boşluk.

bu sayfada evrime dair herşeyi konuşacağız