THE EVOLUTION OF THE HORSE SERIES IS A FRAUD

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''

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

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 

 

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

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