EVOLUTION FORGERIES -2

EVOLUTION FORGERIES - 1

">

Fossils says "no" to evolution

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

IMAGINARY MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION - 1

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

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

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 20th 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?

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

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