Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and the Darwin Debate

52 Comments »

1. david said,

   July 3, 2008 at 3:07 am

   Just as an Earthquake Cannot Improve a City, Neither
   Are Mutations Advantageous to Develop Living Things

   Mutations are caused by random changes in the DNA in which all the information concerning the human body’s characteristics is encoded. Mutations occur due to outside agents such as radiation or chemicals. Evolutionists maintain that such random genetic changes can cause living things to evolve. The fact is, though, that mutations are always harmful to living things, do not develop them, and can never endow them with any new functional features (such as wings or lungs, for instance). Mutations either kill or deform the afflicted organism. To claim that mutations improve a species and endow it with new advantages is like claiming that an earthquake can make a city more advanced and modern, or that striking a computer with a hammer will result in a more advanced model. Indeed, no mutation has ever been observed to increase—much less improve—genetic information.

2. david said,

   July 3, 2008 at 3:11 am

   Peppered Moths Are No Evidence for
   Evolution through Natural Selection

   Of all the supposed “proofs” of the theory of evolution, the most frequently repeated concerns changes in a species of moth in 19th century Britain. It is claimed that due to air pollution during the Industrial Revolution, tree bark was darkened—for which reason dark- colored moths were better camouflaged from predatory birds, and thus their numbers increased.
   But this is not evolution, because no new species of moth emerged. All that happened was that the ratio ratio of the two already existing types in an already existing species changed. In addition, it has since emerged that the account on which this claim was based was untrue. The well-known photos showing moths clinging to the bark of trees were found to be fabrications. Contrary to what has been claimed, no instance of so-called “industrial melanism”—the darkening of color due to industrial pollution—has ever taken place.

3. david said,

   July 3, 2008 at 3:11 am

   Living Groups Emerged Abruptly
   on Earth and at the Same Time

   Almost all the basic living categories known today emerged suddenly and at the same time, during the Cambrian Period, 530 to 520 million years ago. Living organisms with totally different bodily structures—sponges, mollusks, worms, Echinodermata, arthropods and vertebrates—all appeared suddenly, simultaneously, with no life forms remotely resembling them in any earlier geological period. This fact alone completely undermines evolutionists’ claims that living things evolved from a single common ancestor gradually, and over a very long period of time.
   The fact that the Earth was suddenly filled with a great many species, all possessing radically different physical structures and exceedingly complex organs demonstrates that these were, of course, created. Since evolutionists deny creation and the existence of God, they cannot definitely explain this miraculous phenomenon.

4. david said,

   July 3, 2008 at 3:12 am

   The Fossil Record Refutes the Famous
   “Equine Evolution” Scenario

   For decades now, the “evolution” of the horse has been presented as one of the best- documented proofs of the theory of evolution. Four-footed mammals that lived in different periods have been arranged in an arbitrary order from small to large, and this “horse series” displayed in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. The fact is, however, that recent research in years has revealed that the extinct species in the horse series were not one another’s ancestors. The sequence is highly inaccurate, and that the smaller quadrupeds depicted as the ancestor of the horse actually appeared on Earth long afterwards.

5. there is no evolution said,

   July 3, 2008 at 3:24 am

   Anyone who seeks an answer to the question of how living things, including himself, came into existence, will encounter two distinct explanations. The first is “creation,” the idea that all living things came into existence as a consequence of an intelligent design. The second explanation is the theory of “evolution,” which asserts that living things are not the products of an intelligent design, but of coincidental causes and natural processes.

   For a century and a half now, the theory of evolution has received extensive support from the scientific community. The science of biology is defined in terms of evolutionist concepts. That is why, between the two explanations of creation and evolution, the majority of people assume the evolutionist explanation to be scientific. Accordingly, they believe evolution to be a theory supported by the observational findings of science, while creation is thought to be a belief based on faith. As a matter of fact, however, scientific findings do not support the theory of evolution. Findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects cannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes.

   Theory of evolution broke down in the light of modern science .

   There is no evolution.

6. Ali Gurcay said,

   July 3, 2008 at 3:31 am

   I read the comments and understand that the reality is clear. The evolution is not reality. The reality is the creation. If i look at to the old cars, i can see how it evaluated from one to the newstep by step. you can check the factories’ developmment and research departments’ garbages and see how many parts are used to create new models. but when you look at to the real world you cannot see any this type of semi or improved and lost organs in the animals. there are more than million of animals now living in the world, but evolutionist never shows one of these million animals’ step by step evolution.
   Also every fossils show that it is unique. It also shows that it is the same with the living ancestors since the time when it lived. So how you can talked about the evolution!? It is meaningless.
   If we looked at from Islamic perspective, Allah said in the Qur’an that He create only by saying “BE”, He has the power to control each leaf in the world, and He continue to create everything in the world in each second. Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) had tried to explain this in his books very well. The creation facilities of Allah looks like a tv broadcasting in side or brain with three dimensional, with touches, and smells. If it is broken at the moment, we lost everything. It is not important that has been continuing since we are aware about. It can be cut any time when Allah wishes. Be carefful Allah continues to create each seconds for us inside our brain.
   Selam

7. rauf genc said,

   July 3, 2008 at 3:32 am

   to guardianreeda

   please explain how does this “non-random” selection emerges ? How does, the lightning, wind, etc.. emerges at the exact time to do the selection?

   Ohhh, I see.. While the (hurricane like) wind was blowing, the aminoacids were looking forward to bond with each other. The extremly high temperatures.. No ploblem! As aminoacids are conscious molecules, they should find a way to avoid themselves, like cold trap.. Not finished yet.. Protiens can not form in the water - it is a chemical rule.. So our amino acids should climb to the burning rocks with their pseudofoots.. And at last they can form a perfect, excellent, active protein with a correct order, which can be done just once in a ten to the power of 950.(Woooww!!)

   Opps.. But then? What should they do.. Where will they bind? Who will they affect? Where is the body, the organism?

   Would you like me to continue.. Or is ti enough? Because I can write down, all days and nights and I can not finish to write about this deceit.

   It is time to awake..

   Please, please think for a second, how could evlolution do these actions?
   If you say that there is a consciousness, Quran has already said that 1400 years ago.. Allah control everything, including you..

   You can read a verse from Quran (Surah 6. Al-An‘am - verse 59)

   With Him are the keys of the unseen, the treasures that none knoweth but He. He knoweth whatever there is on the earth and in the sea. NOT A LEAF DOTH FALL but with His knowledge: there is not a grain in the darkness (or depths) of the earth, nor anything fresh or dry (green or withered), but is (inscribed) in a record clear (to those who can read).

   If you read the aricle, you will understand it..

   http://harunyahya.com/Quran_translation/Quran_translation_index.php
   If you wish, you can reach to Holy Quran from this link…

8. Ali Saygin said,

   July 3, 2008 at 3:38 am

   Inayat doesnt have background to discuss this subject with Harun Yahya.Harun Yahya is explaining evolution deceit in his books and in his intenet site http://www.harunyahya.ru.

9. Ali Saygin said,

   July 3, 2008 at 3:40 am

   Harun Yahya is definitely right.If the scientist speaks with the words CHANCE.

   This is not a science.This is religion of Darwinism.

   Would chance determine the colors of fruits - NO

   CHANCE cannot determine the wavelength of light

   CHANCE cannot specify the basic biochemical reactions

   CHANCE cannot know which wavelength reflects which color

   Would coincidence decide which vitamin should take place in which vegetable - NO

   CHANCE cannot arrange the molecules for making up a certain molecule

   CHANCE cannot know how this molecular setup is beneficial for the living organisms

   CHANCE cannot define how photosynthesis works in the vegetable

   Would accidents give the taste of the delicious banana or the strawberry - NO

   CHANCE cannot know what delicious means without having the conscious experience

   CHANCE cannot specify which molecules should make the chemistry for a certain taste

   CHANCE cannot know how the brain will process this chemical reaction for the perception of a certain taste

   Would chance have the aesthetic artistry to give beautiful colors to butterflies - NO

   CHANCE cannot know what is beautiful or not, what is advantageous or not

   WHAT IS CHANCE, WHERE IS IT, WHO HAS SEEN IT BEFORE?

10. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 3:41 am

    Anyone who seeks an answer to the question of how living things, including himself, came into existence, will encounter two distinct explanations. The first is “creation,” the idea that all living things came into existence as a consequence of an intelligent design. The second explanation is the theory of “evolution,” which asserts that living things are not the products of an intelligent design, but of coincidental causes and natural processes.

    F or a century and a half now, the theory of evolution has received extensive support from the scientific community. The science of biology is defined in terms of evolutionist concepts. That is why, between the two explanations of creation and evolution, the majority of people assume the evolutionist explanation to be scientific. Accordingly, they believe evolution to be a theory supported by the observational findings of science, while creation is thought to be a belief based on faith. As a matter of fact, however, scientific findings do not support the theory of evolution. Findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects cannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes.

    Theory of evolution broke down in the light of modern science .

    It is clear that THERE IS NO EVOLUTİON…

11. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 3:45 am

    Harun Yahya has clearly shown that evolution never happened and the entire universe and the living beings created by God. His books are fantastic. I highly recommend to visit his website http://www.harunyahya.com

    read his 250 books without charge. It is impossible darwinism nonsense after reading any of his books. Sorry evolution never happened. It is sometimes hard for atheists to accept this fact. because Darwnism is their religion. A superstitious religion. If somebody says “ı am” and aware of his/her existence since this person could not have been created himself that is evidence of endless existence of the creation and the creater.

    It is so silly to thşnk that chance nonsense did the creation. It is not scientific, not logical, it is so irrationa

12. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 3:46 am

    I agree with Yahya. It is most important that muslims should realise the real claim of evolutionism: that “life emerged by chance, through unconscious mechanisms”. There can be no objections to this statement; it’s 100% true. Conscious intervention is nowhere in the evolutionary theory. Then comes the vital question that we should ask ourselves: Could this by any means fit in belief in Allah, Al-Bari%u2019, Al-%u2018Aleem, Al-Baseer, Al- Badee%u2018, Al-Fatir, Al-Khabeer, Al- Hakeem? Glory be to Him, He is the All-Wise, All-Knowing, the Maker, the Creator.

13. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 3:49 am

    Harun Yahya is definitly right:

    Because so much for the cell, but the theory of evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible.

    Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called “amino acids” that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands.

    The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore the theory cannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of proteins, as will be discussed later.)

    The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand.

    For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living things.

14. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 3:49 am

    Evolution by chance is mathematically, statistically, scientifically, logically impğossible:

    The probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is “1 in 10300″. The probability of this “1″ to occur is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as “zero probability”).

    Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word “impossible” is insufficient to describe the true situation.

    When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 “types” of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.

15. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 3:50 am

    Evolution theory is a lie.
    The probability of formation of a protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids is “1″ over a number formed by placing 950 zeros next to 1, which is a number incomprehensible for the human mind. This is a probability only on paper. Practically speaking, there is zero chance of its actually happening. As we saw earlier, in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 in 1050 is statistically considered to have a “0″ probability of occurring.

    A probability of “1 over 10950″ is far beyond the limits of this definition.

    While the improbability of the formation of a protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids reaches such an extent, we can further proceed to push the limits of the mind with higher levels of improbability. In the “haemoglobin” molecule, which is a vital protein, there are 574 amino acids, which is more than the amino acids making up the protein mentioned above. Now consider this: in only one out of the billions of red blood cells in your body, there are “280,000,000″ (280 million) haemoglobin molecules.

    The supposed age of the earth is not sufficient to allow the formation of even a single protein by a “trial and error” method, let alone that of a red blood cell. Even if we suppose that amino acids have combined and decomposed by a “trial and error” method without losing any time since the formation of the earth, in order to form a single protein molecule, the time that would be required for something with a probability of 10950 to happen would still hugely exceed the estimated age of the earth.

    The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that evolution falls into a terrible abyss of improbability even when it comes to the formation of a single protein

16. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 3:51 am

    Is There a Trial and Error Mechanism in Nature? No of course not..

    Finally, we may conclude with a very important point in relation to the basic logic of probability calculations, of which we have already seen some examples. We indicated that the probability calculations made above reach astronomical levels, and that these astronomical odds have no chance of actually happening. However, there is a much more important and damaging fact facing evolutionists here. This is that under natural conditions, no period of trial and error can even start, despite the astronomical odds, because there is no trial-and-error mechanism in nature from which proteins could emerge.

    The calculations we give on page across to demonstrate the probability of the formation of a protein molecule with 500 amino acids are valid only for an ideal trial-and-error environment, which does not actually exist in real life. That is, the probability of obtaining a useful protein is “1″ in 10950 only if we suppose that there exists an imaginary mechanism in which an invisible hand joins 500 amino acids at random and then, seeing that this is not the right combination, disentangles them one by one, and arranges them again in a different order, and so on. In each trial, the amino acids would have to be separated one by one, and be arranged in a new order. The synthesis should be stopped after the 500th amino acid has been added, and it must be ensured that not even one extra amino acid is involved. The trial should then be stopped to see whether or not a functional protein has yet been formed, and, in the event of failure, everything should be split up again and then tested for another sequence. Additionally, in each trial, not even one extraneous substance should be allowed to become involved. It is also imperative that the chain formed during the trial should not be separated and destroyed before reaching the 499th link. These conditions mean that the probabilities we have mentioned above can only operate in a controlled environment where there is a conscious mechanism directing the beginning, the end, and each intermediate stage of the process, and where only “the correct selection of the amino acids” is left uncontrolled. It is clearly impossible for such an environment to exist under natural conditions. Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logically and technically impossible. In fact, to talk of the probabilities of such an event is quite unscientific.

17. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 3:52 am

    Since some people are unable to take a broad view of these matters, but approach them from a superficial viewpoint and assume protein formation to be a simple chemical reaction, they may make unrealistic deductions such as “amino acids combine by way of reaction and then form proteins”. However, accidental chemical reactions taking place in an inanimate structure can only lead to simple and primitive changes. The number of these is predetermined and limited. For a somewhat more complex chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, and laboratories have to be involved. Medicines and many other chemical materials that we use in our daily life are made in just this way. Proteins have much more complex structures than these chemicals produced by industry. Therefore, it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of creation, in which every part takes its place in a fixed order, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions.

    Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described so far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously “by accident”. Even so, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to survive, it would need to be isolated from its natural habitat and be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, it would either disintegrate from exposure to natural conditions on earth, or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, thereby losing its particular properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance

18. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 3:52 am

    Above all, there is one important point to take into consideration: If any one step in the evolutionary process is proven to be impossible, this jis sufficient to prove that the whole theory is totally false and invalid. For instance, by proving that the haphazard formation of proteins is impossible, all other claims regarding the subsequent steps of evolution are also refuted. After this, it becomes meaningless to take some human and ape skulls and engage in speculation about them.

19. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 3:55 am

    Harun YAhya is definitely right.The direct effect of mutations is harmful.

    ) The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure, but will rather impair it. Indeed, no “useful mutation” has ever been observed.

    2) Mutations add no new information to an organism’s DNA: As a result of mutations, the particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.

    3) In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation or by other causes will not be passed on to subsequent generations

20. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 3:56 am

    Harun YAhya is definitely right.

    Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms

    And that refutes the theory of evolution of course..

    When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.

    The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the “Cambrian Explosion” in geological literature.

    Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens. For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of creation. David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: “the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today”.

    These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.

    Richard Monastersky, a science journalist at Science News, one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the “Cambrian Explosion”, which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory:

    A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth’s Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth’s first complex creatures. …the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian …and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.

21. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 3:57 am

    Harun Yahya is definitely right.
    Cambrien explosion proves the existence of tthe omnipotent Creator:

    Cambrien explosion disproves of course the evolution chance nonsense

    Deeper investigation into the Cambrian Explosion shows what a great dilemma it creates for the theory of evolution. Recent findings indicate that almost all phyla, the most basic animal divisions, emerged abruptly in the Cambrian period. An article published in Science magazine in 2001 says: “The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today”.30 The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has not yet proved possible:

    This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record.

    How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden, and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged, is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that undermines the very foundation of all the arguments he has been defending:

    For example the Cambrian strata of rocks… are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

    As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact: “Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.” Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote: “If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.” The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin’s “fatal stroke”. This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengtson, who confesses the lack of transitional links while describing the Cambrian Age, makes the following comment: “Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us”.

    Obviously, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created.

22. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 3:58 am

    Harun Yahya is definitely right.

    Why Cannot Natural Selection Explain Complexity?

    There is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refers to this impasse of natural selection as follows;

    The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.

    Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as conscious. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things. As a result, one cannot explain biological systems and organs that possess the feature of “irreducible complexity” by natural selection. These systems and organs are composed of a great number of parts cooperating together, and are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, the human eye does not function unless it exists with all its components intact). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to foresee the future and aim directly at the advantage that is to be acquired at the final stage. Since natural selection has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact, which demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin, who wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

    Through natural selection, only the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species are selected out. New species, new genetic information, or new organs cannot be produced. That is, living things cannot evolve through natural selection. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: “Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur”. This is why neo-Darwinism has had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as the “cause of beneficial changes”. However as we shall see, mutations can only be “the cause for harmful changes”.

23. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 3:59 am

    Materialists, False Religion and True Religion

    The circles devoted to materialist philosophy derange science,they deceive people for the sake of the evolutionist fables that they blindly believe, and they veil realities. That said, we also have to admit that these materialist circles perform a significant “service”, though unintentionally.

    They carry out this “service”, by which they seek to justify their own untrue and atheist thoughts, by exposing all the senselessness and inconsistencies of the traditionalist and bigoted thought that poses in the name of Islam. The offences of the materialist-atheist circle have helped reveal the false religion which has no relation whatsoever with the Qur’an or Islam; which depends on hearsay, superstition, and idle talk; and which has no consistent argument to put forth. Thus, all the inconsistencies, discrepancies, and illogic of the false religion defended by those insincere circles that wrongly act in the name of Islam without relying on valid evidence are exposed.
    Harun Yahya is definitely right.
    Thus materialists help many people realise the gloom of the bigoted and traditional mentality and encourage them to seek the essence and real source of religion by referring to and adhering to the Qur’an. Although unintentionally, they obey God’s command and serve His religion. Furthermore, they disclose all the simplicity of the mentality that presents a false religion invented in the name of God and proffered as Islam to all and they help weaken the sway of this bigoted system that threatens the bulk of society.

24. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:00 am

    Harun Yahya is definitely right.

    The Desperate Efforts of Neo-Darwinism

    Darwin’s theory entered into a deep crisis because of the laws of genetics discovered in the first quarter of the 20th century. Nevertheless, a group of scientists who were determined to remain loyal to Darwin endeavoured to come up with solutions. They came together in a meeting organised by the Geological Society of America in 1941. Geneticists such as G. Ledyard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky, zoologists such as Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, paleontologists such as George Gaylord Simpson and Glenn L. Jepsen, and mathematical geneticists such as Ronald Fisher and Sewall Right, after long discussions, finally agreed on ways to “patch up” Darwinism.

    This cadre focused on the question of the origin of the advantageous variations that supposedly caused living organisms to evolve-an issue that Darwin himself was unable to explain but simply tried to side-step by depending on Lamarck. The idea was now “random mutations”. They named this new theory “The Modern Synthetic Evolution Theory”, which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin’s natural selection thesis. In a short time, this theory came to be known as “neo-Darwinism” and those who put forward the theory were called “neo-Darwinists”.

    The following decades were to become an era of desperate attempts to prove neo-Darwinism. It was already known that mutations-or “accidents” -that took place in the genes of living organisms were always harmful. Neo-Darwinists tried to establish a case for “advantageous mutation” by carrying out thousands of mutation experiments. All their attempts ended in complete failure.

    They also tried to prove that the first living organisms could have originated by chance under primitive terrestrial conditions that the theory posited but the same failure attended these experiments too. Every experiment that sought to prove that life could be generated by chance failed. Probability calculations prove that not even a single protein, the building-blocks of life, could have originated by chance. And the cell-which supposedly emerged by chance under primitive and uncontrolled terrestrial conditions according to the evolutionists-could not be synthesised by even the most sophisticated laboratories of the 20th century.

    Neo-Darwinist theory is also defeated by the fossil record. No “transitional forms”, which were supposed to show the gradual evolution of living organisms from primitive to advanced species as the neo-Darwinist theory claimed, have ever been found anywhere in the world. At the same time, comparative anatomy revealed that species that were supposed to have evolved from one another had in fact very different anatomical features and that they could never have been ancestors or descendants of each other.

    But neo-Darwinism was never a scientific theory anyway, but was an ideological dogma if not to say some sort of “false religion”. The Canadian philosopher of science Michael Ruse, a staunch evolutionist himself, confesses this in a speech he gave at a 1993 meeting:

    And certainly, there’s no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion … And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism…

    This is why the champions of the theory of evolution still go on defending it in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. One thing they cannot agree on however is which of the different models proposed for the realisation of evolution is the “right” one.

25. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:02 am

    Harun Yahya is definitely right.

    The Fossil Record

    Refutes Evolution

    According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

    If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as “transitional forms”.

    If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:

    If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed… Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.

    Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled “Difficulties of the Theory”:

    …Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.

    The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.

    Believing in Darwin’s prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the 19th century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.

    A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

    The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.

    Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

    A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.

    These gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained by saying that sufficient fossils have not yet been found, but that they one day will be. Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that “the gaps in the fossil record are real and meaningful”. He elaborates this claim in this way:

    The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.

26. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:04 am

    Harun Yahya is definitely right.
    Molecular Comparisons Deepen Evolution’s Cambrian Impasse

    Another fact that puts evolutionists into a deep quandary about the Cambrian Explosion is the comparisons between different living taxa. The results of these comparisons reveal that animal taxa considered to be “close relatives” by evolutionists until quite recently, are genetically very different, which puts the “intermediate form” hypothesis, that only exists theoretically, into an even greater quandary. An article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2000 reports that DNA analyses have displaced taxa that used to be considered “intermediate forms” in the past:

    DNA sequence analysis dictates new interpretation of phylogenic trees. Taxa that were once thought to represent successive grades of complexity at the base of the metazoan tree are being displaced to much higher positions inside the tree. This leaves no evolutionary “intermediates” and forces us to rethink the genesis of bilaterian complexity…

    In the same article, evolutionist writers note that some taxa which were considered “intermediate” between groups such as sponges, cnidarians and ctenophores can no longer be considered as such because of new genetic findings, and that they have “lost hope” of constructing such evolutionary family trees:

    The new molecular based phylogeny has several important implications. Foremost among them is the disappearance of “intermediate” taxa between sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor of bilaterians or “Urbilateria.” …A corollary is that we have a major gap in the stem leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the “coelomate ancestor” through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant “primitive”lineages.

27. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:06 am

    Harun Yahya is definitely right.

    Origin of Birds and Mammals

    According to the theory of evolution, life originated and evolved in the sea and then was transported onto land by amphibians. This evolutionary scenario also suggests that amphibians evolved into reptiles, creatures living only on land. This scenario is again implausible, due to the enormous structural differences between these two classes of animals. For instance, the amphibian egg is designed for developing in water whereas the amniotic egg is designed for developing on land. A “step by step” evolution of an amphibian is out of the question, because without a perfect and fully-designed egg, it is not possible for a species to survive. Moreover, as usual, there is no evidence of transitional forms that were supposed to link amphibians with reptiles. Evolutionist paleontologist and an authority on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to accept that “the early reptiles were very different from amphibians and that their ancestors could not be found yet.”

    Yet the hopelessly doomed scenarios of the evolutionists are not over yet. There still remains the problem of making these creatures fly! Since evolutionists believe that birds must somehow have been evolved, they assert that they were transformed from reptiles. However, none of the distinct mechanisms of birds, which have a completely different structure from land-dwelling animals, can be explained by gradual evolution. First of all, the wings, which are the exceptional traits of birds, are a great impasse for the evolutionists. One of the Turkish evolutionists, Engin Korur, confesses the impossibility of the evolution of wings:

    The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be enlightened.

    The question of how the perfect structure of wings came into being as a result of consecutive haphazard mutations remains completely unanswered. There is no way to explain how the front arms of a reptile could have changed into perfectly functioning wings as a result of a distortion in its genes (mutation).

    Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural mechanisms that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds are much lighter than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs function in a very different way. They have a different muscular and skeletal system and a very specialised heart-circulatory system. These features are pre-requisites of flying needed at least as much as wings. All these mechanisms had to exist at the same time and altogether; they could not have formed gradually by being “accumulated”. This is why the theory asserting that land organisms evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious.

    All of these bring another question to the mind: even if we suppose this impossible story to be true, then why are the evolutionists unable to find any “half-winged” or “single-winged” fossils to back up their story?

    Another Alleged Transitional Form: Archæopteryx

    Evolutionists pronounce the name of one single creature in response. This is the fossil of a bird called Archæopteryx, one of the most widely-known so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still defend. Archæopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archæopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.

    However, the latest studies of Archæopteryx fossils indicate that this creature is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.

    The thesis that Archæopteryx was a “half-bird” that could not fly perfectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago. The absence of a sternum (breastbone) in this creature was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The sternum is a bone found under the thorax to which the muscles required for flight are attached. In our day, this breastbone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats, a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.)

    However, the seventh Archæopteryx fossil, which was found in 1992, caused great astonishment among evolutionists. The reason was that in this recently discovered fossil, the breastbone that was long assumed by evolutionists to be missing was discovered to have existed after all. This fossil was described in Nature magazine as follows:

28. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:07 am

    Harun Yahya is definitely right.
    Archæopteryx and Other Ancient Bird Fossils

    While evolutionists have for decades been proclaiming Archæopteryx to be the greatest evidence for their scenario concerning the evolution of birds, some recently-found fossils invalidate that scenario in other respects.

    Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, two paleontologists at the Chinese Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology, discovered a new bird fossil in 1995, and named it Confuciusornis. This fossil is almost the same age as Archæopteryx (around 140 million years), but has no teeth in its mouth. In addition, its beak and feathers shared the same features as today’s birds. Confuciusornis has the same skeletal structure as modern birds, but also has claws on its wings, just like Archæopteryx. Another structure peculiar to birds called the “pygostyle”, which supports the tail feathers, was also found in Confuciusornis. In short, this fossil-which is the same age as Archæopteryx, which was previously thought to be the earliest bird and was accepted as a semi-reptile-looks very much like a modern bird. This fact has invalidated all the evolutionist theses claiming Archæopteryx to be the primitive ancestor of all birds.

    Another fossil unearthed in China, caused even greater confusion. In November 1996, the existence of a 130-million-year-old bird named Liaoningornis was announced in Science by L. Hou, L. D. Martin, and Alan Feduccia. Liaoningornis had a breastbone to which the muscles for flight were attached, just as in modern birds. This bird was indistinguishable from modern birds also in other respects, too. The only difference was the teeth in its mouth. This showed that birds with teeth did not possess the primitive structure alleged by evolutionists.This was stated in an article in Discover “Whence came the birds? This fossil suggests that it was not from dinosaur stock”.

    Another fossil that refuted the evolutionist claims regarding Archæopteryx was Eoalulavis. The wing structure of Eoalulavis, which was said to be some 25 to 30 million years younger than Archæopteryx, was also observed in modern slow-flying birds. This proved that 120 million years ago, there were birds indistinguishable from modern birds in many respects flying in the skies.

    These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archæopteryx nor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The fossils do not indicate that different bird species evolved from each other. On the contrary, the fossil record proves that today’s modern birds and some archaic birds such as Archæopteryx actually lived together at the same time. Some of these bird species, such as Archæopteryx and Confuciusornis, have become extinct, and only some of the species that once existed have been able to survive down to the present day.

    In brief, several features of Archæopteryx indicate that this creature was not a transitional form. The overall anatomy of Archæopteryx imply stasis, not evolution. Paleontologist Robert Carroll has to admit that:

    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…

    On the other hand, the “temporal paradox” is one of the facts that deal the fatal blow to the evolutionist allegations about Archæopteryx. In his book Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells remarks that Archæopteryx has been turned into an “icon” of the theory of evolution, whereas evidence clearly shows that this creature is not the primitive ancestor of birds. According to Wells, one of the indications of this is that theropod dinosaurs—the alleged ancestors of Archæopteryx—are actually younger than Archæopteryx:

    Two-legged reptiles that ran along the ground, and had other features one might expect in an ancestor of Archæopteryx, appear later.

    The Imaginary Bird-Dinosaur Link

    The claim of evolutionists trying to present Archæopteryx as a transitional form is that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. However, one of the most famous ornithologists in the world, Alan Feduccia from the University of North Carolina, opposes the theory that birds are related to dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself. Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird evolution:

    Well, I’ve studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don’t see any similarities whatsoever. I just don’t see it… The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.

    Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of Kansas

29. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:07 am

    Darwinism is not science

    Evolution is not a theory arrived at through scientific investigation. On the contrary, the form and substance of this theory were dictated by the requirements of materialistic philosophy. It then turned into a belief or dogma in spite of concrete scientific facts. Again, we can clearly see from evolutionist literature that all of this effort has a “purpose”-and that purpose precludes any belief that all living things were not created no matter what the price.

    Evolutionists define this purpose as “scientific”. However, what they refer to is not science but materialist philosophy. Materialism absolutely rejects the existence of anything “beyond” matter (or of anything supernatural). Science itself is not obliged to accept such a dogma. Science means exploring nature and deriving conclusions from one’s findings. If these findings lead to the conclusion that nature is created, science has to accept it. That is the duty of a true scientist; not defending impossible scenarios by clinging to the outdated materialist dogmas of the 19th century.

30. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:08 am

    Evolution is not a theory. This is how it works in science. First a hypothesis is developed. İf this hypothesis is verified by observations and experiments it becomes a theory. Darwinism has never become a theory. It is falsified by all observations and experiments. (Fossil record, lab experiments to get beneficial mutations on bacteria and fruit flies etc).

31. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:09 am

    Darwinism lies at the bottom of the pervert ideologies of 20 th century:

    Most people think the theory of evolution was first proposed by Charles Darwin, and rests on scientific evidence, observations and experiments. However, the truth is that Darwin was not its originator, and neither does the theory rest on scientific proof. The theory consists of an adaptation to nature of the ancient dogma of materialist philosophy. Although it is not backed up by scientific discoveries, the theory is blindly supported in the name of materialist philosophy.

    This fanaticism has resulted in all kinds of disasters. Together with the spread of Darwinism and the materialist philosophy it supports, the answer to the question “What is a human being?” has changed. People who used to answer: “God creates human beings and they have to live according to the beautiful morality He teaches”, have now begun to think that “Man came into being by chance, and is an animal who developed by means of the fight for survival.” There is a heavy price to pay for this great deception. Violent ideologies such as racism, fascism and communism, and many other barbaric world views based on conflict have all drawn strength from this deception.

    This article will examine the disaster Darwinism has visited on the world and reveal its connection with terrorism, one of the most important global problems of our time.

    The Darwinist Lie: ‘Life is conflict’

    Darwin set out with one basic premise when developing his theory: “The development of living things depends on the fight for survival. The strong win the struggle. The weak are condemned to defeat and oblivion.”

    According to Darwin, there is a ruthless struggle for survival and an eternal conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this enables development to take place. The subtitle he gave to his book The Origin of Species, “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”, encapsulates that view.

    Furthermore, Darwin proposed that the ‘fight for survival’ also applied between human racial groups. According to that fantastical claim, ‘favoured races’ were victorious in the struggle. Favoured races, in Darwin’s view, were white Europeans. African or Asian races had lagged behind in the struggle for survival. Darwin went further, and suggested that these races would soon lose the “struggle for survival” entirely, and thus disappear:

    At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

    The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin’s theory of evolution imposed racism on the social sciences:

    His (Darwin’s) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man’s civilization. By the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists.

    Darwin’s Source of Inspiration: Malthus’s Theory of Ruthlessness

    Darwin’s source of inspiration on this subject was the British economist Thomas Malthus’s book An Essay on the Principle of Population. Left to their own devices, Malthus calculated that the human population increased rapidly. In his view, the main influences that kept populations under control were disasters such as war, famine and disease. In short, according to this brutal claim, some people had to die for others to live. Existence came to mean “permanent war.”

    In the 19th century, Malthus’s ideas were widely accepted. European upper class intellectuals in particular supported his cruel ideas. In the article “The Scientific Background of the Nazi ‘Race Purification’ Programme”, the importance 19th century Europe attached to Malthus’s views on population is described in this way:

    In the opening half of the nineteenth century, throughout Europe, members of the ruling classes gathered to discuss the newly discovered “Population problem” and to devise ways of implementing the Malthusian mandate, to increase the mortality rate of the poor: “Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations,” and so forth and so on.

32. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:12 am

    What ‘The Law of the Jungle’ Led to: Fascism

    As Darwinism fed racism in the 19th century, it formed the basis of an ideology that would develop and drown the world in blood in the 20th century: Nazism.

    A strong Darwinist influence can be seen in Nazi ideologues. When one examines this theory, which was given shape by Adolf Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, one comes across such concepts as “natural selection”, “selective mating”, and “the struggle for survival between the races”, which are repeated dozens of time in the works of Darwin. When calling his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler was inspired by the Darwinist struggle for survival and the principle that victory went to the fittest. He particularly talks about the struggle between the races:

    History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendour, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.

    In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that “a higher race subjects to itself a lower race… a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right”.

    That the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that almost all historians who are expert in the matter accept. The historian Hickman describes Darwinism’s influence on Hitler as follows:

    (Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because]… his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.

    Hitler, who emerged with these views, dragged the world to violence that had never before been seen. Many ethnic and political groups, and especially the Jews, were exposed to terrible cruelty and slaughter in the Nazi concentration camps. World War II, which began with the Nazi invasion, cost 55 million lives. What lay behind the greatest tragedy in world history was Darwinism’s concept of the “struggle for survival.”

    The Bloody Alliance: Darwinism and Communism

    While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been among the fiercest defenders of Darwin’s theory.

    This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these “isms”. Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin’s The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at its ‘dialectical materialist’ attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin’s theory as “containing the basis in natural history for communism”. In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man”.

    Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is seen as the founder of Russian communism, regarded marxism as “Darwinism in its application to social science”.

    Trotsky said, “Darwin’s discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter.”

    ‘Darwinist education’ had a major role in the formation of communist cadres. For instance, historians note the fact that Stalin was religious in his youth, but became an atheist primarily because of Darwin’s books.

    Mao, who established communist rule in China and killed millions of people, openly stated that “Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution.”

    The Harvard University historian James Reeve Pusey goes into great detail regarding Darwinism’s effect on Mao and Chinese communism in his research book China and Charles Darwin.

    In short, there is an unbreakable link between the theory of evolution and communism. The theory claims that living things are the product of chance, and provides a so-called scientific support for atheism. Communism, an atheist ideology, is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism. Moreover, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is possible thanks to conflict (in other words “the struggle for survival”) and supports the concept of “dialectics” which is fundamental to communism.

    If we think of the communist concept of “dialectical conflict”, which killed some 120 million people during the 20th century, as a “killing machine” then we can better understand the dimensions of the disaster that Darwinism visited on the planet.

33. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:17 am

    Darwinism and Terrorism

    As we have so far seen, Darwinism is at the root of various ideologies of violence that have spelled disaster to mankind in the 20th century. The fundamental concept behind this understanding and method is “fighting whoever is not one of us.”

    We can explain this in the following way: There are different beliefs, worldviews and philosophies in the world. It is very natural that all these diverse ideas have traits opposing one another. However, these different stances can look at each other in one of two ways:

    1) They can respect the existence of those who are not like them and try to establish dialogue with them, employing a humane method. Indeed, this method conforms with the morality of the Qur’an.

    2) They can choose to fight others, and to try to secure an advantage by damaging them, in other words, to behave like a wild animal. This is a method employed by materialism, that is, irreligion.

    The horror we call terrorism is nothing other than a statement of the second view.

    When we consider the difference between these two approaches, we can see that the idea of “man as a fighting animal” which Darwinism has subconsciously imposed on people is particularly influential. Individuals and groups who choose the way of conflict may never have heard of Darwinism and the principles of that ideology. But at the end of the day they agree with a view whose philosophical basis rests on Darwinism. What leads them to believe in the rightness of this view is such Darwinism-based slogans as “In this world, the strong survive”, “Big fish swallow little ones”, “War is a virtue”, and “Man advances by waging war”. Take Darwinism away, and these are nothing but empty slogans.

    Actually, when Darwinism is taken away, no philosophy of ‘conflict’ remains. The three divine religions that most people in the world believe in, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, all oppose violence. All three religions wish to bring peace and harmony to the world, and oppose innocent people being killed and suffering cruelty and torture. Conflict and violence violate the morality that God has set out for man, and are abnormal and unwanted concepts. However, Darwinism sees and portrays conflict and violence as natural, justified and correct concepts that have to exist.

    For this reason, if some people commit terrorism using the concepts and symbols of Islam, Christianity or Judaism in the name of those religions, you can be sure that those people are not Muslims, Christians or Jews. They are real Social Darwinists. They hide under a cloak of religion, but they are not genuine believers. Even if they claim to be serving religion, they are actually enemies of religion and of believers. That is because they are ruthlessly committing a crime that religion forbids, and in such a way as to blacken religion in peoples’ eyes.

    For this reason, the root of the terrorism that plagues our planet is not any of the divine religions, but in atheism, and the expression of atheism in our times: “Darwinism” and “materialism.”

34. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:18 am

    The Greatest Miracle of Our Times:

    Belief in the Evolution Deceit

    All the millions of living species on the earth possess miraculous features, unique behavioural patterns and flawless physical structures. Every one of these living things has been created with its own unique detail and beauty. Plants, animals, and man above all, were all created with great knowledge and art, from their external appearances down to their cells, invisible to the naked eye. Today there are a great many branches of science, and tens of thousands of scientists working in those branches, that research every detail of those living things, uncover the miraculous aspects of those details and try to provide an answer to the question of how they came into being.

    Some of these scientists are astonished as they discover the miraculous aspects of these structures they study and the intelligence behind that coming into existence, and they witness the infinite knowledge and wisdom involved. Others, however, surprisingly claim that all these miraculous features are the product of blind chance. These scientists believe in the theory of evolution. In their view, the proteins, cells and organs that make up these living things all came about by a string of coincidences. It is quite amazing that such people, who have studied for long years, carried out lengthy studies and written books about the miraculous functioning of just one organelle within the cell, itself too small to be seen with the naked eye, can think that these extraordinary structures came about by chance.

    The chain of coincidences such eminent professors believe in so flies in the face of reason that their doing so leaves outside observers utterly amazed. According to these professors, a number of simple chemical substances first came together and formed a protein - which is no more possible than a randomly scattered collection of letters coming together to form a poem. Then, other coincidences led to the emergence of other proteins. These then also combined by chance in an organised manner. Not just proteins, but DNA, RNA, enzymes, hormones and cell organelles, all of which are very complex structures within the cell, coincidentally happened to emerge and come together. As a result of these billions of coincidences, the first cell came into being. The miraculous ability of blind chance did not stop there, as these cells then just happened to begin to multiply. According to the claim in question, another coincidence then organised these cells and produced the first living thing from them.

    Billions of impossible events had to take place together for just one eye in a living thing to form. Here too the blind process known as coincidence entered the equation: It first opened two holes of the requisite size and in the best possible place in the skull, and then cells that happened by chance to find themselves in those places coincidentally began to construct the eye.

    As we have seen, coincidences acted in the knowledge of what they wanted to produce. Right from the very start, “chance” knew what seeing, hearing and breathing were, even though there was not one example of such things anywhere in the world at that time. It displayed great intelligence and awareness, exhibited considerable forward planning, and constructed life step by step. This is the totally irrational scenario to which these professors, scientists and researchers whose names are greatly respected and whose ideas are so influential have devoted themselves. Even now, with a childish stubbornness, they exclude anyone who refuses to believe in such fairy tales, accusing them of being unscientific and bigoted. There is really no difference between this and the bigoted, fanatical and ignorant medieval mentality that punished those who claimed the earth was not flat.

    What is more, some of these people claim to be Muslims and believe in God. Such people find saying, “God created all of life” unscientific, and yet are quite able to believe instead that saying, “It came about in an unconscious process consisting of billions of miraculous coincidences” is scientific.

    If you put a carved stone or wooden idol in front of these people and told them, “Look, this idol created this room and everything in it” they would say that was utterly stupid and refuse to believe it. Yet despite that they declare the nonsense that “The unconscious process known as chance gradually brought this world and all the billions of wonderful living things in it into being with enormous planning” to be the greatest scientific explanation.

    In short, these people regard chance as a god, and claim that it is intelligent, conscious and powerful enough to create living things and all the sensitive balances in the universe. When told that it was God, the possessor of infinite wisdom, who created all living things, these evolutionist professors refuse to accept the fact, and maintain that unconscious, unintelligent, powerless billions of coincidences

35. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:20 am

    Blind Materialism

    The false faith that we are talking about is the materialistic philosophy, which argues that matter has existed for all eternity and there is nothing other than matter. The theory of evolution is the so-called “scientific foundation” for this materialistic philosophy and that theory is blindly defended in order to uphold this philosophy. When science invalidates the claims of evolution-and that is the very point that has been reached here at the end of the 20th century-it then is sought to be distorted and brought into a position where it supports evolution for the sake of keeping materialism alive.

    A few lines written by one of the prominent evolutionist biologists of Turkey is a good example that enables us to see the disordered judgement and discretion that this blind devotion leads to. This scientist discusses the probability of the coincidental formation of Cytochrome-C, which is one of the most essential enzymes for life, as follows:

    The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once in the whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our definition should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate to the goals of science. We therefore have to look into the first hypothesis.2

    This scientist finds it “more scientific” to accept a possibility “as likely as zero” rather than creation. However according to the rules of science, if there are two alternative explanations concerning an event and if one of them has “as likely as zero” a possibility of realisation, then the other one is the correct alternative. However the dogmatic materialistic approach forbids the admittance of a superior Creator. This prohibition drives this scientist-and many others who believe in the same materialist dogma-to accept claims that are completely contrary to reason.

    People who believe and trust these scientists also become enthralled and blinded by the same materialistic spell and they adopt the same indifference when reading their books and articles.

    This dogmatic materialistic point of view is the reason why many prominent names in the scientific community are atheists. Those who free themselves from the thrall of this spell and think with an open mind do not hesitate to accept the existence of a Creator. American biochemist Dr Michael J. Behe, one of those prominent names who support the movement to defend the fact of creation that has lately become very accepted, describes the scientists who resist believing in the creation of living organisms thus:

    Over the past four decades, modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. It has required tens of thousands of people to dedicate the better parts of their lives to the tedious work of the laboratory… The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell- to investigate life at the molecular level-is a loud, clear, piercing cry of “design!”. The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science… Instead a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the [issue] is labelled intelligent design, the other side must be labelled God.

    This is the predicament of the atheist evolutionist scientists you see in magazines and on television and whose books you may be reading. All the scientific research carried out by these people demonstrates to them the existence of a Creator. Yet they have become so insensitised and blinded by the dogmatic materialist education they have absorbed that they still persist in their denial.

    People who steadily neglect the clear signs and evidences of the Creator become totally insensitive. Caught up in an ignorant self-confidence caused by their insensitivity, they may even end up supporting an absurdity as a virtue. A good case in point is the prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins who calls upon Christians not to assume that they have witnessed a miracle even if they see the statue of the Virgin Mary wave to them. According to Dawkins, “Perhaps all the atoms of the statue’s arm just happened to move in the same direction at once-a low probability event to be sure, but possible.”

    The psychology of the unbeliever has existed throughout history. In the Qur’an it is described thus:

    Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in God’s plan. But most of them ignore (the truth). (Surat al-Anaam : 111)

    As this verse makes clear, the dogmatic thinking of the evolutionists is not an original way of t

36. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:20 am

    Antony Flew is foremost atheist of the world..

    Now listen what your leader said:

    “Sorry says atheist in chief I do believe in God after all

    I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature.

    (The Sunday Times, 12 December 2004)

    Biologists’ investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved. (Richard N. Ostling, “Lifelong atheist changes mind about divine creator,” The Washington Times 10 December 2004)

    “It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.” (Antony Flew, “Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology,” Philosophy Now)

37. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:21 am

    HARUN YAHYA HAS PUT AN END TO EVOLUTION DECEIT!

    Evolution is a “wishful thinking” of some groups that have been fooling the entire world that the so called “coincidence” could supposedly produce scientists like Einstein and Newton, musicians like Mozart and Verdi, artists like Monet and Rembrandt.

    Let us put all kinds of proteins, chemicals, any material in a barrel and wait millions of years to see what these will turn out to be? Would you expect to see rabbits, roses, ants, bees, cats and human beings coming out of this barrel?

    Children would not even believe in such a story. Why are evolutionists stuck in this sticky lie? Just watch around and see the perfect tuning all around, from the speed of light to the nuclear forces in the atom, as well as the entire body systems of living organisms.

    You may refer to http://www.atlasofcreation.com for finding answers to your questions in Turkish, English, Italian, French, Chinese, Spanish and even Japanese.

    All the best.

38. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:22 am

    SORRY FOR DARWIN, “IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY” SHOWS THERE IS NO ROOM FOR GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT

    Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

    Given the primitive level of science in the nineteenth century, Darwin may have thought that living things possess a reducible structure. But twentieth century discoveries have shown that many systems and organs in living things cannot be reduced to simplicity. This fact, known as “irreducible complexity,” definitively destroys Darwinism, just as Darwin himself feared.

39. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:23 am

    DECEPTIVE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF EVOLUTIONISTS IS A SCANDAL IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE

    Even if evolutionists are unsuccessful in finding scientific evidence to support their theories, they are very successful at one thing: propaganda. The most important element of this propaganda is the practice of creating false designs known as “reconstructions.”

    Reconstruction can be explained as drawing a picture or constructing a model of a living thing based on a single bone-sometimes only a fragment-that has been unearthed. The “ape-men” we see in newspapers, magazines, and films are all reconstructions.

    There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the “ape-man” image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures; nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to “produce” the fossils they cannot find. Piltdown man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.

40. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:23 am

    ANOTHER DILEMMA CONFRONTING EVOLUTION THEORY: LE CHATELIER’S PRINCIPLE IN CHEMISTRY

    When combining to form proteins, amino acids form a special bond with one another called the peptide bond. A water molecule is released during the formation of this peptide bond.

    This fact definitely refutes the evolutionist explanation that primordial life originated in water, because, according to the “Le Châtelier principle” in chemistry, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water (a condensation reaction) to take place in a hydrous environment. The chances of this kind of a reaction happening in a hydrate environment is said to “have the least probability of occurring” of all chemical reactions.

    Hence the ocean, which is claimed to be where life began and amino acids originated, is definitely not an appropriate setting for amino acids to form proteins. On the other hand, it would be irrational for evolutionists to change their minds and claim that life originated on land, because the only environment where amino acids could have been protected from ultraviolet radiation is in the oceans and seas. On land, they would be destroyed by ultraviolet rays. The Le Châtelier principle, on the other hand, disproves the claim of the formation of life in the sea. This is another dilemma confronting evolution.

41. Endofdarwinism said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:24 am

    Harun Yahya’s Works Rock the World .

    IN ORDER TO SEE WHAT A DECEPTION THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION REALLY IS, YOU MUST READ THESE BOOKS BY HARUN YAHYA (ADNAN OKTAR)!

    Under the pen-name of Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar has written around 250 books, for a total of 46,000 pages, and containing some 31,500 illustrations. Some 7,000 of these pages—and 6,000 of the illustrations—deal with the collapse of the Theory of Evolution.

    The Evolution Deceit . . . A Historical Lie: The Stone Age . . . Darwinism Refuted . . . Once Upon a Time There Was Darwinism . . . The Transitional Form Dilemma . . . The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution in 20 Questions . . . The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity . . . The Cell in 40 Topics . . . The Dark Spell of Darwinism . . . The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution in 50 Topics . . . The Perfect Design in the Universe Is Not by Chance . . . Darwinism’s Social Weapon . . . Why Darwinism is Incompatible with the Qur’an . . . The Errors of the American National Academy of Sciences . . . Wonders of Allah’s Creation . . . Fascism: The Bloody Ideology of Darwinism . . . Tell Me About the Creation . . . A Definitive Reply to Evolutionist Propaganda . . . The Religion of Darwinism . . . How Fossils Overturned Evolution . . . The Atlas of Creation

42. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:27 am

    Harun Yahya is definiely right.
    LİFE ONLY COMES FROM LİFE

    All observations and experiments indicate that life can only originate from life. And today we know scientifically that life only comes from life. That fact is called biogenesis. This scientific fact is stated in the Campbell-Reece Biology Textbook with these words:

    As far as we know, all life today arises only by the reproduction of preexisting life. This life-from-life principle is called biogenesis (Biology, Campbell-Reece, Sixth Edition, 2002, P.516)

    In this respect, the first life on earth must also have originated from other life. This is a reflection of God’s epithet of “Hayy” (The Owner of Life). Life can only start, continue, and end by His will. As for evolution, not only is it unable to explain how life began, it is also unable to explain how the materials essential for life have formed and come together.

    Another very powerful evidence which refutes Darwinist claims and proves the fact that living beings are created by God is the sudden emergence of living things in their complete and perfect forms.

    3.5 bilion years ago, the first cell emerged all of a sudden. There is the fossil of the very first cell from Australia. These bacteria preserved on this fossil are the same as todays leptolyngbya bacterium. (No evolution for 3.5 billion years.)

    Moreover, any cell must be a complete cell otherwise it can not survive. Today we know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is stored, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.

    Furthermore, it cannot survive if any of these components is missing or defective. This is a scientific fact and of course refutes the Darwinist claim of random gradual emergence.

    Also if we look at the fosil evidence, we observe the same fact that living beings emerged all of a sudden. I am not sure, how familiar is Taner Edis with paleontology, but the Cambrian Period is the oldest stratum of the Earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found. It can be defined as the most ancient stratum in which the first visible fossils of living things are embedded. Cambrian Period, has an estimated age of 500-550 million years. The living things in that period were invertebrate marine animals, like jellyfish, water lilies, starfish, worms and snails. The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian Period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record with no pre-existing ancestors. Richard Dawkins, one of the best-known advocates of evolution in the world, comments on this reality that undermines the very foundation of all the arguments he has been defending:

    For example the Cambrian strata of rocks… are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

    Darwin himself recognized the possibility of this when he wrote: “If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.” The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin’s “fatal stroke”.

43. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:28 am

    FOSSİLS REFUTE EVOLUTİON

    The second most important evidence comes from the fosil record. If it is asserted that species evolved into one another by successive minute variations, and that this happened over billions of years, then evolutionists have to show us these slow, minute changes in the fossilized examples of those species. They must show us half-fish half-reptile, half-reptile half-mammal, half-reptile half-bird fossils. These imaginary species are called Transitional Forms. There is no doubt that if there is no such fossil record concerning changes among the fossils of stable species, then there is nothing left to discuss as regards to the theory of evolution.

    If we consider the capacity of the fossil record, we see that we have millions of fossils in hand which belong to stable species. But the number of so-called transitional species must be much higher than that of the stable species we observe today. Trillions of transitional forms should be present in the fossil record linking these species to one another. That is because if there had been slow and fine gradations that had lasted for billions of years, then the number of stable species should have been smaller, and the number of transitional form fossils reflecting those variations should be much higher. Although there are more than 100 million fossils there is not a singleso-called transitional form.

    The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained as such:

    …Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?…

    This fact is also admitted by the late evolutionist paleontologist of the 20th century Stephen Jay Gould:

    The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

    1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

    2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’. (S.J. Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace”, Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.)

    Briefly, it is obvious that life and the universe are created by God and it is proven by all the scientific evidence deriving from all the branches of science.

44. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:28 am

    THE CLAIMS OF EVOLUTION THEORY ARE COMPLETELY AGAINST REASON AND LOGIC

    According to the unscientific and irrational claim of the theory of evolution, the nothingness in the infinite universe gradually gave rise to mankind as a result of chance developments. According to this utterly unbelievable theory, first dust, then soil, stones, waters, mountains and oceans came spontaneously into being in this nothingness devoid of anything of the sort. Later, certain atoms in the mixtures of these came together by chance and brought into being such elements as calcium, phosphorus and carbon.

    Over millions of years these lifeless elements, completely lacking in intellect, memory, knowledge and consciousness, turned into human beings able to breathe, speak, think, rejoice and mourn, possessed of a soul and memory, with the intelligence, knowledge and consciousness necessary to invent things, and capable of writing libraries full of books. In other words, under the effects of coincidence over billions of years, accumulations of dust, soil and mud turned into human beings of flesh, blood and soul, capable of building extraordinary factories and producing the latest model of cars in them, of establishing space stations, of constructing palaces, and making marvels of art.

    To believe that stone and soil could one day turn into human beings as the result of chance is even more irrational and illogical than believing in fairy tales. Not even children would believe such a tale.

45. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:29 am

    FAITH IN THE CREATOR, IS THE ABSOLUTE AND ULTIMATE TRUTH

    The eyes that you have is composed of so many different parts that work intricately in perfection so that you may see a wonderfully created world with lots of colors, tastes, scents, shapes, etc. Considering the details of this creation in macro and micro level, what would be the answers to the following?

    - Would chance determine the colors of fruits

    - Would coincidence decide which vitamin should take place in which vegetable

    - Would accidents give the taste of the delicious banana or the strawberry

    - Would chance have the aesthetic artistry to give beautiful colors to butterflies and wonderful patterns to tigers and zebras

    - Would accidents place the kidneys, heart, liver, bones, glands, veins, in their right places

    We all know that whether we call it accident - chance - coincidence,

    it has no power. This false god has misled people into deception and caused them to spend their entire lives for nothing.

    I hope the day has come that people think in total sincerity and with no prejudice to comprehend this very apparent truth - that God has created everything in this world.

46. Ali Saygin said,

    July 3, 2008 at 4:32 am

    Harun Yahya is definitely right.
    Evolutionists assume that the sea invertebrates that appear in the Cambrian stratum somehow evolved into fish in tens of million years. However, just as Cambrian invertebrates have no ancestors, there are no transitional links indicating that an evolution occurred between these invertebrates and fish. It should be noted that invertebrates and fish have enormous structural differences. Invertebrates have their hard tissues outside their bodies, whereas fish are vertebrates that have theirs on the inside. Such an enormous “evolution” would have taken billions of steps to be completed and there should be billions of transitional forms displaying them.

    Evolutionists have been digging fossil strata for about 140 years looking for these hypothetical forms. They have found millions of invertebrate fossils and millions of fish fossils; yet nobody has ever found even one that is midway between them.

    An evolutionist paleontologist, Gerald T. Todd, admits a similar fact in an article titled “Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes”:

    All three subdivisions of bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armour? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?38

    The evolutionary scenario goes one step further and argues that fish, who evolved from invertebrates then transformed into amphibians. But this scenario also lacks evidence. There is not even a single fossil verifying that a half-fish/half-amphibian creature has ever existed. Robert L. Carroll, an evolutionary palaeontologist and authority on vertebrate palaeontology, is obliged to accept this. He has written in his classic work, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, that “The early reptiles were very different from amphibians and their ancestors have not been found yet.” In his newer book, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, published in 1997, he admits that “The origin of the modern amphibian orders, (and) the transition between early tetrapods” are “still poorly known” along with the origins of many other major groups.39 Two evolutionist paleontologists, Colbert and Morales, comment on the three basic classes of amphibians-frogs, salamanders, and caecilians:

    There is no evidence of any Paleozoic amphibians combining the characteristics that would be expected in a single common ancestor. The oldest known frogs, salamanders, and caecilians are very similar to their living descendants.

    Until about fifty years ago, evolutionists thought that such a creature indeed existed. This fish, called a coelacanth, which was estimated to be 410 million years of age, was put forward as a transitional form with a primitive lung, a developed brain, a digestive and a circulatory system ready to function on land, and even a primitive walking mechanism. These anatomical interpretations were accepted as undisputed truth among scientific circles until the end of the 1930’s. The coelacanth was presented as a genuine transitional form that proved the evolutionary transition from water to land.

    However on December 22, 1938, a very interesting discovery was made in the Indian Ocean. A living member of the coelacanth family, previously presented as a transitional form that had become extinct seventy million years ago, was caught! The discovery of a “living” prototype of the coelacanth undoubtedly gave evolutionists a severe shock. The evolutionist paleontologist J.L.B. Smith said that “If I’d met a dinosaur in the street I wouldn’t have been more astonished”.41 In the years to come, 200 coelacanths were caught many times in different parts of the world.

    Living coelacanths revealed how far the evolutionists could go in making up their imaginary scenarios. Contrary to what had been claimed, coelacanths had neither a primitive lung nor a large brain. The organ that evolutionist researchers had proposed as a primitive lung turned out to be nothing but a lipid pouch.42 Furthermore, the coelacanth, which was introduced as “a reptile candidate getting prepared to pass from sea to land”, was in reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans and never approached nearer than 180 metres from the surface.

47. mary said,

    July 3, 2008 at 5:00 am

    I love Harun Yahya and his books.

48. dinckok said,

    July 3, 2008 at 5:03 am

    Harun Yahya must be appreciated. Why? Because he has changed the wievs of even most of the evolutionists even some professors. He has prooved that evolution is a lie that has been continuing for years just for serving to some harmful ideologies such as communism, fascism, racism that had caused wars, oppressions, slaughters. Harun Yahya prooved that evolution is a fallacy. How? For example with the fossil records that show that a living thing is just the same with its status before millions of years ago when looked at the fossils, the ambers. Just look at “Atlas of Creation”. There are lots of pictures of ambers, fossils. Under them it is written “A 280-MILLION-YEAR-OLD FROG FOSSIL. There exists no difference between this frog, alive 280 million years ago, and those of today.” or “Ferns have kept their same structure since the day they were created. Ferns that have remained the same for approximately 300 million years are one piece of evidence verifying the invalidity of the evolution theory.”

49. dinckok 2 said,

    July 3, 2008 at 5:04 am

    The fossil record is perhaps the most important evidence that demolishes the theory of evolution’s claims. Fossils reveal that life forms on Earth have never undergone even the slightest change and have never developed into one another. Examining the fossil record, we see that living things are exactly the same today as they were hundreds of millions of years ago—in other words, that they never underwent evolution. Even during the most ancient periods, life forms emerged suddenly with all their complex structures–with the perfect and superior features, just as do their counterparts today.

    This demonstrates one indisputable fact: Living things did not come into being through the imaginary processes of evolution. All the living things that have ever existed on Earth were created by God. This fact of creation is once again revealed in the traces left behind them by flawless living things.

50. dinckok 3 said,

    July 3, 2008 at 5:21 am

    WHY DID PEOPLE BELIEVED INTO EVOLUTION FOR 150 YEARD? Because it was imposed and suggested as if evolution was a scientific fact. But in those days of evolution theory was brought forward, life could only be studied with very primitive technology and at a very inadequate level. Scientific fields such as genetics and biochemistry did not exist even in name. The theory therefore had to depend entirely on powers of imagination.
    But now by the improoved technology, science it can clearly prooved that evolution is a deceit. For example While the echoes of Darwin’s book reverberated, Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865. Not much heard of until the end of the century, Mendel’s discovery gained great importance in the early 1900s. This was the birth of the science of genetics. Somewhat later, the structure of the genes and the chromosomes was discovered. The discovery, in the 1950s, of the DNA molecule that incorporates genetic information threw the theory of evolution into a great crisis. The reason was the incredible complexity of life and the invalidity of the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwin.
    So now we can ask evolutionists “Can the information sufficient to fill 1 million encyclopedia pages that is contained in DNA be coded in the correct sequence by chance?” Answer: No, it cannot. In the same way that it is impossible for someone wearing a blindfold to randomly print out a million pages of meaningful information, so i