The November edition of National Geographic magazine (NG)
posed the question "Was Darwin Wrong?" on its front cover. Natural scientist
David Quammen, author of the article by the same name, replied "No" to that
question from his own perspective, and claimed that Darwin's theory of evolution
was today backed up by powerful scientific evidence. Quammen repeated the main
claims from Darwin's book The Origin of Species, but overlooked one
important detail.
Darwin added another chapter to his book, one called "Difficulties
on Theory," and openly admitted the existence of difficulties in these terms:
Such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties
which may justly be urged against my theory… I have felt these difficulties
far too heavily during many years to doubt their weight. 1
The fact is, however, that the NG article discussed not
one of the phenomena that Darwin regarded as a problem for his theory, and even
ignored their existence. For example, although Darwin referred in his book to
the way the fossil record failed to back up his theory and to the complexity
in the eye, NG magazine did not even touch on such subjects which the
theory of evolution is unable to account for as the Cambrian Explosion, biological
complexity and the origin of genetic information.
Quammen, who thus appears to be more of a Darwinist than Darwin
himself, emerged as the defender not of a theory that can account for difficulties,
but of a "dogma" that needs to be shielded from criticism.
In this article, Quammen's so-called evidence is analysed and the
Darwinist propaganda embarked on by NG magazine refuted.
An Example of NG Turkey's Dogmatic Stance
The English language edition of the NG article "Was Darwin
Wrong?" also devoted space to Harun Yahya's works about the theory of evolution.
In the section describing worldwide reactions against evolution the following
words appeared in reference to Harun Yahya:
Their discomfort is paralleled by Islamic creationists such as
Harun Yahya, author of a recent volume titled The Evolution Deceit, who points
to the six-day creation story in the Koran as literal truth and calls the
theory of evolution "nothing but a deception imposed on us by the dominators
of the world system."
Interestingly though, Harun Yahya did not appear in NG's
Turkish version, and this section was altered, assuming the following form:
"This unease displays a parallelism among those who support the Islamic idea
of creation."
As someone who states his primary aim as being that of describing
the philosophy and scientific invalidity of Darwinism, Harun Yahya has closely
monitored Darwinist propaganda in recent years and has responded, in the light
of scientific findings, to the pro-evolutionist writings and broadcasts of media
organisations, of which NG is one. (see
www.darwinism-watch.com)
If Darwinism really were supported by a mass of evidence, as claimed
in this NG article, then why is NG Turkey trying to prevent Harun
Yahya's scientific criticisms from being heard? Could it be that NG Turkey
was concerned that Darwinism will be unable to withstand such scientific criticism?
In fact, this attitude by NG's Turkey desk not only shows that the magazine
is unwilling to inform its readers of the source of effective criticism of evolution,
but also confirms the criticism that it is seeking to keep Darwinism on its
feet as an ideology.
NG Is Unwilling to Face the Modern Scientific Facts
There can be no doubt that in order to provide a realistic response
to the question "Was Darwin Wrong?" one needs to look at what Darwin actually
said and to compare this to modern scientific facts. In his book The Origin
of Species, in which he unveiled his theory of evolution, Darwin provided
a very important criterion by which to test his theory. So concrete is that
criterion that in Darwin's own words it could "absolutely break down" the theory.
Darwin 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." 2
Darwin maintained that organs evolved during a gradual process.
Thinking of this imaginary process in reverse, it appears that Darwin assumed
that these organs possessed reducibility. However, advances made in the field
of biochemistry, especially over the last 40 years, have revealed that the cell
possesses a superior complexity, the details of which were unknown in Darwin's
time, for which reason it was equated to a "black box," and that certain structures
within the cell actually possess the feature of "irreducible complexity."
"Irreducible complexity" is a phenomenon based on empirical evidence
and literally constitutes the antithesis of Darwin's theory. The most important
figure to bring this concept onto the agenda of the scientific world is the
biochemist Michael J. Behe from Lehigh University in the USA. In his 1996 book
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution Behe examines
the irreducibly complex natures of the cell and certain other biological structures,
and reveals that these cannot possibly be accounted for in terms of evolution.
Behe sets out the effect that irreducible complexity has on the claims of Darwinism
thus:
"To Darwin, the cell was a 'black box' -- its inner workings
were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and
we know how it works. Applying Darwin's test to the ultra-complex world of
molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the
past 40 years, we can say that Darwin's theory has 'absolutely broken down'."
3
Irreducible complexity has demolished Darwinism, and proved that
life is the product of intelligent design, in other words that God has created
all living things. The way that NG seeks to keep this from its readers
constitutes a flight from reality.
NG's biogeographical taLES
In his article in NG, Quammen begins his account of the
so-called evidence for Darwinism with biogeography, and it may be of use to
provide a description of this concept at this point. Biogeography is a branch
of science that investigates the geographical distribution of species and seeks
an answer to the question of how they came by these habitat regions by drawing
up maps of their locations on the Earth.
Most books in the field of biogeography are full of facts that
say nothing, neither in favour nor against, the theory of evolution: such as
maps of living species' habitat areas, the features of those areas, questions
regarding the spread of organisms, and the grouping together of species on the
basis of geographical area ... 4
When their distribution on the Earth is examined it can be seen
that species do not generally exhibit a global distribution. Species have rather
spread in large groups in areas possessing specific climatic and environmental
conditions. Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have sought to portray this spread
as evidence for evolution, though with regard to the "fundamental" living categories
of geographical distribution their efforts have failed to come up with a consistent
evolutionary scenario.
In their book Systematics and Biogeography, G. Nelson
and N. Platnick of the New York American Museum of Natural History analysed
the studies performed in this field and set out their conclusion:
We conclude, therefore, that biogeography (or geographical distribution
of organisms) has not been shown to be evidence for or against evolution in
any sense. 5
If evolutionists really wish to offer evidence for their theory
then what they need to do is to abandon their fairy tales about "if this living
thing is found here then it must have evolved here, and if that living thing
is found there then it must have evolved there," and instead scientifically
document their own responses to the question of how living things came into
being in the first place. (It is an indisputable fact that the mechanisms of
random mutation and natural selection cannot account for the origin of species.)
The fact that evolutionist claims based on biogeography are myths
devoid of any scientific evidence clearly emerge on inspection of NG's
claims about palaeontology. The fossil record clearly reveals that the idea
that living things spread by evolving is a myth.
NG's palaeontology deception
NG makes a generalisation about the fossil strata, telling
its readers that so-called closely related species are generally found side
by side in consecutive strata, and that a life form going back millions of years
in one stratum is followed by a similar, though not identical, one in the subsequent
stratum. As an example of this generalisation it cites the equine sequence that
even evolutionists abandoned years ago; it maintains that the modern-day horse
emerged at the end of the sequence Hyracotherium, Orohippus, Epihippus and Mohippus,
fossils of which are found in consecutive strata.
What NG is doing here consists of a blatant deception. The
equine sequence is an unfounded one, the invalidity of which has now been demonstrated.
That being the case, putting it forward as a generalisation regarding the fossil
record cannot be described as anything else than an attempt to verify that generalisation
with a deceptive example.
Life forms emerged with no evolutionary progenitors, but in a single
moment, and with flawless bodily structures
Darwin, who maintained that living things emerged through graduated
evolution and who hoped that the fossil record to confirm that claim would be
obtained in future excavations, was mistaken. The fossils obtained
in endless excavations carried out by palaeontologists all over the world have
produced findings that openly refute the idea of gradual change in consecutive
strata. These facts concern the phenomena of sudden appearance and stasis.
Species emerge suddenly, with no evolutionary progenitors but with
flawless bodily structures. In his 1999 book Fossils and Evolution,
Tom Kemp, Curator of the Zoological Collections in Oxford University Museum
of Natural History, admits this:
In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time
in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically
no known stem-group forms. 6
Fossils hundreds of millions of years old that bear no
trace of evolution invalidate neo-Darwinism
Furthermore, species exhibit no gradual change as suggested in
the NG generalisation. Species with natural histories of hundreds of
millions of years exhibit a "stasis" demonstrating a permanency throughout geological
strata. The shark, coelacanth, ant, salamander and many other species, fossils
of which have been found and which have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions
of years, have led to palaeontologists accepting stasis as one of the most striking
aspects of the fossil record. This phenomenon refutes Darwinism's prediction
of gradual change and invalidates the theory. Professor of Geology Peter J.
Williamson describes this in Nature magazine:
The principal problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only
as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to
be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict
the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the
most striking aspects of the fossil record. 7
In short, NG's claim of graduated change throughout geological
strata is a myth supported in the face of the science of palaeontology. The
way that NG seeks to support that myth with the equine sequence only
makes matters worse.
The truth in the equine sequence that NG seeks to conceal
from its readers
The equine sequence is based on various hoofed fossils unearthed
in North America. Darwinists set these out in such a way as to establish a sequence,
according to the fossils' dental characteristics and numbers of toes, and for
years put this forward as evidence for Darwinism. Continuing palaeontological
excavations, however, definitively revealed the inconsistencies within that
series. NG, known for its blind devotion to Darwinism, has no qualms
about concealing this development from its readers and writing that the alleged
evolutionary ancestors of the horse follow one another in consecutive geological
strata.
Former BBC science editor Gordon Rattray Taylor describes how the
equine sequence constitutes no evidence for Darwinism:
But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure
of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms
demonstrating major evolutionary change... The horse is often cited as the
only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus
to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase
in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not
larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking
sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this
order in time. 8
At a meeting in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of Natural
History, attended by 150 evolutionists, one speaker, Boyce Rensberger, stated
that there was no basis in the fossil record for the scenario of equine evolution,
and that no gradual equine evolution ever took place:
The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual
sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million
years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be
wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear
fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms
are unknown. 9
Discoveries that living things included in the imaginary sequence
of equine evolution actually lived at the same time, and even together, totally
refute Quammen. One of the most striking examples of this came to light in 1981.
Fossils of thousands of living things, 10 million years old, that had been buried
under lava as the result of a volcanic eruption and whose skeletons had been
preserved down to the present day, were dug up in the US state of Nebraska.
With that discovery it emerged that three- and single-toed equines assumed to
have lived at different periods and to have ancestral relationships with one
another in the framework of evolutionists’ imaginary equine sequence,
actually lived side by side. Interestingly, the source of this information is
NG magazine.10
The myth of whale evolution
I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by
natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with
larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.
11
From watching bears fishing along a river bank, Darwin set out
his ideas on the origin of whales in these words in his book The Origin of Species,
though he elected to remove that section from subsequent editions of the book.
Yet evolutionists who came after Darwin had no hesitation over adopting this
myth, with various minor amendments, that came down as a monument to the unrestricted
nature of his imagination. They continued to propagate the myth that the whale
evolved not from the bear but from other land mammals, as if this were a scientific
fact.
It can now be seen that NG, one of the main representatives
of Darwinian mythology, is behaving no differently, and is seeking to portray
this great myth, supported for the sake of the dogma of evolution, as representing
evidence for evolution.
There are enormous differences, in terms of such basic physiological
characteristics as water conservation, sight and communication, between whales
and the land mammals alleged to have been their progenitors. Let us now consider
the scientific dilemma facing the myth of evolution by examining the design
in whales:
The special water conservation design in whales' bodies
Although they live in water, whales are unable to meet their water
requirements from salty sea water. They need fresh water to live. Although it
is not known exactly how they meet their water needs, it is thought that a large
part of it is obtained by eating sea creatures that contain levels of salt that
are 30% lower than those of the ocean water.In such an environment, where fresh
water is exceedingly scarce, the maximum conservation of water in living things’
bodies and minimum consumption thereof are critical. Water levels are of great
importance to whales, for which reason, just like camels, whales do not perspire.
Their kidneys regulate urine concentration in such a way as to supply water.
Why is whale milk fatty?
Another delicate balance with regard to water needs appears in
the fat level in the female whale's milk. The mother whale feeds her young with
a very thick milk, of the consistency of cheese. This milk is ten times fattier
than human milk. There is a chemical reason why this milk contains such a high
level of fat. Water is produced as a side product as fat is processed after
being consumed by the baby. In this way the mother meets her offspring's need
for water with minimal water loss.
The design in whales' eyes
There are complex arrangements in the design of the whale eye and
its communication systems, no examples of which are to be found in terrestrial
mammals. Land mammals have eyelids to protect against dust and impact. Whales,
on the other hand, have a hard layer to protect against a different danger,
the pressure under the sea. Moreover, the refractive index in the design of
the whale eye makes it possible for a killer whale to leap up and catch a fish
six metres above the water level in an amusement park with considerable accuracy.
In addition, whales' eyes are on either side of the head, unlike terrestrial
mammals, thus protecting them from the current. Thanks to the levels of rod
and cone cells in the eye, their sensitivity levels to light, colour and other
details are very high. In addition to that ratio, the presence of phosphorus
in the eyes is a design that facilitates their ability to see in the dark depths
of the oceans.
The mathematical calculation employed by whales
The sense used by whales in the location of sources of food and
of one another is not actually sight, but rather hearing. Many whales hunt at
the dark regions at the bottom of the sea thanks to a form of natural "sonar."
The whale's brain emits clicking sounds, in a way not yet fully understood by
scientists. The distance of an object is determined by means of a mathematical
calculation. The whale brain multiplies the speed at which the sounds it emits
strike an object and bounce back by the time necessary for this, and divides
the result by two. The result is the distance of the object from itself. Furthermore,
the whale also possesses the ability to focus the sound waves with its brain
on a specific point and to emit these like a light impulse. The returning waves
are analysed and interpreted in the animal's brain. This interpretation determines
the shape of the body in front of it, its size, speed and position. The animal's
skull is sound-proofed to protect it from the bombardment of powerful sound
waves it constantly emits and which could even seriously damage the brain itself.
The sonic system in the animal is unbelievably sensitive, so much so that the
US Navy imitates the sonar design in sea mammals in developing its own technology.
12
Special designs for whale calves
The perfect designs in whales are by no means limited to these.
The shape of a whale calf’s mouth has been designed in such a way as to
be ideally suited to fit its mother’s teats, so that the calf is able
to suckle without losing a drop of milk and without taking in a drop of sea
water. Moreover, they possess lungs capable of storing high levels of oxygen
for protracted dives and an ear membrane designed to protect them from high
pressure.
These arrangements, every one of which indicates an evident design,
are particular to whales and are not to be found in any terrestrial mammal.
NG, however, expects it readers to set reason aside and believe that
these all came about by chance. NG denies that whales were intelligently
designed, maintaining instead that one fine day a land mammal decided to live
in the sea, and that the whale evolved as the result of unconscious mechanisms
such as random mutations and natural selection.
Yet what mutation could possibly produce sonar in a mammal that
was allegedly the progenitor of the whale? Bearing in mind the effect of mutations
and the importance of the brain to the whale's survival, it is clear that mutations
would damage the brain, crippling or killing the whale. Could the brain, that
produces sound waves, be able to focus these on a particular point and determine
the location of objects using a mathematical calculation, acquire a perfect
sonar in an area that would be damaged during this random process? By what coincidence
could it produce sonar of such a high quality that even the US Navy's technology
development units have been unable to match it? What mutations could turn a
land mammal's feet into fins and a tail capable of propelling several tons of
weight?
There is no doubt that these questions may also be asked with regard
to the systems that make it possible to use water so productively, the suckling
system and the protective systems in the eye and ear. However, NG has
no reasonable response to give to these questions. There is but one answer.
Whales were created fully formed in a single moment. God created whales to be
flawless, endowed with all the systems for their needs, just as He did all other
living things. In one verse of the Qur'an it is revealed that:
Mankind! remember God's blessing to you. Is there any creator
other than God providing for you from heaven and earth? There is no god but
Him. So how have you been perverted? (Qur'an, 35: 3)
Another error in Quammen's article in NG is the repetition
of a myth once known as the "law of recapitulation." This belonged to the German
biologist Ernst Haeckel and in his claim regarding embryology Darwin was to
a large extent "inspired" by Haeckel. The law of recapitulation maintains that
the embryological development of living things repeats the imaginary stages
undergone during the descent of the alleged evolutionary ancestors.
The fact that Quammen devotes space to this in his article reveals
a wide gap of knowledge on his part. Objections along the lines that Haeckel's
claims were devoid of any scientific justification and that the evidence he
offered was forged began 136 years ago13, and the
end of the law of recapitulation as the subject of scientific debate came as
far back as 80 years ago 14. Even George Gaylord
Simpson, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, admitted this fact 42 years ago
in the words:
Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is
now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny. 15
Moreover, the myth of recapitulation, which NG has no qualms
over recapitulating itself, involves what one British embryologist referred
to in 1997 as "the best known fraud in the history of biology." In his book
Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The History of Natural Creation),
written in 1868, Haeckel deliberately distorted the pictures of human, monkey
and dog embryos in such a way as to support his claim.
One striking aspect of this fraud is that it also constitutes a
"centennial monument" to Darwinist dogmatism. Until recently, a number of Darwinist
sources, including text books, continued either to use the counterfeit drawings
as they were, or else to repeat the myth of recapitulation. The Harvard University
professor and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould displayed great common sense and
offered the following criticism:
… [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and
ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence
of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!
16
NG has not used counterfeit drawings. Yet it has no hesitations
over using recapitulation, the invalidity of which emerged at least 80 years
ago, as support for Darwinism.
We urge NG to consider Stephen Jay Gould's words.
NG's errors with regard to morphology
Quammen exhibits a most thought-provoking attitude in that section
in which he deals with Darwin's claims on the subject of morphology. The way
that a zoo is organised into birds, monkeys, big cats, crocodiles or fish in
the aquarium is interpreted as evidence for evolution. According to Quammen,
the fact that living things can be classified under a hierarchical system in
families, orders and kingdoms must be the product of an evolutionary process.
However, Quammen's portrayal of hierarchical classification as
evidence for evolution is nonsensical. That is because the fact that forms of
life can be classified hierarchically is not a prediction first put forward
by evolutionists and then subsequently confirmed. The Swedish scientist Carl
Linnaeus, the father of the modern system of classification, was a scientist
who believed in creation from nothing and regarded that classification as the
product of intelligent design. That is compatible with what we see with our
own eyes and is grounded in common sense. The ability to be hierarchically classified
is a well known hallmark of intelligent design. Means of transport, for example,
can be classified as land, air and sea vehicles, and may be broken down into
subcategories and even smaller subgroups. Yet this classification does not show
that the modes of transport in question came into being through evolution.
Indeed, in an article published in the magazine New Scientist,
the prominent evolutionist Mark Ridley makes the following statement:
The simple fact that species can be classified hierarchically
into genera, families, and so on, is not an argument for evolution. It is
possible to classify any set of objects into a hierarchy whether their variation
is evolutionary or not. 17
Quammen's preconception
In the same way that what Quammen writes on this subject are far
from supporting his claim, it also reveals how he relies on preconceptions rather
than scientific evidence:
Such a pattern of tiered resemblances-groups of similar species
nested within broader groupings, and all descending from a single source?isn't
naturally present among other collections of items. You won't find anything
equivalent if you try to categorize rocks, or musical instruments, or jewelry.
Why not? Because rock types and styles of jewelry don't reflect unbroken descent
from common ancestors. Biological diversity does. The number of shared characteristics
between any one species and another indicates how recently those two species
have diverged from a shared lineage. (p. 13)
Quammen placed the hierarchical categorisation in living things
in a separate place, on the grounds that it reflects a continual chain of descent
from a common ancestor. That term, however, is helpless labelling in Quammen's
desperate attempts to prove Darwin right.
As is made clear above, there is no fossil record capable of being
proposed as evidence of any evolutionary link between living categories. The
words of the prominent evolutionary palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould that "The
evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes
of their branches" are an admission of the fact that there is actually no evidence
for the evolutionary links assumed to exist among living things. 18
In short, the origin of the evolutionary chain of descent that
Quammen claims exists among living categories is not scientific fact such as
the fossil record, but rather his own dogmatic mentality.
The five-digit skeletal structure error
Quammen maintains that the way that various vertebrates such as
the bat, the dolphin and human beings all share the feature of having five digits
stems from descent from a common ancestor. This claim rests on the fact that
although there is the same basic plan in the front and rear legs of the living
things in question, these can still be easily differentiated (the homological
claim). This claim of Quammen's can of course only deceive those readers who
are unaware of the facts of modern science. Advances in the field of molecular
biology definitively invalidate this morphology-based claim. One striking discovery
that led to this is that the production of these organs, assumed to be a legacy
from a common ancestor, is in fact controlled by different genes in different
creatures.
The evolutionary biologist William Fix describes the collapse of
the evolutionary thesis concerning pentadactylism (having five digits) in this
area in the face of this discovery:
The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology,
pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of
different animals. Thus the `pentadactyl' limb pattern is found in the arm
of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is held to
indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted
by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted
upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately
this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally
different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology
in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down.
19
NG's vestigial Darwinism
Quammen displays a striking determination not to grasp the fact
that Darwin's claims have been demolished by modern science. One of the indications
of this is his repetition of the claim regarding vestigial organs, a claim which
is utterly illusory. It is maintained in the article that organs such as the
male nipple, structures claimed to be the vestiges of rear legs in certain snakes,
or the covered wings in coleoptera that are not actually used, are redundant,
functionless organs left over from the evolutionary process. Quammen is clearly
ignoring the definitive results from scientific developments:
The list of up to 180 supposed vestigial organs at the beginning
of the 20th century eventually shrank to almost none in the face
of discoveries from scientific research. One by one it emerged that a great
many organs, such as the appendix and the plica semilunaris, once supposed to
be vestigial organs, do actually have functions.20 "Science" is in
any case the process by which human beings come to know what was previously
unknown. The gradual emergence of the functions of organs that were once regarded
as vestigial shows that, logically, the functions of the last few remaining
organs whose functions are still unknown will soon be revealed.
Indeed, a great many present-day evolutionists have admitted that
the myth of "vestigial organs" is an argument rooted in ignorance. In an article
headed "Do Vestigial Organs Represent Evidence for Evolution?" published in
the journal Evolutionary Theory, the evolutionary biologist S. R. Scadding
admits this fact:
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures,
and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid,
I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory
of evolution. 21
Evolutionists' claim on the subject of vestigial organs stem not
from any vestigialism in these organs, but from the vestigial nature of their
own perspectives. The existence of any living thing proves only the existence
of God, its creator. The way that inanimate and unconscious atoms combine to
produce a hearing, smelling, touching and seeing human being is proof of God's
flawless creation. That it is because it is impossible for atoms, which cannot
smell, hear or see, to wish to have perception and to combine together for that
purpose. For a collection of matter to stand and look at itself in front of
a mirror, or for matter to taste and touch itself, has no place in evolutionary
logic. These feelings can only be explained in terms of a superior creation,
in other words the existence of God and His flawless creation. Despite this
self-evident truth, evolutionists hold to the irrational and blind belief that
they themselves are the product of matter and blind chance, which shows that
their claim regarding vestigial organs is one based on this prejudiced and dogmatic
perspective.
The realisation that the organs regarded by evolutionists as vestigial
do actually have functions is a proof of this. For example, the structures portrayed
as the vestiges of rear legs in certain species of snake are now known to help
them to grip one another during mating. To regard the male nipple as the product
of an evolutionary process also rests on a distorted logic. If the male nipple
were a leftover from an evolutionary process then males must have evolved from
a population consisting solely of females, which is a scenario so unimaginable
that no evolutionist has felt able to accept it. Coleoptera, another example
cited by Quammen, also constitute no evidence for evolution. Insect species
which do not develop a functional wing are generally seen in open habitats with
strong winds, such as ocean islands. In an environment where strong winds blow
and surrounded by large masses of water, insects' being able to fly is by no
means an advantage, and may even represent a danger. That is because insects
flying in the air are exposed to the effects of the wind and can be hurled into
trees or rocks, ending up crippled or dead. There may, therefore, have been
a tendency for them to move towards a ground-based lifestyle. Over time, the
insect population that lives near the ground comes to consist of individuals
that do not develop fully fledged wings. That is because, unlike flying insects,
mutations that prevent insects that live near to ground level developing wings
may not be damaging to the insect (on the provision that they do not cause a
total interruption in its physiology).
A mutation that prevented wing development in a flying insect living
in a habitat uninfluenced by winds would be harmful and maybe even lethal. That
is because normally an insect that uses its wings to feed and to avoid predators
would possess functionless wings because of that mutation and would be unable
to survive and thus eliminated from the population.
On the other hand, in insects living in a habitat affected by winds
and that used their feet to move about in the same way as non-flying insects,
a mutation in the wings might not have lethal consequences. That is because
the insect will already have grown accustomed to a life style in which it does
not use wings, and it will make no difference whether its wings are healthy
or else lose their function due to mutation (as long as the mutation in question
is not one that affects the insect's general physiology). In short, a destructive
mutation leading to the loss of an insect's wings may not be lethal in an environment
where wings are in any case of no consequence.
However, it cannot be said that the coleoptera that are assumed
to have undergone such a process represent evidence of evolution. The theory
of evolution proposes that organs gradually assume a more complex form. The
genetic change proposed in support of this claim must be of such a kind as to
add new genetic information to creatures' DNA. It is evident, however,
that coleoptera do not gain any new genetic information during this
process and that, on the contrary, they suffer a loss of information
in the genes that control wing development.
Can this acquisition of genetic information, which is not seen
in coleoptera, be observed in any other living thing? Definitely not. Evolutionists
have been unable to show the emergence of a new organ, or even a new protein,
by means of random mutations.
In short, the theory of evolution maintains that living things
acquire new organs with the addition of new genetic information to their DNA,
but the vestigial organ argument is one that concerns a loss of function, in
other words a loss of genetic information. Therefore, vestigial organs provide no scientific
support for the theory of evolution. The reason for evolutionists' determination
to place this claim on the scientific agenda is psychological rather than scientific.
Their display of blind devotion to materialism leads them to adopt a vestigial
perspective towards the evident truth of creation. (You can read Harun Yahya's
article that demolishes evolutionists' vestigial viewpoint here. http://www.darwinism-watch.com/hurriyet_science0407.php)
James P. Gills, M.D., founder of St. Luke's Cataract and Laser
Institute in Tarpon Springs, Florida, is a creationist scientist. He is also
a world-renowned ophthalmologist. In his book Darwinism Under the Microscope,
Gills cites a great many proofs of creation that totally undermine evolution,
and writes that the only reason why scientists still insist on evolution is
the spiritual cataract of thinking of themselves as the product of
blind chance. 22
The error of thinking that resistance to antibiotics and DDT is
evidence of evolution
The NG article seeks to show that bacterial immunity to
antibiotics and insects' resistance to such pesticides as DDT constitutes evidence
for evolution. On the subject of the resistance that microbes appear to develop
to drugs Quammen confidently states:
There's no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian
theory than this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs.
(p. 21)
However, Quammen's excitement in portraying bacterial immunity
as evidence for evolution is totally misplaced. It is explained below why these
two phenomena do not represent evidence for Darwinism.
The first of the "deadly molecules" employed against micro-organisms
was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming discovered
a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus mould bacterium, after which antibiotics
taken from micro-organisms were used against various bacteria. Although it appeared
at first that definitive results had been obtained, the truth later emerged:
bacteria gradually acquire resistance to antibiotics. The great majority of
bacteria exposed to antibiotics die, but since a small minority remain unaffected
this rapidly multiply and eventually come to constitute the entire population.
Thus the entire population becomes resistant to the antibiotic.
However, there is no question of bacteria developing through mutation
here, because the bacteria already possess the characteristics in question before
being exposed to antibiotics. Despite being an evolutionist publication, Scientific
American magazine admitted these facts in its March 1998 edition:
Many bacteria possessed resistance genes even before commercial
antibiotics came into use. Scientists do not know exactly why these genes
evolved and were maintained. 23
Insects acquire resistance to pesticides such as DDT in the same
way, and, again in the same way, this represents no evidence for evolution.
The prominent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala accepts the
truth of this in the words:
The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse
kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations
exposed to these man-made compounds. 24
One of those to carry out the most detailed research on this subject
is the Israeli biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner. In his book Not by Chance,
published in 1997, Spetner showed that bacterial immunity is brought about by
two different mechanisms, but that these offer no support for the theory of
evolution. For more detail on this subject see http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions05.php#q19
and http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_01.html)
Another so-called piece of evidence in the NG article, in
addition to the resistance in bacteria and insects, concerns genetic similarities.
The deception that evolution can be observed
NG claims that evolution can actually be witnessed in nature
and in the laboratory. This, however, is a fantastical and groundless claim.
In an article titled "How Are New Species Formed?" published in the 14 June,
2003, edition of New Scientist, George Turner made the following significant
"admission":
Not long ago, we thought we knew how species formed. We believed
that the process almost always started with complete isolation of populations.
It often occurred after a population had gone through a severe "genetic bottleneck,"
as might happen after a pregnant female was swept off to a remote island and
her offspring mated with each other. The beauty of this so-called "founder
effect" model was that it could be tested in the lab. In reality, it just
didn't hold up. Despite evolutionary biologists' best efforts, nobody has
even got close to creating a new species from a founder population. What's
more, as far as we know, no new species has formed as a result of humans releasing
small numbers of organisms into alien environments. 25
As we have seen, evolutionists do not actually know how new species
are formed. In other words, Quammen's claim about being able to witness evolution
in action is totally unfounded. The fact that the long years of study carried
out by the Grants into chaffinch beak lengths on the Galapagos islands is cited
in support is the result of Darwinism misrepresenting variations to represent
evidence for itself. (For further information, see http://www.harunyahya.com/nas04.php)
Conclusion
As we have seen, Darwin was wrong. National Geographic's
posing the question whether he was wrong is as ridiculous as asking "Was Freud
wrong?" or "Was Marx wrong?" That is because, like Freudianism and Marxism,
Darwinism is a theory that has come to the end of its life. We call upon NG
magazine to abandon its support for this outdated myth and to accept that creation
is the true origin of life.
What NG needs to do is to set its preconceptions to one
side and cease supporting Darwinism as a dogma, and to face up to the scientific
evidence that undermines this theory. Discoveries in the last 40 years in particular
have definitively revealed the invalidity of the naturalist philosophy at the
heart of Darwinism. If NG does face up to that fact it will see that
the organised complexity of life and the genetic information on which it depends
point to intelligent design, in other words that life did not evolve on its
own through chance and natural events, but was "created."
NG - and all other Darwinists - have so far avoided facing
up to this, and may therefore have resorted to covering up the difficulties
facing their theory. Yet they must be aware that this avoidance will be of no
use in keeping their theory alive. That is because a major development in the
world of science is serving notice that the age of sweeping matters under the
carpet has come to an end.
The way that the intelligent design movement, that has been sweeping
through the USA over the last 10 years, has one by one unmasked the dogmas of
Darwinism, has made it the focus of wide interest. The intellectual basis of
this movement is the "Theory of Intelligent Design." The theory in question
maintains that complex biological structures containing large amounts of information
can only be explained in terms of intelligence-based causes, and that these
causes can be empirically studied in the field of biology. 26
One indication that the intelligent design movement may represent
the dynamic for major cultural changes is the way it is effectively and in a
widespread manner revealing that the evidence for so long taught as evidence
for Darwinism in schools actually consists of mythology, deception, misrepresentation
and even fraud. California Berkeley University's Professor Phillip E. Johnson,
the leader of the movement, stresses that Darwinism will pass into the dustbin
of history sometime in this century. 27
It will be of use here to remind NG of the damage from a
determined persistence in its policy of uncritical defence of Darwinism. It
will be remembered that NG announced the discovery of the Archaeoraptor
fossil discovered in China as definitive proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs,
without waiting for it to be described in referred scientific journals. Later,
however, it was realised that the fossil did not represent a missing link at
all, but was a counterfeit "produced" by a Chinese peasant.28 Because
of its blind devotion to Darwinism NG had no hesitation in embracing
this fossil as "proof" by unscientific methods, and later found itself in "modern
paleontology's greatest embarrassment." 29
According to the ornithologist Dr. Storrs Olson, "National Geographic
has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated,
tabloid journalism." 30
The portrayal of the claim of recapitulation, which died at least
80 years ago, as evidence for evolution in NG's article "Was Darwin Wrong"
shows that it is devoid of the seriousness required by science and is continuing
with its "unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism." NG is not behaving intelligently.
Maintaining this approach does not provide any support for Darwinism. On the
contrary, NG is documenting its own dogmatism in an ever more obvious
way.
We invite NG to consider these points and to accept that
creation is the true origin of life.
There is no doubt that the Lord of all living things, on Earth,
in the Sky, and between, is God. In one verse of the Qur'an God reveals that:
Your God is One God. There is no god but Him, the All-Merciful,
the Most Merciful. (Qur'an, 2: 163)
1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Electronic
Text Center, University of Virginia Library.
2. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition,
Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.
3. Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996
4. For more information about the evolutionist theses on biogeography, please
see Walter J. Remine, “The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory”,
Saint Paul Science; 1st ed edition, 1993. page 538.
5. James Glanz, "Biology Text Illustrations More Fiction Than Fact,"
New York Times, April 8, 2001
6. Fossils and Evolution, Dr TS Kemp - Curator of Zoological Collections,
Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p. 246, 1999
7. Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological stasis and developmental constraint:
real problems for neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November
1981, p.214; Stephen E. Jones, http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/
8. Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere
Books, London, 1984, p. 230.
9. Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15.
10. Voorhies M.R., "Ancient Ashfall Creates a Pompei of Prehistoric Animals,"
National Geographic, Vol. 159, No. 1, January 1981, pp.67-68,74 ; "Horse
Find Defies Evolution" Creation Ex Nihilo 5(3):15, January 1983,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3723.asp
11. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition,
Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 184.
12. Spotting Mines With Dolphin Sonar , ScienceNOW 1998: 2
13. L. Rutimeyer, "Referate," Archiv fur Anthropologie, 1868
14. Keith S. Thompson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated", American
Scientist, vol. 76, May / June 1988, p. 273
15. G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt Brace
and World, New York, 1965, p. 241.
16. Stephen Jay Gould, “Abscheulich! - Atrocious! - the precursor to the
theory of natural selection”, Natural History, March 2000, p. 45
17. Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist,
vol. 90 (25 June 1981), p. 832
18. Gould S.J, "Evolution's Erratic Pace,” Natural History,
May 1977, p. 13-14
19. William Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, Macmillan Publishing
Co., New York, 1984, p. 189.
20. Bergman, J. and Howe, G., Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional,
CRS Books, Terre Haute, IN, 1990.
21. S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?,"
Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.
22. Stuart B. Levy, "The Challange of Antibiotic Resistance”, Scientific
American, March 1998, p. 35
23. George Turner, "How Are New Species Formed?", New Scientist,
vol. 178, issue 2399, 14 June 2003, p. 32
24. http://www.arn.org , http://www.discovery.org/csc/
25. Phillip E. Johnson, "Mothballed Science,” Touchstone Magazine,
December 2003
26. For more information about Archaeoraptor forgery, please see http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions03.php#q7
27. Tim Friend, “The 'missing link' fossil that wasn't”, USA Today,
02/01/2000
28. Open Letter to National Geographic by Storrs L. Olson, Curator
of Birds, National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution
