We have already responded to this article which contained speculation
concerning the alleged role of nutrition in evolution. You can read that response
here.
"Skin Deep"
This article put forward a number of claims concerning the so-called
evolution of human skin. Throughout the article the authors deal with the benefits
of pigments in the skin and the distribution of the various colors according
to geographical latitudes. In the final part of the article they then go on
to say:
Our current knowledge of the evolution of human skin indicates
that variations in skin color, like most of our physical attributes, can be
explained by adaptation to the environment through natural selection.
It is clear that the phenomenon described by the authors, Nina
G. Jablonski and George Chaplin, has nothing to do with the common ancestor
thesis of the theory of evolution. The observation of changes in skin color
according to geographical regions stems from variations being selected by being
subjected to natural selection. This example, of course, concerns already existing
genetic information, for which reason there is no question of an increase in
complexity here. This is the 'micro-evolution' accepted by biologists within
species. Nothing about micro-evolution provides any evidence for 'macro-evolution,'
the claim that species turn into other species. Even evolutionists admit this,
and it is for these reasons that 'the origin of species,' dealt with in Darwin's
book, still poses a major dilemma for evolutionists.
The authors offer not a single piece of scientific evidence for
the theory of evolution. All they do is indicate which skin color provides an
'advantage' in the conditions of which latitudes, and then make an enormous
leap in dragging the myth that this is a characteristic which emerged through
evolution into the equation. The sentence which sums up the authors' story reads,
'After losing their hair as an adaptation for keeping cool, early hominids gained
pigmented skins.'
In fact, however, there is no scientific evidence of a loss of
fur at all. The authors, devoted to materialist dogma, accept right from the
start that that the origin of man can only be explained in terms of the theory
of evolution, and they then attempt to account for man in the light of these
preconceptions. The expression 'they gained pigmented skins' shows the extent
to which they are caught up in these preconceptions. Even a crude examination
of the characteristics of the skin immediately reveals that this organ is not
a simple structure the origin of which can be glossed over with such frivolous
tales.
The special cells in the skin known as melanocytes function just
like chemical factories, as they send the pigment called melanin which they
produce in packets to the other cells. Evolutions cannot explain how these and
the other cells in the skin came into being and then combined to create our
skin.
Our skin regulates the temperature of our bodies, protects them
from germs, plays a role in the sense of touch and also carries out a great
many other complex functions. It is absolutely impossible for such a complex
organ to have emerged solely by random mutations in the information concealed
in DNA. Our skin, with its many cells and ordered activities, is a marvel of
design. Our skin demonstrates intelligent design and the superior nature of
God's creation.
"The Evolution of Human Birth"
This article, penned jointly by Karen R. Rosenberg and Wenda R.
Trevathan, attempted to explain the way that human beings seek help during the
birth process in evolutionary terms. The authors noted that among primates it
is only human beings who seek assistance during labor and delivery, and claimed
that this took place over time as we grew away from our so-called evolutionary
ancestors.
This article, which was full of imaginary scenarios, repeated an
evolutionist misconception and suggested that the size of the human brain represents
an obstacle in giving birth.
This situation in fact provides no support for the scenario of
human evolution. Researchers develop imaginary speculation concerning the differences
between human beings and apes because they have adopted the dogma of human of
evolution. If they would stop looking at everything through evolutionist eyes
for a moment they would easily be able to see the design in human birth: when
the design in the baby's skull is examined we encounter a most intelligent structure.
Portraying the Size of the Brain as Problem in Labor is an Evolutionist
Error
Obstetrics shows that the baby's skull a special design which actually
facilitates labor: since the bones in the baby's skull have not yet fused together
they are able to slide over one another. In this way, the skull assumes the
long shape of the birth canal. This harmony poses no problem for the brain since
it is a soft tissue. Sometimes however, albeit rarely, the labor process is
unable to continue and the baby becomes caught in the birth canal. The origin
of the problem is either the unproductive contraction of the muscles in the
womb or the pelvis being too narrow to permit the baby to pass through. Brain
volume has nothing to do with difficulties during labor.
As we have seen, the structure of the mother's womb and that of
the baby's skull, together with the behavior it exhibits during labor, are all
in complete harmony. This harmony, which can clearly be seen to have been specially
designed, shows that human birth is a miracle in the hands of God. Indeed, our
attention is drawn to this fact in a verse from the Qur'an:
Mankind! If you are in any doubt about the Rising, know that We
created you from dust then from a drop of sperm then from a clot of blood then
from a lump of flesh, formed yet unformed, so We may make things clear to you.
We make whatever We want stay in the womb until a specified time and then We
bring you out as children (Qur'an, 22: 5)
"If Humans Were Built to Last"
This article was the last of Scientific American's propaganda collection.
Scientific American magazine, which denies that human was created, revealed
the full dimension of its illogicality in this caption: "We would look a lot
different if evolution had designed the human body to function smoothly for
a century or more."
The authors, S. Jay Olshansky, Bruce A. Carnes and Robert N. Butler,
attempt throughout their article to find alleged defects in the design of human
beings, and suggest structures which in their view might be more productive.
This article contained 'theses' regarding how the design of the
human body might allegedly be improved. In fact, with a little attention it
was immediately apparent that all these theses were quite nonsensical. For instance,
the evolutionists expounding the theses thought along the lines that since the
human windpipe opens into the mouth and that water sometimes gets into it, they
might suggest a so-called better design: The trachea should
open not into the mouth but directly into the nose above it ... Yet there
was a problem with that design: were that to be the case,
human beings could neither speak nor breathe through their mouths!
Scientific American, basically admitted the nonsensical
nature of this in the words, 'the design would need refining, though, because
it would disrupt breathing through the mouth and the ability to speak.'
Aging is a Specially Created Process
The basic logic in the article can be seen from the statement in
it that 'people were not designed by evolution for extended survival'. In other
words, the evolutionist claim here is that the human body does not possess a
design for a long life and, as again stated in the article, the "flaws" that
emerge with aging represent evidence for evolution.
The fact is, however, that this claim has no scientific or rational
basis. The fact that flaws and diseases emerge as the human body grows old is
not evidence for evolution and against creation, as the Scientific American
authors would have us believe. A created body, again in line with the purpose
of creation, purposely begins to produce aging, flaws and diseases.
In fact, according to the Qur'an, there is important wisdom in
human beings' deficiencies. One verse reveals that 'God
desires to make things lighter for you. Man was created weak.' (Qur'an, 4: 28)
and recalls human weaknesses. In another verse, we are told that human aging
takes place within a plan established by God:
God created you and then will take you back again. And some of
you revert to the lowest form of life so that after having knowledge, you know
nothing at all. God is All-Knowing, All-Powerful. (Qur'an, 16: 70)
Creation does not mean that a person is created with a body that
will not become ill, will never grow old, and will never have any flaws or deficiencies,
for such aging, sickness and flaws to represent evidence for evolution. Quite
the contrary, these are specially created processes.
If evolutionists wish to make a claim in favor of evolution, then
what they need to do is to find evidence for the claim that living things came
into being by chance. For instance, they need to explain how the human respiratory
system, digestive system, senses, bone structure, joints and excretory system
came about by means of 'evolutionary mechanisms' (mutation and natural selection.
This, of course, they cannot do, and these systems are structures with 'irreducible
complexity' and cannot have developed stage by stage by means of evolutionary
mechanisms.
This truth has demolished the foundations of evolution, as Darwin
feared when he 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.' Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species,
A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 179.)
Evolutionists resort to propaganda techniques in order to conceal
this collapse. The child-like drawings in Scientific American, are an example
of these propaganda techniques. In each one of these a part of the human body
is considered and claims based on nothing more than speculation and ignorance
to the effect that 'it would have been better if this had been like that' proffered.
One of these claims, all of which are quite nonsensical, is the
thesis of the trachea emerging at the nose, which we looked at in the introduction.
Others can be listed as:
'Shorter stature, cage with added ribs, thicker bones, extra muscles
and fat.'
The article in Scientific American suggests that such a human being
would be healthier. The fact is however, that such a human being would be unable
to move even, let alone get out of bed. To propose that such a body, with such
a cumbersome structure, would have a better design is an example of an astonishing
lack of logic.
'Knee Able to Bend Backward':
Another of Scientific American's evolutionist stupidities is the
'knee able to bend backward' from which the knee-cap has been removed. There
is absolutely nothing in this drawing, described as 'knee able to bend backward,'
which can be taken seriously from the anatomical point of view. A knee without
a knee-cap would not be functional. Since the muscles at the front of the leg
have only one place to attach to, the existence of the knee-cap, a mobile bone,
is essential. Otherwise, it would be impossible for a human being to walk, stand
up, or even lift his leg out of bed. The only significance of this 'thesis'
is to demonstrate the medical ignorance of the evolutionists who prepared and
published the article.
The Design of the Retina
Another thesis proposed in the Scientific American article concerns
the design of the human eye. In the article the way the neurons in the eye come
together as the optic nerve and leave the retina is described as 'poor design,'
and it is claimed that it would be much better were the neurons to pass to the
back from every point within the retina.
This view is another example of thorough ignorance and superficial
thought.
In order to understand this, we need to have a thorough knowledge
of the retina. In the retina, the photoreceptor cells which perceive light and
turn it into an electrical signal point backwards, in other words towards the
retinal epithelium and choroidal blood sinuses. This requires the neural cell
layer which relays the image to the brain from the retina to remain between
the light and the photoreceptors.
Evolutionists have been making reference to this design for some
time, and suggesting that it is 'inefficient.' The fact is, however, that it
has emerged that the only source of these claims is scientific ignorance. The
first person to raise this matter was the British zoologist Richard Dawkins,
known as the world's most prominent representative of Darwinism and atheism.
Dawkins suggests that it would be more efficient for the retina cells to point
to the front, in other words towards the light, claims that the structure of
the eye is 'badly designed,' and portrays this as evidence against creation.
The truth is, though, that a more thorough examination of the eye reveals that
Dawkins' claim is totally deceptive. The reason why the photoreceptor cells
in the eye point not towards the light but to the retinal layer behind is for
these cells to meet their heavy need for oxygen.
These cells, which constantly turn light into chemical energy,
are those which use the most oxygen in the body. (Their oxygen consumption is
three times that of the cells in the muscles of the heart.) In order to meet
this considerable need for oxygen, there is a dense vein layer immediately behind
the photoreceptor cells, and this nourishes those cells. Research
has revealed that if these cells were pointed 'toward the light,' as Dawkins
suggests, then they would be starved of oxygen and unable to function. (Michael
J. Denton, "The Inverted Retina: Maladaptation or Pre-adaptation?", Origins
& Design, 19:2; George Ayoub, "On the Design of the Vertebrate Retina" Origins
& Design 17:1)
The claim put forward in the Scientific American magazine article
about the design of the eye is a new version of Dawkins' invalidated claim.
This time evolutionists claim that it would be a better design if the cell nerves
left the retina layer not through a single point (the blind spot), but separately.
This is also a most mistaken assumption.
If this design were to be accomplished, then the neurons trying
to pass behind the photoreceptors would totally diminish sharpness of vision.
The visual ability of each neuron would be reduced and as a result the human
capacity for sight would be reduced. In the existing design in the human eye,
however, the nerves obstruct vision at one sole point (the blind spot) and this
is in any compensated for by the brain filling in the remaining part of the
image.
In short, when the human retina is examined to this depth it can
be seen that the existing design is the best one possible. The way that evolutionists
set about criticising the design of the eye, according to their own lights,
even though they are unable to offer any account of the origin of the eye, and
make themselves look ridiculous in the process, is an expression of the collapse
of the theory of evolution.
The Excretory System: An Astonishing Design
Another organ portrayed as an example of flawed design in the
Scientific American article is the bladder, the most important component of
the excretory system.
The excretory system truly is a marvel of design. The waste water
which is created drop by drop all the time by the kidney is collected in the
bladder, which serves as a kind of reservoir. Thus it is that we do not have
to spend our lives in the bathroom and can continue with our daily without having
to take a break the whole time. Thanks to the walls of the bladder, composed
of stretchable muscle, we are only warned when it reaches full capacity. It
is then sufficient for the muscle known as the sphincter to be relaxed as we
choose for evacuation to take place. It is clear that this design has been created
with our comfort in mind.
In the alternative body drawings in Scientific American,
nothing has been added to our excretory system, but the already existing connections
or muscles have been made thicker. The excretory system is so perfect that evolutionists
have been unable to come up with an imaginary improvement to it.
The thesis regarding changing the location of the prostate gland
is also illogical. If this gland were located elsewhere, its function would
be weakened. The millions of secretory gland cells contained in the prostate
are responsible for producing testosterone and the fluid in which the sperm
swim and also for moisturizing the entire urethra. They fulfill this function
by constantly depositing the secretions they produce into the urethra. Combining
the sperm which reach it by canals from the testes with the appropriate fluid
and releasing them into the urethra is an essential function for the survival
of the human race. That is why the prostate must be in constant close contact
with the urethra.
Conclusion
If one were to list all the claims made by evolutionists regarding
the design in the human body over the last 100 years, the result would be an
enormous tome of 'scientific nonsense.' On every occasion the claims they have
made have proved to be the product of ignorance. In the early 20th century they
described a great many organs in the body as 'functionless vestigial organs.'
The fact is, however, that it has been discovered that all these organs serve
important purposes. They declared that most DNA was 'Junk DNA,' a claim that
has been disproved by the latest genetic discoveries. The article published
in Scientific American represents a new link in this chain of nonsense.
One cannot imagine the problems the imaginary human being depicted
in the article would face if such a person really existed, nor what kinds of
diseases and flaws that person would be afflicted by.
The people who put forward this idiotic theory know this full well,
but do not care. All they have done is to exercise their imaginations and come
up with fantasies. Instead of the human ear, for instance, they have imagined
large and pointed ears to provide better hearing. Someone else might imagine
'elephant ears to provide better hearing.' Someone else again could even suggest
'wings to allow us to fly.' When the objective is imagination rather than science,
there is no theory that cannot be proposed.
On careful inspection, however, all these actually document the
extent of the collapse being experienced by the theory of evolution. No evolutionist
ever attempts to explain how human organs came into being. All they do consists
of works of the imagination in the name of evolution. That is because evolution
itself is a work of the imagination.
Creation is the truth. Humanity and all living things were created
by God, "the Best of Creators." (Qur'an, 23: 14)
