|
MISCONCEPTION OF EVOLUTION
- (2)
Lamarck's
Impact
So, how could these "favorable
variations" occur? Darwin tried to answer this question from the standpoint
of the primitive understanding of science in his age. According to the
French biologist Lamarck, who lived before Darwin, living creatures
passed on the traits they acquired during their lifetime to the next
generation and these traits, accumulating from one generation to another,
caused new species to be formed. For instance, according to Lamarck,
giraffes evolved from antelopes; as they struggled to eat the leaves
of high trees, their necks were extended from generation to generation.
Darwin also gave similar
examples, and in his book The Origin of Species, for instance, said
that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves
into whales over time.155
However, the laws of inheritance
discovered by Mendel and verified by the science of genetics that flourished
in the 20th century, utterly demolished the legend that acquired traits
were passed on to subsequent generations. Thus, natural selection fell
out of favor as an evolutionary mechanism.
Neo-Darwinism
and Mutations
In order to find a solution,
Darwinists advanced the "Modern Synthetic Theory", or as it is more
commonly known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930's. Neo-Darwinism
added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living
beings because of external factors such as radiation or replication
errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural
mutation.
Today, the model that stands
for evolution in the world is Neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that
millions of living beings present on the earth formed as a result of
a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms such as
the ears, eyes, lungs, and wings, underwent "mutations," that is, genetic
disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines
this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the
contrary, they always cause harm to them.
The reason for this is very
simple: the DNA has a very complex structure and random effects can
only cause harm to it. American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan explains
this as follows:
Mutations are small,
random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that
they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply
that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random
change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful.
A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably
harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the
city, it brings destruction.156
Not surprisingly, no mutation
example, which is useful, that is, which is observed to develop the
genetic code, has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to
be harmful. It was understood that mutation, which is presented as an
"evolutionary mechanism," is actually a genetic occurrence that harms
living beings, and leaves them disabled. (The most common effect of
mutation on human beings is cancer). No doubt, a destructive mechanism
cannot be an "evolutionary mechanism." Natural selection, on the other
hand, "can do nothing by itself" as Darwin also accepted. This fact
shows us that there is no "evolutionary mechanism" in nature. Since
no evolutionary mechanism exists, neither could any imaginary process
called evolution have taken place.
The
Fossil Record: No Sign of Intermediate Forms
The clearest evidence that
the scenario suggested by the theory of evolution did not take place
is the fossil record.
According to the theory
of evolution, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A
previously existing species turned into something else in time and all
species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this
transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
Had this been the case,
then numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within
this long transformation period.
For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles
should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits
in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have
existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition
to the reptilian traits they already had. Since these would be in a
transitional phase, they should be disabled, defective, crippled living
beings. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they
believe to have lived in the past, as "intermediate forms."
If such animals had really
existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number
and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures
should be present in the fossil record. In The Origin of Species, Darwin
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.157
Darwin's
Hopes Shattered
However, although evolutionists
have been making strenuous efforts to find fossils since the middle
of the 19th century all over the world, no transitional forms have yet
been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations showed that,
contrary to the expectations of evolutionists, life appeared on earth
all of a sudden and fully-formed.
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.158
This means that in the fossil
record, all living species suddenly emerge as fully formed, without
any intermediate forms in between. This is just the opposite of Darwin's
assumptions. Also, it is very strong evidence that living beings are
created. The only explanation of a living species emerging suddenly
and complete in every detail without any evolutionary ancestor can be
that this species was created. This fact is admitted also by the widely
known evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma:
Creation and evolution,
between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living
things. 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.159
Fossils show that living
beings emerged fully developed and in a perfect state on the earth.
That means that "the origin of species" is, contrary to Darwin's supposition,
not evolution but creation.
The
Tale of Human Evolution
The subject most often brought
up by the advocates of the theory of evolution is the subject of the
origin of man. The Darwinist claim holds that the modern men of today
evolved from some kind of ape-like creatures. During this alleged evolutionary
process, which is supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, it
is claimed that there existed some "transitional forms" between modern
man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario,
four basic "categories" are listed:
1. Australopithecus
2. Homo habilis
3. Homo erectus
4. Homo sapiens
Evolutionists call the so-called
first ape-like ancestors of men "Australopithecus" which means "South
African ape." These living beings are actually nothing but an old ape
species that has become extinct. Extensive research done on various
Australopithecus specimens by two world famous anatomists from England
and the USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard,
has shown that these belonged to an ordinary ape species that became
extinct and bore no resemblance to humans.160
Evolutionists classify the
next stage of human evolution as "homo," that is "man." According to
the evolutionist claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more
developed than Australopithecus. Evolutionists devise a fanciful evolution
scheme by arranging different fossils of these creatures in a particular
order. This scheme is imaginary because it has never been proved that
there is an evolutionary relation between these different classes. Ernst
Mayr, one of the most important proponents of the theory of evolution
in the 20th century, contends in his book One Long Argument that "particularly
historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens,
are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation."161
By outlining the link chain
as "Australopithecus > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens,"
evolutionists imply that each of these species is one another's ancestor.
However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have revealed that
Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus lived at different parts
of the world at the same time.162
Moreover, a certain segment
of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very modern
times. Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern
man) co-existed in the same region.163
This situation apparently
indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are ancestors of one
another. A paleontologist from Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould,
explains this deadlock of the theory of evolution although he is an
evolutionist himself:
What has become of our
ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus,
the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived
from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends
during their tenure on earth.164
Put briefly, the scenario
of human evolution, which is sought to be upheld with the help of various
drawings of some "half ape, half human" creatures appearing in the media
and course books, that is, frankly, by means of propaganda, is nothing
but a tale with no scientific ground.
Lord Solly Zuckerman, one
of the most famous and respected scientists in the U.K., who carried
out research on this subject for years, and particularly studied Australopithecus
fossils for 15 years, finally concluded, despite being an evolutionist
himself, that there is, in fact, no such family tree branching out from
ape-like creatures to man.
Zuckerman also made an interesting
"spectrum of science." He formed a spectrum of sciences ranging from
those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific.
According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most "scientific"-that is, depending
on concrete data-fields of science are chemistry and physics. After
them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the
far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific,"
are "extra-sensory perception"-concepts such as telepathy and sixth
sense-and finally "human evolution." Zuckerman explains his reasoning:
We then move right off
the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological
science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's
fossil history, where to the faithful [evolutionist] anything is possible
- and where the ardent believer [in evolution] is sometimes able to
believe several contradictory things at the same time.165
The tale of human evolution
boils down to nothing but the prejudiced interpretations of some fossils
unearthed by certain people, who blindly adhere to their theory.
-
|