The Evolution Deceit
How the Miracle of DNA Invalidates the Theory of Evolution
The theory of evolution faces a major impasse at the molecular level. With evidence from such fields as paleontology, geology and anthropology, the origin of life is a major problem for the theory of evolution. The insuperable problem facing its adherents is not limited to the building blocks of life, such as protein. There is also the extraordinary complexity of the living cell-which is not a mass of amino acid-based proteins, but one of the most complex systems that science has yet encountered.
Darwinists' predicament stems from the assumptions they rely on. According to their theory of evolution, life must have appeared spontaneously, when the right chemicals combined together. Thus the first living cell must have been exceedingly primitive. These erroneous beliefs have forced Darwinists to believe that volcanic gasses and lightning gave rise to DNA, and afterwards to life! According to Darwinists, millions of living cells-the like of which cannot be produced through even the most sophisticated laboratory technology, after centuries of accumulated knowledge-came together by chance to form organs with vitally important responsibilities. Moreover, by working together in flawless co-ordination, these organs came from the human body and acquire the responsibility of keeping it alive. Not only does this Darwinist myth lack any scientific backing, it also violates logic and reason. The French scientist Pierre Paul Grasse, himself an evolutionist, notes the predicament in which they find themselves:
In his book How Life Began, L. R. Croft of England's Salford University refers to the way in which evolutionists underestimate their dilemma:
Darwinists have been unable to prove any of the so-called evolutionary developments that they claim, took place at the molecular level. Rather than helping evolutionists answer such questions, scientific progress has made them even more complex and insoluble.. The following pages will show statements by scientists and even admissions from evolutionists themselves of how illogical it is to maintain that any DNA molecule, with its unique structure and properties, came into being by chance, as evolutionists would have you believe.
The Origin of Genetic Information Is Still Unknown to Scientists
The most comprehensive part of the cell's complex structure is DNA, which determines genetic structure. Despite many years of research and great sums of money expended, scientists are only now obtaining any valuable information concerning the structure and coding of DNA. However, the perfection of the cell's genetic structure still remains a mystery. DNA's complex structure and the essential data stored in it inflict complete despair on those who wish to ascribe the origin of life to chance. One eminent evolutionist, the biochemist Leslie Orgel, expresses his thoughts on the subject:
The nuclear physicist Prof. Gerald Schroeder refers to ignorance of how the coding in DNA takes place:
Jon Cohen, a writer for the well-known journal Science, refers to the perfection of the cell's organized structure:
In an article titled "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers," Prof. Klaus Dose, head of the Gutenberg University Biochemistry Institute, is just one of those evolutionists who confesses despair:
John Maddox, a former editor of the evolutionist publication Nature, says, "So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself."180 But actually, far from being uncertain, the origin of the genetic code is perfectly obvious. It is just one of the examples that exhibit the perfection in Allah's creation, as revealed in the Qur'an:
He Who created the seven heavens in layers. You will not find any flaw in the creation of the All-Merciful. Look again-do you see any gaps? Then look again and again. Your sight will return to you dazzled and exhausted! (Surat al-Mulk, 3-4)
The Origin of Genetic Information Cannot Be Ascribed to Chance
Evolutionist accounts try to explain every perfection as the work of chance. The cell's magnificently complex structure is the result of a successfully accurate selection. Darwinists regard chance as the creator of all things, without thinking about what chance really is. Thus they assume that disorder gave rise to the first cell, upon which they base all their theories. However, not even the cell itself, let alone the simplest organism, can assemble itself by chance, in the manner assumed by evolutionists. The University of London cell biologist Dr. Ambrose expresses the impossibility of this:
Mathematics proves that in the writing of the information in DNA. The chances of a single one of the 30,000 genes that make up DNA-let alone of the DNA molecule itself with its millions of rungs-forming by chance are less than impossible. Frank B. Salisbury, an evolutionist biologist, has this to say:
Therefore, even assuming that all the requisite nucleotides were present in the environment and that all the complex molecules and binding enzymes were ready for them to attach themselves to one another, the likelihood of these nucleotides assuming the desired sequence is just 1 in 10600. In short, the odds of the DNA code of an average protein in the human body emerging spontaneously is 1 in 10 followed by 600 zeros. This number goes far beyond astronomical. I. L. Cohen, author of the book Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, (Darwin Hatalıydı: Olasılıklar İçinde Bir İnceleme) adlı kitabın yazarı I. L. Cohen de, genetik bilginin tesadüf eseri ortaya çıkmış olamayacağını şöyle açıklamaktadır:
The impossibility of nucleotides combining in a chance manner to give rise to RNA and DNA is set out by the evolutionist French scientist Paul Auger:
Think of this impossibility in terms of a very simplified analogy. Obviously that a work of literature, with all its pages properly bound, cannot emerge as the result of an explosion in a library. If anyone claims that it came into existence spontaneously, you will harbor doubts about his sanity. What evolutionists maintain was achieved by chance goes far beyond this analogy, yet despite all the illogic and impossibility of claims of chance, those who remain blindly loyal to Darwin's legacy still say, "But chance accomplished it." The well-known molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote the book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, which describes the invalidity of the theory. He expresses his amazement at those who ascribe this matchless perfection to chance:
Elsewhere, Prof. Denton describes this irrational belief held by Darwinists:
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer the philosopher of University of Cambridge says that no credence can be attached to statements ascribing the origin of life to chance:
Despite being well aware of these impossibilities, evolutionists still hold out in the face of the facts. The truth is that the complexity and perfection in DNA's structure can be explained only by the existence of a Creator possessed of sublime knowledge and intellect-our Almighty Lord. One verse of the Qur'an states:
Do not mix up truth with falsehood and knowingly hide the truth. (Surat al-Baqara, 42)
On its Own, the Existence of DNA Serves No Purpose
The genetic system does not consist of DNA alone. The enzymes to read the DNA code, the messenger RNA to be produced by this reading, the ribosome to which the messenger RNA travels and bonds with, the transporter RNA that carries the amino acids to be used in that production to the ribosome, and the highly complex enzymes that permit countless other secondary functions-all must be present in the same environment. Moreover, such an environment can only be a cell, where all the requisite raw materials and energy are isolated, available, and completely controlled in all respects.
An organic substance can reproduce itself only in a fully formed cell together with all its various organelles. This means that the first cell with its all extraordinarily complex structures must have come into being in a single moment. In his book Chance and Necessity, the Nobel Prize-winning French biologist Jacques Monod elaborates:
Another Nobel Prize winner, the French scientist Andre Lwoff, states that every molecule inside the cell is a component of an interconnected whole:
Probability calculations show that complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) cannot form one by one as the result of chance. For evolutionists, however, an even greater problem is that these molecules need to be present all together, and at one and the same time, for a cell to function and life to exist. This places the theory of evolution in a completely hopeless position, as is admitted from time to time by evolutionists. One of these is Douglas R. Hofstadter from Indiana University, a professor in a number of fields:
The same truth is also admitted by Prof. Karl Raimund Popper, a 20th century philosopher of science with evolutionist views, who describes this dilemma:
As Prof. Popper stresses, all the building blocks of the cell and the information belonging to its organelles are recorded in DNA. However, in order for the information in DNA to be used, those building blocks and organelles must already be in existence. This clearly refutes the theory of evolution's claims of gradual development: Organelles cannot exist without the coded information in DNA, just as the coded information in DNA cannot be used without those organelles. Both need to be present at the same time. Therefore, the claim of a transition from simple cells to complex ones is a myth. Despite holding evolutionist views, the zoologist David E. Green and the biochemist Prof. Robert F. Goldberger have this to say in a paper in a scientific journal:
The theory of evolution seeks to account for all of life in terms of chance, but can never explain the origin of the extraordinary information carefully and flawlessly encoded in DNA. The question, therefore, is not how the DNA chain emerged, because as you have seen, the DNA chain and its extraordinary data capacity would serve no purpose on its own. There must be enzymes to read and replicate the DNA chain, and produce proteins in the light of these copies. In order for life to exist, the data bank of DNA and the systems to reading that data must both exist together. This most important property of the cell is referred to as irreducible complexity. As Prof. Frank B Salisbury says,
The absence of even one organelle from a cell, every part of which consists of interconnected systems, will mean that cell fails to function. The cell cannot wait for such a vital deficiency to be rectified gradually, through any supposed process of evolution. It is therefore impossible for a living cell to emerge by random coincidences assembling tiny components over a span of millions of years. The cell's complete unity is too complex for its components to have emerged in stages. In order to survive, the cell must exist as a complete with all its components, right from the very outset. This is another dilemma that the theory of evolution cannot explain away.
Which Came First: Proteins or DNA?
The enzymes that read DNA and engage in production accordingly are also produced according to the codes inside that same DNA. Inside each cell exists a factory that produces a wide range of products and also the structures to produce them. How could this system-a deficiency at any single point of which would render it non-functioning-have emerged on its own? That question is sufficient to demolish the theory of evolution.
The fact that DNA can be copied only with the assistance of a number of enzymes in the protein structure, and that the synthesis of these same enzymes takes place only in line with the information encoded inside the DNA, shows that the protein and DNA are mutually dependent. For that reason, they both must be present right from the outset if the DNA is to be copied itself. The science writer John Horgan clarifies this equation:
According to the molecular biologist Michael Denton: "At the heart of the problem lay a seeming paradox-proteins can do many things, but they cannot perform the function of storing and transmitting information for their own construction. On the other hand, DNA can store information, but cannot manufacture anything nor duplicate itself. So DNA needs proteins and proteins need DNA. A seemingly unbreakable cycle-the ultimate chicken-and-egg problem."195 Andrew Scott describes the way that proteins and the genetic code cannot be considered separately in an article in New Scientist magazine:
This situation once again refutes the scenario of life emerging by chance. The American chemist Prof. Homer Jacobson has this to say:
Prof. Jacobson wrote these statements two years after James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA. However, despite all the scientific advances that have been made, this problem still remains insoluble for evolutionists. The Turkish evolutionist biologist Prof. Ali Demirsoy was forced to make this admission regarding the probability of protein and DNA coming into being together:
The probability Demirsoy referred is in practice zero. In a 1994 article, the evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel said this in the face of that:
To say that "it is extremely improbable for life to originate by chemical means" means that it is impossible for life to emerge spontaneously. This is proof that life was created in a single moment. However, evolutionists are reluctant to accept this fact, whose proof they can clearly see, for ideological reasons. They advocate nonsensical scenarios, which they themselves know to be impossible, in order not to have to admit the existence of Allah. Another evolutionist, Caryl P. Haskins, expresses the impossibility of the DNA code forming by chance and sees this as a powerful evidence for creation:
Even a single-celled organism has a complexity far exceeding scientists' comprehension. This minute entity contains a genetic code with the stunning capacity capable of forming a copy of the organism all by itself. This code has a structure requiring not just organization, but also written information. Furthermore, it is not enough for this DNA code merely to be written correctly. The rest of the cell must also be able to read the code and follow its instructions. In fact, all living things possess flawless structures that carry out highly organized activities in the light of the directives they receive.
It is certainly impossible for unconscious cell organelles to learn the language of these codes by themselves, or to unravel them as the result of chance. The existence of the code, its decipherment, the transmission of the information it contains, the accurate use made of it-every stage requires consciousness and intelligence. But how can enzymes and ribosomes in the cell know how to perform these activities? Even if we assume that they do know, how can they decipher the codes in a structure of which they are ignorant, without making any mistakes? Such questions not only emphasize the insoluble dilemma facing evolutionists, but also display the infinite intellect and knowledge in creation. In the Qur'an it is stated that:
Your Lord creates and chooses whatever He wills. The choice is not theirs. Glory be to Allah! He is exalted above anything they associate with Him! Your Lord knows what their hearts conceal and what they divulge. He is Allah. There is no deity but Him. Praise be to Him in this world and the Hereafter. Judgment belongs to Him. You will be returned to Him. (Surat al-Qasas, 68-70)
The Invalidity of the "Chemical Evolution" Claim
Darwin maintained that if certain chemicals representing the raw material of life were present in a warm lake, proteins could form, and would multiply and combine to give rise to a cell.201 Thousands of scientists attempting to make Darwin's hypothesis a reality and to provide an evolutionary explanation for the origin of life have ventured down that same dead-end road.
In the 1920s, the Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin and the British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane put forward their theory known as "chemical evolution." They maintained what Darwin had imagined-that with the addition of energy, the molecules comprising the raw material, life could develop spontaneously and form a living cell. However, no evolutionist, Oparin included, was able to come up with any evidence to back up the claims of chemical evolution. On the contrary, every new discovery made in the 20th century showed that life was far too complex to have come about by chance. The well-known evolutionist Leslie Orgel makes this confession: " . . . at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."202
Leaving aside the cell for a moment, it is impossible for the nucleotides in DNA's basic structure to have emerged by chance and maintained their chemical properties under the conditions of the primeval Earth. The magazine Scientific American, which follows a pro-evolution line, expresses evolutionist admissions on the subject:
The German scientists Reinhard Junker and Siegfried Scherer note that the synthesis of the molecules essential for life require very different conditions. This, according to them, shows that there is no possibility of the many different substances necessary for life combining together:
In his book The Origin of Life, Dr. John Keosian admits the despairing position in which evolutionists find themselves:
The structure of the DNA molecule also confirms the impossibility of the chemical evolution scenario because when left to itself, the DNA molecule loses its stability. External factors can easily impair the molecule's structure. To a large extent, DNA is stable inside the cell because that it is monitored and repaired by specialized enzymes. It is impossible for the DNA molecule to remain stable and preserve its structure outside the cell, while swimming in the primeval oceans, as evolutionists claim. On the contrary, in the supposed primeval ocean, the molecule would be impaired far more quickly than the rate at which it was synthesized.206 Thaxton, Dr. Roger L. Olsen and Prof. Walter L. Bradley mention how the substances essential for life could not preserve their stability: "It seems probable that in an oceanic chemical soup, the synthesis of RNA and other essential biomolecules would have been short-circuited at nearly every turn by many cross-reactions."207
In fact, when biochemists separate DNA from the cell or synthesizes it in the laboratory, they do not leave it in water-which would cause it to dissolve-or in a jar on the bench at room temperature. In all probability, they store it in a tube with a tightly closed stopper, and in liquid nitrogen in a deep freeze. Yet even under these conditions, the chemical bonds inside the molecule gradually fall apart, and biological effectiveness is gradually lost.208
Evolutionists totally ignore the fact that DNA, RNA and protein molecules would soon be eliminated under natural conditions in the supposed primeval ocean. In his book The Origins of Prebiological Systems, Dr. Carl Sagan admits that the existing scenarios regarding the origin of life are unsatisfactory:
In the absence of a cell with the mechanism to read the information in DNA-and to act on those instructions and manufacture protein-the information in DNA will be meaningless. Even if we assume the completely impossible, that the DNA molecule did form spontaneously under the primitive world conditions suggested by evolutionists, the existence of DNA by itself would be meaningless. Despite being evolutionists, Prof. David E. Green and Prof. Robert F. Goldberger express the invalidity of the idea that the cell emerged gradually and spontaneously:
In an article titled "Life's Origins Get Murkier and Messier," published in The New York Times in June 2000, the science writer Nicholas Wade wrote, "Everything about the origin of life on earth is a mystery, and it seems the more that is known, the more acute the puzzles get."211 The biochemist Prof. Michael J. Behe summarizes the position of science in terms of the evolutionary scenario:
In private, many scientists admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life. On the other hand, many scientists think that given the origin of life, its subsequent evolution is easy to envision, despite the major difficulties outlined in this book. The reason for this peculiar circumstance is that while chemists try to test origin-of-life scenarios by experiment or calculation, evolutionary biologists make no attempt to test evolutionary scenarios at the molecular level by experiment or calculation. As a result, evolutionary biology is stuck in the same frame of mind that dominated origin-of-life studies in the early fifties before most experiments had been done: imagination running wild. Biochemistry has, in fact, revealed a molecular world that stoutly resists explanation by the same theory so long applied at the level of the whole organism. Neither of Darwin's black boxes-the origin of life or the origin of vision or other complex biochemical systems-has been accounted for by his theory. Darwin never imagined the exquisitely profound complexity that exists even at the most basic levels of life.212
The point that evolutionists seem determined not to acknowledge is that Darwin was an amateur scientist whose knowledge was too superficial to foresee the molecular complexity of life, and whose analyses were based solely upon observation. Many scientists blindly attached to the theory of evolution are in the same state of ignorance today. Since they lack the courage to tell the truth, out of a fear of losing their prestige, and since they are also unwilling to admit the existence of Allah, they have become part of a mass deception. However, the facts are so evident that apart from a few admissions, evolutionists are left quite speechless. Despite being an evolutionist, the contemporary biochemist Klaus Dose admits the impossibility of life forming spontaneously in the so-called primeval environment:
Saying that it is "improbable" for life to have emerged by chemical means is tantamount to saying that it is impossible for life to have emerged by chance. Therefore, the theory of evolution, which seeks to account for the origin of life in terms of chance, collapses right at the outset. Since chance cannot represent the origin of life, science clearly demonstrates that life has been created in a flawless manner. Not only the earliest organisms, but all the different living classes on Earth were created individually. Indeed, the fossil record confirms that all species on Earth emerged in a single moment and with all their own particular structures, and without undergoing any previous process of evolution.
Consciously Directed Experiments Cannot Represent Evidence for Evolution
Whenever experiments regarding the origin of life are mentioned, the first one to come to mind is the Miller Experiment. In evolutionist sources, this is portrayed as supposed evidence that allegedly sheds light on the origin of life. Yet the details of the experiment-conditions that do not reflect the true facts-are generally neglected. The American chemist Stanley Miller carried out the experiment under artificial conditions he established himself, and which bore no relation to the primeval Earth's atmosphere. Since his synthesis of amino acid was carried out on the basis of a contrived environment, it cannot provide any scientific findings.
Moreover, Miller was able to synthesize amino acid in this experiment only. Yet the emergence of amino acids under any condition whatsoever does not argue for the formation of life. Amino acids are building blocks of proteins, the body's basic building materials. Hundreds of amino acids are combined in a specific sequence inside the cell, and thus a given protein results. Cells consist of an average of several thousand different types of protein. In contrast, amino acids are the simplest and smallest components of living things. The invalidity of Miller's experiment was the subject of a great many scientific papers in later years.214 (For more details, see The Evolution Deceit , Ta-Ha Publishers, United Kingdom, 1999.)
With the Miller Experiment, evolutionists unwittingly demolished evolution, because the experiment proved that amino acids can only be obtained by means of conscious intervention under laboratory environment in which all the conditions are strictly controlled. In other words, what produces life is creation, not unconscious coincidences.
Evolutionists are reluctant to accept this evident truth since they cling to a number of prejudices that fly in the face of science. Indeed, Harold Urey and his student Stanley Miller, who organized the experiment together with him, made the following admission:
None of the other experiments which evolutionists claim to duplicate the origin of life bears any relation to the facts. While seeking to account for the origin of life in terms of random, unplanned events, evolutionists perform their experiments under highly planned controls. Nothing in the laboratory environments they create is left to chance.
On the contrary, all experiments conducted to bring an evolutionary explanation are carried out by intelligent, knowledgeable scientists with the use of advanced laboratory technology. In such a controlled environment, it is obvious that chance effects bear no relation at all to such stages as the splitting of genes from DNA using various special enzymes, the subsequent replacement of these inside the cell and then the selection of the most advantageous ones. For that reason, evolutionists once again demonstrate that there must have been intelligence, consciousness and information behind the origin of life. In his book Darwin's Black Box, the molecular biologist Michael Behe has this to say:
All the experiment carried out prove that during every stage involved in the formation of life, conscious control is needed. Prof. Werner Gitt says this about the Miller experiments, portrayed as evidence of evolution:
The well-known physicist Prof. Paul Davies refers to the approach adopted in the experiments performed being flawed right from the very beginning:
This all goes to show that everything in the cell must be present in complete and perfect form, and in just the right place, from the very first moment. The slightest deficiency or change will spell the death of the entire cell. It is impossible for the kind of trial-and-error process posited by the theory of evolution to give rise to a living cell, even if the process lasted not for just billions of years, but for trillions upon trillions. There is absolutely no possibility that unconscious natural phenomena gave rise to the irreducibly complex structures and systems inside the cell, in one single event. The way that some still ascribe divine status to chance, despite seeing these clear scientific facts, is an empty deception. Allah reveals the superstitious beliefs of such people in the Qur'an:
He to Whom the kingdom of the heavens and the Earth belongs. He does not have a son and He has no partner in the Kingdom. He created everything and determined it most exactly. But they have adopted deities apart from Him which do not create anything but are themselves created. They have no power to harm or help themselves. They have no power over death or life or resurrection. (Surat al-Furqan, 2-3)
DNA's Complexity Cannot Be Adjusted Spontaneously
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that left to themselves and under normal conditions, all systems in the universe will tend towards disorder, confusion and impairment in direct relation to the passage of time. Everything, living or not, is gradually eroded, impaired, decayed, broken down and fragmented. Sooner or later, this is the inevitable process awaiting all things and, according to the Second Law, there is no return from that inevitable end. The Sydney University biologist Prof. Michael G. Pittman says this:
In order to be able to reconcile the Second Law of Thermodynamics with evolution, Darwinists try to show that a particular order can emerge in so-called open systems, in which there is a constant flow of matter and energy. But evolutionists employ deceptive methods by deliberately confusing two different key concepts: ordered and organized.
For example, when a breeze enters a courtyard, it may gather up all the dry leaves that had previously been spread out at random and deposit them into one corner. This, in thermodynamic terms, is a more ordered environment than its predecessor, but the leaves can never organize themselves with the energy from the wind in such a way as to form a perfect outline of a human being on the floor. In short, complex organized systems can never come into being through natural processes. Although, simple arrangements like that cited above may occur from time to time, they can never progress beyond specific bounds.
Evolutionists, however, depict these spontaneous self-ordering phenomena by means of natural events as important evidence for evolution. They seek to portray them as supposed examples of self-organization. As a result of this conceptual confusion, they suggest that living beings can arise spontaneously as a result of natural events and chemical reactions.
Yet as you saw earlier, organized systems and ordered systems display completely different structures. Ordered systems contain simple sequences and repetitions, while organized systems contain highly complex, interconnected structures and processes. The difference between the two is best described by the evolutionist scientist Jeffrey Wicken:
The dilemmas facing any self-ordering scenario can easily be seen when the structure of the DNA molecule is examined. Studies in biochemistry and molecular biology cannot explain the special arrangement of the DNA and RNA macro-molecules that contain such broad information. Robert Shapiro-a professor of chemistry of University of New York and an expert on DNA-sets out the evolutionist belief in the self-organization of matter and the materialist dogma underlying it:
With the concept of self-organization, evolutionists claim that inanimate matter can organize itself in such a way as to give rise to a complex living entity. This belief flies in the face of science, because all experiments and observations show that matter has no such ability. So why do evolutionists still believe in such unscientific scenarios? Why are they so determined to deny the proofs of creation that are so evident in living things?
The answer lies in the basic foundation of the theory of evolution: materialist philosophy. By accepting only the existence of matter, it must provide some explanation for living things that is also based on matter alone. The theory of evolution was born from that requirement and, no matter how grossly it may violate science, that's why it is still being propagated today.
The only explanation for life is creation. Evolutionists admit the possibility of all kinds of impossibilities and resort to all kinds of stratagems to deny the existence of Allah. Yet no matter how much they avoid facing facts, they still find themselves confronted by the proofs of our Lord's existence and the sublimity in His creation. The situation of the deniers is described in the Qur'an:
But the actions of those who do not believe are like a mirage in the desert. A thirsty man thinks it is water, but when he reaches it, he finds it to be nothing at all, but he finds Allah there. He will pay him his account in full. Allah is swift at reckoning. (Surat an-Nur, 39)
Neo-Darwinism Is No Solution to the Impasse Facing Evolution
Neo-Darwinism attempts to prop up Darwin's theory by adapting it to scientific advances, and combining it with the genetic inheritance laws of the Austrian biologist Gregor Mendel. Also known as "the modern synthesis," neo-Darwinism actually makes Darwin's ignorance clear for all to see. Darwin sought to account for the variety in species through natural selection, but he was not aware that living things pass on their characteristics to subsequent generations by way of genetic inheritance. This new version of the theory of evolution results from an attempt to cover up that ignorance. But no matter how much neo-Darwinists may attempt to modernize their theory, they have never been able to succeed, since the theory is built on unsound foundations from the outset.
Like Darwin himself, neo-Darwinists maintain that the variety in life came into being spontaneously, by chance.222 In addition to this flawed logic, they depicted mutations –random genetic changes– as the origin of life. Since the errors arising during the replication of DNA were the smallest mutations possible, neo-Darwinists imagined that they could base their theories on that.223 But even the smallest replicaton error-a change in a single nucleotide-gives rise to extremely serious consequences.
Neo-Darwinists said that small changes in genetic information take place first in one site, then in another.224However, the biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner emphasizes that the theory is not true: "The NDT says that large changes will eventually result. It's like becoming a millionaire by saving enough pennies."225
Prof. Marcel-Paul Schützenberger-a member of the French Academy of Sciences and a mathematician, biologist and doctor of medicine from Paris University-has refuted neo-Darwinism with mathematical proofs. In his book Mathematical Challenges in the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, he reaches this conclusion:
According to neo-Darwinism, random genetic mutations represent the raw material of evolution. But as many scientists today agree, the level of complexity in life cannot be acquired through the processes of trial and error hypothesized by neo-Darwinism. Dr. Lee Spetner sets out the impossibility of this: "But if their variations are random, they too cannot account for a build up of genetic information. The chances are almost nil . . . you cannot expect to get a large adaptive genetic rearrangement by chance."227
All the explanations that evolutionists put forward for the origin of life are irrational and unscientific. One of the outspoken eminent authorities who admit as much the French zoologist Pierre Grassé, former head of the French Academy of Sciences. Though an evolutionist, Grassé nevertheless maintains that Darwinian theory cannot account for life, and says this regarding the logic of chance that forms the basis of Darwinism:
In addition, the mutations that they allege increased the information in DNA over the course of time, leading to variation, is no solution to the predicament in which Darwinists find themselves. Mutations are harmful breaks and changes of place of genes in the living DNA molecule, resulting from radiation or chemical effects. Since mutations damage the nucleotides or cause them to change places, they generally lead to damage too great for the cell to repair. For example, X-rays penetrate deeply in the body and cause major DNA damage. When DNA starts to be wrongly replicated, such faulty replication can manifest itself in the body as cancer. The mutagenic energy in sunlight can cause skin cancer, and various substances in cigarettes causes lung cancer. Incorrect replication in the 21st chromosome in the reproductive cell, for instance, leads to Down syndrome.
In order for the theory of evolution to account for the origin of life on Earth, it must point to some mechanism that adds new, useful characteristics, not damaging and destructive ones. How can a living thing acquire a new characteristic? The only answer evolutionists have is "By mutation." They maintain that all species emerged through random mutations acting on the DNA of a single germ cell-either egg or sperm. Yet mutations-the foundation of evolutionists' claims-do not cause living things to become more developed and perfect. Therefore, mutations are not the kind of mechanism as is needed by the theory of evolution, nor can they produce new characteristics. We shall consider only the broad outlines of how mutations do not, and cannot contribute to a species' evolution (For detailed information, see Harun Yahya's Darwinism Refuted , Goodword Books, 2002; and The Evolution Deceit, Ta-Ha Publishers, United Kingdom, 1999.)
Mutations Are Harmful:
Since they occur in a random manner, mutations almost always damage the organism concerned. Any random intervention in a complex structure will damage it rather than improve it. Indeed, there is not one single valid example of a beneficial random mutation of the kind proposed as an evolutionary mechanism.229 The changes brought about by mutations are only like those suffered by the residents of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl: death, genetic handicaps, and disease.
Prof. Walter L. Starkey from Ohio University makes clear the invalidity of claims regarding useful mutations:
All the mutations observed in human beings are harmful. All the mental and physical defects described in medical textbooks as examples of mutation such as Down syndrome, albinism or dwarfism, or diseases such as cancer, reveal mutations' destructive effects. Obviously, any process that handicaps people or causes them to become ill cannot be a mechanism that develops living things. DNA has a very complex order, and so any random effects in this molecule can only damage the organism. Prof. Starkey says this about these damaging effects of mutations:
Mutations Cannot Add New Information to DNA:
As a result of mutation, the components that make up genetic information are detached from their locations, damaged, or else transported to different regions of the DNA. They can never endow an organism with a new organ or a new attribute by adding new genetic information to its DNA. All they cause are abnormalities of existing characteristics, such as an extra leg sticking out of the pelvis, or an ear out of the stomach. Prof. Werner Gitt answers the question "Can new information emerge as the result of mutations?"
On the same subject, Prof. Phillip Johnson has this to say:
The well-known evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould admits the facts regarding mutations:
There is yet another proof that mutations do not add new characteristics of the kind required by the theory of evolution. To produce new characteristics or new species, several atoms must be added to the organism's DNA.235 In human DNA, there are up to 204 billion atoms-3,000 times more atoms than in the DNA of the bacterium E. coli.236 For that reason, in order for a single-celled organism to develop into a human being, more than 200 billion atoms of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and phosphorus would have to be added to its DNA.237 As you know, carbon and nitrogen can be obtained from the air, hydrogen and oxygen from water, and phosphorus from soil. But the real problem is the extraction and relocation of these atoms in exactly the right place in the DNA molecule. Atoms would have to arrange themselves so as to contain sugar groups, phosphate groups and nitrogen bases with extraordinary complexity, and be located in just the right part of the double helix in order for a DNA molecule to function.238
Prof. Phillip Johnson explains how, just as in encyclopedias and computer programs, there is a very specific order in DNA, and that there must be a mechanism that produces genetic information. He also describes how random mutations have a negative impact on the information and regularity in DNA:
Mutations are Disordered:
Mutations do alter already existing structures, but in a completely disordered manner. Mutations have no complementary properties and have no cumulative effects toward any particular objective. Pierre Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, says this about mutations' effects:
In Order for a Mutation to Influence Subsequent Generations, it Must Arise Inside the Reproductive Cell: :
No change arising in any cell or organ of the body can be passed on to the next generation. For example, a person's arm may be exposed to radiation assume a form very different from its original appearance. But these changes cannot be passed on unless they take place in the DNA molecule in some reproductive cell. This precondition –that in order to affect future generations, the mutation must take place in only one reproductive cell, out of all the trillions of cells in the body– makes evolutionist expectations totally impossible.
Mutations Are Rare:
Mutations occur only very rarely. As a cell's DNA is being replicated, enzymes perform a regulatory function. Therefore, as you have seen in some detail, errors that survive the replication process are very rare. Calculations show that only one living thing in a million will be exposed to mutation.241 The molecular biologist Prof. Gerald L. Schroeder criticizes fictitious claims based on mutations:
Thus, in the words of Pierre Paul Grassé, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."243
Mutations Cannot Bring about Changes of Species:
Experiments on fruit flies have been going on for many years. Many fruit flies exposed to radiation have given rise to mutant forms, such as flies with very large wings, extra wings or no wings at all. Yet no matter how deformed, they have still remained fruit flies and have not developed into any new species.
The slightest change in location or absence in the sequences in the genes can easily give rise to fatal consequences. It is impossible for random mutations to occur in such a delicate sequence as to cause one organism to evolve into another by adding to its genetic information. Indeed, in the laboratory, all animal embryos subjected to mutation in order to prove evolutionists' theories are born either deformed or dead.
All this goes to show that contrary to what evolutionists maintain, random mutations cannot account for the origin of living things. Not even the most advanced technology and intense work by the most skilled scientists can produce a new species. As you have seen, mutations can in no way cause the diversity in living things. The flawless sequence in DNA is solely the result of a very special creation. That creation belongs to Almighty Allah, Whose impeccable creation is described in the Qur'an:
It is Allah Who made the Earth a stable home for you and the sky a dome, and formed you, giving you the best of forms, and provided you with good and wholesome things. That is Allah, your Lord. Blessed be Allah, the Lord of all the worlds. He is the Living-there is no deity but Him-so call on Him, making your religion sincerely His. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds. (Surah Ghafir, 64-65)
The theory of evolution, which maintains that inanimate substances spontaneously came together to form living things with such glorious features as DNA, is a fantasy that violates both science and reason. Since life has a blueprint (DNA) and all living things are made in the light of that blueprint, the one manifest conclusion is that a sublime Creator has produced that blueprint. All living things come into being through the creation of Almighty and Omniscient Allah, Who reveals this in the Qur'an:
He is Allah-the Creator, the Maker, the Giver of Form. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Everything in the heavens and Earth glorifies Him. He is the Almighty, the All-Wise. (Surat al-Hashr, 24)
It Is Almighty Allah Who Bestows Life on the Cell
For a moment, forget all the impossibilities described so far. Assume that a protein molecule did form under the primeval Earth's most unsuitable conditions.
The formation of a single protein will not be enough. It will have to wait for other proteins, just like itself, to emerge by chance in this uncontrolled environment, until millions of the appropriate proteins needed for producing the cell all form alongside one another, in the same place. Those that form first must wait patiently, suffering no damage from ultraviolet rays or mechanical abrasion, until the others appear, also by chance. Then these proteins, in the right quantities in the same place, must combine in meaningful forms to give rise to the cell's organelles. Meanwhile, no foreign substances, harmful molecules or functionless proteins must infiltrate themselves. And even if these organelles did manage to combine in an exceedingly ordered, harmonious and interconnected way, absorbing all the necessary enzymes and being enclosed in a membrane-and if that membrane's interior were filled with a special fluid that constitutes the ideal environment-could that collection of molecules then come to life?
No, because as research shows, in order for life to begin, it's not enough for all the needed substances to be present together. Even if you place all the proteins necessary for life in a test tube, still you cannot obtain a living cell. All the experiments in this area have failed; all experiments and observations show that life comes only from life. The claim that life emerged by chance from inanimate substances is a myth that conflicts with all observations and experiments, and which exists only in evolutionists' dreams.
Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, spent decades convinced that life was born by chance:
In that case, the first life on Earth can only have come from the creation of Allah, the Lord of Life. Life begins, continues and comes to an end only through His willing it. Evolution, on the other hand, cannot explain how the materials necessary for life formed and combined with one another, let alone to explain how life itself began. In the Qur'an, our Lord asks:
Is He Who creates like him who does not create? So will you not pay heed? If you tried to number Allah's blessings, you could never count them. Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah knows what you keep secret and what you make public. Those you call on besides Allah do not create anything. They are themselves created. (Surat an-Nahl, 17-20)
174. Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p. 8.
175. L. R. Croft, How Life Began, p. 34.
176. Leslie E. Orgel, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life”, New Scientist, Vol. 94, 15 April 1982, p. 151.
177. Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God., p. 191.
178. Jon Cohen, "Getting All turned Around Over the Origins of Life on Earth", Science, ol.t 267, 3 March 1995, p. 1265.
179. Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers”, InterDisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, no. 4, 1988, p. 348.
180. John Maddox, "The Genesis Code by Numbers", Nature, Vol. 367, 13 January 1994, p. 111.
181. Wendell R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, pp. 302, 303.
182. Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts About The Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, Vol. 33, September 1971, p. 336.
183. I. L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong, 1984, p. 205.
184. Paul Auger, De La Physique Théorique à la Biologie, 1970, p. 118.
185. John W. Oller, “A Theory In Crisis”, Institute for Creation Research, Impact no: 180, July 1988.
186. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 351.
187. William A. Dembski, James M. Kushiner, Signs of Intelligence, Brazoss Press, ABD, 2001, p. 109.
188. Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, p. 293.
189. Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, p. 106.
190. Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Vintage Books, New York, 1980, p. 548.
191. K.R. Popper, 1974, "Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science," In F. Ayala and T. Dobzhansky, eds., Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270.
192. Green, David E., Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights into the Living Process, Academic Press, New York, 1967, p. 403.
193. Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, Vol. 73, September 1971, p. 336.
194. John Horgan, "In the Beginning", Scientific American, Vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119.
195. Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, p. 293.
196. Andrew Scott, "Update on Genesis", New Scientist, Vol. 106, 2 May 1985, pp. 31, 32.
197. Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life", American Scientist, January 1955, p. 125.
198. Ali Demirsoy, Kalıtım ve Evrim, p. 39.
199. Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth", Scientific American, Vol, October 1994, p. 78.
200. Caryl P. Haskins, "Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970", American Scientist, Vol 59, May-June 1971, p. 305.
201. http://ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext00/2llcd10.txt; [Charles Darwin to J.D. Hooker, Down, 29 March 1863]
202. Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth", Scientific American, p. 78.
203. Alexander G. Cairns-Smith, "The First Organisms", Scientific American, June 1985, Vol. 252, p. 90.
204. Reinhard Junker, Siegfried Scherer, Entstehung und Geschichte Der Lebewesen, Weyel Verlag, 1986, p. 89.
205. Duane T. Gish, Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, Institute for Creation Research, ABD, 1993, p. 262.
206. Ibid., p. 270.
207. Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin, Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, Teksas, 2nd edition, 1992, p. 57.
208. Duane T. Gish, Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, Institute for Creation Research, 1993, USA, p 270.
209. Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin, p. 103.
210. Duane T. Gish, Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, p. 275.
211. Nicholas Wade, "Life's Origins Get Murkier and Messier; Genetic Analysis Yields Intimations of a Primordial Commune", New York Times, 13 June 2000.
212. Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, The Free Press, New York, 1996, pp. 172-173.
213. Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information.
214. Peter Radetsky, "The Crucible of Life", Earth, February 1998, pp. 34-41.
215. W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.
216. Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, p. 171.
217. Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, pp. 126-127.
218. Paul Davies, "How We Could Create Life", Guardian, 11 December 2002; http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,857635,00.html
219. Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, p. 233.
220. Jeffrey S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion", Journal of Theoretical Biology, April 1979, Vol. 77, p. 349.
221. Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books, New York, 1986. p. 207.
222. Lee M. Spetner, Not By Chance, Shattering The Modern Theory of Evolution, p. 50.
223. Ibid., p. 60.
225. Ibid., p. 57.
226. M. P. Schutzenberger, Mathematical Challenges in the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, 1967, pp. 73-75.
227. Lee Spetner, Not By Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, p. 180.
228. Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 103.
229. Walter L. Starkey, The Cambrian Explosion, p. 157.
230. Ibid., p.158.
232. Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, p. 127.
233. Phillip E. Johnson, The Wedge of Truth, pp. 46-47.
234. Stephen Jay Gould, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?", Lecture at Hobart & William Smith Colleges, 4 February 1980.
235. Walter L. Starkey, The Cambrian Explosion, p. 159.
239. Phillip E. Johnson, The Wedge of Truth, p. 127.
240. Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 97.
241. Walter L. Starkey, The Cambrian Explosion, p. 157.
242. Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God, p. 99.
243. Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 88.
244. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Interview in London Daily Express, 14 August 1981.