Mutations

Mutations are genetic accidents that occur in living things. Like all accidents, they cause harm and destruction. "Evolution" through mutation is as unlikely as the improvement of a clock by a hammer blow.

Realizing that natural selection has no evolutionary function, evolutionists introduced the concept of "mutation" to their claim in the 20th century. Mutations are distortions taking place in the genes of organisms through external effects such as radiation. Evolutionists claim that these distortions cause organisms to evolve.

EFFECTS OF CHERNOBYL The main cause of mutation in humans is radioactivity. The effects of mutations are always detrimental. Those who were exposed to mutation because of the disaster in Chernobyl either suffered from fatal cancers or were born with crippled organs as seen in the pictures.	MUTATION TWINS The disorder resulting in "Siamese twins" in humans is caused by mutations. These twin frogs which were conjoined at birth give us an idea of the results of mutation.

Scientific findings, however, reject this claim, because all observable efficient mutations cause only harm to living things. All mutations that take place in humans result in mental or physical deformities such as mongolism (Down's syndrome), albinism, dwarfism, or diseases such as cancer.

FRUIT FLY EXPERIMENTS For decades, evolutionists carried out mutation experiments on fruit flies because they reproduce very rapidly and can be easily mutated. These creatures were mutated millions of times in all possible ways. However, not even one beneficial mutation has been observed. The head of a fruit fly before it is mutated Result of mutation: Legs jutting from the head

Another reason why it is impossible for mutations to cause living things to evolve is that mutations do not add any new genetic information to an organism. Mutations cause existing genetic information to be randomly reshuffled similar to playing cards. In other words, no new genetic information is introduced by mutations.

Evolutionary theory, however, asserts that the genetic information of living things increases over time. For instance, while a very simply structured bacterium comprises of 2,000 different types of proteins, a human's organism has 100,000 types of proteins. Exactly 98,000 new proteins have to be "discovered" for a bacterium to evolve into a human being. It is by no means possible for these protein structures to be produced by mutations, because mutations cannot add anything to a DNA chain.

Not surprisingly, so far, not even a single mutation has been observed to develop the genetic information of any life form. Despite being an evolutionist himself, the Former President of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grassé, made the following admission: "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."18

THE DISTORTION OF DNA The code in DNA determines the physical traits of living things. If a displacement or relocation occurs in this code, because of an external effect like radiation, the organism  mutates.

Footnotes

18) Pierre-Paul Grass, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, S. 88

Irreducible Complexity

Alle Behauptungen von Darwin stützen sich auf das Szenarium der "stufenweisen Entwicklung". Nicht reduzierbare komplexe Organe, eine Entdeckung der Wissenschaft des 20. Jahrhunderts, widerlegen jedoch dieses Szenarium und die gesamte Evolutionstheorie.

All claims of Darwinism rest on the scenario of "gradual development". The "irreducibly complex" organs unravelled by 20th century science demolish this scenario and the entire theory of evolution along with it.

If you ask an evolutionist: "How did the marvellous organs of living things come into being?", he will outline this scenario: "It is true that the extremely complex systems of living organisms cannot form all of a sudden by chance. These systems have rather developed step by step. First, a single part of the system emerged by chance. Since this part was advantageous for the organism, that organism benefited from natural selection. Then other parts formed by steps, eventually building the highly complex system."

In order for a watch to function, all of its wheels must exist. Even if there is one missing wheel, the watch will be useless. This "irreducibly complex" structure shows that the watch is a work of perfection made by a designer of superior skills.

The point that renders this scenario invalid right from the outset is the characteristic of "irreducible complexity" in the systems of living things. If a system is not functional without all of its components being in place, and if it is useless if even only one of its components is missing, then that system cannot be reduced to a simpler form. It either exists perfectly and functions, or it is useless.

On close consideration, we see that an "irreducibly complex" system cannot possibly form "step by step" through coincidences. For no "intermediate step" would be of any use unless the system were complete and perfect. A useless intermediate step, on the other hand, would be eliminated by natural selection and disappear according to the reasoning of evolution.

When Darwin put forward his theory, he had great doubts about this point. He imagined that the organs of living things could be reduced to simpler forms, yet he was also afraid that new developments would destroy his speculation. This is why he wrote the following lines in his book The Origin of Species:

BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM This complicated structure is an electric motor. But not one in a household appliance or vehicle. It is in a bacterium. Thanks to this motor, bacteria have been able to move those organs known as "flagella" and thus swim in water for millions of years. The motor of bacteria flagellum, discovered in the 1970's, staggered the scientific community, because this "irreducibly complex" organ, made up of some 250 separate molecular components, can never be explained by chance mechanisms as Darwin had proposed. 1. Filament, 2. Hook, 3. Cell Membrane, 4. ORganic Motor

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.19

THE DESIGN OF THE EYE The human eye works by some 40 different parts functioning together. If one of these is not present, the eye will serve no purpose. Each of these 40 parts has its own individual structure. For instance, the retinal membrane at the back of the eye is made up of 11 different layers. (Right below) One of these layers is the blood vein network, as seen under a microscope. (See side picture.) This layer, which has the most intricate vein network in the body, meets the oxygen needs of the retinal cells that interpret light. Each of the other layers has a distinct function. Evolutionists are unable to account for the development of such a complex organ. One of the 11 distinct layers of the retinal membrane. The cross section of the retina

Darwin's theory has today been overthrown just as he feared, because scientific findings prove that most of the systems in living organisms are irreducibly complex. Numerous structures and systems from the human eye to the cell, from the coagulation process in the blood to the protein, are of no use with even one of their components missing. Not surprisingly, no evolutionist can explain through which "steps" these organisms have formed.

THE BIOCHEMICAL CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION In his book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, the American professor of biochemistry, Michael Behe, quotes many examples of irreducible complexity. As Behe makes clear, while irreducibly complex organs refute Darwinism, they prove, on the other hand, that life is "designed" that is, it is created.

While irreducible complexity – in Darwin's words – "absolutely" breaks down the theory of evolution, it, on the other hand, absolutely proves creation. Every irreducibly complex system demonstrates the existence of an intelligence that has built it. The complexity in living things proves the existence and the perfect creation of God, Who created life. As stated in the Qur'an, "He is God – 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)

Footnotes

19) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, S. 189

Impasse of Intermediate Forms

Darwin had written: "If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties… must assuredly have existed". However, evolutionists, despite their 140 year-long search, have not been able to find even one.

Darwin admitted the non-existence of intermediate form fossils in the chapter titled "Imperfection of Geological Record" of his book The Origin of Species.

Darwin had written: "If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties… must assuredly have existed". However, evolutionists, despite their 140 year-long search, have not been able to find even one.

The theory of evolution asserts that living things descended from a common ancestor. According to the theory, living beings differentiated from each other over a very long time with linked, gradual modifications.

In the excavations carried out from Darwin's time till the present day, not even one intermediate form has been unearthed.

If this assertion were true, then numerous "intermediary species" should have lived in history linking different living species. For instance, if birds had indeed evolved from reptiles, then billions of creatures which were half-bird/half-reptile should have lived throughout history.

Darwin knew that the fossil deposits ought to be full of these "intermediary transitional forms". Yet he was also well aware that no transitional form fossils were available. That was why he devoted a chapter to this problem in his book The Origin of Species.

Darwin was hoping that this great problem would be solved in the future and that transitional forms would be discovered with new excavations. Despite their best efforts, however, evolutionists have not been able to find even a single intermediate form in the 140 years that have passed since Darwin. The well-known evolutionist Derek Ager confesses this fact:

"MOSAIC" ORGANISMS ARE NOT INTERMEDIATE FORMS The most important example of evolutionists' alleged intermediate forms is a fossil bird called Archaeopteryx. Focusing on the teeth and claws of Archaeopteryx, evolutionists allege that this creature is an intermediate form between reptiles and birds. However, an animal class may well possess features of another animal class, without this being an indication that it is a transitional form. For instance, the Australian platypus reproduces by laying eggs like reptiles despite being a mammal. Besides, it has a beak similar to a bird's. Scientists call organisms like platypus "mosaic forms". Leading evolutionists now also admit that mosaic forms cannot be considered as intermediate forms.

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, we find–over and over again–not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.20

SIMILAR CREATURES ARE NOT INTERMEDIATE FORMS The fact that similar animals in different sizes have been found throughout the ages is not evidence for there being "intermediate forms". If the different deer and gazelle species we see in the picture had been available only as fossil forms, evolutionists might well have made an imaginary evolutionary scheme by arranging them in a line progressing from the smallest to the biggest. Yet, these animals are not intermediate forms, but individual living species.

The sudden origination of living beings on the Earth is proof that they were created by God. Evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma admits this fact:

Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting 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.21

INTERMEDIATE FORMS MUST BE "HALF" ORGANISMS The intermediate forms evolutionists have to find are organisms that are in between two species and that have missing and half developed organs. For instance, if invertebrates like starfish had evolved into fish as evolutionists claim, many "half fish" and "half starfish" organisms ought to have lived. In the fossil record, however, there are only perfect starfish and perfect fish.

Footnotes

20) Derek A. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record", Proceedings of the British Geological Association, Band 87, 1976, S. 133

21) Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, New York: Pantheon Books, 1983. S. 197

The Cambrian Period

When we examine the earth strata, we see that life on Earth appeared suddenly. Many diverse living species emerged abruptly and fully in the Cambrian Period. This finding is compelling evidence for creation.

The deepest stratum of earth that contains fossils of complex living things is the "Cambrian", which has an estimated age of 520 to 530 million years. The fossils unearthed in Cambrian rocks belonged to complex invertebrate species like snails, trilobites, sponges, worms, jelly fish, starfish, crustaceans and sea lilies. Most interestingly, all of these distinct species emerged all of a sudden without any predecessor.

A still extant example of the Cambrian Period: Nautilus

Richard Monastersky, the editor of Earth Sciences, which is one of the popular journals of evolutionist literature, admits this fact that put evolutionists into a quandary:

A half-billion years ago the remarkably complex forms of animals that we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of the earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.22

COMPLEX SYSTEMS COMPLEX SYSTEMS Most of the life forms that emerged all of a sudden in the Cambrian Period had complex systems like eyes, gills, circulatory system, and advanced physiological structures no different from their modern counterparts.

How these distinct living species with no common ancestors could have emerged is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of the evolutionary theory in the world, makes this confession:

It is as though they (the species of the Cambrian) were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.23

An illustration of the organisms that existed in the Cambrian Period

The Cambrian explosion is clear evidence that God created all living things. The only explanation of the sudden emergence of organisms without any evolutionary ancestors is creation. Accordingly, Darwin wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."24

This fatal stroke that frightened Darwin comes from the Cambrian period, right at the outset of the fossil record.

The eye of the trilobite, one of the species of the Cambrian, had an extraordinary design. It consisted of hundreds of tiny eyes. Moreover, each of these tiny eyes had two different lenses. It is reckoned that this structure called the "doublet structure" allowed the trilobites to see underwater perfectly, without distortion. A professor of geology from the University of Harvard, David Raup says: "The trilobites used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today."25 This perfect eye structure was brought into being 530 million years ago all of a sudden in its perfect form. Additionally, the compound eye system of the trilobites has survived to our day without a single alteration. Some insects, such as bees and dragon-flies, have the same eye structure as did the trilobite.

THE EYE OF THE TRILOBITE The compound eye structure of the trilobite

Footnotes

22) Richard Monestarsky, "Mysteries of the Orient", Discover, April 1993, S. 40

23) Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton 1986, S. 229

24) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, S. 302

Fish and Amphibians

Fish and amphibians emerged on the Earth suddenly and without any predecessors. Evolutionists cannot explain the origin of either of these living classes.

Evolutionists assume that the sea invertebrates that appeared in the Cambrian stratum somehow evolved into fish over tens of millions of years. However, there is not a single transitional link indicating that evolution occurred between these invertebrates and fish. Actually, the evolution of invertebrates that have their hard tissues outside their bodies and no skeleton into bony fish that have theirs in the middle of their bodies is a very big transformation which should have left a great number of transitional links.

A fossil dating back 280 million years belonging to an extinct frog species. These discoveries reveal that frogs appeared suddenly on the Earth without any predecessors.

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

An evolutionist paleontologist, Gerald T. Todd, asks the following questions in the face of this fact:

All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time… How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely?.. And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?26

The evolutionary scenario also argues that fish, which evolved from invertebrates, later transformed themselves into amphibians which are able to live on land. (Amphibians are animals capable of living both on land and in water, such as frogs.) But as you would imagine, this scenario also lacks evidence. There is not even a single fossil verifying that a half-fish/half-amphibian creature has ever existed. This fact is confirmed, albeit reluctantly, by a well-known evolutionist authority, Robert L. Carroll, who is the author of Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution: "We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians."27

In short, both fish and amphibians emerged suddenly and in their present form without any predecessors. In other words, God created them in a perfect form.

There is no difference between the fossil fish of hundreds of millions of years ago and modern fish. Fish have been created as fish and always remained so.

One of the important contradictions in the fanciful evolutionary scheme stretching from fish to reptiles is the skin formation of these organisms. All fish have scales on their skin while amphibians do not. Reptiles that have allegedly evolved from amphibians also have scales. If we suppose that there is an evolutionary relationship between these organisms, we also have to answer why scales, which exist in fish, disappeared in amphibians, and then re-appeared in reptiles. Evolutionists, however, are unable to answer this question.

THE PROBLEM OF SCALE 1. Fish, 2. Amphibian, 3. Reptile

THE MIRACLE OF METAMORPHOSIS Frogs are first born in water, live there for a while, and then emerge on to land in a process known as "metamorphosis." Some people think that metamorphosis is evidence of evolution, whereas, the two have actually nothing to do with one another. The sole development mechanism proposed by evolution is mutation. Metamorphosis does not come about by coincidental effects as mutation does. On the contrary, this change results from the frogs' genetic code. In other words, it is already evident that when a frog is first born, it will have a type of body allowing it to live on land. The evolutionists' claim of passage from water to land says that fish, with a genetic code completely designed to allow them to live in water, turned into land creatures as a result of chance mutations. But for this reason, metamorphosis actually tears evolution down, rather than shoring it up. Because the slightest error in the process of metamorphosis means the creature will die or be deformed. It is essential that metamorphosis should happen perfectly. It is impossible for such a complex process, which allows no room for error, to have come about by chance mutations, as is claimed by evolution. Metamorphosis is actually a miracle that reveals the perfection in creation. 1. The frog offspring hatching from its egg is a fish-like organism designed to live in water prior to metamorphosis. It takes in oxygen through gills just as fish do. Frogs at this stage are called "tadpoles". 2. The offspring that will emerge from the fertilized frog eggs will be plentiful enough to cover a lake or a flowing river. 3. With metamorphosis, frogs alter in form. At the end of a perfect transformation, they become adapted to live on land.

Footnotes

25) David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, Band 50, Januar 1979, S. 24

26) Gerald T. Todd, "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Casual Relationship", American Zoologist, Band 26, No. 4, 1980, S. 757

27) R. L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, New York: W. H. Freeman and Co. 1988, S. 4.

Coelacanth Misconception

Up until 70 years ago, evolutionists had a fossil fish which they considered "the ancestor of land animals". Scientific developments, however, put an end to all evolutionist claims about this fish.

THE END OF THE MYTH The coelacanth lives! The team that caught the first living coelacanth in the Indian Ocean on 22 December, 1938, is seen here with the fish.

The absence of intermediate form fossils between fish and amphibians is a fact evolutionists also admit to today. However, until 70 years ago, it was accepted that a fossil fish called the coelacanth was an outright intermediate form. Evolutionists claimed that the coelacanth, which was estimated to be 410 million years of age, was a transitional form with a primitive lung, a developed brain, a digestive and a circulatory system ready to function on land, and even a primitive walking mechanism. These evolutionary interpretations were accepted as undisputed truth in scientific circles until the end of the 1930's.

However, on December 22, 1938, a very interesting discovery was made in the Indian Ocean. A living member of the coelacanth family, previously presented as a transitional form that had become extinct 70 million years ago, was caught! The discovery of a "living" prototype of coelacanth undoubtedly gave evolutionists a severe shock. The evolutionist paleontologist, J.L.B. Smith, said that he could not have been more surprised if he had come across a living dinosaur.28 In the following years, more than 200 coelacanths were caught in different parts of the world.

Living coelacanths revealed how far evolutionists could go in making up their imaginary scenarios. Contrary to their claims, coelacanths had neither a primitive lung nor a large brain. The organ that evolutionist researchers claimed to be a primitive lung turned out to be nothing but a lipid pouch.29

Furthermore, the coelacanth, which was introduced as "a reptile candidate getting prepared to pass from sea to land", was in reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans and always stayed more than 180 metres below the surface.30

IMAGINARY DRAWINGS AND A REAL COELACANTH Until a living specimen of it was found, evolutionists presented the coelacanth as the ancestor of "all land animals". Drawings such as the above were presented as fact and took their place in textbooks. When a living example of the fish was caught (side picture), all these evolutionist allegations were debunked.

1 Before a living example of it was caught, evolutionists believed that the coelacanth had organs which were half-fin and half-foot that enabled it to creep on land. When the living coelacanth was examined, it was understood that the fins of the fish had no such additional function.	2 Evolutionists had claimed that the fish had a primitive lung. However, the organ that was supposed to be a primitive lung turned out to be a lipid pouch.	3 It was asserted that the brain structure of the coelacanth also resembled that of land animals. However, it was revealed that its brain was no different from that of modern fish.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FINS AND FEET The reason why evolutionists imagine the coelacanth and similar fish to be "ancestors of land animals" is that these fish have bony fins. They suppose that these bones turned into legs over time. However, there is a basic difference between the bones of these fish and the legs of land-dwelling animals: The bones of fish are not attached to the spinal column of the animal, as we see in the picture above. In land-dwelling animals, however, bones are directly fastened to the vertebral column, as we see in the picture below. Therefore, the claim that these fins gradually turned into legs is completely groundless. 1. Bones are unattached to the vertebral column 2. Bones are attached to the vertebral column

Footnotes

28) Jean-Jacques Hublin, The Hamlyn Encyclopdia of Prehistoric Animals, New York: The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., 1984, S. 120

29) Jacques Millot, "The Coelacanth", Scientific American, Band 193, Dezember 1955, S. 39

30) Bilim ve Teknik, November 1998, Band 372, S. 21

Reptiles

The theory of evolution is also unable to account for the origin of reptiles. The members of this specific class have appeared distinctly without undergoing any evolutionary process. The physiological features of reptiles are widely different from those of their alleged ancestors, the amphibians.

Dinosaurs, lizards, turtles and crocodiles… All of these species belong to the living class called "reptiles". Some reptiles, such as dinosaurs, are extinct but some are still alive.

THE SEYMOURIA MISCONCEPTION Evolutionists at one time claimed that the Seymouria fossil (left) was a transitional form between amphibians and reptiles. According to this scenario, Seymouria was "the primitive ancestor of reptiles." However, subsequent fossil discoveries showed that reptiles were living on Earth some 30 million years before Seymouria.32 In the light of this, evolutionists had to relinquish their claims regarding Seymouria.

Reptiles have particular features, such as their bodies being covered by plate-like structures called "scales". They are cold-blooded, which means that they cannot generate their own body heat. That is why they need direct sunlight to warm up their bodies. They give birth to their young by laying eggs.

THE END OF DINOSAURS Dinosaurs were the greatest land-dwelling animals that have ever lived. With their perfectly designed bodies, they lived on Earth for a long time. According to a consensus among scientists, they have become extinct because of a meteor disaster. This phenomenon was divinely planned so as to make the Earth fit for mammals and in particular human beings, which were created subsequently (according to geological records).

Evolutionists cannot explain how reptiles came into being. The conventional evolutionist allegation on this issue is that reptiles evolved from amphibians. However, there is not a single scrap of evidence to prove this. On the contrary, an examination of amphibians and reptiles demonstrates that there are very great physiological differences between these two living groups and that a half-reptile/half-amphibian has no chances of survival.

TURTLES ARE ALWAYS THE SAME There is no difference between the ancient fossil reptiles and their counterparts today. The 100 million-year-old sea turtle on the left is exactly the same as its modern counterpart.

Accordingly, such a creature does not exist in the fossil record. Renowned evolutionist paleontologist, Lewis L. Carroll, admits this fact in his article titled "The Problem of the Origin of Reptiles":

Unfortunately not a single specimen of an appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles. The absence of such ancestral forms leaves many problems of the amphibian-reptilian transition unanswered.31

THE DIFFERENCE IN THE EGGS One of the contradictions of the amphibian-reptile evolutionary scenario is the structure of the eggs. Amphibian eggs, which develop in water, have a jelly-like structure and a permeable membrane. Reptile eggs, however, have a solid and water-proof structure adapted to land conditions, as we see in the dinosaur egg reconstruction here. In order for an amphibian to become "reptilian", its eggs must turn into reptile eggs. Yet this is impossible.

Moreover, there are also insurmountable boundaries between reptile species such as reptiles, dinosaurs or lizards. All of these distinct species arose suddenly and distinctly on the Earth, because God so created them. This fact is thus stated in the Qur'an:

God created every animal from water. Some of them go on their bellies, some of them on two legs, and some on four. God creates whatever He wills. God has power over all things.
(Surat an-Nur: 45)

Footnotes

31) Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1988, S. 198

32) Die ltesten Seymouria Fossilien gehren zur Alt Permiyen Erdschicht, diese sind nmlich 280 Millionen Jahre alt. Die als die ltesten Reptilienarten angesehenen Hylonomus und Paleothyris wurden in den altpennsilvanischen Erdschichten gefunden. Diese Erdschichten sind 330-315 Millionen Jahre alt. (Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985. S. 238-39)