Part 3 - Darwinists have Deceived the Whole World with Frauds - 2

1. The Claim That "The First Cell Emerged from Muddy Water" Is a Fraud

Cytochrome C It is impossible for a single amino-acid chain to form by chance. This fact totally undermines Darwinism.

According to Darwin's theory of evolution, there was a mythical first cell that formed when various inanimate substances came together by chance. According to Darwinism, everything began with that "first cell." And according to Darwinism, that fictitious "first cell" represents the origin of all life, butterflies, birds, lions, whales, eagles, rabbits, deer and eventually human beings who produce professors and technologies, found civilizations, journey into space and examine their own cells in laboratories.

According to Darwinism, the source of this mythical first cell is supposedly a bit of muddy water, time and chance! According to the religion of Darwinism, these three "magic" and "intelligent" things somehow came together to produce the cell, with all its organelles and irreducible complexity, with its exceptionally complex and flawless mechanisms, that not even Nobel prize-winning scientists have been able to manufacture in laboratories equipped with 21st-century technology, and whose details human beings have been striving to understand for around half a century! Moreover, these three "wondrous" forces also combined to give rise to all the glorious life we see on Earth today. The religion of Darwinism seeks to convince people of this nonsense.

But the fact is that this is a terrible fraud and falsehood.

In fact, the fantasy of this first cell emerging from muddy water invented by Darwinists is entirely compatible with the very backward level of science and technology in Darwin's time. Bearing in mind that Darwin thought the cell was just a sack of jelly, this childish account is just what one might expect from the knowledge and scientific understanding of that era. It was easier to deceive people at that time since they had no idea what the cell was like. But the findings that emerged from the science of genetics once again proved that Darwinism is a total deception. In the light of our present-day knowledge, just one of all the countless proteins possessed by the cell is enough to refute the theory of evolution. Proteins are highly complex structures, and it is impossible for them to come into being by chance. So much so that it is impossible to reproduce them even with 21st-century technology under conscious and controlled laboratory conditions. To maintain that such a structure came into being by chance in a puddle of muddy water is scientifically ludicrous and even a violation of reason and logic. The American philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer expresses the impossibility of a single protein forming by chance in these words:

Consider the probabilistic hurdles that must be overcome to construct even one short protein molecule of about 100 amino acids in length. First, all amino acids must form a chemical bond known as a peptide bond so as to join with other amino acids in the protein chain. Yet in nature many other types of chemical bonds are possible between amino acids. The probability of building a chain of 100 amino acids in which all linkages involve peptide bonds is roughly 1 chance in 1030.

Second, in nature every amino acid has a distinct mirror image of itself, one left-handed version (or L-form) and one right-handed version (or D-form). These mirror-image forms are called optical isomers. Functioning proteins tolerate only left-handed amino acids, yet the right-handed and left-handed isomers occur in nature with roughly equal frequency. Taking this into consideration compounds the improbability of attaining a biologically functioning protein. The probability of attaining at random only L-amino acids in a hypothetical peptide chain 100 amino acids long is (1/2)100 or again roughly 1 chance in 1030.

Third and most important of all, functioning proteins must have amino acids that link up in a specific sequential arrangement, just like the letters in a meaningful sentence. Because there are 20 biologically occurring amino acids, the probability of getting a specific amino acid at a given site is one in twenty, or five percent. Even if we assume that some sites along the chain will tolerate several amino acids (using the variances determined by biochemist Robert Sauer of MIT), we find that the probability of achieving a functional sequence of amino acids in several functioning proteins at random is still "vanishingly small," roughly 1 chance in 1065—an astronomically large number—for a protein only one hundred amino acids in length. (Actually the probability is even lower because there are many nonproteinous amino acids in nature that we have not accounted for in this calculation.)

If one also factors in the probability of attaining proper bonding and optical isomers, the probability of constructing a rather short, functional protein at random becomes so small as to be effectively zero (no more than 1 chance in 10125), even given our multi-billion-year-old universe. Consider further that equally severe probability difficulties attending the random assembly of functional DNA. Moreover, a minimally complex cell requires not one, but at least 100 complex proteins (and many other biomolecular components such as DNA and RNA) all functioning in close coordination. For this reason, quantitative assessments of cellular complexity have simply reinforced an opinion that has prevailed since the mid-1960s within origin-of-life biology: chance is not an adequate explanation for the origin of biological complexity and specificity.33

Chance, the false god of Darwinists, has no power to create anything. Allah, Lord of the worlds, is the sole Creator.

Above and beyond all this, the really important point to be concentrated on is that proteins must already exist in order for other proteins to form. Up to 100 proteins have to be at work in order for a single protein to form. All these proteins have to be present inside a fully formed cell at the same time and the same place and with all their organelles. Therefore, proteins, DNA and the cell have to exist before the protein does. This fact by itself demolishes Darwinists' claims. Darwinists are unable to explain how even a single protein came into being.

Even if we were to assume that all these complex structures did come into being in an impossible way (i. e., by chance), Darwinists still have to explain how data enough to fill a million encyclopedia pages inside such a glorious molecule as DNA could come into existence by pure happenstance. But as with all issues regarding the cell and the origin of life, Darwinists have no explanation for this either. According to the perverse Darwinist mindset, the extraordinary information inside a cell that formed by chance in muddy water must also have come about by chance due to external factors. The wondrous information inside DNA was actually created together with it.

The idea that  a gloriously complex structure such as DNA came into being by chance is one of the worst falsehoods of Darwinism. The idea that  a gloriously complex structure such as DNA came into being by chance is one of the worst falsehoods of Darwinism.

Darwinists claim that "the cell formed by chance in muddy water" is an outdated belief from the time of Darwin, who imagined that the cell was a simple sack of jelly. But this nonsense dating back to the 19th century has been totally invalidated today, when science and technology have made such great progress. While there are countless structures that all have to be accounted for in a living body, Darwinism cannot even account for how a single protein came into being. But Darwinists behave as if they were unaware of all these impossibilities. This impossible formation in muddy water is still described in evolutionist publications, much in the same way that people tell each other fairy tales. The aim is to be able to deceive the public with this unscientific, illogical and also unproven account. According to the adherents of this superstitious religion, the more people who believe in this nonsense, the more people will fall under the spell of Darwinism.

But people no longer believe in Darwinists' false tales. Everything in creation, the universe and all within it, exhibit the sublime might and power of our Almighty Lord. In the Qur'an, our Almighty Lord speaks of the sublime creation of the cell and man:

We created man from the purest kind of clay; then made him a drop in a secure receptacle; then formed the drop into a clot and formed the clot into a lump and formed the lump into bones and clothed the bones in flesh; and then brought him into being as another creature. Blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!  (Surat al-Muminun, 12-14)

No matter how much people who look for explanations outside the Qur'an try to provide facile accounts for the glory on Earth, it is still an absolute and certain fact that these works created by Allah are magnificent and glorious. There is no room for the theory of evolution in the face of this sublime creation. Almighty Allah describes the greatness of the works He creates in this verse:

The creation of the heavens and earth is far greater than the creation of mankind. But most of mankind do not know it.  (Surah Ghafir, 57)

2. The Claim That "Natural Selection Causes Evolution" Is a Fraudulent One

Darwin proposed the concept of natural selection as a supposed "evolutionary mechanism" in the 1800s.

The idea of natural selection is based on the idea that the strongest or most powerful life forms, well adapted to their natural surroundings will survive. For example, in a herd of zebra menaced by lions, the zebras that run the fastest will survive.

Natural selection is certainly a mechanism observed among living things in nature. But it does not possess the ability, as imagined by evolutionists, to bestow new features on life forms and thus create new species.

We can clarify this with an example: Let us imagine that in a certain geographical region there are two similar kinds of dogs, one of which has significantly longer fur than the other. If the temperature in this region falls significantly for some ecological reason, then the longer haired dogs will be more resistant than the shorter haired ones. As a result, the longer haired dogs will gradually come to have an advantage, meaning that they will live longer, find food more easily and reproduce more successfully. After a while, the number of shorter haired dogs will decrease considerably, and they will either migrate to warmer climates or else become extinct. In other words, the longer haired dogs will be favored by natural selection and be advantaged over the other kind.

But please note that no new breed of dog emerges during this process. One of the two breeds that were already in existence acquired an advantage through natural selection. It is not the case that as a result of natural selection long haired dogs appeared where there had not been any before. It is in any case absolutely impossible for these dogs to turn into another species.

Long-haired dogs will naturally have an advantage over short-haired dogs in a cold region, and will therefore live longer, reproduce more and find it easier to locate food. But this process does not produce a new species of dog.

In short, new species and new characteristics do not appear by way of natural selection, only the probability of survival of an already existing species changes. Since no new species or characteristics form, it is impossible to speak of "evolution" taking place as evolutionists claim. To put it another way, no "evolution" can come about through natural selection. Indeed, Darwin himself admitted as much:

... natural selection is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures.34

The well-known British evolutionist and paleontologist Colin Patterson makes this confession on the subject:

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.35

Natural selection is not a mechanism that produces anything new and thus causes species to change, nor does it work miracles such as causing a reptile to gradually turn into a bird. In the words of the well-known biologist D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson, "... we are entitled ... to see in natural selection an inexorable force, whose function is not to create but to destroy—to weed, to prune, to cut down and to cast into the fire."36

Darwinists are therefore lying when they describe natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. Even though they know full well that natural selection does not bring about evolution, they still try to openly impose this deception. Desiring to adopt the legacy inherited from Darwin, and not having been able to invent a new mechanism for their imaginary scenario, makes them intensely devoted to this outdated claim and terrible falsehood. There are still Darwinist scientists today who adhere to this terrible lie. Those who have seen that this lie cannot be maintained have come up with another lie: the idea that "mutations cause evolution."

Natural selection cannot give rise to a new species. In a herd of deer threatened by predators, those that can run faster will survive, and thus the herd will come to be made up of swift and strong animals. But this mechanism does not cause deer to evolve and cannot turn them into another species.

3. The Idea That "Mutations Cause Evolution" Is a Falsehood

Mutations are dislocations, breaks and impairments as a result of radiation or chemical effects in the DNA molecule in the nucleus of the living cell which carries all the information about a human being. The information in DNA is set out by 4 separate nucleotides, symbolized by the letters A, T, C and G, laid out in a special and significant sequence. But an error in a single letter in that sequence will damage the entire structure. For example, the leukemia observed in children appears because one of the nucleotide sequences in the DNA is incorrect. The reason for diseases such as cancer appearing or subsequent generations being deformed as a result of the radiation leakage at Chernobyl, or the atom bomb dropped over Hiroshima, is again because of the harmful effects of mutations occurring in people's bodies.

Almost all mutations are harmful, and they are generally lethal to living things. Examples of mutations that are not harmful generally do the organism no good, and are at best neutral. Scientists have concluded that not a single mutation, out of all those that have been studied, has ever had a positive effect on the life of an organism.37

But the theory of evolution is based on these fictitious mutations that supposedly produce "new" living things and work miracles. Darwinists maintain that species emerge from one another through structures and organs appearing as a result of countless fictitious and beneficial mutations. This claim, which is a source of terrible shame for Darwinists, is put forward by Darwinist scientists who know that mutations always harm an organism. Furthermore, Darwinists are well aware of these harmful effects of mutations yet they still point to a mutant, four-winged fruit fly. The four-winged fruit fly emerged as a result of being subjected to radiation in the laboratory. Darwinists use this example in support of their claims. Darwinists portrayed the extra pair of wings produced in a fruit fly as a result of laboratory-engineered mutations as the greatest evidence that mutations could lead to evolution. But the two wings in question actually damage the creature rather than benefiting it, leading to its losing the ability to fly. The University of California at Berkeley molecular biologist Jonathan Wells summarizes the position as follows:

In the 1970s, Cal Tech geneticist Edward B. Lewis discovered that by carefully breeding three mutant strains he was able to produce a fruit fly in which the balancers were transformed into a second pair of normal-looking wings.

At first glance, this might seem to provide evidence for Carroll's claim that small developmental changes in regulatory DNA can produce large evolutionary changes in form. But the fruit fly is still a fruit fly. Furthermore, although the second pair of wings looks normal, it has no flight muscles. A four-winged fruit fly is like an airplane with a second pair of wings dangling uselessly from its tail. It has great difficulty flying or mating, so it can survive only in the laboratory. As evidence for evolution, a four-winged fruit fly is no better than a two-headed calf in a circus sideshow.38

1. Chromosome 2. Histone Every mutation affecting DNA will harm it. It is impossible for organisms to become more perfect or acquire new genetic information as a result of mutations.

Jonathan Wells continues:

Disabled fruit flies with extra wings or missing legs have taught us something about developmental genetics, but nothing about evolution. All of the evidence points to one conclusion: no matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes – a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even a horsefly, much less a horse.39

As we have seen, the four-winged mutant fruit fly that is the only evidence that Darwinists point to in support of their warped claims is in fact nothing more than a disabled fruit fly. No matter what effect mutations may have on a life form, they do not possess the miraculous property of bestowing a characteristic belonging to another life form onto it. But Darwinists want people to believe the lie that miracles occur in living things by way of mutations.

The interesting thing is that although Darwinist scientists know that the fruit fly in question is defective, attempts are still made to depict it as the greatest evidence for evolution by mutation in school textbooks. Jonathan Wells writes:

According to Peter Raven and George Johnson's 1999 textbook, Biology, "all evolution begins with alterations in the genetic message… Genetic change through mutation and recombination [the re-arrangement of existing genes] provides the raw materials for evolution." The same page features a photo of a four-winged fruit fly, which is described as "a mutant because of changes in Ultrabithorax, a gene regulating a critical stage of development; it possesses two thoracic segments and thus two sets of wings."

…

Adding to the confusion, textbook accounts typically leave the reader with the impression that the extra wings represent a gain of structures. But four-winged fruit flies have actually lost structures which they need for flying. Their balancers are gone, and instead of being replaced with something new have been replaced with copies of structures already present in another segment. Although pictures of four-winged fruit flies give the impression that mutations have added something new, the exact opposite is closer to the truth.40

The harmful effects of mutations can clearly be seen in the living creatures illustrated. Mutations either cripple or kill. Mutations cannot improve living things, they can only harm them.

Even if we assume that the "fictitious first cell" that Darwinists claim represents the beginning of life and that cannot possibly have come into being by chance did actually emerge spontaneously, even the smallest stage of the imaginary evolutionary process that would have to take place to give rise to a human with his complex structure would require an astounding amount of information to be produced and countless mutations to take place. "All" of these many mutations have to be beneficial to the life form or else bring about the appearance of something "new." A single error in this fictitious developing life form will cause the entire system to go wrong and collapse. Ninety-nine percent of mutations are harmful while only one percent are neutral. It flies in the face of both reason and science, therefore, to suggest that every single one of these mutations that would have to take place according to the theory of evolution can be beneficial.

It is therefore impossible for a brand new organ or characteristic that did not exist before to appear by chance as the result of mutations. Mutations have no power to bestow new information on a life form that does not belong to it, or to turn it into a different organism. The idea of mutation represents the greatest manifestation of the falsehood and illogicality of Darwinism because the idea of evolution is based on these illusory "beneficial mutations" that do not in fact exist.

Mutations are the Foe of Symmetry

The mathematical proportionality in the leaves of a sunflower, the shell of a snail, a pinecone or the length of our fingers is one of the extraordinary beauties and blessings created by Allah. This is the astonishing harmony known to scientists as the "golden ratio." The characteristic of this sequence, discovered by Leonardo Fibonacci, the most eminent mathematician of the Middle Ages, is that each number in it is the sum of the two preceding ones.

The Fibonacci sequence goes; 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, ...

Divided by the one before, the numbers in the sequence produce very similar results. Indeed, after the 13th number the figure is always identical. This is the figure known as the "golden ratio," 1.618.

As a miracle of Allah's, this wondrous ratio can be seen in a great many entities in nature. The golden ratio can be found in the DNA helix in our cells, in the shape of galaxies in space, in snow crystals, micro-organisms, in horns and teeth and in snail shells. But the most striking example of all is the human body, in which;

The length of the face – the width of the face,

The space between the lips and where the eyebrows meet – the length of the nose,

The length of the face – the space between the tip of the jaw and where the eyebrows meet,

The length of the mouth – the width of the nose,

The width of the nose – the distance between the nostrils,

The distance between the pupils – the distance between the eyebrows,

The distance between the fingertip and the elbow – the distance between the wrist and the elbow,

The distance from shoulder level to the top of the head – the length of the head,

The distance between the navel and the top of the head – the distance from shoulder level to the top of the head,

The distance between the navel and the knee – the distance between the knee and the tip of the foot,

Are all examples of perfect golden ratios.

Our Lord reveals in the Qur'an that "Allah has appointed a measure for all things." (Surat at-Talaq, 3). The "Golden Ratio" is thus one of the most sublime proofs of Allah's creation. (For greater detail, see http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/goldenratio/index.html)

The perfect symmetry and the golden ratio observable in living things by themselves overturn all the Darwinists' claims of evolution. This is because mutations, to which Darwinists ascribe a supposed "evolutionary force," are the enemies of symmetry. According to Darwinists' claims, when haphazard mutations come about there should be no golden ratio in living things. There should be total imbalance and disorder because mutations are disordered phenomena. Mutations cannot produce an arm that did not exist before, a hand proportionate to it, or fingers again in line with a mathematical ratio. Moreover, they cannot then produce another arm of the same length on the other side in an immaculate symmetry, another hand of the same size and with the same symmetry and other figures matching that same mathematical ratio. Random mutations cannot decide beforehand and produce a perfectly complex eye, and then another seeing eye on the exact opposite side of the face in complete harmony with it, of the same size and color and with exactly the same functions. Random mutations cannot, as Darwinists maintain, produce an ear on the right side of the head and then immediately afterward produce a second ear on the left side, possessing the same symmetry and shape, hearing in the same way, and with all the same characteristics. Likewise, they cannot form delicate structures such as the anvil, hammer and stirrup (the tiny bones located inside the ear) in a perfect manner, and bestow the same functions and symmetry on them.

In order for a living thing to survive, chance mutations would have to give rise to heart valves, the same on both sides and with the same symmetry and functions. Otherwise, that being could not live. And that proportion and symmetry would have to come about in the same way in all organs of the body because all life forms today, and all those in the past, all exhibit the same immaculate symmetry. No life form comes into being with an ear the wrong way round, one lung different, or one eye in its forehead and one on its nose. Since life exhibits no such imbalance, Darwinists are trying to commit a mass deception with their claims that mutations cause evolution.

Very rarely, we do encounter monstrous creatures with one ear the wrong way round or an eye in its forehead. That is the end result of mutations. Mutations are like shooting at an ordered structure with a machine gun. There is no doubt that shooting at a sound body will entirely destroy it. The fact that one mutation may have no effect, or that an existing infection in the body may be destroyed and thus cured by shooting at it with a machine gun changes nothing. The organism will in any case be destroyed by all the other 99 bullets hitting it.

It is mutations that are responsible for the odd-looking life forms in question that occasionally attract the interest of the media and scientific circles. Mutations damage the living organism's genes, do away with its immaculate symmetry and make it unable to survive. But the point that must not be forgotten here is that mutations all take place under the control of Allah. Allah creates such examples in order to demonstrate the perfection in His creation and to reveal His creative artistry.

The Infinite Amount of Time Needed for Hypothetical Beneficial Mutations

Even if we hypothesize that beneficial mutations could take place, the idea of mutation is still incompatible with the theory of evolution. In a paper titled "The Inadequacy of Neo-Darwinian Evolution As a Scientific Theory," Professor Murray Eden from the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Faculty of Electrical Engineering showed that if it required a mere six mutations to bring about an adaptive change, this would occur by chance only once in a billion years - while, if two dozen genes were involved, it would require 10,000,000,000 years, which is much longer than the age of the Earth.41 Even if we assume that mutations were effective and beneficial in complex organs, and structures requiring more than one mutation to occur at the same time, mathematicians still say the problem of time is an acute dilemma for Darwinists. Even Professor of Paleontology George G. Simpson, one of the most unrepentant Darwinists, clearly states that it would take an infinite length of time for five mutations to happen at the same time.42 An infinite amount of time means zero probability. And that is a probability which applies to all the structures and organs possessed by living things. Thus, there is no possibility of the glorious variety of life we see in our daily lives coming about through mutations.

The evolutionist George G. Simpson has performed another calculation regarding the mutation claim in question. He admitted that in a community of 100 million individuals, which could hypothetically produce a new generation every day, a positive outcome from mutations would only take place once every 274 billion years. That number is many times greater than the age of the Earth, estimated to be at 4.5 billion years old.43 These, of course, are all calculations assuming that mutations have a positive effect on the generations which gave rise to them, and on subsequent generations; but no such assumption applies in the real world.

1. Mutation 2. DNA helix Living DNA is a highly complex structure. Any random intervention can only harm that structure. And that gives rise to sickly, crippled and dead organisms.

Why Is the Body That Is Supposedly Evolving Protected against Mutations?

All evolutionist scientists know that the probability of a replication error occurring in a living organism's DNA for no reason is very low. Research has revealed that there are protective elements in the cell that prevent genetic errors from arising. The information in DNA cannot be copied in the absence of particular enzymes that control one another against errors. These include double-filter enzymes for ensuring that the right amino acid binds to the right tRNA. One filter rejects amino acids that are too large, and the other those that are too small. This is a very sensitive and rational system. There are also enzymes that do final checks against the possibility of any error arising in this intelligent system. Scientists have concluded that they could not imagine a better cellular control and protection system aimed at maintaining the integrity of DNA.44

Pierre Paul Grassé, who spent 30 years as professor of evolution at the Sorbonne, wrote this on the subject:

The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer's "Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecules leading to the formation of the eye.45

Darwinists ignore this miraculous system present in DNA and avoid going deeply into the subject and coming up with any explanation of it; yet they construct a scenario of the history of life built on replication errors with an almost zero possibility of happening. This once again reveals the nonsensical nature of Darwinist logic.

Following the realization that Darwin's idea of natural selection most definitely did not constitute an account of evolution and the emergence of the laws of genetics becoming a lethal blow to Darwinism, the claim of the "evolutionary effect of mutations," which had been the main weapon of neo-Darwinism, was seen to be no more than a deception. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that a mechanism such as a mutation, which damages, destroys and kills the living organism, as well as sometimes harming all subsequent generations, can give rise to entirely new living things. But masses of people were taken in by this lie for years. Darwinist scientists of course know that mutations have no such miraculous power. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the present day's most fervid Darwinists, admits that "most mutations are deleterious, so some undesirable side effect is pretty likely."46 The reason why Darwinists still propose this discredited claim as a mechanism for evolution is their devotion to the superstitious religion of Darwinism.

Footnotes

33. Stephen C. Meyer, "Word Games: DNA, Design, and Intelligence," Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, ed. William A. Dembski, James M. Kushiner, Brazos Press, 2001, s. 109-110

34. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1859 (London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1971) - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 84

35. Colin Patterson, "Cladistics", Brian Leek ile Röportaj, Peter Franz, 4 Mart 1982, BBC.

36. Lee M. Spetner, Not By Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, The Judaica Press Inc., 1997, s. 175

37. Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 74-75

38. Jonathan Welss, Ph.D., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Regnery Publishing Inc., Washington, 2006, sf.34

39. Jonathan Welss, Ph.D., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Regnery Publishing Inc., Washington, 2006, sf.36

40. Jonathan Wells, Evrimin İkonları, Gelenek yayınları, Ocak 2003, s. 172-173

41. Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Sphere Books Ltd., 1984, s. 4

42. Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Sphere Books Ltd., 1984, s. 230

43. Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 81

44. Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 74-75

45. Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 81

46. Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype, Oxford University Press, 1999, s. 141

Part 3 - Darwinists have Deceived the Whole World with Frauds - 3 4. The "Discovery of the Transitional Form" is a Fraud An original copy of Darwin's Origin of Species The absence of transitional fossils did not look like an insuperable one in Darwin's time. Darwin was amazed that not a single intermediate fossil to confirm his theory had been discovered in any of the Earth's strata, but he still believed they would be "found in the future." In the chapter titled "Difficulties on Theory" of his The Origin of Species he wrote: ... Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?.. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?47 The lack of transitional fossils, which refuted Darwin's expectations, and not a single one of which has been discovered over the last 150 years, has demolished his theory. More than 350 million fossils have to date been unearthed. These fossils have definitively declared the crushing defeat of Darwinism. They all belong to complete and perfect life forms. A great many are specimens of life forms still living today. But not one of these 350 million is a transitional form. The lack of transitional fossils means the death of Darwinism, and is something that the adherents of the superstitious faith that is Darwinism cannot accept. For that reason, Darwinists resorted to traditional methods and began manufacturing fictitious transitional fossils. Today, when we look at publications that are Darwinist in origin we see that all the fossils depicted as transitional forms are in fact the product of fraud. This false evidence, which may sometimes be based on extinct life forms, sometimes on fictitious illustrations, sometimes on just one single fossil tooth and sometimes on skulls fraudulently manufactured in a laboratory environment, is all important proof that transitional fossils do not exist and that Darwinism is a deception. Professor of mathematics Wolfgang Smith is one of those scientists who openly admits that transitional fossils do not exist: On the fundamental level, it becomes a rigorously demonstrable fact that there are no transitional types, and the so-called missing links are indeed non-existent.48 The evolutionist paleontologist Stephen Stanley makes this comment on the absence of transitional fossils: The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphology transition, and hence offers no evidence that gradualistic model can be valid.49 The University of Kansas geologist Ronald R. West comments: If evolution were true, the fossil record should have demonstrated: The oldest rocks that bear evidence of life would contain the most primitive forms of life capable of fossilization. Younger rocks would contain evidence of more complex forms of life. There would be a gradual change in life forms from simple to complex. There would be huge numbers of transitional forms. However, contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution.50   There are more than 380 fossil beds on Earth. More than 350 million fossils have to date been extracted from those fossil beds. But all these fossils prove Creation. Not a single one of these fossils is a transitional form. All fossils prove Creation... Darwinists have been unable to put forth a single genuine intermediate form. Not a single transitional fossil has ever been unearthed. There is not a single example of a genuine transitional form on display in museums of evolution. Each one of the 350 million fossils have refuted evolution. They are all fully formed and perfect fossils of life forms, whether still living or extinct. The lack of transitional forms is such that even Darwinists cannot deny the obvious. Faced by various difficulties, they sometimes are forced to admit it. One such statement comes from the evolutionist paleontologist Colin Patterson: I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book [Evolution]. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly have included them. . . . I will lay it on the line – there is not one single transitional form in the fossil record for which one could make a watertight argument.51 The absence of intermediate forms is not something that should be glossed over with sophistry, as by the majority of Darwinists, or else regarded as unimportant. No transitional forms mean no evolution. One or a few fossils are not enough to validate the theory of evolution. There would have to be millions of them. But there exists not one single transitional fossil. This reality – that just about 100% of the fossil record has been unearthed by the first decade of the 21st century, and that not one of the millions of transitional fossils that there should theoretically have been has been found – is by itself very powerful and sound evidence that evolution is a lie. Mark Ridley of the Oxford University Department of Zoology describes how all the fossil record shows that Darwinism is a lie: In any case, no real evolutionist, whether a gradualist or a punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation...52 The interesting thing is the way that, as we shall be seeing in due course – and in the face of this reality – Darwinists still try to depict fully formed, complete and perfect fossils as transitional forms, or else manufacture their own. The principal reason for their resorting to fraud is without doubt their inability to produce any scientific evidence and their desperation. The main element that makes Darwinism a fraud is that the followers of this superstitious religion have to engage in hoaxes, lies and deception. The adherents of this superstitious faith claim to be acting in the name of science, but the findings of science openly refute the theory of evolution. In Darwinists' eyes, Darwinism can only be propped up by means of countless lies. That is why their "transitional form found" propaganda that constitutes part of this is also a huge fraud. Devoid of any transitional forms, Darwinists look for a solution in portraying extinct life forms as transitional. But all these living forms were complete and fully formed. 5. Darwinists' Efforts to Cover Up Living Fossils Is A Deception Darwin was amazed when he found a fossilized ginkgo leaf during his research. An identical counterpart to something living today was found with exactly the same appearance as it has today in strata dating back millions of years. This fossil, which on its own was sufficient to disprove his theory and which caused Darwin enormous concern, was described by Darwin in person as a "living fossil." If Darwin were alive today, there is no doubt that his alarm on this subject would be even greater because the ginkgo is not the only living fossil to have survived. Some of the more than 350 million fossils that have been unearthed to date belong to complete and fully formed extinct entities, while the majority represent living fossils. Fossil specimens dating back millions of years from very many species living today have been discovered and put on display. (For details see http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/ and http://atlasofcreation.com/index.php) The horses, giraffes, fish, dogs, birds and reptiles alive today have all left traces dating back millions of years with the same states and appearances that they have now. The fossils illustrated in the Atlas of Creation volumes and those on show at various exhibitions and on the Fossil Museum website represent just a few of the specimens in question. There are so many of these specimens that nearly every life form alive today is represented by members of the same species dating back millions of years. And these fossils are in complete harmony with the organisms around today. There is no difference between fossils dating back millions of years and contemporary living things. Life forms have never changed. They are the same now as when they were first created. A 50-million-year-old ginkgo leaf is identical to a present-day one. Niles Eldredge, the well-known evolutionist paleontologist and curator at the American Museum of Natural History, summarized their helplessness in the face of the reality that living fossils are one of the greatest dilemmas confronting evolution: ... there seems to have been almost no change in any part we can compare between the living organism and its fossilized progenitors of the remote geological past. Living fossils embody the theme of evolutionary stability to an extreme degree. ....We have not completely solved the riddle of living fossils.53 Although Eldredge attempts, in his own eyes, to conceal Darwinists' despair by the use of the term "evolutionary stability" and seeks to give the impression that as if "an evolutionary process really did take place in the past, but then underwent stability" the fact of the matter is this: the fossil record clearly proves that evolution never happened at any time. All living species appeared in a moment with all the characteristics they possess today, and have never changed over the course of tens of millions of years. Fish have always existed as fish, reptiles as reptiles, mammals as mammals and human beings as human beings. The fossil record, Darwin's greatest hope, has proved to be the strongest evidence refuting his theory. There is no doubt that this state of affairs constitutes a huge rout for the theory of evolution, which is unconfirmed by even a single transitional fossil. That is why Darwinist circles cover up the existence of living fossils and never bring them up, despite their being well aware of the true position. Someone looking at evolutionist references will form the impression that there are only a few living fossils because only a few living fossils are ever brought up by Darwinists. These references also attempt to give the impression that it is miraculous how these few fossils have remained unchanged and that they are an "exception" among all the countless imaginary "proofs" of evolution. But this is a deception. Living Fossils 1. A 54-to-37-million-year-old fossil sassafras leaf 2. A 40-million-year-old fossil diospyros leaf 3. A 125-million-year-old fossil dragonfly 4. A 110-million-year-old fossil tarpon 5. A 150-million-year-old fossil oyster 6. A 4-million-year-old fossil seahorse 7. A 65-million-year-old fossil lynx skull 8. A 51-million-year-old fossil jackal skull 9. A 45-million-year-old fossil zebra skull 10. A 3.9-million-year-old fossil camel skull 11. A 50-million-year-old fossil antelope skull 12. A 98-million-year-old fossil turtle But this is a deception. The American paleontologist S. M. Stanley describes how the Darwinist dictatorship that dominates the scientific world ignores and conceals this fact revealed by the fossil record: The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured… "The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation."... [but] their story has been suppressed.54 But no matter how much they try to keep it hushed up, one fact can no longer be concealed: there are millions of living fossils. Darwin's theory of evolution is currently in a state of total ruin in the face of the facts revealed by the fossil record. Scientific findings have demolished Darwinism. Darwinists cannot conceal these fossils that prove the fact of Creation. The facts are out in the open and the collapse of Darwinism has been revealed by the fossil record, once Darwinism's greatest foundation. The Darwinist ploy has failed. The fossils that Darwinism expected would confirm the theory have actually, by Allah's leave and will, put an end to it. People have thus seen the truth that Allah creates all living things from nothing. Once they have seen this, no contrary claim can have any value or effect. Almighty Allah has destined the system of the dajjal to collapse. This can be irrefutably seen by one and all. Our Almighty Lord reveals in verses how He has created all things from nothing: How can you reject Allah, when you were dead and then He gave you life, then He will make you die and then give you life again, then you will be returned to Him? It is He Who created everything on the Earth for you and then directed His attention up to heaven and arranged it into seven regular heavens. He has knowledge of all things.  (Surat al-Baqara, 28-29) 6. The Concealment of Cambrian Fossils for 70 Year is a Deception The Cambrian Period is one of the oldest in natural history and took place 543 to 490 million years ago. Prior to that, life consisted of single-celled organisms and a few multi-celled organisms, but during this period, the whole extraordinary variety of life emerged suddenly, in perfect, fully formed states. All of these life forms had extraordinarily complex features, totally unlike previous life forms, and very similar to living things today. This means that the Cambrian Period deals another deadly blow to the theory of evolution. The fossils of Cambrian Period life forms provide specimens of 55 different phyla, including those in existence today. (Phylum: the largest category after the "world" in the classification of living things according to their basic physical characteristics.) To put it another way, present-day living things and an even wider variety, were in existence with all their perfect basic physical structures 540 million years ago. (The current number of phyla is 35.) Cambrian life forms are identical to present-day living things that exhibit a flawless complexity. This repudiates Darwin's fictitious evolutionary tree, and overturns the false mechanisms which have been proposed for this mythical process. According to Darwin's theory of evolution, following the formation of the first cell, supposedly by chance, single-celled organisms must have ruled the world. After that, the active life that began with simple-structured multi-celled organisms must continue in the form of a single, water dwelling phylum. The number of phyla should increase gradually, and the number of species should grow in proportion. But the reality revealed by the Cambrian findings is very different. Things happened in the exact reverse to Darwin's imaginary evolutionary tree, with a greater diversity than that in existence today appearing right from the beginning of natural history, immediately after single-celled organisms.  (For details see The Cambrian Evidence That Darwin Failed to Comprehend, Harun Yahya) An astonishing variety of life appeared in the Cambrian Period, in all its complete and perfect states. It will certainly be devastating for someone utterly devoted to Darwinist ideology to discover this. As one of the most loyal followers of this heretical religion Charles Doolittle Walcott, a paleontologist and also director of the Smithsonian Institute, one of the best-known museums in the United States, was appalled by the diversity in the Cambrian fossils he began discovering in 1909. During his research, which he continued until 1917, he collected a total of 65,000 fossils. These all belonged to complex Cambrian life forms. Bearing in mind Darwinist frauds, it shouldcome as no surprise that these fossils, which heralded the destruction of Darwinism, were immediately hidden away by the same Darwinist who found them. Walcott decided to conceal these fossils which so terrified him, as they threatened to demolish the superstitious faith of which he was a member and so contradicted his own beliefs. He locked the photographs he had taken and other documentation away in drawers in the Smithsonian Museum. These special and important fossils would only see the light of day 70 years later. The Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder comments: Had Walcott wanted, he could have hired a phalanx of graduate students to work on the fossils. But he chose not to rock the boat of evolution. Today fossil representatives of the Cambrian era have been found in China, Africa, the British Isles, Sweden, Greenland. The explosion [in the Cambrian Period] was worldwide. But before it became proper to discuss the extraordinary nature of the explosion, the data were simply not reported.55 The Cambrian fossils found by Walcott in Burgess Shale were re-examined decades after his death. A team of experts known as the "Cambridge Group" made up of Harry Blackmore Whittington, Derek Briggs and Simon Conway Morris conducted a detailed analysis of the fossils in the 1980s, and they concluded that the fauna was much more diverse and extraordinary than Walcott had determined. They reached the conclusion that some of the fossils could not be classified under the categories of life known today, for which reason they represented different phyla from those currently in existence. Life forms emerged suddenly, in perfect and complex states, in the Cambrian Period of 490 to 543 million years ago. The compound structure of the eye of the trilobite, one of the most ubiquitous Cambrian Period life forms, still exists in identical form in arthropods such as the dragonfly and the bee. This magnificent marvel of art dating back 540 million years is just one of the amazing works of Allah. The conclusion was so unexpected for Darwinists that scientists referred to this sudden activity as an "explosion." The "Cambrian Explosion" was one of the most incomparable and inexplicable phenomena in the history of science for evolutionist scientists. As a result of these findings confronting evolutionists, who were already at an impasse on every issue, they should have put an end to the tales they had developed for propaganda purposes and returned to the "problem of accounting for the beginning of life." (Of course, this was a problem for Darwinists, who had no rational and scientific explanation for the origin of life. Anyone thinking logically and scientifically can clearly see that life and the universe are the work of Almighty Allah.) Darwin's imaginary tree of life had been turned upside down, and the reality was now in total conflict with the fundamental logic of the theory of evolution. Darwinists are still silent on the subject of the Cambrian Explosion that exhibits higher life forms and Allah's magnificent Creation. Darwinists have gone very quiet in the face of these extraordinary findings and behave quite literally as if they did not exist. They publish countless deceptive scenarios they have dreamed up about the history of life in scientific journals, but try to avoid reminding people of this huge phenomenon of 540 million years ago and how it totally refutes the theory of evolution. The blatant deception of Charles Doolittle Walcott, who concealed Cambrian fossils, is a perfect example of the lengths that Darwinists will go to in order to conceal the truth and perpetuate a groundless theory. If Darwinism were really a science, if the proponents of Darwinism really were scientists, then findings of such enormous scientific value, such a huge discovery, would be highlighted and discussed as a matter of urgency on scientific websites and in books and articles. The fact that the opposite applies, with consistent attempts to conceal concrete scientific findings, stems from Darwinism not being a science but rather a false religion that has emerged as a stratagem on the part of the antichrist. Built on a lie, this theory tries to survive through falsehoods. The concealment of the Cambrian fossils was just one of the scientific deceptions perpetrated in the name of Darwinism. 7. The Claim That Archaeopteryx Is the Ancestor of Birds Is a Deception Contrary to what Darwinists claim, Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form, but a perfect bird whose skeleton and feather structure make it ideally suited to flight. The fossil bird discovered in Germany in 1860 and given the name Archaeopteryx harbored certain characteristics unlike those of today's birds. Darwinists used the teeth in its jaw, the claws on its wings and its long tail as tools for speculation, and the bird was hastily compared to reptiles and heralded, in the absence of any scientific foundation, as a reptile-bird transitional form. But this claim was a terrible deception. Soon after Darwinists had mythologized Archaeopteryx as a false transitional form, the fossil bones were examined in detail, and it emerged that this life form was not in fact a "primitive bird" exhibiting an imaginary passage from reptiles to birds, but that its skeleton and feather structure were actually ideally suited to flight, and that the features, unlike those of reptiles, were actually to be found in birds that had lived in the past and even in some that were still alive today. The pro-Darwinist journal Science openly stated this fact: Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in a modern sense, a bird.56 Archaeopteryx is a mosaic life form containing characteristics from different species. Mosaic forms interest scientists with their complex structures and are described as living things harboring features belonging to various species. The deception that Darwinists perpetrated regarding Archaeopteryx stems from the fact that the fossil belongs to a mosaic form. The fact is, however, that like all the life forms in existence today, mosaic organisms are complex examples of Creation. The French biophysicist Pierre Lecomte du Nouy makes this admission on the subject: We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown.57 Many Darwinist circles have actually made that admission. Two of the 20th Century's best known Darwinists, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, who were responsible for the punctuated evolution deception, also agree that Archaeopteryx cannot be regarded as a transitional form.58 Jonathan Wells admits the fact that the fossil does not constitute evidence for evolution, and that scientific circles have agreed on this when he said, "The world's most beautiful fossil, the specimen Ernst Mayr called 'the almost perfect link between reptiles and birds,' has been quietly shelved, and the search for missing links continues as though Archaeopteryx had never been found."59 But the interesting thing is that although Darwinist scientists have made that confession, efforts are still being made to depict the Archaeopteryx fossil as a transitional form in Darwinist publications. Jonathan Wells sets out the position: Some biology textbooks continue to present Archaeopteryx as the classic example of a missing link. Mader's 1998 Biology calls it "a transitional link between reptiles and birds," and William Schraer and Herbert Stolte's 1999 Biology: The Study of Life tells students that "many scientists believe it represents an evolutionary link between reptiles and birds.60 There can be no doubt that this stems from a desire to persist in this huge fraud. Because Darwinists are unable to abandon their theories in the absence of any transitional forms, they instead try to produce false ones. That explains the desperate and fraudulent attempts to keep Archaeopteryx on the agenda. 8. The Idea That the "Coelacanth is an Example of the Transition from Sea to Land" Is a Fraud The fact that the Coelacanth is a perfect bottom-feeding fish still alive today did away with all the Darwinist speculation on the subject. Even the discovery of a living dinosaur would have been less surprising. Because fossils show that the coelacanth existed 150-200 million years before the appearance of the dinosaurs. The creature put forward by many scientists as the ancestor of land-dwelling vertebrates, believed to have disappeared at least 70 million years ago, had been found!61 These words from a Darwinist, in the April 2003 issue of Focus magazine, describe the astonishment at the discovery of a living Coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae), for years portrayed as a transitional form, in today's waters. Prior to 1938, Darwinists had made countless claims about the fossil Coelacanth, interpreting its fins as "legs about to start walking" and a fossilized oil sac as "a primitive lung." With all this speculation about the fossil, they suggested that they had discovered a missing link. The capture of a living Coelacanth at such a time came as a terrible disappointment to Darwinists. This and more than 200 other living Coelacanths, the latest of which was caught in May 2007, totally discredited all the Darwinist conjecture about the fossils. It was realized that the Coelacanth was an exceedingly complex and highly developed bottom-dwelling fish, about 150 centimeters in length. In addition, the animals showed no sign of change over 450 million years. To put it another way, its complexity today is the same as it was 450 million years ago. Following the scientific realization of these facts, the Coelacanth assumed its place as an example of a living fossil, and all the claims about it being a transitional form were withdrawn. Darwinists lost yet another fossil they had speculated about so much. Had this animal not been found in today's seas, then, just as with Archaeopteryx, there would have been no end to the Darwinist speculation regarding it. It would still be depicted as the greatest representative of the passage from water to land, and there would be thousands of conjectures about it being the finest unquestionable transitional form. Furthermore, Darwinists would also be making attempts to utterly discredit those saying that the animal is not a transitional form, but rather a perfect marine organism, just as we see happening currently with all the other alleged transitional forms. But the fact is that those who wish to deceive others with no scientific basis will never achieve their ends. As our Lord says in a verse: Yes, indeed! Everyone in the heavens and everyone on the earth belongs to Allah. Those who call on something other than Allah are not really following their partner-deities. They are only following conjecture. They are only guessing.  (Surah Yunus, 66) 9. All the Fossil Skulls Depicted As Evidence for Darwinism Are False Since Darwinists cannot produce any transitional fossils they try to deceive people with fictitious illustrations instead. But these pictures are all fraudulent. Since Darwinism is not founded upon any genuine scientific evidence or basis, it seeks to gather support by presenting false evidence. It is therefore enough for Darwinists to have materials on which to speculate in their possession. Darwinists take fossils of extinct life forms that they can speculate about, shape them in various ways and use them as tools for their ideology. The Coelacanth, which as it was supposedly extinct, was for years portrayed as the best known example of the imaginary transition from water to land, but a living specimen of which was subsequently caught in today's waters, is the most important evidence of this fraud. Darwinists try to use the same tactic for other life forms and for man. They categorize all the fossils they acquire on the basis of their appearance and attach the label of "transitional form" to whichever take their fancy. But all the fossils they describe as "transitional forms" belong, like the Coelacanth, to perfect and flawless living things. The invalidity of all the fossils heralded as transitional forms has subsequently been proved, and it has been scientifically established that they all belong to complex, extinct life forms. When it comes to the supposed evolution of man, the tools of speculation are generally either extinct types of ape or else certain human peoples who lived at some time in the past. All the "transitional form" claims made to date have been based on this speculative technique. For example, countless skulls that Darwinists have attempted to portray as examples of the fictitious evolution of man, have been definitely and scientifically proven to belong to extinct forms of ape or else human races. And the skulls in question have all been removed from the scientific literature: A fossil discovered in 1891 and given the name Java Man, and the fossil known as Peking Man discovered in 1923 were both shown to be false transitional forms in 1939. A single fossil tooth, claimed to represent the most significant evidence of a transitional form in 1922 and given the name of Nebraska Man, was realized to belong to a wild pig in 1927. A fossil discovered in 1959 and named Zinjanthropus was subsequently realized to belong to an ordinary ape and was removed from the scientific literature in 1970. Ramapithecus, discovered in the 1930s and exhibited as a transitional form for the next 50 year, was eliminated when it was shown to be an ordinary baboon in 1981. Lucy, discovered in 1974 in Africa was invalidated by research in 1999-2000, and the fossil was also removed from the scientific literature. The skull named the Taung Child discovered in 1924 was invalidated in 1954 when it was shown to belong to a young gorilla. It was established that the Turkana Boy fossil discovered in 1984 and attempted to be portrayed as a Homo Erectus, was in fact about 12 years old, and would have stood 1.83 meters tall when he became an adult. The erect structure of the skeleton is in no way different from humans today. It was understood that all the speculation about the fossil was false. In a statement issued in Nature magazine, the evolutionist L.B. Halstead from the University of Reading Geology Department admitted that all the fossils depicted to date as evidence for so-called evolution, in fact constituted no evidence for human evolution, and that Darwinists actually had no corroborative finds in the area at all: This presents the public for the first time with the notion that there are no actual fossils directly ancestral to man. [This is] What the creationists have insisted on for years ...62 The biologist Lyall Watson also says that Darwinists have not unearthed a single fossil that might prove the supposed evolution of man: Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans--of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings--is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.63 No matter how reluctant Lyall Watson may be to openly state the case, referring to the origin of man as "a mysterious matter," the origins of man are actually abundantly clear: Allah created man like all other living things, and concrete scientific findings confirm this. In addition to all this, Darwinists are always confronted by the dating problem with every new fossil that is unearthed. They constantly have to "set back" the dates they have dreamed up for evolution and to alter their claims as they see how fossils refute evolution. For example, the fact that 200-million-year-old human footprints were found in one stratum alongside human bones in strata dating back to the Cretaceous Period (144 to 65 million years) shows that human beings go back at least 100 million years.64 Given that evolutionists assume a period of 50,000 years since human beings first appeared, we are most definitely looking at a major discrepancy. New fossils reported in August 2007 showed that the life forms called Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis by Darwinists in fact lived at the same time. The dating problem is yet another factor that leaves Darwinists in a hopeless dilemma when it comes to the so-called evolution of man. Yet despite all these facts, Darwinists still continue to portray the false fossils in question as evidence and to convert them, in their own eyes, into part of the myth of human evolution. They still deceive people and continue to use these fossils, the invalidity of which has been scientifically proven, in scientific references and school text books. The writer Hank Hanegraaff comments on this deceptive technique: Speculation about Pithecanthropus Erectus, the ape man that walked erect, is far and away the most famous 'ape-man' fiction still being circulated as fact. While over time he has evolved into a new classification called Homo Erectus, millions regard him as a friendly ancestor, not just a fossil, and simply refer to him by the nickname Java Man. It is generally known that Java Man was initially discovered by a Dutchman named Eugene Dubois on the Dutch East Indian island of Java in 1891. What is not so well known is the fact that Java Man consists of nothing more than a skullcap, a femur, three teeth, and a great deal of imagination. Even more disturbing is the fact that the femur was found 50 feet (15 meters) from the skullcap and a full year later… This trek, commonly referred to as the Selenka Expedition, included nineteen evolutionists bent on demonstrating that the evolutionary conjectures about Java man were true. However, their 342 page scientific report, which, according to [Sir Arthur] Keith [a famous evolutionist] 'commands our unstinted praise,' demonstrates beyond the peradventure of a doubt that Java mMan played no part in human evolution." Despite all the evidence, it is truly amazing that Time magazine printed "How Man Began," an article that shamelessly treated Java Man as though it were a true evolutionary ancestor."65 In this way, Darwinist publications become part of the Darwinist deception. Darwinist books written by eminent professors and scientists repeat these false scenarios, which are entirely based on deception, rather than producing genuine scientific evidence. The reason why skulls that have been removed from the scientific literature and whose invalidity has been scientifically established are still kept on the agenda is in order for this deception to be maintained. As the evolutionist zoologist Robert Martin said to New Scientist magazine on the subject: In recent years several authors have written popular books on human origins which were based more on fantasy and subjectivity than on fact and objectivity...66 At the present moment Darwinists have not a single skull or a single bone fragment they can point to as evidence for supposed human evolution. The fraudulent method employed by Darwinists, who are unable to bear this state of affairs, is to continue to deceive people by way of such false transitional form fossils. Darwinists' Fake Skulls 1. FALSE Peking Man 2. FALSE Java Man 3. FALSE The Taung child 4. FALSE Nebraska Man 5. FALSE Zinjanthropus 6. FALSE The Turkana Boy 7. FALSE Lucy Footnotes 47. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, s. 172, 280 48. Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion, A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford IL, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. 1988, s. 8 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 181 49. Stephen Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco CA, W. H. Freeman, 1979, s. 39 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 153 50. Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 153 51. Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 152 52. Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?", New Scientist, vol. 90, 1981, s. 831 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 152 53. http://www.nwcreation.net/fossilsliving.html 54. S. M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, Basic Books Inc. Publishers, N.Y., 1981, s.71 55. Gerald Schroeder, "Evolution: Rationality vs. Randomness", http://www.geraldschroeder.com/evolution.html 56. Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws "What Evolutionists Don't Want You To Know", W Publishing Group, 2003 s. 19 57. Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws "What Evolutionists Don't Want You To Know", W Publishing Group, 2003 s. 22 58. Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws "What Evolutionists Don't Want You To Know", W Publishing Group, 2003 s. 22 59. Jonathan Wells, Evrimin İkonları, Gelenek yayınları, Ocak 2003, s. 131 60. Jonathan Wells, Evrimin İkonları, Gelenek yayınları, Ocak 2003, s. 130 61. Focus, Nisan 2003 62. L. B. Halstead "Museum of Errors", Nature, 20 Kasım 1980, s. 280 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 180 63. Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, vol. 90, no. 5, Mayıs 1982, s. 44 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 181 64. F. A. Barnes, Desert Magazine, 38: 36-39, fiubat 1975 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 182 65. Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws "What Evolutionists Don't Want You To Know", W Publishing Group, 2003 s. 32-33 66. Robert Martin, "Man Is Not An Onion", New Scientist, 4 Ağustos 1977, s. 283 ve 285 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, s. 181