The Information in Living Structures and The End of Materialism
At the foundation of the theory of evolution lies materialist philosophy, based on the hypothesis that nothing exists apart from matter. This theory maintains that matter has existed and will continue to exist for all time. Materialists employ a logical process known as reductionism in order to back up these claims. Reductionism is the idea that, like matter itself, invisible forces can also be explained in terms of material agents.
To clarify this, consider the example of the human mind, something that cannot be touched or seen. What is more, there is no "mind center" in the human brain, which inevitably leads to the conclusion that the mind is beyond matter. The thinking, loving, passionate rejoicing, happy or suffering entity we refer to as "me" is not a material entity in the same sense that a table or a stone is.
Materialists, however, maintain that mind can be reduced to matter. According to this claim, our thinking, loving, rejoicing and all other mental activities basically consist of chemical reactions between the atoms in our brains. Our loving someone is a chemical reaction in various cells; the way we feel fear is another such reaction. The famous materialist philosopher Karl Vogt expressed this with irrational logic: "The brain secretes thought just as the liver secretes bile."132 The fact is, however, that bile is matter, but no evidence suggests that thought is matter, too.
Reductionism follows a logical course, but logical progressions may not always be based on sound foundations. What happens when reductionism, the fundamental logic of materialism, is compared against scientific facts?
Nineteenth-century scientists and thinkers imagined that they could easily answer that question by saying, "Science confirms reductionism." However, 20th -century science has revealed that the information existing in nature can never be reduced to matter.
DNA, Not Merely a String of Nucleic Acids, Also Contains Information
You have already seen that living things' DNA contains very wide-ranging information. A literal data bank that describes all the physical details of an organism's body is squeezed into a space just 1/100,000 of a millimeter. In addition, the living cell also possesses a system that reads and interprets this information and engages in production accordingly. In every living cell, the information inside DNA is read by various enzymes, and proteins produced according to that information. Every second, the manufacture of millions of proteins, of just the type required for the site concerned, takes place inside our bodies. By means of this system, eye cells or blood cells that die are replaced by new ones.
Can the information inside DNA be reduced to matter, as materialists would have us believe? Or can DNA be regarded as only a collection of matter, with the information it contains emerging through random interactions of matter?
All the scientific research carried out in the 20th century, the results of all the experiments and observations, show that life definitely does not consist of matter alone. As the leading information theoretician and biophysicist Hubert Yockey puts it: "Like all messages, the life message is non-material but has an information content measurable in bits and bytes."133
The scientist Dean Overman says that "information contained in the genetic code, like all information or messages, is not made of matter . . . The meaning is not a property of the arrangement of the symbols or alphabet of the code. The message or meaning in the genetic code is non-material and cannot be reduced to a physical or chemical property."134
Prof. Phillip Johnson says:
First, life consist not just of matter (chemicals) but of matter and information. Second, information is not reducible to matter, but is a different kind of "stuff" altogether. A theory of life thus has to explain not just the origin of matter but also the independent origin of the information. Third complex, specified information of the kind found in a book or a biological cell cannot be produced either by chance or at the direction of physical and chemical laws.135
In his book In the Beginning Was Information, the information theoretician Prof. Werner Gitt also states that life cannot be reduced to matter alone:
Matter and energy are basic prerequisites for life, but they cannot be used to distinguish between living and inanimate systems. The central characteristic of all living beings is the "information" they contain, and this information regulates all life processes and procreative functions. Transfer of information plays a fundamental role in all living organisms. When, for example, insects carry pollen from one flower to another, this is in the first place an information-carrying process (genetic information is transferred); the actual material employed is of no concern. Although information is essential for life, information alone does not at all comprise a complete description of life.136
The fact that the genetic code contains non-material information shows that evolutionists' dreams regarding the genetic code are unfounded right from the outset. Their scenarios assume that matter somehow organized itself in order to give rise to the genetic code and genetic information. But since matter is unable to spontaneously produce that genetic code, all materialist explanations are totally meaningless.
Furthermore, the arrangement of the genetic letters in DNA is of vital importance for life. Nucleotides are meaningless on their own, by coming together in particular sequence, they give rise to genes that carry meaningful information that significantly distinguishes DNA from other structures seen in nature. Prof. Phillip Johnson refers to this property of DNA in these terms:
The important thing about DNA is not the chemicals but the information in the software, just as the important thing about a computer program or a book is the information content and not the physical medium in which that information is recorded. … metabolism and reproduction cannot get started until an enormous amount of complex information is already in existence.137
As Johnson states, the random combination of chemical substances cannot establish the necessary conditions for organisms to live and reproduce. Chemical substances must be assembled in such a way as to constitute the comprehensive and meaningful information in DNA. It is impossible to find such an intention in atoms and molecules. The source of this information is Omniscient and Almighty Allah, the Creator of all things on the Earth and in the sky. The well-known theoretical physicist Paul Davies describes the value of genetic information from this perspective:
... [T]he distinctive feature of biological information is that it is replete with meaning. DNA stores the instructions needed to build a functioning organism; it is a blueprint or an algorithm [a logical step-by-step procedure] for a specified, predetermined product. Snowflakes don't code for, or symbolize, anything, whereas genes most definitely do. . . It is the quality, not the mere existence, of information that is the real mystery here.138
Paul Davies refers to the origin of genetic information as a "mystery" because no materialist account for the information inside DNA can be given. Materialism has once again collapsed in the face of the fact of creation. The chemist Michael Polanyi, an eminent 20th century philosopher of science, states that there can be no materialist explanation for the transmission of the information in DNA:
The life process is essentially the development of a fertilized cell, as the result of information imparted by DNA. Transmission of this information is nonchemical and nonphysical, and is the controlling factor in the life process. The description of a living system therefore transcends the chemical and physical laws which govern its constituents.139
In "Information in the Holographic Universe" an article published in Scientific American magazine, the theoretical physicist Prof. Jacob D. Bekenstein describes the importance of information:
Ask anybody what the physical world is made of, and you are likely to be told "matter and energy." Yet if we have learned anything from engineering, biology and physics, information is just as crucial an ingredient. The robot at the automobile factory is supplied with metal and plastic but can make nothing useful without copious instructions telling it which part to weld to what and so on. A ribosome in a cell in your body is supplied with amino acid building blocks and is powered by energy released by the conversion of ATP to ADP, but it can synthesize no proteins without the information brought to it from the DNA in the cell's nucleus. Likewise, a century of developments in physics has taught us that information is a crucial player in physical systems and processes.140
When you look at evolutionist writings, you can see that they sometimes admit that their theory is at a complete impasse in the face of the information in living things. One outspoken authority on this subject is the French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé. Despite being a materialist and an evolutionist, Grassé admits that the most important fact to invalidate Darwinism is the information constituting life:
Any living being possesses an enormous amount of "intelligence," very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this "intelligence" is called "information," but it is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on a molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of any other organelle in each cell. This "intelligence" is the sine qua non of life. If absent, no living being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which concerns both biologists and philosophers and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it.141
 |
The reason why Grassé says "science seems incapable of solving it" is his unwillingness to regard any non-materialist explanation as scientific. In fact, however, that science itself refutes the assumptions of materialist philosophy and proves the existence of a Creator. Grassé and other materialist scientists close their eyes to this, or else say "Science is unable to explain." Because they are materialists first and scientists second, and they persist in believing in materialism, even if science proves the exact opposite.
This striking fact concerning DNA-the fact that genetic information cannot be accounted for in terms of matter and energy or natural laws-continues to represent an insuperable barrier in front of the theory of evolution. Prof. Werner Gitt, director of the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology says this:
The fundamental quantity information is nonmaterial (mental) entity. It is not a property of matter, so that purely material processes are fundamentally precluded as sources of information…there is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.142
In another extract, Gitt states that information can only exist by being created:
Biological information . . . has a very high storage density and that it obviously employs extremely ingenious concepts. . . .it is clear that the information present in living organisms requires an intelligent source. Man could not have been this source, so that the only remaining possibility is that there must have been a Creator.143
 |
Among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and Earth and all the creatures He has spread about in them ...
(Surat ash-Shura, 29) |
Gitt's words are also the conclusions reached by the Information Theory, regarded as part of thermodynamics and developed over the last 20 to 30 years. Information theory investigates the structure and origin of the information in the universe. The conclusion reached thanks to lengthy research by information theoreticians is that information is something different from matter. It can never be reduced to matter. The origins of information and matter must be investigated separately.
The origin of the information in DNA is a dilemma that materialists can never resolve. The origin of the information encoded in the DNA molecule can never be accounted for through any natural mechanism. All observations, experiments, and experience show that information can emanate only from a conscious entity. The information in DNA is the work of Almighty Allah, the Creator of all life. In the Qur'an, our Lord's creative artistry and infinite power are described in these terms:
That is Allah, your Lord. There is no deity but Him, the Creator of everything. So worship Him. He is responsible for everything. Eyesight cannot perceive Him but He perceives eyesight. He is the All-Penetrating, the All-Aware. (Surat al-An'am, 102-103)
The Source of Information in Nature
When we apply this result revealed by science, we are confronted by a most important conclusion. Because, as in the case of DNA, nature is full of glorious information-and since this information cannot be reduced to matter-it must have a non-material source.
This Book is More Than Just Paper and Ink
|
Like other books, this book you are reading is made up of paper and ink, which carry the information. Paper and ink are both material substances. Paper is made from cellulose, and ink from various chemicals. However, the information in this book is not physical and does not have any material origin. The source of the information in this book, as in all others, is the mind of its author.
In addition, that mind also determines how the paper and ink are to be used. A book first takes shape in its author's mind. The writer established a logic and constructs sentences that are then given a material form, by using a typewriter or a computer keyboard. These letters then enter the printing press and are turned into a book consisting of paper and ink.
Based on this analogy, Prof. Phillip Johnson says this about the origin of DNA:
It would be absurd to try to explain the literary quality or meaning of a book as an emergent property of the physical qualities of its ink and paper. The message comes from an author; ink and paper are merely the media. Similarly, the information written in DNA is not the product of DNA. Who or what is the author?1
If a material substance contains information, then that matter has been arranged by an intellect possessing that information. In this case, that intellect belongs to our Almighty Lord, Who created the entire universe out of nothing.
 |
George C. Williams accepts this fact that most materialists and evolutionists are unwilling to see. For many years, Williams supported materialism in a most dogmatic fashion. But in an article written in 1995, he expressed the error of the materialist (reductionist) approach that assumes that everything consists of matter:
Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter. . . . These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term "reductionism." . . . This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms. The gene is a package of information, not an object. . . . In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality.144
Twentieth-century science revealed that the information in DNA cannot be reduced to matter, as materialists maintain. Therefore-and contrary to what materialists imagine-the origin of the information in nature cannot be matter itself. The source of information is not matter, but a supra-material Intelligence that existed before matter. Matter came into being, took shape and was arranged through it. That Intelligence belongs to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds. While demolishing materialist philosophy, this extraordinary information in the origin of life also provides countless proofs of the manifest existence of Allah.
The Complex Structure in DNA Led Antony Flew To Faith
|
"As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done." (Anthony Flew)
In the face of the complex structure in DNA, the famous atheist Anthony Flew admitted that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a theory in collapse. The 81-year-old British philosopher adopted atheism at the age of 15, and first made his mark on the academic world with a paper published in 1950. Over the next 54 years, he defended atheism in debates at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading where he taught, at a large number of Canadian and American universities he visited, and in books, classes and articles.
Recently, however, Flew abandoned his error and admitted that the universe had been created. In The Sunday Times, he was quoted as saying this about the theory of evolution:
I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature.1
What influenced this radical about-face was the definitive proofs of creation revealed by modern science. In the face of the information-based complexity of life, Flew concluded that life had been consciously created, and set out the scientific causes underlying this change of belief:
Biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved.2
The DNA research that Flew indicated was the main reason for his change of view. This research has indeed revealed striking truths about the fact of creation. The helix structure of the DNA molecule, its possession of the genetic code, the critical nucleotide sequences that refute evolution, the storage of an encyclopedic quantity of data and many more striking discoveries all revealed that the structure and functions of this molecule had been specially arranged to maintain life.
The acceptance of conscious creation by this long-term advocate of atheism, reflects the process of collapse in which atheism finds itself. Modern science has revealed the existence of a Creator and thus left atheism entirely out of the question.
Prof. Gerald Schroeder, one of the scientists who influenced Flew, refers to the intellect and knowledge manifested in the entire universe in his book Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth:
A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe. The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom.3
Scientific research into both the functioning of the cell and the subatomic particles of matter have revealed this in undeniable form: life and the universe were brought into being by an Almighty and Omniscient entity. No doubt, this knowledge and intellect that pervade the universe at every level are those of Almighty Allah.
Allah reveals this fact in the Qur'an:
Both East and West belong to Allah, so wherever you turn, the Face of Allah is there. Allah is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing. (Surat al-Baqara, 115)
|
Some of Darwinism's Errors on the Subject of DNA
Some scientists expend great time and energy with the aim of propping up the theory of evolution rather than contributing to scientific progress. Since they believe in Darwinism as a dogma right from the outset, they are led to false conclusions in the scientific studies they carry out. In the field of molecular biology, they put forward concepts and theses of absolutely no scientific value to provide evidence for the supposed theory of evolution. Although these concepts or theses are scientifically worthless, they find support in the Darwinist media and portray them as the truth. However, advances in science and technology are revealing the irrational nature of these claims. Prejudiced analyses, distortions and biased reports based on a materialist world view have no power to conceal the knowledge, artistry and intelligence of Allah that pervade all places. The superiority of the truth over superstition is revealed in many verses of the Qur'an, some of which read as follows:
Say: "My Lord hurls forth the Truth–the Knower of all unseen things." Say: "The Truth has come. Falsehood cannot originate or regenerate." (Surah Saba, 48-49)
… By His Words Allah wipes out the false and confirms the truth. He knows what the heart contains. (Surat ash-Shura, 24)
Allah confirms the Truth by His words, even though the evildoers hate it. (Surah Yunus, 82)
Next, here are the broad lines of a few of the inconclusive claims intended to support for the fictitious theory of evolution:
The "Junk DNA" Error: An Example of Evolutionist Ignorance
So far, the Human Genome Project has revealed only the sequence of the code in DNA. We still do not know, apart from a few genes, which functions in the human body these codes determine. Some 30,000 genes-only 3% of human DNA-encode the protein in the DNA chain and work in a demonstrably active manner. We still do not know what purpose is served by the rest of the long DNA chain.
At this point, evolutionists place one-sided interpretations on that mystery. Darwinist scientists suggest that the genes in question have no purpose and consist merely of nonsensical or "junk" sequences. They claim that these genes have lost their functions over the course of an evolutionary process lasting millions of years. In fact, this preconception has been refuted by new scientific discoveries. Until five or six years ago, scientists gave the name "junk DNA" to large strings of genes whose functions were unknown-thus they couldn't describe them as genes. Contrary to their claims, however, it has emerged that these actually direct vital functions are of critical importance in the repair of functioning gene segments. 145
In an article in the journal Nature Genetics on 13 May, 2002, Dr. John V. Moran and his team reported that the active parts of junk DNA were sections carrying out repair services for the genome.146 These can produce copies of themselves in a manner similar to copying and pasting a section of text-an exceedingly useful function when the DNA's double helix begins to separate. The double helix can be damaged when chemicals reach the cell or when there is any outside pressure, which can lead to cell death. Those parts of DNA formerly claimed to be junk travel around inside the genome and identify such faulty separations; when they encounter such a phenomenon, they go into action and bring that region back together into alignment.147
From time to time, evolutionist sources suggest that some organs in living things no longer have any function, having been inherited from these species' ancestors. For example, the appendix or the coccyx in the human body were for years regarded as vestigial organs, no longer of any use. However, recent scientific research has revealed that all these organs do actually have important functions. The list of organs that evolutionists at the beginning of the 20th century described as "vestigial" is now totally discredited. In the words of the evolutionist writer S. R. Scadding, "As our knowledge has increased, the list of vestigial structures has decreased."148 (For details, see Harun Yahya, Darwinism Refuted, Goodword Books, 2002.) In the same way, the claim put forward by evolutionists, that a large part of DNA serves no purpose, has also been discredited by recent discoveries.
The Human Genome Project and other genetic research have established that during the process of protein manufacture, genes constantly interact with one another. During this process, one gene does not act independently of other sections of DNA. As one gene works-particularly during the early stages of protein coding-sections of DNA that do not constitute genes regulate it. For that reason, no scientist who closely monitors such research any longer attaches any validity to the concept of junk DNA.
Even though evolutionists may not welcome the fact, those sections of DNA once claimed to be junk are actually in a constant state of activity and have various functions as yet undiscovered has been around for some time. In Science magazine, a team of molecular biologists from the Harvard Medical Faculty and physicists from Boston University shed light on this subject in a 1994 report titled "Does nonsense DNA speak its own dialect?"149 Based on their study of 37 DNA strips containing 50,000 base pairs, taken from various living things, they reported that so-called junk DNA, which occupies 90% of human DNA, is actually written in a special language. Their tests revealed that the DNA described as "junk" was by no means meaningless. An article titled "Hints of a language in junk DNA" reported studies by Boston University's Eugene Stanley demonstrating that DNA sequences had features resembling those of a human language.150
Ignorance was without doubt one of the reasons why these 97% of DNA sequences w ere formerly described as serving no purpose. The Cleveland University evolutionist scientist Evan Eichler admits this:
The term "junk DNA" is a reflection of our ignorance.151
Ernst Mayr, himself an evolutionist, also refers to the inadequacy of our knowledge about genes:
A serious practical limit to science is the difficulty of exhaustively explaining the workings of a highly complex system. The same practical point can be made about the regulatory mechanisms of the genome, which are highly complex and which are still far from being understood. 152
An article titled "The Unseen Genome: Beyond DNA" in the November 2003 Scientific American magazine quotes John S. Mattick, director of the Molecular Bioscience Institute at Queensland University in Australia:
Indeed, what was damned as junk because it was not understood may, in fact, turn out to be the very basis of human complexity.153
Prof. Mattick, a molecular biologist, refers to the importance of these strings known as introns that do not directly participate in protein production, and to erroneous interpretations made regarding them:
The failure to recognize the full implications of this . . . may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.154
In New Scientist magazine published November 19, 2005, the importance of so called junk DNA is mentioned:
... remarkably, junk DNA may turn out to be as important as genes-if not more so. . . What's so special about junk DNA that ensures it is mothballed in this way? One clue comes from comparing genomes . . . it could encode vital information that scientists haven't yet unraveled-the more DNA, the higher the capacity to store information and produce complex organisms. One thing is clear. Now that we've mapped our genes, it's time to start exploring the junkyard.155
Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, also states that those parts of DNA referred to as so-called junk are in fact nothing of the sort:
I have been troubled for a long time about the way in which we dismissed about 95% of the genome as being junk because we didn't know what its function was. We did not think it had one because we had not discovered one yet. I found it quite gratifying to discover that when you have the whole genome in front of you, it is pretty clear that a lot of the stuff we call "junk" has the fingerprints of being a DNA sequence that is actually doing something, at least, judging by the way evolution has treated it. So I think we should probably remove the term "junk" from the genome.156
Evolutionist geneticists wished to portray those DNA sections they described as junk as compelling evidence for their theories. For years, their way of dismissing these sections as unimportant and their adherence to dogmatic beliefs in evolution prevented scientists from investigating those "junk" components, as was described in the journal Science:
Although catchy, the term "junk DNA" for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who, except a small number of genomic clochards, would like to dig through genomic garbage? However, in science as in normal life, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. Because of them, the view of junk DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to change in the early 1990s.157
Dr. Paul Nelson revealed the scientific dilemmas facing the theory of evolution in several studies. He provides an account of the concept of junk DNA in an article titled "The Junk Dealer Ain't Selling That No More":
In one of his later books, written with his wife Ann Druyan (Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, Ballantine, 1992), the late Carl Sagan argued that "genetic junk," the "redundancies, stutters, [and] untranscribable nonsense" in DNA, proved that there are "deep imperfections at the heart of life." Such comments are commonplace in the biological literature-although perhaps less common than they were a few years ago. The reason? Geneticists are discovering functions for what used to be apparent genetic debris.158
In an article titled " 'Junk' DNA reveals vital role: Inscrutable genetic sequences seem indispensable," Helen Pearson reports that:
Scientists are puzzling over a collection of mystery DNA segments that seem to be essential to the survival of virtually all vertebrates. But their function is completely unknown. The segments . . . lie in the large parts of the genome that do not code for any protein. Their presence adds to growing evidence that the importance of these areas, often dismissed as junk DNA, could be much more fundamental than anyone suspected. 159
Dr. Kelly A. Frazer, who investigated those sections of DNA claimed to be junk for the Perlegan Sciences company, says, "People will be intrigued by this [finding]. It is the kind of stuff that blows people away." while the Cambridge Broad Institute geneticist Kerstin Lindblad-Toh describes these studies as "the tip of the iceberg."160
Those Sections of DNA Still Awaiting to be Discovered are Among the Miracles of Creation
|
In the messenger RNA that carries the copy of the DNA, there are two main parts: the protein-coding parts known as the exons and those parts that do not code proteins, known as the introns.
Introns, whose functions have only recently begun to be understood, are long DNA strips. These parts on the messenger RNA that do not encode protein are extracted by the cutting enzymes. Discovered in 1977, introns were first referred to as "intervening genes" since they intervene in those parts that do encode protein. According to an article in Science magazine, "Mining Treasures from 'Junk DNA'," introns are currently regarded as a "complex mix of different DNA, much of which are vital to the life of the cell."1 The report also states that as the functions of introns are revealed, they may possibly be used as tumor markers in the treatment of cancer. Findings of a direct correlation between changes in introns and the emergence of cancer are a sign of introns' vital importance to human life.
|
 |
1. (Protein coding parts of DNA)
2. (Non-protein coding parts of DNA) 3. (Protein coding parts of DNA) 4. Cutting Region 5. Cutting Region 6. Cutting enzymes known as spliceosomes go into action. |
7. The part that is extracted and that does not enter into protein coding - the intron - used to be thought of, out of ignorance, we junk, though it is now known to occupy a very important place.
8. Spliceosome enzymes cut out and extract those parts that do not enter into protein coding - the introns. Those components left over after the cutting - the exons - are then added on to one another. |
But despite these findings, most evolutionists continued to advocate the concept of junk DNA right to the bitter end, since it suited their own purposes. Finally, however, intense research into DNA proved that the DNA sections in question were vitally important, and were therefore beneficial DNA segments. Thus another Darwinist gaffe went down in the pages of history.
The Invalidity of the "Mitochondrial Eve" Thesis
The mitochondria consisting of protein inside the cell produce the energy needed by the cell. In these plants, chemical energy obtained from foodstuffs is converted into energy packets known as ATPs which the cell can use. All the events permitting life inside the cell take place thanks to these ready-to-use energy packets. In addition to being present in the cell nucleus, DNA is also found in these energy-producing mitochondria.
Mitochondria contain mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Evolutionists interpret the inherited variation in mitochondrial DNA as a form of evolution and combine that hypothesis with another which they refer to as the "molecular clock." This hypothesis, launched in 1965, suggested that regular changes would take place in the nucleotide and protein sequences. On that basis, it was further assumed that living things could be analyzed in terms of mtDNA changes to determine at what time they separated from a common ancestor.
However, it is unclear what kind of clock mechanism in mtDNA can bring about regular changes in living things. Fossilized bones cannot harbor DNA molecules, since these decay very quickly. Therefore, there can be no question on investigating natural history on the basis of the DNA molecule. These analyses are evolutionists' efforts to force the history of life to square with their own hypotheses.
Based on that preconception, evolutionists tried to establish when and where the human family tree began. Since the widest variety of mitochondrial DNA was observed in Africans, they decided that these must be the oldest "branch" of family tree and claimed that all human races living today were descended from a woman who lived in Africa 130,000 years ago, and that she had appeared by way of evolution as the first representative of Homo sapiens.
Since the estimates regarding this woman were based on mitochondrial DNA analyses, she is known as the "mitochondrial Eve." But when examined with an unbiased scientific eye, the method employed in this research can easily be seen as incapable of determining either the dating or geographical location of the earliest humans. Evolutionists rely on claims and hypotheses that cannot be proven, nor documented with experiment and observation. Indeed, many scientists who support the theory of evolution admit that this thesis has no scientific value.
Henry Gee, a member of the editorial board of Nature magazine, described the results of mitochondrial DNA research as "garbage" in an article titled "Statistical Cloud over African Eden."161 In his article dealing with 136 existing mtDNA series, Gee reported that the number of family trees drawn up exceeded 1 billion. In other words, around 1 billion alternative family trees were ignored in this research, and only the single tree was chosen that matched the hypothesis of a supposed evolutionary transition between chimpanzees and human beings.
First off, none of these hypotheses constitute any scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. For example, any evolutionist claiming, on the basis of molecular clock analysis, that humans and chimpanzees separated from one another 10 million years ago has already started out assuming an evolutionary relationship between these two species. Such people are thinking in a logical vicious circle. Studies of this kind, built on such assumptions, are a waste of time.
The Washington University geneticist Alan Templeton states that it is impossible to determine a date for the origin of humanity on the basis of DNA series, because strains of DNA have become exceedingly mixed up among human communities.162 Viewed in mathematical terms, this makes it impossible to distinguish the mtDNA belonging to any single human in the family tree. The most striking admission came from the authors of the thesis themselves. Mark Stoneking from Pennsylvania State University, who repeated the study in 1992, admitted in a letter to Science magazine that the "African Eve" thesis was invalid. 163
In addition, mitochondrial DNA analyses were performed on the assumption that mitochondria are passed on only by the mother, and that changes in mitochondrial DNA components can thus be traced back though the matriarchal line, right back to the very earliest ancestor. But in fact, the idea that mitochondria are passed on only by females is now no more than a myth, because scientific discoveries have shown that mitochondria can also be handed down from the father. "Mitochondria can be inherited from both parents," a report in New Scientist magazine, described how Danish patients had received around 90% of their mitochondria from their fathers. This meant that all mtDNA studies supporting evolutionary scenarios were completely meaningless. This state of affairs is described in New Scientist magazine:
Evolutionary biologists often date the divergence of species by the differences in genetic sequences in mitochondrial DNA. Even if paternal DNA is inherited very rarely, it could invalidate many of their findings.164
Despite being a well-known evolutionist publication, the magazine Nature admitted that these findings disproved the hypotheses of mitochondrial DNA:
The assumption that mitochondrial DNA . . . is inherited purely through the maternal line is a lynchpin of studies tracking human evolutionary history and the movements of human populations in the prehistoric past.165
 | |
A. CELL
1. Chromosome
2. Nucleus |
3. Mitochondria
4. Nuclear DNA 5. Mitochondrial DNA |
In addition to being present in the cell nucleus, DNA is also found in mitochondria, the centers of energy production.
| |
Finally, an article in the journal Annals of Human Genetics reported that more than half of all the mitochondrial DNA analyses published to date had been found to be flawed.166 According to the report, the mitochondrial DNA data banks used by evolutionists were based on incorrectly processed data. This state of affairs, revealed by the researcher Peter Forster, was reported in Nature magazine:
The mistakes may be so extensive that geneticists could be drawing incorrect conclusions in studies of human populations. . .167
This analysis of Forster's further confirmed the unreliable nature of the statistical data used by evolutionists in their studies. As you've seen, genetic analysis that examine the genes of human beings living today are carried out using flawed methodology and interpreted solely in the light of evolutionist preconceptions. Concrete scientific findings proving the invalidity of mitochondrial DNA analyses refute evolutionist claims. Since no evolutionary process ever actually took place, everyone constructs his own personal scenario, and the mitochondrial Eve thesis is just one of those endeavors to prop up the theory of evolution-which is about to be consigned to history because of the heavy blows it's been dealt.
The Invalidity of the "Selfish Gene" and "Conscious Gene" Claims
Another of Darwinists' fictitious claims is the theory of the selfish gene (or gene selection) theory, according to which, specific types of gene increase their likelihood of perpetuating themselves by developing individuals with a better ability to survive and reproduce. Thus, those gene types that are better able to pass on their genetic information to subsequent generations and produce plants and animals will supposedly be dominant in the world..168
Before considering why this theory is invalid, let's examine the way it was proposed. Gene selectivity is an example of the logic that philosophers describe as reductionism-the claim that everything, even including the human mind, can be reduced to matter. However, as you saw in detail earlier, the claim that life consists solely of matter is clearly deceptive. The claims made by Richard Dawkins-a dyed-in-the-wool advocate of the theory of evolution who applied this theory to human beings-are therefore false, even ridiculous. According to Dawkins, "We are survival machines-robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules [of DNA] known as genes."169 In his book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins suggests that all living things contain genes that only seek to maintain their existence by duplicating themselves; and that the only aim of life is the survival of DNA. In fact, however, this claim rests on the exceedingly irrational assumption that genes possess conscious intent. This indicates just how far astray modern materialist reductionism can lead.
The better to see how ridiculous this assumption is, recall what genes actually are: parts of DNA added on to one another and compressed by means of folding and packaging. As you read in detail in preceding chapters, the giant DNA molecule consists of elements added to one another according to a specific code. It's of course impossible for a molecule consisting of blind, and unconscious atoms to be selfish, or to have any other conscious objective such as to multiply itself by way of sexual reproduction. No atom possesses consciousness or intelligence, and certainly not selfishness. For that reason, Dawkins' thesis is unscientific, an irrational fairy tale.
The Australian scientist Lucy G. Sullivan has criticized Dawkins for "a proliferation of pseudo-theories, whose claim on our attention lies more in the realm of literature than of science."170 The Harvard University evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin includes Dawkins among those authors who make unconfirmed claims, or claims that conflict with the facts in the tales they advocate:
As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing. Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market. 171
Even Dawkins himself revealed that all this was put forward for propaganda purposes by admitting that his actions were biased and that his thesis was not a scientific one. On the first page of his book The Extended Phenotype, he wrote:
This is a work of unabashed advocacy. I want to argue in favor of a particular way of looking at animals and plants, and a particular way of wondering why they do the things that they do. What I am advocating is not a new theory, not a hypothesis which can be verified or falsified, not a model which can be judged by its predictions. 172
Since evolutionists are unwilling to admit the existence of the soul, they regard human beings as assemblages of matter and try to ascribe consciousness to that matter in some way. Their making such invalid claims as ascribing consciousness to genes is an indication of the very awkward position in which they find themselves. Today's evolutionists, who imagine that there is intelligence and consciousness in molecules and in the inanimate atoms that comprise those molecules have taken the place of the pagans of centuries ago who thought that there was intelligent consciousness in their idols crafted of stone or wood.
As a result of their superstitious belief, they claim that phenomena such as violence, rape, sexual harassment, aggression and jealousy have been bequeathed to human beings by their alleged animal forebears, and that such behavior is a natural result of evolution. At the root of this claim there lies the evolutionist idea that a human being is a machine made of genes, and that genes' sole aim is to evolve and survive, as if they were conscious entities.
In the same way that it is impossible for a book to aim at increasing its numbers by way of reproduction, to be selfish, or to possess consciousness in any way, so it is impossible for DNA-a chain of molecules consisting of unconscious and inanimate atoms, and no molecule possesses intelligence and awareness. In addition, the Israeli scientist Gerald L. Schroeder notes that the way that a cell passes on a strand of its DNA by dividing is actually altruistic behavior, rather than selfishness:
One of the puzzles of meiosis is the altruistic nature of the cell. Why should a cell willingly give up half of its chromosomal information, and thereby essentially guarantee that its progeny will not be an identical copy of itself? I would have thought that altruism stops at self-destruction. A parent's mixing its chromosomes with those of another is, in a sense, self destruction, since the parent will not be reproduced in the child. Not a very selfish way for a potentially selfish gene to act.173
Therefore, the idea of the selfish gene has nothing to do with the true facts, and the claim is no more than a fantasy. Darwinist thinking-which describes human beings as animals and regards them as mere robots that carry genes and are responsible for passing those genes on to the next generation-is mainly responsible for the acts of violence, genocide, oppression and moral degeneration that increased enormously during the 20th century. Such a perspective endows all oppression, aggression and immorality with apparent scientific legitimacy. Even Hitler, who perpetrated the worst slaughter of the 20th century, regarded Darwinism as supporting him. It was Darwinism that justified his oppression and aggression. Hitler regarded all races other than the alleged Master Race as unworthy of living and regarded their slaughter as no more reprehensible than killing an animal.
Darwinism, maintaining that human beings are genetically aggressive, ruthless, competitive, selfish and potential murderers, is nonsense used to justify crimes of all kinds. All human beings bear the souls breathed into them by Allah, and they are all responsible to our Lord, Who created them out of nothing. In the Qur'an, Allah reveals the creation of those who imagine themselves to be unfettered, and that they will be resurrected after death:
Does man reckon he will be left to go on unchecked? Was he not a drop of ejaculated sperm, then a blood-clot which He created and shaped,making from it both sexes, male and female? Is He Who does this not able to bring the dead to life? (Surat al-Qiyama, 36-40)
 |
Say: "I seek refuge with the Lord of humanity,
the King of humanity, the deity of humanity." (Surat an-Nas, 1-3) |
Conclusion
Science that frees itself from ideological concerns and works independently of evolutionists' biased interpretations will doubtless develop rapidly. If the true facts revealed by logic, reason and science are taken into account; and if the origin of life is investigated without turning towards the nonsensical explanation of chance, then a clear and rapid answer can be obtained to the question of how life and the universe emerged. Thus the road ahead of true science will be opened up, and scientific advances will accelerate. Energy, time and money will not be wasted on presenting false evidence, and science will be freed from such pointless aims as advocating illogical and contradictory concepts such as chance. In one verse, our Lord tells us:
[Say: "It has been revealed to me that a band of the jinn listened and said,] 'Some of us are Muslims and some are deviators. Those who have become Muslim are those who sought right guidance.' " (Surat al-Jinn, 14)
How the Miracle of DNA Invalidates the Theory of Evolution
The theory of evolution faces a major impasse at the molecular level. With evidence from such fields as paleontology, geology and anthropology, the origin of life is a major problem for the theory of evolution. The insuperable problem facing its adherents is not limited to the building blocks of life, such as protein. There is also the extraordinary complexity of the living cell-which is not a mass of amino acid-based proteins, but one of the most complex systems that science has yet encountered.
Darwinists' predicament stems from the assumptions they rely on. According to their theory of evolution, life must have appeared spontaneously, when the right chemicals combined together. Thus the first living cell must have been exceedingly primitive. These erroneous beliefs have forced Darwinists to believe that volcanic gasses and lightning gave rise to DNA, and afterwards to life! According to Darwinists, millions of living cells-the like of which cannot be produced through even the most sophisticated laboratory technology, after centuries of accumulated knowledge-came together by chance to form organs with vitally important responsibilities. Moreover, by working together in flawless co-ordination, these organs came from the human body and acquire the responsibility of keeping it alive. Not only does this Darwinist myth lack any scientific backing, it also violates logic and reason. The French scientist Pierre Paul Grasse, himself an evolutionist, notes the predicament in which they find themselves:
... some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.174
In his book How Life Began, L. R. Croft of England's Salford University refers to the way in which evolutionists underestimate their dilemma:
The fundamental problem-the origin of life-is the cornerstone of all evolutionary enquiry. Yet surprisingly, it is rarely given the attention it merits. . . the nature of the origin of life remained neglected. . . Darwin himself was dismissive on the issue.175
Darwinists have been unable to prove any of the so-called evolutionary developments that they claim, took place at the molecular level. Rather than helping evolutionists answer such questions, scientific progress has made them even more complex and insoluble.. The following pages will show statements by scientists and even admissions from evolutionists themselves of how illogical it is to maintain that any DNA molecule, with its unique structure and properties, came into being by chance, as evolutionists would have you believe.
The Origin of Genetic Information Is Still Unknown to Scientists
 |
Despite all the information that has been obtained about DNA, scientists still say that their knowledge is inadequate. The hidden genome miracle, in a space too small to be seen with the naked eye, is just one example of Allah's creative artistry.
|
The most comprehensive part of the cell's complex structure is DNA, which determines genetic structure. Despite many years of research and great sums of money expended, scientists are only now obtaining any valuable information concerning the structure and coding of DNA. However, the perfection of the cell's genetic structure still remains a mystery. DNA's complex structure and the essential data stored in it inflict complete despair on those who wish to ascribe the origin of life to chance. One eminent evolutionist, the biochemist Leslie Orgel, expresses his thoughts on the subject:
We do not yet understand even the general features of the origin of genetic code. The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life. . . .176
The nuclear physicist Prof. Gerald Schroeder refers to ignorance of how the coding in DNA takes place:
And yet if the fossil record is correct, the endowed wisdom of DNA seems to have been present from the very earliest stages of life on earth. How the coding that drives all life sprang into existence remains mystery. The scale of the mystery is best realized by the complexity of its product.177
Jon Cohen, a writer for the well-known journal Science, refers to the perfection of the cell's organized structure:
Why do the sugar molecules in DNA and RNA twist to the right in all known organisms? Similarly, all of the amino acids from which proteins are formed twist to the left. The reason these molecules have such uniform handedness, or 'chirality,' is not known, but there is no shortage of theories on the subject. And, as was clear at a recent meeting on the topic in Los Angeles, there is also no shortage of passion, which is understandable, because the question of homochirality speaks to the mother of all scientific mysteries: the origin of life.178
In an article titled "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers," Prof. Klaus Dose, head of the Gutenberg University Biochemistry Institute, is just one of those evolutionists who confesses despair:
Moreover, we do not actually know where the genetic information of all living cells originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides [nucleic acids] evolved, or how the extremely complex structure-function relationships in modern cells came into existence.179
John Maddox, a former editor of the evolutionist publication Nature, says, "So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself."180 But actually, far from being uncertain, the origin of the genetic code is perfectly obvious. It is just one of the examples that exhibit the perfection in Allah's creation, as revealed in the Qur'an:
He Who created the seven heavens in layers. You will not find any flaw in the creation of the All-Merciful. Look again-do you see any gaps? Then look again and again. Your sight will return to you dazzled and exhausted! (Surat al-Mulk, 3-4)
The Origin of Genetic Information Cannot Be Ascribed to Chance
Evolutionist accounts try to explain every perfection as the work of chance. The cell's magnificently complex structure is the result of a successfully accurate selection. Darwinists regard chance as the creator of all things, without thinking about what chance really is. Thus they assume that disorder gave rise to the first cell, upon which they base all their theories. However, not even the cell itself, let alone the simplest organism, can assemble itself by chance, in the manner assumed by evolutionists. The University of London cell biologist Dr. Ambrose expresses the impossibility of this:
When we come to examine the simplest known organism capable of independent existence, the situation becomes even more fantastic. In the DNA chain of the chromosome of the bacterium E. coli, a favourite organism used by molecular biologists, the [DNA] helix consists of 3-4 million base pairs. These are all arranged in a sequence that is 'meaningful' in the sense that it gives rise to enzyme molecules which fit the various metabolites and products used by the cell. This unique sequence represents a choice of one out of 102,000,000 alternative ways of arranging the bases! We are compelled to conclude that the origin of the first life was a unique event, which cannot be discussed in terms of probability.181
Mathematics proves that in the writing of the information in DNA. The chances of a single one of the 30,000 genes that make up DNA-let alone of the DNA molecule itself with its millions of rungs-forming by chance are less than impossible. Frank B. Salisbury, an evolutionist biologist, has this to say:
A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra we can see that 41,000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.182
Therefore, even assuming that all the requisite nucleotides were present in the environment and that all the complex molecules and binding enzymes were ready for them to attach themselves to one another, the likelihood of these nucleotides assuming the desired sequence is just 1 in 10600. In short, the odds of the DNA code of an average protein in the human body emerging spontaneously is 1 in 10 followed by 600 zeros. This number goes far beyond astronomical. I. L. Cohen, author of the book Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, (Darwin Hatalıydı: Olasılıklar İçinde Bir İnceleme) adlı kitabın yazarı I. L. Cohen de, genetik bilginin tesadüf eseri ortaya çıkmış olamayacağını şöyle açıklamaktadır:
Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence. Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger number of nucleotides than 100 or 1,000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence-random mutations (to use the evolutionist's favorite expression).183
The impossibility of nucleotides combining in a chance manner to give rise to RNA and DNA is set out by the evolutionist French scientist Paul Auger:
We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of complex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one-which is possible-and the combination of these within very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible.184
Think of this impossibility in terms of a very simplified analogy. Obviously that a work of literature, with all its pages properly bound, cannot emerge as the result of an explosion in a library. If anyone claims that it came into existence spontaneously, you will harbor doubts about his sanity. What evolutionists maintain was achieved by chance goes far beyond this analogy, yet despite all the illogic and impossibility of claims of chance, those who remain blindly loyal to Darwin's legacy still say, "But chance accomplished it." The well-known molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote the book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, which describes the invalidity of the theory. He expresses his amazement at those who ascribe this matchless perfection to chance:
It is an understatement to say that the probability of generating by chance even one grammatical text of just a few hundred words is vanishingly small. Any such string implies intelligence . . . Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene-is complex beyond . . . anything produced by the intelligence of man?185
Elsewhere, Prof. Denton describes this irrational belief held by Darwinists:
To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt-the paradigm takes precedence.186
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer the philosopher of University of Cambridge says that no credence can be attached to statements ascribing the origin of life to chance:
While many outside origin-of-life biology may still invoke "chance" as a casual explanation for the origin of biological information, few serious researchers still do. Since molecular biologists began to appreciate the sequence specificity of proteins and nucleic acids in the 1950s and 1960s, many calculations have been made to determine the probability of formulating functional proteins and nucleic acids. Even assuming extremely favorable prebiotic conditions (whether realistic or not) and theoretically maximal reaction rates, such calculations have invariably shown that the probability of obtaining functionally sequenced biomacromolecules at random is, in Ilya Prigogine's words, "vanishingly small . . . even on the scale of billions of years. . . "187
Despite being well aware of these impossibilities, evolutionists still hold out in the face of the facts. The truth is that the complexity and perfection in DNA's structure can be explained only by the existence of a Creator possessed of sublime knowledge and intellect-our Almighty Lord. One verse of the Qur'an states:
Do not mix up truth with falsehood and knowingly hide the truth. (Surat al-Baqara, 42)
On its Own, the Existence of DNA Serves No Purpose
The genetic system does not consist of DNA alone. The enzymes to read the DNA code, the messenger RNA to be produced by this reading, the ribosome to which the messenger RNA travels and bonds with, the transporter RNA that carries the amino acids to be used in that production to the ribosome, and the highly complex enzymes that permit countless other secondary functions-all must be present in the same environment. Moreover, such an environment can only be a cell, where all the requisite raw materials and energy are isolated, available, and completely controlled in all respects.
The Complex Structure of a Cell
| |||
 | |||
A. The Complex Structure of a Cell
B. The Complex Structure of The DNA C. Some of The Complex Processes in The Cell | |||
1. Chromosomes
2. DNA Double Helix 4. Histone 3. Exon 5. Intron 6. Section 7. Introns 8. mRNA 9. Cytoplasm 10. Cell |
11. Nucleus
12. Chromosomes 13. Mitochondria 14. DNA 15. mRNA 16. Methylation 17. Histones 18. Acetylation 19. mRNA 20. RNA Destruction |
21. Intervening mRNA
22. SIRC (complex protein) 23. Protein Synthesis 24. Crude Protein 25. "Chaperone" Protein 26. Protein Shaping 27. Protein in active state 28. Mitochondrial DNA | |
The genetic system does not consist of DNA alone. in order for life to exist, there must also be enzymes to read the DNA chain, copy it and produce proteins in accord with these copies. This very important characteristic is referred to as the cell's "irreducible complexity."
| |||
An organic substance can reproduce itself only in a fully formed cell together with all its various organelles. This means that the first cell with its all extraordinarily complex structures must have come into being in a single moment. In his book Chance and Necessity, the Nobel Prize-winning French biologist Jacques Monod elaborates:
The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least 50 macromolecular components, which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation themselves. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo [All life comes from an egg]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine.188
Another Nobel Prize winner, the French scientist Andre Lwoff, states that every molecule inside the cell is a component of an interconnected whole:
An organism is a system of interdependent structures and functions. It consists of cells, and the cells are made of molecules which have to cooperate smoothly. Every molecule must know what the others are doing. It must be able to receive messages and act on them.189
 |
1. Ribosome
2. Large ribosome sub-unit 3. Protein chain being assembled 4. tRNA establishes a bond with mRNA. 5. Small ribosome sub-unit. |
The claim of a transition from a primitive cell to a complex one is a fantasy. All the complex molecules necessary for life must co-exist at exactly the same time. If the cell is to survive, it is essential that the system exist as a complete and flawless whole, with all its components intact, right from the very start.
|
Probability calculations show that complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) cannot form one by one as the result of chance. For evolutionists, however, an even greater problem is that these molecules need to be present all together, and at one and the same time, for a cell to function and life to exist. This places the theory of evolution in a completely hopeless position, as is admitted from time to time by evolutionists. One of these is Douglas R. Hofstadter from Indiana University, a professor in a number of fields:
"How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?" For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer. 190
The same truth is also admitted by Prof. Karl Raimund Popper, a 20th century philosopher of science with evolutionist views, who describes this dilemma:
What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But… the machinery by which the cell translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. 191
As Prof. Popper stresses, all the building blocks of the cell and the information belonging to its organelles are recorded in DNA. However, in order for the information in DNA to be used, those building blocks and organelles must already be in existence. This clearly refutes the theory of evolution's claims of gradual development: Organelles cannot exist without the coded information in DNA, just as the coded information in DNA cannot be used without those organelles. Both need to be present at the same time. Therefore, the claim of a transition from simple cells to complex ones is a myth. Despite holding evolutionist views, the zoologist David E. Green and the biochemist Prof. Robert F. Goldberger have this to say in a paper in a scientific journal:
The popular conception of primitive cells as the starting point for the origin of the species is really erroneous. There was nothing functionally primitive about such cells. They contained basically the same biochemical equipment as do their modern counterparts. How, then, did the precursor cell arise? The only unequivocal rejoinder to this question is that we do not know. 192
The theory of evolution seeks to account for all of life in terms of chance, but can never explain the origin of the extraordinary information carefully and flawlessly encoded in DNA. The question, therefore, is not how the DNA chain emerged, because as you have seen, the DNA chain and its extraordinary data capacity would serve no purpose on its own. There must be enzymes to read and replicate the DNA chain, and produce proteins in the light of these copies. In order for life to exist, the data bank of DNA and the systems to reading that data must both exist together. This most important property of the cell is referred to as irreducible complexity. As Prof. Frank B Salisbury says,
Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene-its complexity-must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.193
The absence of even one organelle from a cell, every part of which consists of interconnected systems, will mean that cell fails to function. The cell cannot wait for such a vital deficiency to be rectified gradually, through any supposed process of evolution. It is therefore impossible for a living cell to emerge by random coincidences assembling tiny components over a span of millions of years. The cell's complete unity is too complex for its components to have emerged in stages. In order to survive, the cell must exist as a complete with all its components, right from the very outset. This is another dilemma that the theory of evolution cannot explain away.
Which Came First: Proteins or DNA?
 |
The diagram shows the protein known as the leucine zipper. These structures, also known as main zipper proteins, are extremely important for normal development and play a regulatory role in DNA copying. Cancer may arise in the event they are subjected to mutation.
|
The enzymes that read DNA and engage in production accordingly are also produced according to the codes inside that same DNA. Inside each cell exists a factory that produces a wide range of products and also the structures to produce them. How could this system-a deficiency at any single point of which would render it non-functioning-have emerged on its own? That question is sufficient to demolish the theory of evolution.
The fact that DNA can be copied only with the assistance of a number of enzymes in the protein structure, and that the synthesis of these same enzymes takes place only in line with the information encoded inside the DNA, shows that the protein and DNA are mutually dependent. For that reason, they both must be present right from the outset if the DNA is to be copied itself. The science writer John Horgan clarifies this equation:
DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.194
According to the molecular biologist Michael Denton: "At the heart of the problem lay a seeming paradox-proteins can do many things, but they cannot perform the function of storing and transmitting information for their own construction. On the other hand, DNA can store information, but cannot manufacture anything nor duplicate itself. So DNA needs proteins and proteins need DNA. A seemingly unbreakable cycle-the ultimate chicken-and-egg problem."195 Andrew Scott describes the way that proteins and the genetic code cannot be considered separately in an article in New Scientist magazine:
We are grappling here with a classic "chicken and egg" dilemma. Nucleic acids are required to make proteins, whereas proteins are needed to make nucleic acids and also to allow them to direct the process of protein manufacture itself . . . The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost complete mystery.196
This situation once again refutes the scenario of life emerging by chance. The American chemist Prof. Homer Jacobson has this to say:
Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance. . . .197
Prof. Jacobson wrote these statements two years after James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA. However, despite all the scientific advances that have been made, this problem still remains insoluble for evolutionists. The Turkish evolutionist biologist Prof. Ali Demirsoy was forced to make this admission regarding the probability of protein and DNA coming into being together:
The probability of a protein and nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is one far exceeding probability estimates. The chances of a specific protein chain emerging are so small as to be astronomical.198
The probability Demirsoy referred is in practice zero. In a 1994 article, the evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel said this in the face of that:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.199
To say that "it is extremely improbable for life to originate by chemical means" means that it is impossible for life to emerge spontaneously. This is proof that life was created in a single moment. However, evolutionists are reluctant to accept this fact, whose proof they can clearly see, for ideological reasons. They advocate nonsensical scenarios, which they themselves know to be impossible, in order not to have to admit the existence of Allah. Another evolutionist, Caryl P. Haskins, expresses the impossibility of the DNA code forming by chance and sees this as a powerful evidence for creation:
But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemical genetics are still unanswered. How the genetic code first appeared and then evolved and, earlier even than that, how life itself originated on earth remain for the future to resolve. . . . Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin), this puzzle would surely have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation.200
Even a single-celled organism has a complexity far exceeding scientists' comprehension. This minute entity contains a genetic code with the stunning capacity capable of forming a copy of the organism all by itself. This code has a structure requiring not just organization, but also written information. Furthermore, it is not enough for this DNA code merely to be written correctly. The rest of the cell must also be able to read the code and follow its instructions. In fact, all living things possess flawless structures that carry out highly organized activities in the light of the directives they receive.
It is certainly impossible for unconscious cell organelles to learn the language of these codes by themselves, or to unravel them as the result of chance. The existence of the code, its decipherment, the transmission of the information it contains, the accurate use made of it-every stage requires consciousness and intelligence. But how can enzymes and ribosomes in the cell know how to perform these activities? Even if we assume that they do know, how can they decipher the codes in a structure of which they are ignorant, without making any mistakes? Such questions not only emphasize the insoluble dilemma facing evolutionists, but also display the infinite intellect and knowledge in creation. In the Qur'an it is stated that:
Your Lord creates and chooses whatever He wills. The choice is not theirs. Glory be to Allah! He is exalted above anything they associate with Him! Your Lord knows what their hearts conceal and what they divulge. He is Allah. There is no deity but Him. Praise be to Him in this world and the Hereafter. Judgment belongs to Him. You will be returned to Him. (Surat al-Qasas, 68-70)
The Invalidity of the "Chemical Evolution" Claim
Darwin maintained that if certain chemicals representing the raw material of life were present in a warm lake, proteins could form, and would multiply and combine to give rise to a cell.201 Thousands of scientists attempting to make Darwin's hypothesis a reality and to provide an evolutionary explanation for the origin of life have ventured down that same dead-end road.
In the 1920s, the Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin and the British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane put forward their theory known as "chemical evolution." They maintained what Darwin had imagined-that with the addition of energy, the molecules comprising the raw material, life could develop spontaneously and form a living cell. However, no evolutionist, Oparin included, was able to come up with any evidence to back up the claims of chemical evolution. On the contrary, every new discovery made in the 20th century showed that life was far too complex to have come about by chance. The well-known evolutionist Leslie Orgel makes this confession: " . . . at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."202
Leaving aside the cell for a moment, it is impossible for the nucleotides in DNA's basic structure to have emerged by chance and maintained their chemical properties under the conditions of the primeval Earth. The magazine Scientific American, which follows a pro-evolution line, expresses evolutionist admissions on the subject:
Even the simpler molecules are produced only in small amounts in realistic experiments simulating possible primitive earth conditions. What is worse, these molecules are generally minor constituents of tars: It remains problematical how they could have been separated and purified through geochemical processes whose normal effects are to make organic mixtures more and more of a jumble. With somewhat more complex molecules, these difficulties rapidly increase.203
The German scientists Reinhard Junker and Siegfried Scherer note that the synthesis of the molecules essential for life require very different conditions. This, according to them, shows that there is no possibility of the many different substances necessary for life combining together:
Until now, no experiment is known in which we can obtain all the molecules necessary for chemical evolution. Therefore, it is essential to produce various molecules in different places under very suitable conditions and then to carry them to another place for reaction by protecting them from harmful elements like hydrolysis and photolysis. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention.204
In his book The Origin of Life, Dr. John Keosian admits the despairing position in which evolutionists find themselves:
Claims of chemical evolution are unreal. We are asked to believe that biochemical compounds, biochemical reactions and mechanisms, energy metabolism, and storage, specific polymerizations, codes, transcription and translation apparatus, and more, appeared in probiotic [inaudible word], with a function they would have, in a living thing, before there were living things. Chemical evolution has become an end in itself. In many cases it represents contrived or ingenious laboratory syntheses which have no counterpart in abiotic organic chemical synthesis in an acceptable range of probiotic conditions . . . there has been an good deal of uncritical acceptance of experiments, results and conclusions which we are all too ready to acknowledge because they support preconceived convictions. . . All present approaches to a solution of the problem of the origin of life are either irrelevant or lead into a blind alley. Therein lies the crisis.205
 |
It is possible to speak of DNA's existence only when the cell is present in fully complete form, with all its organelles.
|
The structure of the DNA molecule also confirms the impossibility of the chemical evolution scenario because when left to itself, the DNA molecule loses its stability. External factors can easily impair the molecule's structure. To a large extent, DNA is stable inside the cell because that it is monitored and repaired by specialized enzymes. It is impossible for the DNA molecule to remain stable and preserve its structure outside the cell, while swimming in the primeval oceans, as evolutionists claim. On the contrary, in the supposed primeval ocean, the molecule would be impaired far more quickly than the rate at which it was synthesized.206 Thaxton, Dr. Roger L. Olsen and Prof. Walter L. Bradley mention how the substances essential for life could not preserve their stability: "It seems probable that in an oceanic chemical soup, the synthesis of RNA and other essential biomolecules would have been short-circuited at nearly every turn by many cross-reactions."207
In fact, when biochemists separate DNA from the cell or synthesizes it in the laboratory, they do not leave it in water-which would cause it to dissolve-or in a jar on the bench at room temperature. In all probability, they store it in a tube with a tightly closed stopper, and in liquid nitrogen in a deep freeze. Yet even under these conditions, the chemical bonds inside the molecule gradually fall apart, and biological effectiveness is gradually lost.208
Evolutionists totally ignore the fact that DNA, RNA and protein molecules would soon be eliminated under natural conditions in the supposed primeval ocean. In his book The Origins of Prebiological Systems, Dr. Carl Sagan admits that the existing scenarios regarding the origin of life are unsatisfactory:
The problem we're discussing is a very general one. We use energy sources to make organic molecules. It is found that the same energy sources can destroy these organic molecules. The organic chemist has an understandable preference for removing the reaction products from the energy source before they are destroyed. But when we talk of the origin of life, I think we should not neglect the fact that degradation occurs as well as synthesis, and that the course of reaction may be different if the products are not preferentially removed. In reconstructing the origin of life, we have to imagine reasonable scenarios which somehow avoid this difficulty.209
In the absence of a cell with the mechanism to read the information in DNA-and to act on those instructions and manufacture protein-the information in DNA will be meaningless. Even if we assume the completely impossible, that the DNA molecule did form spontaneously under the primitive world conditions suggested by evolutionists, the existence of DNA by itself would be meaningless. Despite being evolutionists, Prof. David E. Green and Prof. Robert F. Goldberger express the invalidity of the idea that the cell emerged gradually and spontaneously:
… the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area, all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.210
In an article titled "Life's Origins Get Murkier and Messier," published in The New York Times in June 2000, the science writer Nicholas Wade wrote, "Everything about the origin of life on earth is a mystery, and it seems the more that is known, the more acute the puzzles get."211 The biochemist Prof. Michael J. Behe summarizes the position of science in terms of the evolutionary scenario:
In private, many scientists admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life. On the other hand, many scientists think that given the origin of life, its subsequent evolution is easy to envision, despite the major difficulties outlined in this book. The reason for this peculiar circumstance is that while chemists try to test origin-of-life scenarios by experiment or calculation, evolutionary biologists make no attempt to test evolutionary scenarios at the molecular level by experiment or calculation. As a result, evolutionary biology is stuck in the same frame of mind that dominated origin-of-life studies in the early fifties before most experiments had been done: imagination running wild. Biochemistry has, in fact, revealed a molecular world that stoutly resists explanation by the same theory so long applied at the level of the whole organism. Neither of Darwin's black boxes-the origin of life or the origin of vision or other complex biochemical systems-has been accounted for by his theory. Darwin never imagined the exquisitely profound complexity that exists even at the most basic levels of life.212
The point that evolutionists seem determined not to acknowledge is that Darwin was an amateur scientist whose knowledge was too superficial to foresee the molecular complexity of life, and whose analyses were based solely upon observation. Many scientists blindly attached to the theory of evolution are in the same state of ignorance today. Since they lack the courage to tell the truth, out of a fear of losing their prestige, and since they are also unwilling to admit the existence of Allah, they have become part of a mass deception. However, the facts are so evident that apart from a few admissions, evolutionists are left quite speechless. Despite being an evolutionist, the contemporary biochemist Klaus Dose admits the impossibility of life forming spontaneously in the so-called primeval environment:
A further puzzle remains, namely the question of the origin of biological information, i.e., the information residing in our genes today. . . not even the physical building blocks required for the storage of the information can construct themselves: The spontaneous formation of simple nucleotides or even pf polynucleotides which were able to be replicated on the pre-biotic earth should now be regarded as improbable in the light of the very many unsuccessful experiments in this regard.213
Saying that it is "improbable" for life to have emerged by chemical means is tantamount to saying that it is impossible for life to have emerged by chance. Therefore, the theory of evolution, which seeks to account for the origin of life in terms of chance, collapses right at the outset. Since chance cannot represent the origin of life, science clearly demonstrates that life has been created in a flawless manner. Not only the earliest organisms, but all the different living classes on Earth were created individually. Indeed, the fossil record confirms that all species on Earth emerged in a single moment and with all their own particular structures, and without undergoing any previous process of evolution.
Consciously Directed Experiments Cannot Represent Evidence for Evolution
Whenever experiments regarding the origin of life are mentioned, the first one to come to mind is the Miller Experiment. In evolutionist sources, this is portrayed as supposed evidence that allegedly sheds light on the origin of life. Yet the details of the experiment-conditions that do not reflect the true facts-are generally neglected. The American chemist Stanley Miller carried out the experiment under artificial conditions he established himself, and which bore no relation to the primeval Earth's atmosphere. Since his synthesis of amino acid was carried out on the basis of a contrived environment, it cannot provide any scientific findings.
Moreover, Miller was able to synthesize amino acid in this experiment only. Yet the emergence of amino acids under any condition whatsoever does not argue for the formation of life. Amino acids are building blocks of proteins, the body's basic building materials. Hundreds of amino acids are combined in a specific sequence inside the cell, and thus a given protein results. Cells consist of an average of several thousand different types of protein. In contrast, amino acids are the simplest and smallest components of living things. The invalidity of Miller's experiment was the subject of a great many scientific papers in later years.214 (For more details, see The Evolution Deceit , Ta-Ha Publishers, United Kingdom, 1999.)
 | |
1. Electrical energy
2. Mixture of methane, ammonia and water vapor 3. Cooled water outside |
4. Cooled water outside
5. Thermal energy 6. Concentrated water |
After the Stanley Miller experiment, evolutionists claimed that amino acids, the building blocks of life, could have formed by chance under the supposed conditions of the primeval Earth. However, the experiment was proved to be invalid in a great many respects, and now even evolutionists have abandoned it.
| |
With the Miller Experiment, evolutionists unwittingly demolished evolution, because the experiment proved that amino acids can only be obtained by means of conscious intervention under laboratory environment in which all the conditions are strictly controlled. In other words, what produces life is creation, not unconscious coincidences.
Evolutionists are reluctant to accept this evident truth since they cling to a number of prejudices that fly in the face of science. Indeed, Harold Urey and his student Stanley Miller, who organized the experiment together with him, made the following admission:
All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.215
None of the other experiments which evolutionists claim to duplicate the origin of life bears any relation to the facts. While seeking to account for the origin of life in terms of random, unplanned events, evolutionists perform their experiments under highly planned controls. Nothing in the laboratory environments they create is left to chance.
On the contrary, all experiments conducted to bring an evolutionary explanation are carried out by intelligent, knowledgeable scientists with the use of advanced laboratory technology. In such a controlled environment, it is obvious that chance effects bear no relation at all to such stages as the splitting of genes from DNA using various special enzymes, the subsequent replacement of these inside the cell and then the selection of the most advantageous ones. For that reason, evolutionists once again demonstrate that there must have been intelligence, consciousness and information behind the origin of life. In his book Darwin's Black Box, the molecular biologist Michael Behe has this to say:
The big problem is that each nucleotide "building block" is itself built up from several components and the processes that form the components are chemically incompatible. Although a chemist can make nucleotides with ease in a laboratory by synthesizing the components separately, purifying them, and then recombining the components to react with each other, undirected chemical reactions overwhelmingly produce undesired products and shapeless goop on the bottom of the test tube.216
All the experiment carried out prove that during every stage involved in the formation of life, conscious control is needed. Prof. Werner Gitt says this about the Miller experiments, portrayed as evidence of evolution:
No protein has ever been synthesized in such an experiment; they refer to proteinoids and not proteins as such. Even if they succeed in obtaining a true protein with a long amino acid chain and the correct optical rotation, it would still not be the start of evolution. There must be a coding system to store information about this protein so that it can be replicated at a later stage. A coding system can never originate in matter. The Miller experiments thus do not contribute to an explanation of the origin of life.217
The well-known physicist Prof. Paul Davies refers to the approach adopted in the experiments performed being flawed right from the very beginning:
The living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer-an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff-hardware-but as information, or software. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won't work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.218
This all goes to show that everything in the cell must be present in complete and perfect form, and in just the right place, from the very first moment. The slightest deficiency or change will spell the death of the entire cell. It is impossible for the kind of trial-and-error process posited by the theory of evolution to give rise to a living cell, even if the process lasted not for just billions of years, but for trillions upon trillions. There is absolutely no possibility that unconscious natural phenomena gave rise to the irreducibly complex structures and systems inside the cell, in one single event. The way that some still ascribe divine status to chance, despite seeing these clear scientific facts, is an empty deception. Allah reveals the superstitious beliefs of such people in the Qur'an:
He to Whom the kingdom of the heavens and the Earth belongs. He does not have a son and He has no partner in the Kingdom. He created everything and determined it most exactly. But they have adopted deities apart from Him which do not create anything but are themselves created. They have no power to harm or help themselves. They have no power over death or life or resurrection. (Surat al-Furqan, 2-3)
DNA's Complexity Cannot Be Adjusted Spontaneously
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that left to themselves and under normal conditions, all systems in the universe will tend towards disorder, confusion and impairment in direct relation to the passage of time. Everything, living or not, is gradually eroded, impaired, decayed, broken down and fragmented. Sooner or later, this is the inevitable process awaiting all things and, according to the Second Law, there is no return from that inevitable end. The Sydney University biologist Prof. Michael G. Pittman says this:
Time is no help. Bio-molecules outside a living system tend to degrade with time, not build up. In most cases, a few days is all they would last. Time decomposes complex systems. If a large 'word' (a protein) or even a paragraph is generated by chance, time will operate to degrade it. The more time you allow, the less chance there is that fragmentary 'sense' will survive the chemical maelstrom of matter.219
In order to be able to reconcile the Second Law of Thermodynamics with evolution, Darwinists try to show that a particular order can emerge in so-called open systems, in which there is a constant flow of matter and energy. But evolutionists employ deceptive methods by deliberately confusing two different key concepts: ordered and organized.
For example, when a breeze enters a courtyard, it may gather up all the dry leaves that had previously been spread out at random and deposit them into one corner. This, in thermodynamic terms, is a more ordered environment than its predecessor, but the leaves can never organize themselves with the energy from the wind in such a way as to form a perfect outline of a human being on the floor. In short, complex organized systems can never come into being through natural processes. Although, simple arrangements like that cited above may occur from time to time, they can never progress beyond specific bounds.
Evolutionists, however, depict these spontaneous self-ordering phenomena by means of natural events as important evidence for evolution. They seek to portray them as supposed examples of self-organization. As a result of this conceptual confusion, they suggest that living beings can arise spontaneously as a result of natural events and chemical reactions.
 |
All the details pictured have been placed where they are for a specific purpose. Each has been installed bearing in mind such features as ease of use, aesthetics, symmetry and compatibility. No logical person can possibly maintain that all of these assumed their places by chance over the course of time, like objects arranged by the wind blowing through a window.
|
Yet as you saw earlier, organized systems and ordered systems display completely different structures. Ordered systems contain simple sequences and repetitions, while organized systems contain highly complex, interconnected structures and processes. The difference between the two is best described by the evolutionist scientist Jeffrey Wicken:
'Organized' systems are to be carefully distinguished from 'ordered' systems. Neither kind of system is 'random,' but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external 'wiring diagram' with a high information content. . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information.220
The dilemmas facing any self-ordering scenario can easily be seen when the structure of the DNA molecule is examined. Studies in biochemistry and molecular biology cannot explain the special arrangement of the DNA and RNA macro-molecules that contain such broad information. Robert Shapiro-a professor of chemistry of University of New York and an expert on DNA-sets out the evolutionist belief in the self-organization of matter and the materialist dogma underlying it:
Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin.221
With the concept of self-organization, evolutionists claim that inanimate matter can organize itself in such a way as to give rise to a complex living entity. This belief flies in the face of science, because all experiments and observations show that matter has no such ability. So why do evolutionists still believe in such unscientific scenarios? Why are they so determined to deny the proofs of creation that are so evident in living things?
The answer lies in the basic foundation of the theory of evolution: materialist philosophy. By accepting only the existence of matter, it must provide some explanation for living things that is also based on matter alone. The theory of evolution was born from that requirement and, no matter how grossly it may violate science, that's why it is still being propagated today.
The only explanation for life is creation. Evolutionists admit the possibility of all kinds of impossibilities and resort to all kinds of stratagems to deny the existence of Allah. Yet no matter how much they avoid facing facts, they still find themselves confronted by the proofs of our Lord's existence and the sublimity in His creation. The situation of the deniers is described in the Qur'an:
But the actions of those who do not believe are like a mirage in the desert. A thirsty man thinks it is water, but when he reaches it, he finds it to be nothing at all, but he finds Allah there. He will pay him his account in full. Allah is swift at reckoning. (Surat an-Nur, 39)
Neo-Darwinism Is No Solution to the Impasse Facing Evolution
Neo-Darwinism attempts to prop up Darwin's theory by adapting it to scientific advances, and combining it with the genetic inheritance laws of the Austrian biologist Gregor Mendel. Also known as "the modern synthesis," neo-Darwinism actually makes Darwin's ignorance clear for all to see. Darwin sought to account for the variety in species through natural selection, but he was not aware that living things pass on their characteristics to subsequent generations by way of genetic inheritance. This new version of the theory of evolution results from an attempt to cover up that ignorance. But no matter how much neo-Darwinists may attempt to modernize their theory, they have never been able to succeed, since the theory is built on unsound foundations from the outset.
 |
Since the errors emerging during the DNA copying process are the smallest possible mutations, neo-Darwinists thought that they could base their theories on them. Today it is understood that such claims are invalid.
|
Like Darwin himself, neo-Darwinists maintain that the variety in life came into being spontaneously, by chance.222 In addition to this flawed logic, they depicted mutations –random genetic changes– as the origin of life. Since the errors arising during the replication of DNA were the smallest mutations possible, neo-Darwinists imagined that they could base their theories on that.223 But even the smallest replicaton error-a change in a single nucleotide-gives rise to extremely serious consequences.
Neo-Darwinists said that small changes in genetic information take place first in one site, then in another.224However, the biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner emphasizes that the theory is not true: "The NDT says that large changes will eventually result. It's like becoming a millionaire by saving enough pennies."225
Prof. Marcel-Paul Schützenberger-a member of the French Academy of Sciences and a mathematician, biologist and doctor of medicine from Paris University-has refuted neo-Darwinism with mathematical proofs. In his book Mathematical Challenges in the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, he reaches this conclusion:
We believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.226
According to neo-Darwinism, random genetic mutations represent the raw material of evolution. But as many scientists today agree, the level of complexity in life cannot be acquired through the processes of trial and error hypothesized by neo-Darwinism. Dr. Lee Spetner sets out the impossibility of this: "But if their variations are random, they too cannot account for a build up of genetic information. The chances are almost nil . . . you cannot expect to get a large adaptive genetic rearrangement by chance."227
How Does the Cell Sound the Alarm
When There is an Impairment in the DNA? | ||
 | ||
1. RNA copies the entire genome.
2. Introns are removed. 3. When introns are removed so that only exons remain, the cell adds a molecular note to the site where two adjacent exon sequences are attached together. 4. The ribosome extracts these notes as it moves along the copied segment. 5. If the ribosome stops before the final note, it emits a signal that the process has been prematurely terminated. 6. STOP 7. Ribosome | ||
All the explanations that evolutionists put forward for the origin of life are irrational and unscientific. One of the outspoken eminent authorities who admit as much the French zoologist Pierre Grassé, former head of the French Academy of Sciences. Though an evolutionist, Grassé nevertheless maintains that Darwinian theory cannot account for life, and says this regarding the logic of chance that forms the basis of Darwinism:
The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur. . . There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.228
In addition, the mutations that they allege increased the information in DNA over the course of time, leading to variation, is no solution to the predicament in which Darwinists find themselves. Mutations are harmful breaks and changes of place of genes in the living DNA molecule, resulting from radiation or chemical effects. Since mutations damage the nucleotides or cause them to change places, they generally lead to damage too great for the cell to repair. For example, X-rays penetrate deeply in the body and cause major DNA damage. When DNA starts to be wrongly replicated, such faulty replication can manifest itself in the body as cancer. The mutagenic energy in sunlight can cause skin cancer, and various substances in cigarettes causes lung cancer. Incorrect replication in the 21st chromosome in the reproductive cell, for instance, leads to Down syndrome.
 |
1. Healthy DNA helix
2. Excess nucleotide copies due to mutation 3. Flawed DNA helix |
When the DNA is imperfectly copied, this gives rise to various diseases. These errors can never, as evolutionists maintain, bestow greater ability and improvements.
|
In order for the theory of evolution to account for the origin of life on Earth, it must point to some mechanism that adds new, useful characteristics, not damaging and destructive ones. How can a living thing acquire a new characteristic? The only answer evolutionists have is "By mutation." They maintain that all species emerged through random mutations acting on the DNA of a single germ cell-either egg or sperm. Yet mutations-the foundation of evolutionists' claims-do not cause living things to become more developed and perfect. Therefore, mutations are not the kind of mechanism as is needed by the theory of evolution, nor can they produce new characteristics. We shall consider only the broad outlines of how mutations do not, and cannot contribute to a species' evolution (For detailed information, see Harun Yahya's Darwinism Refuted , Goodword Books, 2002; and The Evolution Deceit, Ta-Ha Publishers, United Kingdom, 1999.)
Mutations Are Harmful:
Since they occur in a random manner, mutations almost always damage the organism concerned. Any random intervention in a complex structure will damage it rather than improve it. Indeed, there is not one single valid example of a beneficial random mutation of the kind proposed as an evolutionary mechanism.229 The changes brought about by mutations are only like those suffered by the residents of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl: death, genetic handicaps, and disease.
 | |
1. Mutation
2. Amino acid 3. Cell membrane |
4. Anti-codon
5. Ribosome 6. Cell nucleus 7. Impaired amino acid |
A. Mutation => DNA Impairment > Disease/Deformity/Damage
| |
Since mutations occur at random, they almost always damage the organism. Any unconscious intervention in a complex structure will damage that structure rather than improving it.
| |
Prof. Walter L. Starkey from Ohio University makes clear the invalidity of claims regarding useful mutations:
Do you think it would be wise for you to spend hours near X-ray machine, or inside of a nuclear power plant? Would it be wise for you to go to Chernobyl, in Russia, where a nuclear power plant exploded? Should we actively try to destroy the ozone layer that shields us from radiation? If such radiations are likely to cause you to evolve, and develop new beneficial futures, then you should seek to be bombarded as much as possible by these sources of radiation. Maybe you could get a new eye in the back of your head. In reality, if you are smart, you will avoid such radiations, because they are much more likely to damage you than to improve you.230
All the mutations observed in human beings are harmful. All the mental and physical defects described in medical textbooks as examples of mutation such as Down syndrome, albinism or dwarfism, or diseases such as cancer, reveal mutations' destructive effects. Obviously, any process that handicaps people or causes them to become ill cannot be a mechanism that develops living things. DNA has a very complex order, and so any random effects in this molecule can only damage the organism. Prof. Starkey says this about these damaging effects of mutations:
Being bombarded by mutation-causing radiation, would be like shooting a new car with a 30-caliber rifle. Let's assume that it would be beneficial if the ballast resister in your ignition system were located inside the interior of your car, under the dashboard, rather than out near the hot engine . . .mutations caused by DNA copying errors would have a similar result. . . mutations are harmful by a ratio of at least 10,000 to one.231
Mutations Cannot Add New Information to DNA:
As a result of mutation, the components that make up genetic information are detached from their locations, damaged, or else transported to different regions of the DNA. They can never endow an organism with a new organ or a new attribute by adding new genetic information to its DNA. All they cause are abnormalities of existing characteristics, such as an extra leg sticking out of the pelvis, or an ear out of the stomach. Prof. Werner Gitt answers the question "Can new information emerge as the result of mutations?"
This idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be source of new (creative) information.232
On the same subject, Prof. Phillip Johnson has this to say:
Spetner told them that the adaptive mutations cited by Darwinists are not information-creating. When a mutation makes a bacterium resistant to antibiotics, for example, it does so by disabling its capacity to metabolize a certain chemical. There is a net loss of information and of fitness in a general sense… one can sometimes "fix" a sputtering radio by hitting its case if the rough motion happens to reseat a loose wire or open a short circuit. But no one would expect to build a better radio, much less a television set, by accumulating such changes.233
The well-known evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould admits the facts regarding mutations:
You don't make new species by mutating the species . . .A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change.234
There is yet another proof that mutations do not add new characteristics of the kind required by the theory of evolution. To produce new characteristics or new species, several atoms must be added to the organism's DNA.235 In human DNA, there are up to 204 billion atoms-3,000 times more atoms than in the DNA of the bacterium E. coli.236 For that reason, in order for a single-celled organism to develop into a human being, more than 200 billion atoms of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and phosphorus would have to be added to its DNA.237 As you know, carbon and nitrogen can be obtained from the air, hydrogen and oxygen from water, and phosphorus from soil. But the real problem is the extraction and relocation of these atoms in exactly the right place in the DNA molecule. Atoms would have to arrange themselves so as to contain sugar groups, phosphate groups and nitrogen bases with extraordinary complexity, and be located in just the right part of the double helix in order for a DNA molecule to function.238
Prof. Phillip Johnson explains how, just as in encyclopedias and computer programs, there is a very specific order in DNA, and that there must be a mechanism that produces genetic information. He also describes how random mutations have a negative impact on the information and regularity in DNA:
Random mutation is not such a mechanism, nor is natural selection, nor is any physical or chemical law. Laws produce simple repetitive order, and chance produces meaningless disorder. When combined, law and chance work against each other to prevent the emergence of a meaningful sequence. In all human experience, only intelligent agency can write an encyclopedia or computer program, or produce complex specified aperiodic information in any form. Therefore, the information necessarily present in organisms points to the conclusion that they are products of intelligent design.239
Mutations are Disordered:
Mutations do alter already existing structures, but in a completely disordered manner. Mutations have no complementary properties and have no cumulative effects toward any particular objective. Pierre Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, says this about mutations' effects:
As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.240
In Order for a Mutation to Influence Subsequent Generations, it Must Arise Inside the Reproductive Cell: :
No change arising in any cell or organ of the body can be passed on to the next generation. For example, a person's arm may be exposed to radiation assume a form very different from its original appearance. But these changes cannot be passed on unless they take place in the DNA molecule in some reproductive cell. This precondition –that in order to affect future generations, the mutation must take place in only one reproductive cell, out of all the trillions of cells in the body– makes evolutionist expectations totally impossible.
Mutations Are Rare:
Mutations occur only very rarely. As a cell's DNA is being replicated, enzymes perform a regulatory function. Therefore, as you have seen in some detail, errors that survive the replication process are very rare. Calculations show that only one living thing in a million will be exposed to mutation.241 The molecular biologist Prof. Gerald L. Schroeder criticizes fictitious claims based on mutations:
The insights of molecular biology have revealed a complexity at every stage of life's processes such that, if we were forced to rely on random mutation to produce them step by step, in the words of Nobel laureate de Duve, "eternity would not suffice."242
Thus, in the words of Pierre Paul Grassé, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."243
 |
1- DNA helix,
2- Separating, breaking DNA fragments 3- Mutation |
All the mutations observed in human beings are harmful. Because living DNA has a highly complex structure, any random effect arising in this molecule can only harm the organism. The only changes brought about by mutations are handicaps, disease, and death.
|
Mutations Cannot Bring about Changes of Species:
Experiments on fruit flies have been going on for many years. Many fruit flies exposed to radiation have given rise to mutant forms, such as flies with very large wings, extra wings or no wings at all. Yet no matter how deformed, they have still remained fruit flies and have not developed into any new species.
The slightest change in location or absence in the sequences in the genes can easily give rise to fatal consequences. It is impossible for random mutations to occur in such a delicate sequence as to cause one organism to evolve into another by adding to its genetic information. Indeed, in the laboratory, all animal embryos subjected to mutation in order to prove evolutionists' theories are born either deformed or dead.
All this goes to show that contrary to what evolutionists maintain, random mutations cannot account for the origin of living things. Not even the most advanced technology and intense work by the most skilled scientists can produce a new species. As you have seen, mutations can in no way cause the diversity in living things. The flawless sequence in DNA is solely the result of a very special creation. That creation belongs to Almighty Allah, Whose impeccable creation is described in the Qur'an:
It is Allah Who made the Earth a stable home for you and the sky a dome, and formed you, giving you the best of forms, and provided you with good and wholesome things. That is Allah, your Lord. Blessed be Allah, the Lord of all the worlds. He is the Living-there is no deity but Him-so call on Him, making your religion sincerely His. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds. (Surah Ghafir, 64-65)
The theory of evolution, which maintains that inanimate substances spontaneously came together to form living things with such glorious features as DNA, is a fantasy that violates both science and reason. Since life has a blueprint (DNA) and all living things are made in the light of that blueprint, the one manifest conclusion is that a sublime Creator has produced that blueprint. All living things come into being through the creation of Almighty and Omniscient Allah, Who reveals this in the Qur'an:
He is Allah-the Creator, the Maker, the Giver of Form. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Everything in the heavens and Earth glorifies Him. He is the Almighty, the All-Wise. (Surat al-Hashr, 24)
In the Same Way that Spelling Mistakes cannot Improve a Book, Neither can Random Mutations Improve on Genetic in formation
|
To show just how irrational evolutionist claims regarding mutation are, compare DNA to a book. DNA consists of letters arranged one after the other, just like on a page. Mutations resemble spelling mistakes occurring during the writing. To carry out an analogous experiment, ask a large history of the world to be written down on a computer. While this is being done, ask the person setting the text to press one key at random, with his eyes shut. Then ask someone else to do the same thing to the already corrupted text.
Have the text copied over several thousand times from beginning to end in exactly this manner, adding a few random letters in each time.
Is this going to improve our history of the world? Could you end up with a chapter about "The History of Ancient China" that had not been there before?
These letters added on cannot, of course, improve the book in any way; on the contrary, they will impair its readability. The more often we perform the copying process, the more imperfect the book that results. The claim made by the theory of evolution, however, is to the effect that spelling mistakes improve a book. According to evolution, mutations arising in DNA (mistakes) combined, by chance, give rise to beneficial consequences, endow living things with organs such as eyes, ears, wings and feet, and bestow on them characteristics requiring consciousness such as thinking, learning and applying logic.
No doubt this claim is even more irrational than the addition of a chapter on "The History of Ancient China" as a result of accumulated spelling mistakes. (In fact, no mechanism in nature can give rise to regular mutations, as in the example of the typesetter making the errors in our book. Mutations in nature occur far more rarely than typographical mistakes during typesetting.)
|
It Is Almighty Allah Who Bestows Life on the Cell
For a moment, forget all the impossibilities described so far. Assume that a protein molecule did form under the primeval Earth's most unsuitable conditions.
The formation of a single protein will not be enough. It will have to wait for other proteins, just like itself, to emerge by chance in this uncontrolled environment, until millions of the appropriate proteins needed for producing the cell all form alongside one another, in the same place. Those that form first must wait patiently, suffering no damage from ultraviolet rays or mechanical abrasion, until the others appear, also by chance. Then these proteins, in the right quantities in the same place, must combine in meaningful forms to give rise to the cell's organelles. Meanwhile, no foreign substances, harmful molecules or functionless proteins must infiltrate themselves. And even if these organelles did manage to combine in an exceedingly ordered, harmonious and interconnected way, absorbing all the necessary enzymes and being enclosed in a membrane-and if that membrane's interior were filled with a special fluid that constitutes the ideal environment-could that collection of molecules then come to life?
No, because as research shows, in order for life to begin, it's not enough for all the needed substances to be present together. Even if you place all the proteins necessary for life in a test tube, still you cannot obtain a living cell. All the experiments in this area have failed; all experiments and observations show that life comes only from life. The claim that life emerged by chance from inanimate substances is a myth that conflicts with all observations and experiments, and which exists only in evolutionists' dreams.
Bacterial DNA Refutes The Myth of The Primitive Cell
| ||
Much as the theory of evolution seeks to organize life according to a transition from the primitive to the more advanced, it assumes that bacteria are primitive cells and that multi-celled organisms evolved from them. However, single-celled organisms are not primitive at all, as evolutionists wish to believe. On the contrary, a bacterium has a structure so complex as to astonish anyone examining it. Professor of zoology James Grey states: A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism.1
| ||
 | ||
1. Chromosome
2. Ribosomes 3. Plasmid |
4. Pilus
5. Capsule Layer 6. Cell Wall |
7. Cell Membrane
8. Cytoplasm 9. Flagellum |
| A bacterium has around 2,000 genes, each containing up to 100 letters, or codes. This means that the information in its DNA must be at least 2 million letters in length. This calculation shows that the information in a bacterium's DNA is equivalent to 20 novels, each containing 100,000 words.2 Dr. Lee Spetner says the following regarding bacteria's extraordinary data capacity despite their minute size: The bacterial cells are so small that a trillion of them could fit into a teaspoon. Yet it takes a lot of information to define a bacterium.3
Any change in a bacterium's DNA will be so significant as to impair the bacterium's entire system. A flaw in bacteria's genetic codes will mean the impairment of its operating systems, and therefore death. Even a single bacterium is one of the evident proofs of the existence of Allah, Who reveals in the Qur'an that:
... Whom not even the weight of the smallest particle eludes, either in the heavens or in the Earth; nor is there anything smaller or larger than that which is not in a Clear Book. (Surah Saba, 3)
1- Sir James Gray, Science Today, 1961, p. 21.
2- Mahlon B. Hoagland, The Origins of Life, p. 25. 3- Lee M. Spetner, Not By Chance, Shattering The Modern Theory of Evolution, The Judaica Press Inc., 1997, p. 24. | ||
Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, spent decades convinced that life was born by chance:
From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can't find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation-and not accidental random shuffling.244
In that case, the first life on Earth can only have come from the creation of Allah, the Lord of Life. Life begins, continues and comes to an end only through His willing it. Evolution, on the other hand, cannot explain how the materials necessary for life formed and combined with one another, let alone to explain how life itself began. In the Qur'an, our Lord asks:
Is He Who creates like him who does not create? So will you not pay heed? If you tried to number Allah's blessings, you could never count them. Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah knows what you keep secret and what you make public. Those you call on besides Allah do not create anything. They are themselves created. (Surat an-Nahl, 17-20)
DNA is an Example of Our Almighty Lord's Creative Artistry
Consider the activities of DNA and what goes on inside the cell, which have been discussed throughout this book. The molecules that comprise the cell have no intelligence, yet they combine to make accurate decisions, implement strategies accordingly, and guard against possible dangers. They have no memory, but still they identify friends and foes, distinguish between the necessary and the unnecessary, the useful and the useless, and act accordingly. While performing their functions they permit no waste or pollution, but act in efficiently, cleaning up behind themselves. In constant communication, they work together as a harmonious team. They are able to take on joint decisions, know where they must go and when, and how to resolve problems. They establish order inside the cell, store information and use it as necessary, copy and translate it. They perform all this at great speed, without sleep or rest. In a highly efficient manner and displaying a superior intelligence, they perform functions that you never could. Unconscious molecules, made up of atoms such as those in the air, soil and water, do all these things. These atoms combine only in a particular order in such a way as to give rise to life by Allah's so choosing, and exhibit conscious behavior under our Lord's direction.
Steeped in the ignorance of 19th century, Charles Darwin held a simplistic vision of the origin of life: "From so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."245 In his private correspondence, Darwin also suggested that life emerged spontaneously in a small, warm lake containing ammoniac and phosphorus salts, with the help of light, heat, and electricity.246 Darwin's view of the origin of life was that simple. However, those who came after Darwin were unable to obtain even the smallest component of life, despite applying that formula, and even more advanced forms of it, a great many times. No matter how often Darwinists repeat that formula, with whatever materials they may choose, the result will still always be the same. They can never obtain any other conclusion than Allah created life. Had Darwin known about DNA, doubtless he would never have signed his name to such a terrible scientific gaffe.
Yet many scientists follow blindly in Darwin's footsteps, continuing to look at the origin of life in an entirely unrealistic way. Their dreams of course condemn them to disappointment on every occasion, because Darwinism has never been scientific, only a philosophy based solely upon preconceptions and fabrications.
 |
O man! You are toiling laboriously towards
your Lord but meet Him you will! (Surat al-Inshiqaq, 6) |
Everyone of intelligence and good conscience will appreciate that the body's perfect systems could not arise spontaneously from unconscious atoms. There can be no question of any molecular component in a single human cell acting, let alone of a human being speaking or walking, without the permission and knowledge of Allah. The systems that operate uninterruptedly in each of the human body's trillions of cells reveal the infinite intellect, knowledge and power of Allah, and the boundless perfection in His creation. Proofs of the existence of our Lord's infinite mercy exist not just in the tiny DNA molecule, but in every point in the universe. In one verse of the Qur'an, it is revealed:
Say: "Who is the Lord of the heavens and the Earth?" Say: "Allah." Say: "So why have you taken protectors apart from Him who possess no power to help or harm themselves?" Say: "Are the blind and seeing equal? Or are darkness and light the same? Or have they assigned partners to Allah who create as He creates, so that all creating seems the same to them?" Say: "Allah is the Creator of everything. He is the One, the All-Conquering." (Surat ar-Ra'd, 16)
They said "Glory be to You!
We have no knowledge except what You have taught us.
You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise."
(Qur'an, 2: 32)
We have no knowledge except what You have taught us.
You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise."
(Qur'an, 2: 32)
