14. The Peppered Moth Claim is a Deception

Tree bark in the mid-19th Century during the early part of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain was light in color. For that reason, dark colored variants of the moth species (melanic moths) Biston betularia could easily be seen and caught by birds. Fifty years later, however, lichens, a kind of algae, had died out around the trees as a result of industrial pollution, and the trees had become darker in color. At this time, it was now the lighter colored moths that were more visible on the trees and that were caught more often by birds. As a result, the number of light colored moths declined, while the darker melanic moths increased in number, since these were less easily caught.

Evolutionists eagerly seized on this state of affairs as significant evidence for their claims of evolution by way of natural selection. Using the same deceptive techniques, as always, they then set about trying to mislead people into thinking that light-colored moths evolved into darker ones. This claim was heralded with the so-called phrase "evolution in action." But the facts were very different, since these moths in fact underwent no evolutionary change at all, the only thing present being a huge Darwinist deception.

In 1953, H.B.D. Kettlewell, a Darwinist doctor of medicine and also an amateur biologist, decided to perform an experiment to observe the phenomenon. He carried out experiments and observations in rural parts of England where these moths were living. As a result of his experiments, Kettlewell determined that dark moths on lighter lichen were caught in larger numbers. He then announced this in an article titled "Darwin's Missing Evidence" in Scientific American magazine, as if this were a giant discovery in the name of Darwinism. By 1960, Kettlewell's account had assumed its place in all school text books.

A result of industrial pollution the lichens, a kind of moss, covering tree trunks die and the trunk turn black. Since light-colored moths are more visible on these trunks they are more often eaten by birds. Therefore, as the number of light-colored moths declines, the numbers of dark-colored ones rises, as they are eaten less frequently. But there being large numbers of one kind of moth is most definitely not evolution; yet Darwinists use this to mislead people and try to depict it as supposed evidence for evolution.

In 1985, certain peculiarities began to be noticed. A young American biology teacher called Craig Holdrege came across an interesting statement in the notes of Sir Cyril Clarke, a close friend of Kettlewell and who took part in his experiments. Clarke said:

All we have observed is where the moths do not spend the day. In 25 years, we have only found two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps...89

Holdrege had for a long time been showing his students photographs of moths placed on tree trunks and describing how birds would locate and catch the more visible ones. But now someone who had researched these moths for 25 years was saying he had only seen moths on the tree trunks twice. A fierce scientific debate erupted almost immediately. The debate led to the following conclusions: many studies performed after Kettlewell's experiments showed that the moths landed on only one kind of tree trunk, preferring the undersides of horizontal branches of all other kinds of tree. Since the 1980s, everyone has been in agreement that moths land only very, very rarely on tree trunks. Many scientists, such as Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, who conducted a 25-year study on the subject, as well as Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert and Paul Brakefield have declared that "Kettlewell obliged the moths to behave in an unnatural manner in his experiments, for which reason the results of the experiment are scientifically unacceptable."

Researchers investigating Kettlewell's experiment encountered an even more astonishing finding; while there should have been more light-colored moths in unpolluted regions of England there were actually four times as many dark ones. In other words, contrary to what Kettlewell claimed, and what had been reiterated in every evolutionist reference book, there was no correlation between tree bark and the ratios in the moth population.

The American lepidopterist (an expert engaged in scientific study of butterflies and moths) Ted Sargent and other researchers noted that the moths in question did not land on the tree trunks but hid beneath the upper branches. In addition, the moths slept in the day and flew about at night; in other words, when the birds were asleep!90

The more the matter was investigated, the greater the scale of the scandal: the "moths on tree bark" photographed by Kettlewell were actually dead. Since moths settle on the under sides of the branches rather than on the tree trunk, there was effectively no means of obtaining such an image. For that reason, Kettlewell stuck these dead animals to the trees with glue and then photographed them.91

The New York Times made this comment when it was realized that the moths that Darwinists had so loudly portrayed as scientific evidence for around a century were in fact fraudulent: "The most famous example of evolution in action must now become the most infamous"92

When The University of Chicago evolutionary biologist learned about this fraud in 1998, he wrote of his "shame" due to the Industrial Revolution moths he had been teaching his students about for years being a hoax, and compared his reaction to "the dismay attending my discovery, at age 6, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve."93

With the revelation of all these facts, people realized that the tale of the Industrial revolution moths, depicted as "Darwin's missing evidence," was in fact a giant deception. For decades hundreds of millions of people had been deceived by photographs of a few dead moths glued onto a tree and a hoary old tale concerning them. The real truth of the matter is this: the evidence that Darwin needed does not exist and it is impossible for it ever to be found. Because living things did not evolve.

The interesting thing is that the Industrial Revolution moths are still presented in some text books as evidence of evolution. In this way, Darwinists aim to mislead impressionable young minds that are unaware of this fraud. Depicting a fraud as genuine evidence, even though this fraud has already been exposed, is in fact evidence of Darwinism's despair, lack of proof and purely ideological nature. The fact of Creation is clear to see. Darwinists trying to avoid this clear fact imagine they can find a solution by resorting to lies and trickery. But Allah will certainly do away with trickery and falsehood and superstitious religions.

Say, "Truth has come and falsehood has vanished. Falsehood is always bound to vanish." (Surat al-Isra', 81)

15. Haeckel's Embryo Drawings are Fraudulent

Ernst Haeckel and his false embryo drawings.

In his 1868 book Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The History of Natural Creation) Ernst Haeckel suggested that he had made various comparisons using human, monkey and dog embryos. The drawings he produced consisted of nearly identical embryos. On the basis of these drawings, Haeckel then suggested that the life forms involved had common origins.

But the true state of affairs was very different. Haeckel had produced a drawing of just a single embryo, and then produced human, monkey and dog embryos from this by making very small changes. In other words, it was a hoax.

That was the supposed "scientific work" (!) that Darwin cited as a reference in his book The Descent of Man. In fact, some people realized that Haeckel's illustrations were a distortion even before Darwin wrote his book. Following the exposure of the fraud, Haeckel himself admitted the huge scientific fraud he had perpetrated:

After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed.94

But according to Darwinists, in order to keep the dogma of Darwinism propped up, there was a need to declare that one of the false pieces of evidence in their possession was actually "proof of evolution." The fraud perpetrated, or other Darwinists being aware of it, was unimportant for them; what mattered in their eyes was for it to be heralded as evidence of evolution, even if it was fraudulent.

That is the reason why, despite the exposure of the fraud, Darwin and the biologists who supported him continued to regard Haeckel's drawings as a reference source. And that further encouraged Haeckel. In the years that followed he produced further series of comparative embryo illustrations. He prepared diagrams showing fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, rabbit and human embryos side by side. The noteworthy aspect of these was how the embryos of these different life forms initially resembled one another very closely and gradually diverged over the course of their development. The similarity between the human and fish embryos in particular was very striking indeed. So much so that fictitious "gills" could be seen in the human embryo drawings, just as in those of the fish. Under the scientific guise he gave these illustrations, Haeckel launched his "theory of recapitulation": Ontology Repeats Phylogeny. The meaning of the slogan was this; according to Haeckel, during the developmental process it undergoes in the egg or the mother's womb, every living thing repeats the supposed "evolutionary history" of its species, right from the very beginning. According to this false theory, the human embryo in the mother's womb first resembles a fish and then, in subsequent weeks, a salamander, a reptile and a mammal, finally "evolving" into a human being.

But this was a huge fraud.

1. Fish 2. Salamender	3. Turtle 4. Chicken	5. Rabbit 6. Human
Above, Haeckel's false drawings Below, how the drawings should have looked

In the 1990s the British embryologist Michael Richardson examined vertebrate embryos under the microscope and determined no resemblance to Haeckel's drawings. Following their study, Richardson and his team published genuine photographs of embryos in the August 1997 issue of the journal Anatomy and Embryology. It appeared that Haeckel had taken various template designs and distorted them in various ways so that the embryos would resemble one another. He added imaginary organs to embryos, removed organs from others, and depicted embryos of very different sizes as being the same in scale. The clefts that Haeckel depicted as "gills" in the human embryo had in fact nothing to do with gills at all. They were actually the middle ear canal and the beginnings of the parathyroid and thymus glands. The embryos did not in fact resemble one another whatsoever . Haeckel had made innumerable distortions in his illustrations.

An article about Haeckel's drawings, for long maintained on the agenda as false evidence of evolution, appeared in the September 5, 1997, issue of Science magazine titled "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," following which the whole scientific world agreed that there had been a fraud perpetrated. The article contained the following lines:

Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. "It (Haeckel's drawings) looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology,"95

In March 2000 Harvard University evolutionist and paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said that he had long been aware of this fraud but he had preferred to remain silent, as required by the system of the dajjal.96 Once the public had learned that the drawings were fraudulent, Gould stated that it was academic murder for them still to be used and said: "We do, I think, have the right, to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks."97

The modern-day biology book to the left engages in false evolutionary propaganda by using Haeckel's fake drawings. This is important evidence of how broadly and shamelessly the Darwinist deception is perpetrated.

Haeckel's fraud was so blatant and so great that he was accused of fraud by five different professors and found guilty by the Jena University court.98

Sir Gavin de Beer, from Great Britain's Natural History Museum, described this terrible disgrace as follows:

Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel's 'theory of recapitulation,' facile, tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science."99

These false illustrations of Haeckel's in fact achieved their intended aim on behalf of Darwinists. Although they had been declared to be false, they still had a negative impact as a great many people still imagined them to be genuine, and despite their scientific invalidity they still negatively altered the general views regarding living things of people still undergoing education in schools. Henry M. Morris, founder of the Creation Research Society and the Institute of Creation Research analyzed the state of affairs in these terms:

Ever since Darwin—and especially since Freud—psychologists have assumed that man is merely an evolved animal and have evaluated his behavioral problems on an animalistic basis. Experiments with monkeys or other animals (even with insects) are used for guidance in dealing with human problems...

The bitter fruit of the recapitulation theory (long since discredited scientifically) continued to grow in many areas of society...100

Amazingly enough, Haeckel's fraudulent illustrations, described as a scientific disgrace and treated with amazement even by some evolutionists when put forward as evidence, still maintain their place in various text books. This astonishing state of affairs shows the exact scale of the Darwinist deception. University of California molecular biologist Jonathan Wells describes the situation thus:

Many textbooks use slightly redrawn versions of Haeckel's embryos. One example is the 1999 edition of Peter Raven and George Johnson's Biology …

Other examples include the 1998 edition of Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart's Biology: the Unity and Diversity of Life, … the latest edition of James Gould and William Keeton's Biological Science, which reports: "One fact of embryology that pushed Darwin toward the idea of evolution is that the early embryos of most vertebrates closely resemble one another;" and Burton Guttman's 1999 textbook, Biology, which accompanies its redrawn version of Haeckel's embryos with the following: "An animal's embryonic development holds clues to the forms of its ancestors."101

The fact that Haeckel's false illustrations are still used in biology text books, as if they represented proof of evolution, is without doubt no simple error. Despite being forgeries, these illustrations are deliberately included in text books. The main reason for this, without doubt is that they represent significant false evidence for the key point of Darwinism, the falsehood that man is an irresponsible animal. Jonathan Wells makes this comment about this lie deliberately maintained by Darwinist scientists:

Haeckel's embryos seem to provide such powerful evidence for Darwin's theory that some version of them can be found in almost every modern textbook dealing with evolution. Yet biologists have known for over a century that Haeckel faked his drawings; vertebrate embryos never look as similar as he made them out to be. Furthermore, the stage Haeckel labeled the "first" is actually midway through development; the similarities he exaggerated are preceded by striking differences in earlier stages of development. Although you might never know it from reading biology textbooks, Darwin's "strongest single class of facts" is a classic example of how evidence can be twisted to fit a theory.102

Although Darwinists were delighted in the short term that a lie planned by the dajjal was put forward as false evidence for a heretical theory and had such an impact, it in fact heralded terrible disappointment for them. Through Haeckel's drawings, people saw the scale of the deception to which a senior scientist would resort to in the name of Darwinism. It was thus once again proved how Darwinism was in constant need of a "lie." People clearly saw how evolutionists could turn a blind eye to fraud. Haeckel's fraud was another significant piece of evidence of the destruction of the theory of evolution and the system of the dajjal. This fraud may have been met with silence in the 20th Century, but the 21st Century has seen this and similar frauds exposed, and the genuine scientific evidence put on display. The more these frauds have been exposed, and the more genuine scientific evidence produced, the more the collapse of Darwinism has become ever more apparent.

16. The Sequential Evolution of the Horse is a Fraud

In 1879, two well-known evolutionists of the time went even further in their activities intended to constitute evidence for the fictitious evolution of the horse scenario, and set up the equine series that Darwinists would maintain on the agenda for many years to come. The American fossil researcher Othniel Charles Marsh and Thomas Huxley (known as "Darwin's bulldog") established a supposed equine evolutionary series by setting out various hoofed fossils, based on the number of nails on the front and rear feet and the structure of their teeth. One small mammal fossil, previously named Hyracotherium by Sir Richard Owen in 1841, was renamed in such a way as to echo so-called evolution, being given the name Eohippus, meaning "Dawn Horse." The pair published their claims and diagrams in the American Journal of Science, thus laying the foundations for the horses' evolutionary sequence laid out from Eohippus to the present day in museums and text books as supposed evidence of evolution. The main stages in this fictitious series were Eohippus, Orohippus, Miohippus, Hipparion and the present-day Equus.

This fictitious sequence was portrayed as the greatest supposed evidence for the evolution of the horse for the following century. The decrease in the number of toes and the regular increase in size, from smaller to larger, was enough to convince evolutionists.

Shortly afterwards, inconsistencies within the evolutionary sequence began manifesting themselves. New fossils were unearthed, and attempts to insert these into the false sequence presented a problem. The trouble was that characteristics such as the fossils' location, age and toe number formed inconsistencies and impaired the series, which turned into an inconsistent and meaningless mass of fossils in the face of these new specimens.

Many Darwinists were gradually forced to admit that the Darwinist horse evolutionary sequence scenario was not based on any genuine evidence. In November 1980, a 4-day conference was held in the Chicago Museum of Natural History, which was attended by 150 evolutionists, and considered the problems facing the theory of evolution. Boyce Rensberger, who spoke at the conference, described how the horse series had no basis in the fossil record and that no such gradual process as the evolution of the horse ever happened:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.103

Another problem in the fictitious evolution of the horse is that of dating. Doctor Nicholas Comninellis comments:

An additional challenge to the proposal of horse evolution is that the timing is inconsistent. The theory of evolution is based on the concept that one species is prone to evolve into another because it is better adapted for survival. This leads to extinction of the first species. In the case of horses, the three-toed must not have been as hearty as the one-toed. Evolution demands millions of years for transition to occur between species— plenty of time for the first species to die out.

However, today we know that the three-toed and one-toed horses lived together in North America. The fact that varieties of horses co-existed is completely inconsistent with evolution's explanation. Add to this the fact that missing links between Hyracotherium, Miohippus, and Equus have never been identified. Rather than lending support for evolution, the history of the horse is more consistent with special creation—fully formed beings that were created simultaneously.104

Although the invalidity of the evolution of the horse has been brought out into the open day and Darwinists have admitted this state of affairs, this mythical sequence is still used, like other Darwinist frauds, in Darwinist publications and text books. The evolutionary series is depicted as concrete fact and placed on display in museums of natural history curated by world-famous paleontologists and scientists. Dr. Niles Eldredge, an evolutionist paleontologist and the director of the world-renowned American Museum of Natural History, admitted some 20 years ago that evolutionist claims regarding the horse series on display in his own museum were based solely upon their powers of imagination. Eldredge also criticized the way that this speculative series was portrayed as scientific fact to such an extent as to find its way into school books:

I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem.105

The Darwinist Eldredge's analysis is a most accurate one. Since deliberate distortions represent the essence of the system of the dajjal, those who espouse this system resort to deceptions too. All the examples of Darwinist deception listed above have been exposed, and their false nature has even been admitted to by Darwinist scientists. These examples are sufficient to show the true face of the system of the dajjal. But it will still be useful to issue the following reminder: the Theory of Evolution, Darwinist ideology in other words, is built on a lie intended to deny the existence of Allah. Therefore, all the claims, suggestions and evidence produced by Darwinism are false. All the statements to the effect that "proof of evidence has been discovered," "living things evolved," "or "human beings and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor" are lies. Darwinists espouse a lie. Their illogical obedience and devotion to the system of the dajjal is blind devotion to the religion of Darwinism, solely in order to be able to oppose belief in Allah.

The fact is that they espouse a superstition, a terrible error. Almighty Allah, the Lord and Creator of All, says in His verses:

If anyone desires anything other than Islam as a religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers. (Surah Al 'Imran, 85)

Everyone in the heavens and everyone on the earth belong to Allah. Those who call on something other than Allah are not really following their partner-gods. They are only following conjecture. They are only guessing. (Surah Yunus, 66)