The Turkish daily Vatan continues to make unscientific distortions by ignoring the insoluble dilemmas facing the theory of evolution in order to keep Darwinism alive. Most recently, in its 4 March, 2008, edition, the daily used a scientific finding that constitutes no evidence for the theory of evolution as a propaganda tool by hanging all kinds of Darwinist terminology on it.
The Turkish daily Vatan continues to make unscientific distortions by ignoring the insoluble dilemmas facing the theory of evolution in order to keep Darwinism alive. Most recently, in its 4 March, 2008, edition, the daily used a scientific finding that constitutes no evidence for the theory of evolution as a propaganda tool by hanging all kinds of Darwinist terminology on it. (“Monkey-making gene found,” Vatan, 4 March, 2008)
The report in question referred to a study carried out by a study led by Prof. Tayfun Özçelik of Bilkent University in Ankara, the results of which were published in the American National Academy of Sciences journal PNAS. The scientists conducted a genetic analysis of the Ulaş family, who live in the district of Kırıkhan in the province of Hatay and whose children walk on their hands and feet. In the study, the team used all the scanning techniques necessary for genome investigation. DNA regions shared by individuals suffering from the disease were thus identified. As a result, the scientists determined that three different chromosome regions were involved in human beings’ walking on two legs.
Vatan covered this story under the caption “monkey-making gene found,” and thus engaged in unscientific Darwinist propaganda. A response to this distortion, which is no more than facile propaganda, is set out below:
Identifying which features is related to which gene does not prove that the feature emerged through evolution
What we are dealing with here is a finding restricted to “identifying” which genes in DNA are involved in a biological function – walking on two legs. But it is obvious that determining which gene relates to a characteristic does not prove that the feature emerged through evolution. The prominent theoretician of evolution John Maynard Smith admitted this as follows:
The idea that once you"ve found the gene that switches on X, you understand how it evolved is rubbish. 1
Therefore, the fact that this research determined the genes involved in walking upright provides no support for the theory of evolution. On the contrary, in terms of the ability to walk on two legs, the subject matter of the study, and of the features of the DNA molecule, what we have is evidence not of Darwinism, but of creation.
Bipedalism and the facts of creation revealed by DNA
Human bipedalism, or walking on two legs, is made possible by highly sensitive and carefully regulated systems in the spinal column, skull, arms, feet and legs. This system, many times more complex than the most advanced equipment produced by human beings, constitutes a single entity made up of flawless co-operation among muscle, nerve, bone and blood vessel tissues. The condition of the Ulaş family children represents living proof of just how sublime this system really is. Because in the Ulaş family, mutations taking place in the genes involved in bipedalism have had a harmful effect on this complex system, thus obliging the children to walk on their hands and feet. For that reason, the situation of the Ulaş family shows just how far removed from the scientific facts evolutionist claims about mutations really are. Mutations have not improved the members of the Ulaş family’s ability to walk upright, but have rather handicapped them.
DNA, which contains the information regarding the biological systems that make bipedalism possible, is a giant molecule in which the body’s biochemical and physical features are recorded in a special coding system. This long molecule, in which four types of nucleotide referred to by the letters A, T, G and C are set out sequentially, serves as a giant data bank capable of containing as much information as many encyclopaedias. In those terms, DNA resembles a book containing symbols much like the letters in this text and capable of transmitting the necessary data for cell activity by means of these symbols. The communication taking place by way of these symbols goes far beyond the dimension of energy and matter and stems from an infinite “mind.” For example, in the same way that the information you obtain on reading a newspaper is not something rooted in the paper and ink in which it is expressed, so the information encoded in DNA is not something produced by the nucleotide atoms and energy. The author of the newspaper text you read uses paper and ink to express what is in his or her mind. Similarly, the information in DNA, which cannot be accounted for in terms of random development, matter and energy, contains the blueprint from a Creator Who brings all these biological systems into being. There is no doubt that this Creator is Almighty God, Lord of the Worlds. (See, Harun Yahya, The Miracle of Creation in DNA)
The "monkey-making gene" distortion
The way that, although many living things walk on four legs, daily Vatan describes the gene involved in the Ulaş family’s condition as a “monkey-making” gene is literally a Darwinist deception. To suggest that these people have become monkeys solely because they walk on their hands and feet is as nonsensical as to claim that it has turned them into sheep, cats or zebras.
The reason why this distortion is resorted to is that evolutionists are completely silent when it comes to the origin of the ability to walk on two legs. In fact, it is not just bipedalism that is a mystery for evolutionists, but all the elements of the myth of human evolution. The following passage from the evolutionist anthropologist Elaine Morgan is a clear indication of how blindly evolutionists believe in their own fantasies:
Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are: 1) Why do they walk on two legs? 2) why have they lost their fur? 3) why have they developed such large brains? 4) why did they learn to speak?
The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) “We do not yet know”; 2) “We do not yet know”; 3) “We do not yet know”; 4) “We do not yet know.” The list of questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony of the answers. 2
Conclusion:
It needs to be known that the last proponents of the theory of evolution, which is itself in the processing of becoming history, are fanatically devoted to it. It also needs to be known that the way these people need to resort to such facile distortions in their efforts to keep their theory alive, while ignoring the true facts is an indication of the helpless situation of the idea they espouse.
Our advice to the Vatan reporting staff is that they accept the scientific collapse of Darwinism and realise that these cheap distortions can never resurrect their theory.
1 ("Games and Theories", Interview with John Maynard Smith, New Scientist, 14 June 2003, p. 50
2 Elaine Morgan, The Scars of Evolution, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 5
