Dr. Oktar Babuna’s Presentation: “Collapse of the Evolution Theory and the Fact of Creation”

Thank you very much everybody. My best regards and also greetings and ‘salam’ of Mr. Adnan Oktar whom I represent, he sends his greetings specifically to all of you.

Today the topic we’ll talk about is a very important topic; Darwinism. Darwinism claims life originated by chance and this, and also the idea of a selfish struggle in nature inevitably leads to some perverted ideologies like Marxism, fascism and wild capitalism which my colleague will talk about that in detail in a little bit. Karl Marx said about the evolution theory that ''this is the basis in natural history for our view'' and because Darwinism prevailed in the world, more than 300 million people were killed in the 20th Century. It prevails throughout the entire world but it is not based on any scientific evidence, about which I will go into the detail.

Now, Darwinism proposes the lie that human beings came into this world as the result of a series of chance events and that they are a "species of animals." Darwinism furthermore claims that the only law in life is a selfish struggle for survival. The strong individuals survive by crushing the weak individuals and there is a ruthless struggle in nature, where the weak ones get eliminated. And these ideas of course have been the foundation of wars, violence and terrorism that we see in the world today.

Darwinism is the application of materialism onto nature. Materialism absolutely rejects the existence of anything beyond matter. However, science is not obliged to accept such materialistic dogma. Science means exploring nature and deriving conclusions from one’s findings. If these findings lead to the conclusion that nature is created, then science has to accept it. This is the duty of a true scientist, not defending impossible scenarios by defending outdated materialist dogmas of the 19th Century.

Charles Smith is the founder of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism. This is exactly what he said; “Evolution is atheism”. That is the reason why so many people defend it, in spite of the evidence that falsifies Darwinism, to keep atheism alive. That is the reason why Darwinism is defended in spite of these scientific evidence which falsifies Darwinism.

Now, Darwinism’s false god is random mechanisms and chance. They say life emerged by chance events, by natural selection and mutations. I will explain in detail what they mean actually and of course the other speakers also explained what they mean. Evolutionists claim time and chance are capable of creating all these complex design and information in living things. But this is nonsense; it is illogical and unscientific of course.

All life forms are the work of an Omnipotent Mind, Who is Almighty God. We see mathematical perfection, symmetry, harmony and organization wherever we look in the universe. We look at the galaxies with its harmony and organization and the delicate balances. We look at the Earth, animals, plants, atoms, cells and also proteins. Wherever we look we see beautiful mathematical perfection and Omnipotent Intelligence behind that. So there is such a delicate balance, and the slightest deviation from these balances would mean the elimination of the entire system. That is a very powerful evidence for the existence of God.

Now, the most powerful and fundamental evidence which refutes Darwinism is the impossibility of proteins to emerge by chance. You see protein molecules are being synthesized over here. That requires an entire system consisting of amino acids; these are synthesized by proteins and added all together in the ribosome. Ribosomes consist of proteins and RNA molecules. And the three dimensional folding of proteins requires other protein molecules. Basically PROTEINS can only be synthesized by other PROTEINS. For one protein to exist, at least 100 different proteins must exist before, but is this enough? No, DNA must exist, because the right sequence of the amino acid is encoded in the DNA. For DNA to exist, proteins must exist, because DNA is synthesized by the proteins. The ribosome is needed, which is the protein factory to synthesize proteins. And, ribosome is also synthesized by proteins, is this enough? No. An energy organelle is needed, a complete living cell must exist to produce the first protein on the earth. You know what that means? Creation by God. This is the most powerful evidence, the impossibility of proteins to emerge by chance, which refutes and eliminates the Darwinism completely. There is nothing to talk about because the first step is refuted by the science means all other steps are refuted by scientific evidences.

So the Law of the Biogenesis in nature is life comes only from life and that of its kind. So life is only generated from life. Each living cell is replicated by another cell, formed by the replication of another cell. Therefore the first life on earth must have originated from another life. This is the manifestation of the name of God, ‘Hayy’ (meaning, the Owner of Life). Life can only start and continue and end by His will.

Now, neo-Darwinism, which is the "mainstream" argument today, claims that there are two imaginary mechanisms of evolution: "Natural selection" and "mutations". They say this is the claim of Darwinism, that there are two complementary factors. First they say, mutations help new traits to be developed, and suitable ones are selected by natural selection therefore they say living things evolve. But this is very unscientific.

First, you see this is a slide about the natural selection and mutations always cause asymmetry and pathology. I will go into detail. Natural selection holds that the living things which are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will succeed and produce an offspring, and those, which are unfit, will vanish. Take this example over here. If a herd of deer is threatened by predators like jaguars, leopards or lions for example, of course those which run faster will survive. That is true. However no matter how long this process goes on there will be only faster running deer. It will not transform it into another species such as horses, because natural selection cannot change DNA by any means. It cannot add new genetic information; it cannot generate brand-new proteins or brand new organs. It only eliminates the weak or sick individuals from the population. Natural selection is not capable of planning and foresight. So, it is impossible for a blind and unconscious mechanism such as natural selection to have created all these complex design and information in living things. What is nature? Nature is air, soil and rocks. Nature itself is created; it cannot have any consciousness. The consciousness belongs to the omnipotent intelligence of God.

So natural selection is not a conscious mechanism of course. That is the reason why Charles Darwin admitted in his book, he is the first one who talked about natural selection. But in his book he said, "Natural selection can do nothing until favorable variations chance to occur”. And as the cause of these favorable variations, the Neo-Darwinists had to add “mutations.” What are mutations? Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements in the complex structure, the extremely complex structure of the DNA. Changing of the letters, insertions of new letters or deletions of the letters out of the DNA. These are breaks or replacements. They only cause cancer, disability or death; there is no beneficial mutation. Even though some scientists say there are silent mutations, even in most of the silent mutations, it is understood that those are harmful to the organisms. Mutations are caused during replication of the DNA, the copying of the DNA, or by external harmful effects such as ultraviolet radiation or chemical substances. And they are only damaging and degenerate; they cause cancer for example, as well as pathologies, asymmetry, disability and death. Because it is like hitting a computer with a hammer. Hitting a computer with a hammer never generates better computers. Everybody knows that, you don’t need to be a scientist to understand that.

The most famous biology textbook in the world is called Campbell and Reece. It is a standard textbook all over the world. In this textbook, although it defends evolution and Darwinism, in the mutations section it says; for mutations to be beneficial, it is like shooting the hood of the car. Of course shooting the car never makes the engine better he says. But although he knows that mutations are not beneficial, in the following pages he still defends mutations as a beneficial mechanism and backs evolution. Then, this is not being a scientist of course. This can only be a pagan preacher because it's a pagan ideology. Darwinism defends a pagan religion.

So, if we summarize why mutations are not an evolutionary mechanism: The direct effect of mutations is harmful. Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA. All the examples given by some evolutionists such as sickle cell anemia, CCR5 mutations of the HIV, or the citric acid cycle in E. coli experiments all have damaging effects decreasing the information in the genome. So there is no beneficial mutation. That is the reason why Richard Dawkins was asked to give a single example of a beneficial mutation and he stopped the recording, he could not answer. According to Darwinism there should be trillions of beneficial mutations. He was asked to give one example and Richard Dawkins looked into the air for 17 seconds and he stopped the recording.

Now the fossils, we have 600 million fossils today. Fossils are the remnants of the living things, which lived in the past. For example you see a frog fossil over here these are the remnants. Millions of years old, sometimes the whole skeleton, sometimes piece of a skull, sometimes even one single tooth. We have 600 million fossils today. But as you see over here the fossils appear abruptly and they never change in the history of life. 600 million fossils, yet it is asserted by the evolutionists that the fossils of living things appeared over billions of years by successive random changes in the DNA: Successive random changes they say, over billions of years. Of course, then evolutionists have to show us fossilized examples. They have to show us; if evolution would be a fact of course, they have to show us half fish, half amphibian fossils. For example, 90 percent fish, 10 percent amphibians. All the transitions have to be pathologically asymmetrical through mutations because of the random mechanism of mutations. They have to show us half amphibians, half reptiles, and they have to show us transitional forms from reptiles to mammals. These are the so-called transitional forms. If there are no transitional forms of course that means no evolution.

Now we have 600 million fossils today. You see from the fossil evidence that the fossils appear suddenly, abruptly and in complete form and never change during their tenure on the Earth. This is, I want to explain to you over here, evolutionists say the starfish evolved into fish over a 100 million-year period. So we look at the fossil evidence. Of course we have to see the scientific evidences of this. Do we have starfish fossils? Yes, we have millions of them. We have millions of starfish fossils. Do we have fish fossils? Yes, we have millions of them. So do we have these transitions, half fish and half starfish? 90 percent fish and 10 percent starfish; or 95 percent fish and five percent starfish? No, we don't have even a single example of this. You know what that means? God did not create through evolution, but God did create through sudden creation with His commandment “Be.” And millions of fossils verify this evidence; verify this fact.

So we ask Charles Darwin. We look into his book in The Origin of Species, what did he say about the transitional forms? Because he said evolution must have transitional forms, if evolution is a fact. Let's see what he says. Darwin said: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations.” So he said species evolve to other species gradually and randomly through transitional forms. “…do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?” We do not see transitional forms because there are no transitional forms of course. “Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the Earth? Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 172, 280) Darwin himself said there are no transitional forms. Of course, no transitional forms means, no evolution. He said why do not we have them, because we do not have a transitional form. He said we look at every layer, single layer, so there are a lot of fossils, more than enough fossils in this time. But he said maybe in the future, it will be found.

Now we look at today, this is one of the most prominent paleontologists. Paleontologist means fossil scientist. This is the most prominent paleontologist of the world and he is a Darwinist. His name is Niles Eldredge, he is the curator of the American Natural History Museum. He said: “The record jumps,” the fossil record jumps he said. Horses, elephants, birds, reptiles, and nothing in between, it jumps. That means no transitional forms. “… and all the evidence shows that the record is real.” He said the evidence shows that this record is real. “The gaps we see,” that means no transitional forms we see, “reflect real events in life's history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record.” (Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59)

So he admits that there are no transitional forms. Darwin said there are no transitional forms. Stephen Jay Gould said there are no transitional forms, then we ask of course why do these people defend Darwinism and evolution if there are no transitional forms? That is, in the very beginning I explained to you. As Charles Smith said, evolution is atheism. In spite of the scientific evidences, to keep atheism alive, they defend this Darwinism nonsense. So, facts from paleontology, you see what was the expectation of Darwinism. First a single cell would come into being by chance and then it would diversify all these organisms we have today. From a single cell to all other species is what they were expecting, right? And this is the real fossil evidence.

This line represents the Cambrian era 540 million years ago. This line. Before that, like 600 million years ago for example, there were only three different phyla. Phylum means specific animal groups that have a certain body plan, body structure. Like this for example the Crustaceans; mollusks, nematodes, arthropods. That kind of a structure according to their body plan, here there are only three of them.

THE DNA: ONE OF THE PROOFS OF CREATION

The DNA molecule that serves as a databank, 40 times larger than the world’s greatest encyclopedia, with millions of different entries.

They are called Cnidarians or Porifera; sponges for example, there were some sponges and worms. And those kind of animals existed, and here are three of them. 540 million years ago in the Cambrian era, explosively, that's the reason why they call it the “Cambrian explosion”, 50 different phyla came into existence with the commandment “Be” of God. 50 different animal groups and you know what happened with time, only it decreased with time today. Today we have 35 of these phyla. But you see they appeared all at once. Boom, like this, with the creation of God, the 50 different animal groups came into being. And then remain 35 different animal groups.

At the very beginning Cyanobacteria was the first living cell on earth. It is 3.8 billion years ago the first cell on earth came into existence all of a sudden with sudden creation. That is a blue algae, it's called Cyanobacteria that produces oxygen through photosynthesis. It is an extremely complex living cell and it comes into existence all at once, that means sudden evolution not creation through evolution of course. And this is from the Cambrian period. Vertebrate and invertebrate animals, of course some vertebrate fish were also found at the end of 1990’s in China.

All these animal groups and I want you to pay attention to this living being over here, it's called Anomalocaris. The fossil was found in 2012. I will also explain to you the trilobite. They have an eye structure, which is called a “compound eye structure”, consisting of many lenses. It is an extremely complex eye structure and this is the first eye in the history of life as an organ. Before that there are some light sensitive cells that exist in the three phyla that I showed you before. However these are the first animals with the first eye in the history of earth like this eye of the Anomalocaris. Now, I have two eyes with two lenses right, one lens over here the other over here. But this living being Anomalocaris has 16,000 lenses in one eye, 16,000 lenses in the second eye, a total of 32,000 lenses. This is called the compound eye structure and it appears all of a sudden. That means sudden creation. Or the trilobite eye that you see over here, it consists of 3,000 lenses that also appear all at once in the Cambrian era. We have that kind of an eye structure in the modern insects today, in the bees for example, in the flies, in the dragonfly. Extremely complex eye structure appears all of a sudden in the history of life that means creation with the commandment “Be” of God.

Now if you ask evolutionists they sometimes give less than a dozen transitional forms. The most famous one of these fossils is Archaeopteryx over here and the Tiktaalik roseae. They talk too much about these and there are some others of course. But, for this Archaeopteryx, although evolutionists claimed this is the ancestor of the bird, it is understood that it is a full bird. The most prominent ornithologists, meaning scientists who research the origin of flight, admit this. Alan Fedducia is one of the most famous of them, he is also a Darwinist, a defender of Darwinism. He said it's a full bird, a perfect bird. The sternum bone was missing but it was found in 1919’s in Germany.

And this is Tiktaalik roseae. In 2004 it was in the world media all over the place as a transitional form. They said this with claims that it is a half-land, half-fish organism, but it turned out to be a forgery. Because they found a flat skull, this skull belongs to a crocodile very similar to the Alligator sinensis, which lives in China. Only the skull was found and then a body, a fish body was added to that to make it look like something between the land and sea animals. It is a forgery. Why do these people do forgeries? Because there is a lack of evidence, there are no transitional forms. They generate fossils, fake fossils, which belong to either extinct species or complete forgeries to support Darwinism. Now, here is the famous myth of the ancestor of man.

They are embarrassed to claim that the so-called ancestor of man is an ape. What they do is they call it a common ancestor. If they find skulls for example which belong to apes, extinct ape species, which we have more than 6,500 that lived throughout history. Nowadays, only 120 of them are alive. So they find some extinct ape species’ skulls and they put it in an order from the smaller to the larger one and they add some vanished human races to that at the end, and they say this is the evolution of humans. They never say humans’ ancestor is an ape, but there is a common ancestor because they are embarrassed to say that their ancestors are apes. But always they show us some extinct ape species. What they do is if they find a piece of a skull mostly, it can be a tooth, a piece of a skull or a complete skull. They go to their workshops. This is the most famous Darwinist artist of the world. He generates his imagination all the time. His name is John Gurche. In his lab, he takes cast from human beings. This is his friend actually. He has taken a cast from him. Then he starts to play, to play around with this cast. He generates something like this. At the end this is complete imaginary based on no scientific evidence. He generates something like this as if a half-ape, half-human fossil lived in the past. And here it is looking at you and he put some human eyes at the end. So if you would give this piece of skull for example to 100 different artists they would generate 100 different illustrations. So it does not have any scientific value. Of course, here are fake reconstructions where they took an orangutan and on purpose put human eyes to make it look like half-human, half-orangutan looking at you. But this is all fake doesn't have any scientific value.

So, I want to give you some examples of forgeries, there are many forgeries. This one is called Nebraska Man. In this Nebraska Man they found a single tooth in the state of Nebraska, the United States years and years ago. Based on a single tooth, they made illustrations of his family, his cousins, his children, his father, and his mother. Based on a single tooth. You know what happened after that; they found that the rest of the fossil turned out to belong to a pig. And they apologized of course. This is Haeckel, Ernst Haeckel, he did some illustrations based on the embryo. He did similar drawings of human, monkey and dog embryos to make them look like they resemble each other. Then he admitted he had done fraudulent drawings. You know what he said. I'm not going to apologize he said, because everybody else is doing fraudulent drawings or forgeries. That was his excuse. Or, Piltdown Man for example, for 40 years it was displayed at the British Museum. They found a skull, the skull belonged to a human. They added the jaw of an ape and teeth of a human being, and they generated this. For 40 years it was displayed in the British Museum, and it turned out to be a forgery also. They then apologized. So Darwinists always do that, because not having any evidence to support Darwinism, they generate these illustrations, such forgeries without having any scientific evidence.

This is from Discovery magazine actually titled, “Is this the face of our past?” They found this in Gran Dolina, a Spanish paleontologist found the skull. It is 800,000 years old and exactly looks like an 11-year old child’s skull. This looks like a modern skull of a living person today. So all the evidence falsifies Darwinism and supports the fact of Creation by God.

Now another forgery from our time is the lemur fossil found in 2009. There are extinct species of lemurs also, and they presented this as the ancestor of men. The BBC, The New York Times, all the magazines, The Guardian, in the Turkish media, everywhere it was presented as the ancestor of man. Mr. Adnan Oktar stated this is a lemur fossil, not the ancestor of man and it only belongs to a lemur, which is a monkey with a tail. In a few months BBC apologized with headlines, “Primate fossil not an ancestor.’’ The New York Times said, “Fossil skeleton known as IDA is no ancestor of humans.”

This always happens. They present it first, it is like brainwashing. And everybody reads that and at the end they apologize. So, science is anti-Darwinist, anti-atheist, science is the enemy of Darwinism. Science is against Darwinism; science is anti-communist, and anti-Marxist. Science destroys Marxist, atheist and Darwinist thought.

All the religions teach us one fact, the Fact of Creation. Creation by omnipotent intelligence in other words by Almighty God, with His commandment “Be.” This is what religions teach with reason and scientific evidences. This is also same in all the Divine faiths. We are being taught the Creation of God. So science is compatible with religion. Some people say, “do not confuse religion with science.” However this is a misconception. What contradicts with science is evolution. Evolution is not science. It is defended in the face of so many scientific evidence, the non-existence of transitional forms, and the impossibility of proteins to appear by chance. And all this complexity and information in living things falsify the claims of Darwinism one by one. And also, you don't have any transitional forms.

And could God create through evolution?

Of course, God could have created through evolution, but then we would have all the transitions between the species. And I would be, and all my friends and the Honorary Chairman of TBAV, Mr. Adnan Oktar would be one of the most powerful defenders of evolution of course. But God did not create through evolution. So why should we defend evolution then? Evolution is not science.

The problem with evolution is that evolution claims the emergence of life to be the result of random mechanisms, mutations and natural selection. If somebody, any believer goes to the side of evolution that opens the way to atheism, and then to be an unbeliever. God created with sudden creation, not through evolution, that is what science shows us. In one verse in the Qur’an -I seek refuge in God from the accursed satan- God reveals:

“Everything is obedient to Him. The Originator of the heavens and earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it ‘Be!’ and it is.” (Surat al-Baqara, 116-117)

Mr. Adnan Oktar has written more than 300 books, translated into 76 different languages.

God created with His commandment “Be” and we know this from the fossil evidence. We see the species appear all at once and suddenly in the history of life. For example, if we go back enough in time, we meet the plant and the first animal. And we meet, 3.8 billion years ago, the first living cell. And again being alive is something completely different. This is the manifestation of God’s name “Hayy”. Only God may create and sustain life. Only God may start and continue life by His will. So, science and religion are compatible of course, what is not compatible with science is evolution.

And we see mathematical perfection in living things, for example, the golden ratio. We look at the plants, we look at the galaxies, we look at the DNA, and we see the golden ratio. Golden ratio is a number, which was discovered by Fibonacci in the Middle Ages. It is 1.618, this is the golden ratio that God uses in the plants and in the snails for example. Also we see it in the galaxies, in our DNA, in our face, in our teeth, and the fingers. Wherever we look we see this golden ratio. This is the mathematical perfection of God’s Creation. And symmetry is another aspect. God has no need for natural laws for Creation. God is the Creator of the natural laws, sometimes believers are under the influence of naturalism. Yet, all the laws of nature are created by God. God is not bound to the natural laws He created. He can change them anytime He wills. God creates in particular ways; for instance, He uses some stages in His Creation. For example for a human being He uses the sperm and egg cell. When they come together, in their junction a human being is brought to life in various embryological stages. Or out of seed, God creates the plant, but this does not have anything to do with evolution. Through the same DNA, God uses certain stages for Creation.

But evolution, which is the emergence of life by chance events, is impossible. And there is no mechanism for evolution, and this is a very important issue also. And this fact is also stated in the Bible. God reveals:

“When they heard this, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, You are God, Who have made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them.” (Acts, 4:24)

“God, Who made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth.” (Acts, 17:24)

Now lastly, this is actually a very important issue. We live in our brains. Everything we perceive comes as electric signals to certain parts of our brain. There is no light outside scientifically in the atoms there is no light. It is complete darkness outside. The photons are coming from the electrons emitted from the electrons, entering the lens and hitting the retina where there are the nerve cells that generate electric signals. There is complete silence, complete darkness, in our brain. These electric signals are interpreted as color, as vision, as hearing, as music for example, or as a smell of strawberry or banana. Now we are only in direct contact with the perceptions in our minds. We have never heard, we have never tasted, we have never touched, we have never seen the real existing anything beyond this perceptions. You know what that means; there must be an inner-eye, which can see. There must be an inner-ear to listen to this music. There must be an inner-hand, which can touch the hardness of the materials. The matter is not hard. There is no hardness of the matter, there is no color or vision outside, but there is an inner-eye, which can see that. Inevitably that leads to the fact that there must be a soul. The soul, which God breathes into our bodies, this is the soul of human beings. And these perceptions are created by God. This is the most powerful evidence, which destroys materialism and Darwinism. This is the existence of the soul, for that reason Darwinists never talk about the existence of the soul. If there is a soul, there is God. So, of course, this fact leads to the inevitable existence of God.

Eternal existence was created in an infinite fraction of time. God created the past, the time that we live in now, and the future and finished it. So all of the scientific evidence again shows us one important fact: God is the Creator of everything, and God created through sudden Creation not through evolution. There is no evolutionary mechanism, even a single protein to emerge by chance is impossible, DNA impossible, they must coexist in a living cell to produce a single protein. And Cyanobacteria are the first living cells that appeared on earth. This is a complete living cell, which can do photosynthesis. And all the species appear abruptly, perfectly formed.

There are 700 million fossils that falsify claims of Darwinism. That means the 21st Century will be a century without Darwinism, without perverted ideologies of fascism and communism. Love will prevail throughout the world. We are living in very specific times. The signs, the wars, the terrorism that we are living through right now are the signs of these specific times we are living in right now. In the very near future, in five to ten years, the world will be a very different world. The love, which has been taken away from the world, will return back to the world and we will have very good times, we are very hopeful in that.

Thank you.

Fossil darkling beetle 100 million years old	Fossil halfbeak 52 million years old	Fossil sycamore leaf 54 - 37 million years old

Distylium Leaf Period: Eocene Age: 50 million years Region:Green River Formation, Bonanza, Utah, USA	Ground Cricket Period: Cretaceous Age: 125 million years Region:Santana Formation, Araripe Basin, Brazil

Mantis Period: Cretaceous Age: 100 million years Region:Burma	Coelacanth  Period: Triassic Age: 210 million years Region:Madagascar
The fossil in the picture is a double aspect positive-negative one.

Jellyfish Period: Cambrian Age: 500 million years Region: Wisconsin, USA	Trumpet Coral (Caulastrea curvata) Period: Jurassic Age: 150 million years Region:Germany

Fossil bird - Confuciusornis Sanctus  Period: Cretaceous Age: 125 million years Region: China

The Idea That "Mutations Cause Evolution" Is a Falsehood

Mutations are dislocations, breaks and impairments as a result of radiation or chemical effects in the DNA molecule in the nucleus of the living cell which carries all the information about a human being. The information in DNA is set out by 4 separate nucleotides, symbolized by the letters A, T, C and G, laid out in a special and significant sequence. But an error in a single letter in that sequence will damage the entire structure. For example, the leukemia observed in children appears because one of the nucleotide sequences in the DNA is incorrect. The reason for diseases such as cancer appearing or subsequent generations being deformed as a result of the radiation leakage at Chernobyl, or the atom bomb dropped over Hiroshima, is again because of the harmful effects of mutations occurring in people's bodies. Almost all mutations are harmful, and they are generally lethal to living things. Examples of mutations that are not harmful generally do the organism no good, and are at best neutral. Scientists have concluded that not a single mutation, out of all those that have been studied, has ever had a positive effect on the life of an organism.1 But the theory of evolution is based on these fictitious mutations that supposedly produce "new" living things and work miracles. Darwinists maintain that species emerge from one another through structures and organs appearing as a result of countless fictitious and beneficial mutations. This claim, which is a source of terrible shame for Darwinists, is put forward by Darwinist scientists who know that mutations always harm an organism. Furthermore, Darwinists are well aware of these harmful effects of mutations yet they still point to a mutant, four-winged fruit fly. The four-winged fruit fly emerged as a result of being subjected to radiation in the laboratory. Darwinists use this example in support of their claims. Darwinists portrayed the extra pair of wings produced in a fruit fly as a result of laboratory-engineered mutations as the greatest evidence that mutations could lead to evolution. But the two wings in question actually damage the creature rather than benefiting it, leading to its losing the ability to fly. The University of California at Berkeley molecular biologist Jonathan Wells summarizes the position as follows: In the 1970s, Cal Tech geneticist Edward B. Lewis discovered that by carefully breeding three mutant strains he was able to produce a fruit fly in which the balancers were transformed into a second pair of normal-looking wings. At first glance, this might seem to provide evidence for Carroll's claim that small developmental changes in regulatory DNA can produce large evolutionary changes in form. But the fruit fly is still a fruit fly. Furthermore, although the second pair of wings looks normal, it has no flight muscles. A four-winged fruit fly is like an airplane with a second pair of wings dangling uselessly from its tail. It has great difficulty flying or mating, so it can survive only in the laboratory. As evidence for evolution, a four-winged fruit fly is no better than a two-headed calf in a circus sideshow.2 Jonathan Wells continues: Disabled fruit flies with extra wings or missing legs have taught us something about developmental genetics, but nothing about evolution. All of the evidence points to one conclusion: no matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes – a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even a horsefly, much less a horse.3 As we have seen, the four-winged mutant fruit fly that is the only evidence that Darwinists point to in support of their warped claims is in fact nothing more than a disabled fruit fly. No matter what effect mutations may have on a life form, they do not possess the miraculous property of bestowing a characteristic belonging to another life form onto it. But Darwinists want people to believe the lie that miracles occur in living things by way of mutations. The interesting thing is that although Darwinist scientists know that the fruit fly in question is defective, attempts are still made to depict it as the greatest evidence for evolution by mutation in school textbooks. Jonathan Wells writes: According to Peter Raven and George Johnson's 1999 textbook, Biology, "all evolution begins with alterations in the genetic message… Genetic change through mutation and recombination [the re-arrangement of existing genes] provides the raw materials for evolution." The same page features a photo of a four-winged fruit fly, which is described as "a mutant because of changes in Ultrabithorax, a gene regulating a critical stage of development; it possesses two thoracic segments and thus two sets of wings." Adding to the confusion, textbook accounts typically leave the reader with the impression that the extra wings represent a gain of structures. But four-winged fruit flies have actually lost structures which they need for flying. Their balancers are gone, and instead of being replaced with something new have been replaced with copies of structures already present in another segment. Although pictures of four-winged fruit flies give the impression that mutations have added something new, the exact opposite is closer to the truth.4 The harmful effects of mutations can clearly be seen in the living creatures illustrated. Mutations either cripple or kill. Mutations cannot improve living things, they can only harm them. Even if we assume that the "fictitious first cell" that Darwinists claim represents the beginning of life and that cannot possibly have come into being by chance did actually emerge spontaneously, even the smallest stage of the imaginary evolutionary process that would have to take place to give rise to a human with his complex structure would require an astounding amount of information to be produced and countless mutations to take place. "All" of these many mutations have to be beneficial to the life form or else bring about the appearance of something "new." A single error in this fictitious developing life form will cause the entire system to go wrong and collapse. Ninety-nine percent of mutations are harmful while only one percent are neutral. It flies in the face of both reason and science, therefore, to suggest that every single one of these mutations that would have to take place according to the theory of evolution can be beneficial. It is therefore impossible for a brand new organ or characteristic that did not exist before to appear by chance as the result of mutations. Mutations have no power to bestow new information on a life form that does not belong to it, or to turn it into a different organism. The idea of mutation represents the greatest manifestation of the falsehood and illogicality of Darwinism because the idea of evolution is based on these illusory "beneficial mutations" that do not in fact exist. The Infinite Amount of Time Needed for Hypothetical Beneficial Mutations Even if we hypothesize that beneficial mutations could take place, the idea of mutation is still incompatible with the theory of evolution. In a paper titled "The Inadequacy of Neo-Darwinian Evolution As a Scientific Theory," Professor Murray Eden from the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Faculty of Electrical Engineering showed that if it required a mere six mutations to bring about an adaptive change, this would occur by chance only once in a billion years - while, if two dozen genes were involved, it would require 10,000,000,000 years, which is much longer than the age of the Earth.5 Even if we assume that mutations were effective and beneficial in complex organs, and structures requiring more than one mutation to occur at the same time, mathematicians still say the problem of time is an acute dilemma for Darwinists. Even Professor of Paleontology George G. Simpson, one of the most unrepentant Darwinists, clearly states that it would take an infinite length of time for five mutations to happen at the same time.6 An infinite amount of time means zero probability. And that is a probability which applies to all the structures and organs possessed by living things. Thus, there is no possibility of the glorious variety of life we see in our daily lives coming about through mutations. The evolutionist George G. Simpson has performed another calculation regarding the mutation claim in question. He admitted that in a community of 100 million individuals, which could hypothetically produce a new generation every day, a positive outcome from mutations would only take place once every 274 billion years. That number is many times greater than the age of the Earth, estimated to be at 4.5 billion years old.7 These, of course, are all calculations assuming that mutations have a positive effect on the generations which gave rise to them, and on subsequent generations; but no such assumption applies in the real world. Why Is the Body That Is Supposedly Evolving Protected against Mutations? All evolutionist scientists know that the probability of a replication error occurring in a living organism's DNA for no reason is very low. Research has revealed that there are protective elements in the cell that prevent genetic errors from arising. The information in DNA cannot be copied in the absence of particular enzymes that control one another against errors. These include double-filter enzymes for ensuring that the right amino acid binds to the right tRNA. One filter rejects amino acids that are too large, and the other those that are too small. This is a very sensitive and rational system. There are also enzymes that do final checks against the possibility of any error arising in this intelligent system. Scientists have concluded that they could not imagine a better cellular control and protection system aimed at maintaining the integrity of DNA.8 Pierre Paul Grassé, who spent 30 years as professor of evolution at the Sorbonne, wrote this on the subject: The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer's "Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecules leading to the formation of the eye.9 Darwinists ignore this miraculous system present in DNA and avoid going deeply into the subject and coming up with any explanation of it; yet they construct a scenario of the history of life built on replication errors with an almost zero possibility of happening. This once again reveals the nonsensical nature of Darwinist logic. Following the realization that Darwin's idea of natural selection most definitely did not constitute an account of evolution and the emergence of the laws of genetics becoming a lethal blow to Darwinism, the claim of the "evolutionary effect of mutations," which had been the main weapon of neo-Darwinism, was seen to be no more than a deception. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that a mechanism such as a mutation, which damages, destroys and kills the living organism, as well as sometimes harming all subsequent generations, can give rise to entirely new living things. But masses of people were taken in by this lie for years. Darwinist scientists of course know that mutations have no such miraculous power. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the present day's most fervid Darwinists, admits that "most mutations are deleterious, so some undesirable side effect is pretty likely."10 The reason why Darwinists still propose this discredited claim as a mechanism for evolution is their devotion to the superstitious religion of Darwinism.

“Piltdown Man” was a Hoax

In 1912, Charles Dawson, a well-known doctor and also an amateur paleontologist, claimed to have found a jaw bone and skull fragment in a depression near Piltdown, England. Although the jaw bone resembled an ape jaw, the teeth and skull resembled those of a human being. The fossils were given the name "Piltdown Man," dated at 500,000 years old, and put on display in the British Museum as the most significant evidence of so-called human evolution. A great many scientific papers, analyses and illustrations were produced over the next 40 years. Some 500 academics from different universities wrote doctoral theses about Piltdown Man.11 On a visit to the British Museum in 1935, the well-known American paleoanthropologist H. F. Osborn said, "... Nature is full of paradoxes... a discovery of transcendent importance to the prehistory of man."12 But Piltdown Man was a huge fraud, a deliberately manufactured hoax. In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the British Museum Paleontology Department sought permission to use the newly developed "fluoride test" on a number of ancient fossils. The Piltdown Man fossil was duly tested using the technique. The test revealed that there was no fluoride in the Piltdown Man jaw bone. This meant that the jaw bone had been underground for no more than a few years. The skull itself contained a small amount of fluoride and must have been a few thousand years old.

Subsequent chronological research based on the fluoride technique revealed that the skull was no more than a few thousand years in age. It was also realized that the teeth in the jaw bone had been artificially worn down, and that the primitive tools found beside the fossils were replicas carved out using steel equipment.13 Oxford professor of physical anthropology Joseph Weiner's detailed analyses definitively confirmed this fraud in 1953. The skull was human, around 500 years old, while the jaw bone belonged to a recently deceased orangutan! The teeth had been added on and set afterwards to give the impression of being human, and the insertion points had been planed down. All the fragments had then been stained with potassium dichromate in order to give an aged appearance. This staining disappeared when the bones were placed in acid. Le Gros Clark, from the team that exposed the hoax, was unable to conceal his amazement and said: "The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked-how was it that they had escaped notice before?"14 The science writer Hank Hanegraaff referred to this astonishing state of affairs as follows: ... as Marvin Lubenov explains, 'The file marks on the orangutan teeth of the lower jaw were clearly visible. The molars were misaligned and filed at two different angles. The canine tooth had been filed down so far that the pulp cavity had been exposed and then plugged.15 Following this surprising and, for Darwinists, embarrassing discovery, Piltdown Man was hastily removed from the British Museum where it had been on display for some 40 years. The Darwinist deception was so enormous that a hand-made fossil had fooled the whole scientific world and all mankind for 40 years. This would inevitably go down as one of the blackest marks in the history of evolution.