RETURNINGTOFAITH.COMhttp://returningtofaith.comreturningtofaith.com - Evolution Dictionary - Recently AddedenCopyright (C) 1994 returningtofaith.com 1RETURNINGTOFAITH.COMhttp://returningtofaith.comhttp://harunyahya.com/assets/images/hy_muhur.png11666Zinjanthropus

These three totally different reconstructions based on the fossil Zinjanthropus are an excellent example of how imaginatively evolutionists often interpret fossils.

So far have evolutionists gone in their adoption of evolution as a dogma that they can even ascribe very different faces to the same skull to provide supposed evidence for their theories.

The three totally different reconstructions produced for the fossil known as Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus) are a well-known example of this attitude. (See Australopithecus.)
]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16666/zinjanthropushttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16666/zinjanthropusMon, 17 Aug 2009 17:01:19 +0300
Watson, James

When Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, they revealed that life had a far more complex structure than had previously been imagined.

The famous American biologist James Watson is best known for his work in the field of molecular biology. He and Francis Crick revealed the extraordinarily complex structure in DNA as a result of their joint work in 1955.

Watson and Crick's discovery of nucleic acids-DNA and RNA, for short-gave birth to new problems for the theory of evolution. With their discovery of the structure of DNA, they also revealed that life was far more complex than had previously been imagined.

The theory of evolution seeks to account for the origin of life in terms of coincidences, but cannot provide any consistent explanation regarding the existence of the most basic molecules. And these advances in genetic science represented a major impasse facing evolutionists.

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16665/watson-jameshttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16665/watson-jamesMon, 17 Aug 2009 17:00:32 +0300
Wallace, Alfred Russell

Alfred Russel Wallace

The British natural historian Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913) is known for the idea that species emerged through natural selection. In a paper he wrote in 1855 titled "On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species," Wallace maintained that all species were extensions of other species to which they were closely related.

Despite developing his thesis at approximately the same time as Darwin, Wallace held different views on a number of points. As a believer in the human soul, Wallace believed that Allah had created by means of evolution, and maintained that human mental capacities could not be explained in terms of natural selection and similar naturalistic mechanisms. In contrast to Darwin, he believed that non-biological factors outside natural selection were responsible for the emergence of human physical traits and mental capabilities.274

274. "Darwin or Wallace?: Scientific and Religious Interpretations of the Human Being," H. James Birx,

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/darwin.html

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16664/wallace-alfred-russellhttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16664/wallace-alfred-russellMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:59:58 +0300
Vestigial Organs Thesis, TheOne claim that long occupied a place in the literature of evolution but was quietly abandoned once it was realized to be false is the concept of vestigial organs. Some evolutionists, however, still imagine that such organs represent major evidence for evolution and seek to portray them as such.

A century or so ago, the claim was put forward that some living things had organs that were inherited from their ancestors, but which had gradually become smaller and even functionless from lack of use.

Those organs were in fact ones whose functions had not yet been identified. And so, the long list of organs believed by evolutionists to be vestigial grew ever shorter. The list of originally proposed by the German anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 contain approximately 100 organs, including the human appendix and the coccyx. But the appendix  was eventually realized to be a part of the lymph system that combats microbes entering the body, as was stated in one medical reference source in 1997:

Other bodily organs and tissues--the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and small collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer's patch in the small intestine-are also part of the lymphatic system. They too help the body fight infection. 271

The tonsils, which also appeared on that same list of vestigial organs, were likewise discovered to play an important role against infections, especially up until adulthood. (Like the appendix, tonsils sometimes become infected by the very bacteria they seek to combat, and so must be surgically removed.)  The coccyx, the end of the backbone, was seen to provide support for the bones around the pelvic bone and to be a point of fixation for certain small muscles.

In the years that followed, other organs regarded as vestigial were shown to serve specific purposes: The thymus gland activates the body's defense system by setting the T cells into action. The pineal gland is responsible for the production of important hormones. The thyroid establishes balanced growth in babies and children. The pituitary ensures that various hormone glands are functioning correctly.

Today, many evolutionists accept that the myth of vestigial organs stemmed from sheer ignorance. The evolutionist biologist S.R. Scadding expresses this in an article published in the magazine Evolutionary Theory:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.272

Evolutionists also make a significant logical error in their claim that vestigial organs in living things are a legacy from their ancestors: Some organs referred to as "vestigial" are not present in the species claimed to be the forerunners of man.

For example, some apes have no appendix. The zoologist Professor Hannington Enoch, an opponent of the vestigial organ thesis, sets out this error of logic:

Apes possess an appendix, whereas their less immediate relatives, the lower apes, do not; but it appears again among the still lower mammals such as the opossum. How can the evolutionists account for this? 273

The scenario of vestigial organs put forward by evolutionists contains its own internal inconsistencies, besides being scientifically erroneous. We humans have no vestigial organs inherited from our supposed ancestors, because humans did not evolve randomly from other living things, but were fully and perfectly created in the form we have today.

271. The Merck Manual of Medical Information, Home edition, Rahway, New Jersey: Merck & Co., Inc. The Merck Publishing Group, , 1997.
272. S. R. Scadding, "Do ‘Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?," Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.
273. Hannington Enoch, Creation or Evolution, New York, 1966, pp. 18-19.

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16662/vestigial-organs-thesis-thehttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16662/vestigial-organs-thesis-theMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:57:26 +0300
VariationVariation is a term used in genetic science, and concerns the emergence of different varieties, or species. This genetic phenomenon causes individuals or groups within a given species to possess different features from others. For example, all human beings on Earth possess essentially the same genetic information. But thanks to the variation potential permitted by that genetic information, some people have round eyes, or red hair, or a long nose, or are short and stocky in stature.

Darwinists, however, seek to portray variation within a species as evidence for evolution. The fact is, however, that variations constitute no such thing, because variation consists of the emergence of different combinations of genetic information that already exists, and cannot endow individuals with any new genetic information or characteristics.

Variation is always restricted by existing genetic information. These boundaries are known as the gene pool in genetic science. (See The Gene Pool.) Darwin, however, thought that variation had no limits when he proposed his theory267, and he depicted various examples of variation as the most important evidence for evolution in his book The Origin of Species.

According to Darwin, for example, farmers mating different variations of cow in order to obtain breeds with better yields of milk would eventually turn cows into another species altogether. Darwin's idea of limitless change stemmed from the primitive level of science in his day. As a result of similar experiments on living things in the 20th century, however, science revealed a principle known as genetic homeostasis. This principle revealed that all attempts to change a living species by means of interbreeding (forming different variations) were in vain, and that between species, there were unbreachable walls. In other words, it was absolutely impossible for cattle to evolve into another species as the result of farmers mating different breeds to produce different variations, as Darwin had claimed would happen.


All human beings on Earth share basically the same genetic information, but thanks to the variation potential permitted by this genetic information, they often look very different from one another.

Luther Burbank, one of the world's foremost authorities on the subject of genetic hybrids, expresses a similar truth: "there are limits to the development possible, and these limits follow a law." 268 Thousands of years of collective experience have shown that the amount of biological change obtained using cross-breeding is always limited, and that there is a limit to the variations that any one species can undergo.

Indeed, in the introduction to their book Natural Limits to Biological Change Professor of Biology Lane P. Lester and the molecular biologist Raymond G. Bohlin wrote:

That populations of living organisms may change in their anatomy, physiology, genetic structure, etc., over a period of time is beyond question. What remains elusive is the answer to the question, How much change is possible, and by what genetic mechanism will these changes take place? Plant and animal breeders can marshal an impressive array of examples to demonstrate the extent to which living systems can be altered. But when a breeder begins with a dog, he ends up with a dog-a rather strange looking one, perhaps, but a dog nonetheless. A fruit fly remains a fruit fly; a rose, a rose, and so on.269

Variations and their various changes are restricted inside the bounds of a species' genetic information, and they can never add new genetic information to species. For that reason, no variation can be regarded as an example of evolution.
The Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen summarizes the situation:

The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace placed their emphasis cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of "indefinite departure."270

The fact that there are different human races in the world or the differences between parents and children can be explained in terms of variation. Yet there is no question of any new component being added to their gene pool. For example, no matter how much you seek to enrich their species, cats will always remain cats, and will never evolve into any other mammal. It is impossible for the sophisticated sonar system in a marine mammal to emerge through recombination. (See Recombination.) Variation may account for the differences between human races, but it can never provide any basis for the claim that apes developed into human beings.

268. Ibid., p.36.
269. Lane P. Lester, Raymond G. Bohlin, Natural Limits to Biological Change, pp. 13-14.
270. Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey, Vintage Books, 1958, p. 227.

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16661/variationhttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16661/variationMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:56:30 +0300
Urey-Miller Experiment, The

Stanley Miller's experimental setup.

Research into the origin of life to which evolutionists attach the greatest esteem is the Miller experiment, carried out by the American researcher Stanley Miller in 1953. (The experiment is also known as the Urey-Miller Experiment, due to the contribution made by Miller's Chicago University supervisor Harold Urey.)

Miller's aim was to establish an experimental environment to show that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could have formed by chance in the lifeless world of billions of years ago.

In his experiment, Miller used a combination of gasses that he assumed had existed in the Earth's primordial atmosphere (but which were later determined not to have existed in it), such as ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water vapor. Since under normal conditions, these gasses would not enter into reactions with one another, he added energy from the outside. The energy-which he thought might have stemmed from lightning in the primitive atmosphere-he provided by means of an artificial electrical charge.

Miller heated this mixture of gasses at 100°C for a week, while also providing an electrical current. At the end of the week, Miller measured the chemicals in the mixture at the bottom of the jar and observed that he had synthesized three of the 20 amino acids constituting the building blocks of proteins.

The result of the experiment caused great joy among evolutionists and was announced as a great success. Indeed, some publications went so far as to produce headlines reading "Miller Creates Life." Yet all that he had actually synthesized was a few inanimate molecules.

With the courage they took from this experiment, evolutionists immediately produced new scenarios. There was immediate speculation about the stages that must have taken place after the amino acids' formation. According to the scenario, these came together in the appropriate order as the result of chance, and gave rise to proteins. Some of these proteins, the work of still more random coincidences, installed themselves inside structures resembling cell membranes-which also came into being in some way, and thus gave rise to the cell. Cells gradually lined up alongside one another and gave rise to living organisms.

The Miller experiment-the basis for this scenario, not one single stage of which is backed up by any evidence at all-was nothing more than a deception, whose invalidity in all regards was subsequently proven.


The artificial atmosphere created by Miller in his experiment bore no resemblance to that of the primordial Earth. For that reason, the experiment was regarded as invalid by the scientific world.

The experiment performed by Miller to prove that amino acids could give rise to living organisms under the conditions of the primordial Earth is invalid in several regards:

1. Miller used a mechanism known as the cold trap to isolate amino acids at the moment they formed. Otherwise, the very conditions in which the amino acids formed would have immediately destroyed them.

However, there was no such conscious arrangement in the primordial world atmosphere. Even if any amino acid had formed in the absence of any mechanism, that molecule would have been broken down under the conditions at the time. As the chemist Richard Bliss has stated, "Without this cold trap, the chemical products would be destroyed by the [experiment's] energy source (electrical sparking)."43

In fact, Miller had failed to obtain even a single amino acid in earlier experiments in which he did not use a cold trap.

2. The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to replicate in his experiment was not realistic. In 1982, scientists agreed that instead of methane and ammonia in the primitive atmosphere, there must have been nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Indeed, after a long silence, Miller himself admitted that the primitive atmosphere model he'd used was not realistic.44

The American scientists J.P. Ferris and C.T. Chen repeated Miller's experiment, using a mixture of carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen and water vapor, but failed to obtain even a single amino acid molecule.45

3. Another important point invalidates the Miller experiment: At the time when the amino acids were suggested to have formed, there was so much oxygen in the atmosphere that it would have destroyed any amino acids present. This important fact that Miller ignored was determined by means of uranium and oxidized iron deposits in rocks estimated to be around 3 billion years old.46

Other findings later emerged to show that the level of oxygen in that period was far higher than that claimed by evolutionists. And research showed that the level of ultraviolet rays reaching the Earth's surface was 10,000 times higher than evolutionists' estimates. That intense level would inevitably have given rise to oxygen by breaking down atmospheric water vapor and carbon dioxide.

This completely discredited the Miller experiment, which was carried out without considering oxygen. Had oxygen been used in the experiment, then the methane would have transformed into carbon dioxide and water, and the ammonia into nitrogen and water. On the other hand, in an atmosphere with no oxygen-since no ozone layer had yet formed-the amino acids would have been directly exposed to ultraviolet rays and been immediately broken down. At the end of the day, the presence or absence of oxygen in the primordial atmosphere would still make for an environment deadly for amino acids.

4. At the end of the Miller experiment, a large quantity of organic acids also formed whose characteristics were damaging to the structures and functions of living things. In the event that amino acids are not isolated but are left together in the same environment as these chemical substances, they will inevitably react with them and form new compounds.

In addition, at the end of the experiment, a high level of right-handed amino acids also emerged.107(See Right-Handed Amino Acids.) The presence of these amino acids totally undermined the premise of evolution by means of its own logic. Right-handed amino acids are not used in living structures. Finally, the environment in which amino acids emerged in the experiment was not suited to life; but on the contrary, was a mixture that would have broken down and oxidized useful molecules.

All this points to the concrete fact that Miller's experiment -a conscious, controlled laboratory study aimed at synthesizing amino acids-does not prove that life could have emerged by chance under primordial world conditions. The types and levels of the gasses he used were determined at the ideal levels for amino acids to be able to form. The level of energy supplied was carefully regulated, neither too much nor too little, to ensure that the desired reactions would take place.

The experimental apparatus isolated so as not to harbor any element that might be harmful, or prevent the emergence of amino acids. No element, mineral or compound present in the primeval world that might have altered the course of the reactions was included in the experimental apparatus. Oxygen that would hinder the formation of amino acids is just one of these elements. Therefore, in the absence of the cold trap mechanism, even under those ideal laboratory conditions, amino acids could not have survived without being broken down.

With the Miller experiment, evolutionists actually invalidated evolution by their own efforts. Because the experiment demonstrated that amino acids could be obtained only in specially arranged laboratory conditions and with conscious intervention. In other words, the force giving rise to life is creation, not random coincidences.

The reason why evolutionists refuse to accept this stems from their preconceptions. Harold Urey, who organized the experiment together with his student Stanley Miller, made this 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.48

This experiment is the sole proof that supposedly verifies the molecular evolution suggested as the first stage of the evolutionary process. Although half a century has gone by since, and great technological advances have been made, no new progress has been made on the subject. The Miller experiment is still taught in schoolbooks as an explanation of the first emergence of life. Evolutionists, aware that such endeavors will refute their claims rather than supporting them, carefully avoid embarking on any other such experiments.

43. Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, California, 1979, pp. 14-15.
44. Stanley Miller, Molecular Evolution of Life: Current Status of the Prebiotic Synthesis of Small Molecules, 1986, p. 7.
45. J. P Ferris, C. T. Chen, "Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth," Journal of American Chemical Society, Vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964
46. "New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.
47. Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, p. 16.
48. W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 325.

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16660/urey-miller-experiment-thehttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16660/urey-miller-experiment-theMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:55:30 +0300
Urey, HaroldSee The Miller Experiment.)]]>http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16659/urey-haroldhttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16659/urey-haroldMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:54:03 +0300Turkana Boy Fossil, The

The Turkana Boy's fossilized skull

The most famous Homo erectus fossil discovered in Africa is the Nariokotome homo erectus or Turkana Boy fossil found near lake Turkana in Kenya. It has been determined that this fossil belonged to a 12-year-old male who would have reached around 1.83 meters (5'6" feet) in height when fully grown. Its upright skeleton is identical to that of any modern human. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker says that he doubted that the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human265, because Homo erectus is in fact a modern human race.

Professor William Laughlin of Connecticut University spent years researching Eskimos and the inhabitants of the Aleut islands and observed a striking level of similarity between them and Homo erectus. Laughlin's conclusion was that all these different races in fact belonged to Homo sapiens (human):

When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong to the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen] belongs within this same diverse species. 266

265. Boyce Rensberger, The Washington Post, November 19, 1984.
266. Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. p. 136.

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16658/turkana-boy-fossil-thehttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16658/turkana-boy-fossil-theMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:52:50 +0300
Trilobites

Trilobite fossils from the Cambrian Period

Trilobites are one of the most interesting living groups that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Period and subsequently became extinct. They belong to the phylum Arthropoda, and are very complex creatures with hard shells, segmented bodies and complex organs. The fossil records have allowed a great deal of information to be obtained regarding the trilobite eye. It consisted of scores of tiny cells, each of which contains a pair of lenses. This eye structure is a marvel of creation.

Richard Fortey, an evolutionist paleontologist from London's Natural History Museum, says this about the extraordinary number of lenses possessed by some trilobites:

One of the most difficult jobs I ever attempted was to count the number of lenses in a large trilobite eye. I took several photographs of the eye from the different angles and then made enormous prints magnified large enough to see individual lenses. I started counting as one might "one, two, three, four" . . . and so on to a hundred or two. The trouble was that you had only to look away for an instant, or sneeze, to forget exactly where you were, so it was back again to "one, two, three."261

More than 3,000 lenses means the animal received more than 3,000 images. This clearly shows the scale of the complexity in the eye and brain structure of a creature that lived 530 million years ago, and displays a flawless structure that cannot have come into existence through evolution.

David Raup, a professor of geology from Harvard, Rochester and Chicago universities, says: "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today."262

This extraordinarily complex structure in trilobites is by itself sufficient to invalidate Darwinism. No comparable complex creature existed in earlier geological periods, which shows that trilobites emerged with no evolutionary stages behind them.


The above fossils are trilobites, some of the highly complex invertebrates that appeared suddenly in the Cambrian Period, some 500 million years ago. The most significant feature in trilobites, and one that represents a major quandary for evolutionists, is their compound eyes. These eyes, which are highly advanced and complex, possess a multi-cell system. This system is identical to that found in modern spiders, bees, flies and other creatures. The fact that such a complex structure emerged abruptly in creatures living 500 million years ago demolishes evolutionist claims based on the idea of coincidence.

This extraordinary state of affairs in the Cambrian period was more or less known when Charles Darwin wrote his book The Origin of Species. It had been observed in the fossils from that period that life emerged suddenly in the Cambrian, and that trilobites and certain other invertebrates made a spontaneous appearance. That is why Darwin had to refer to the situation in his book. At that time, the Cambrian Period was known as the Silurian Period. Darwin touched on the subject under the heading, "On the sudden appearance of groups of allied species in the lowest known fossiliferous strata," and wrote the following about the Silurian Period:

. . . I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal . . . Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer. 263

Fossils from the Cambrian Period show that both trilobites, with their complex bodies, and other living things with very different anatomy all emerged suddenly, thus demolishing Darwin's conjectures. In his book, Darwin wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection." 264 Some 60 different classes began life suddenly and simultaneously in the Cambrian Period. This confirms the picture described by Darwin as a "fatal" blow.

261. Richard Fortey, Trilobite, Eyewitness to Evolution, Vintage Books, 2000, p. 98.
262. David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, Vol. 50, January 1979, p. 24.
263. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859, pp. 313-314.
264. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302.

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16657/trilobiteshttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16657/trilobitesMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:51:58 +0300
Tree of LifeAccording to Darwinism, the course of evolution resembles a tree, starting from a single stem and then diverging into branches. Indeed, this hypothesis is strongly emphasized in Darwinist sources, where the concept of the tree of life is frequently used. According to this imaginary metaphor, phyla, one of the basic classifications into which living things are divided, must have "branched out" in stages.

According to Darwinism, a single phylum must first have appeared, and other phyla must then have emerged slowly through small changes and over very long periods of time. (See Phylum.) According to this hypothesis, there must have been a gradual rise in the number of animal phyla. Illustrations made on this subject show a gradual rise in the number of phyla, in conformity with Darwinist expectations that the living things should have developed this way. But the fossils refuse this imaginary tree of life. The true picture that emerges from the fossil record is that species have been thoroughly different and very complex, ever since the period when they first appeared.

All the animal phyla known today appeared suddenly on Earth in a geological age known as the Cambrian Period.

Berkeley University's professor Phillip Johnson, one of the world's major critics of Darwinism, states that this fact revealed by paleontology is in clear conflict with the theory of evolution:

Darwinian Theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first living organism, or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified to create the higher levels of taxonomic order. The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing. 259

In the Pre-Cambrian Period, there were three phyla consisting of single-celled organisms. In the Cambrian Period, however, nearly 60 animal phyla emerged all at once. Some of these phyla then became extinct in the period that followed, and only a few phyla have survived down to the present day.

The well-known evolutionist paleontologist Roger Lewin refers to this extraordinary state of affairs that demolishes all the assumptions of Darwinism:

The most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa, the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms-Bauplane or phyla-that would exist thereafter, including many that were "weeded out" and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. 260

259. Phillip E. Johnson, "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning," Darwinism: Science or Philosophy, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1994, p. 12.
260. R. Lewin, Science, Vol. 241, July 15, 1988, p. 291.

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16656/tree-of-lifehttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16656/tree-of-lifeMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:50:34 +0300
Transitional Forms, The (The Transitional Species)The theory of evolution claims that all living species on Earth, past and present evolved from one another. The transformation from one species to another, according to this theory, occurred slowly and in stages. Therefore, there must have been at least several transitional forms between two successive species, exhibiting characteristics of each. For example, there must have been creatures with both gills and lungs, fins and feet, alive during the millions of years between the time that fish first left the water and became amphibians. Evolutionists call these imaginary creatures "transitional forms."

If this theory were true, there would have to be millions, even billions of such creatures that lived in the past, and some of these monstrosities must have left remains in the fossil record. But so far, the fossil record has revealed not one single transitional form. In his book The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin writes these words in his chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory":

Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? . . . But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? . . . Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. 254

Taking their lead from these words, evolutionist paleontologists since the 19th century have been scouring the globe in search of these transitional forms. In spite of all their efforts, they have not found any. All the findings from their research and excavations have revealed, contrary to their expectations, that living creatures appeared on Earth all at once and fully formed.

The evolutionist Gordon R. Taylor, points out in his book, The Great Evolution Mystery:

Professor G. G. Simpson is an ardent Darwinist, but he goes so far as to say: ‘The absence of transitional forms is an almost universal phenomenon.' This is true of invertebrates as well as vertebrates and also of plants. He adds: ‘The line making connection with common ancestry is not known even in one instance.' The rodents, he notes, appear suddenly, already equipped with their specialized gnawing teeth. As to the mammals, ‘In all 32 orders of mammals, the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.'255

Today, there are more than 100 million fossils in thousands of museums and collections all over the world. All these are divided from the others by definite demarcations, and all have their own unique structures. No fossils of semi-fish/semi-amphibian, semi-dinosaur/semi-bird, semi-ape/semi-human and similar life forms of the kind so optimistically expected by evolutionists have ever been unearthed. The absence of a single intermediate form among such a rich fossil record shows, not that the fossil record is lacking, but that the theory of evolution is untrue.

As the noted biologist, Francis Hitching, writes this in his book, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong:

If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The ‘minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals. 256

The fossil record shows that living species came into being all at once, fully formed in all their variety, and remained unchanged throughout long geological periods. A noted evolutionist paleontologist at Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould, acknowledges this fact:

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis-most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance-in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."257

In general, evolutionists deliberately use the concept of transitional forms to mislead. The term "transitional form" refers to a developing creature midway between two species with insufficient and partly formed organs. Sometimes, because they misunderstand the idea of a transitional form, Darwinists impute transitional-form characteristics to a creature that is not transitional at all. For example, the fact that one group of living creatures exhibits characteristics commonly found in another group, does not imply that the first group is a transitional form.

A fine example is the Australian platypus. This creature is a mammal but lays eggs like a reptile, and also has a beak like a duck's. Scientists call the platypus and other such animals "mosaic creatures." Noted paleontologists such as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge state that evolutionist paleontologists do not count the platypus as an example of a transitional form.258 (See Platypus.)

254. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp.172-280.
255. Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, London: Abacus, Sphere Books, 1984, p. 78.
256. Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New Haven: Ticknor and Fields, 1982, p. 40.
257. S.J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977.
258. S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, Paleobiology, Vol 3, 1977, p.147.

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16655/transitional-forms-the-(the-transitionalhttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16655/transitional-forms-the-(the-transitionalMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:49:40 +0300
Transition from Water to Land Dilemma, The

The Kidney Barrier
Fish release harmful byproducts in their bodies directly into the water. Terrestrial animals, however, need kidneys. Therefore, any animal that makes the transition from water to land requires kidneys before making the change. However, kidneys have a highly complex structure. Moreover, a kidney has to be fully formed and flawless if it is to function. Only 50%, or 70% or even 90% of a kidney will serve no purpose. Since the theory of evolution is predicated on the idea that organs that are not used disappear over time, a kidney that is 50% lacking will be eliminated from the body at the first stages of evolution.

According to the theory of evolution, life began in the seas, and the first advanced vertebrate animals were fish. Again according to the theory, these fish began to move toward dry land and in some way, came to use feet instead of fins and lungs instead of gills!

Many books on evolution never consider the how of this major claim, whose baselessness is glossed over in most scientific textbooks in some summary like ". . . and living things moved from the water to dry land."

If one fish that moved out of the water onto dry land couldn't survive for longer than a minute or two, then any of the other fish that did so would also die within a few minutes. Even if fish kept making the same attempts for millions of years, the end result would always be the same: All the fish would die. No organ as complex as the lung can emerge suddenly, by way of mutation. Yet a half-lung would serve no purpose at all.

Both fossil findings and physiological studies totally disprove the claim that fish are the ancestors of terrestrial animals. The huge anatomical and physiological differences between marine and terrestrial animals cannot possibly be bridged by gradual evolution based on chance. Among the most evident of these differences:

1) Weight bearing: Marine creatures do not face the problem of having to support their own weight, so their bodily structures are not directed towards such a function. Those living on land, however, expend 40% of their energy just in moving around. Any water dweller about to pass onto dry land needs to develop new muscles and a new skeletal structure to meet that need-but it is impossible for such complex structures to form through random mutations.

Evolutionists imagine the coelacanth and other similar fish to be the ancestors of terrestrial animals because of the bony nature of their fins. They assume that these bones gradually developed into weight-bearing feet. Yet unlike the feet of land dwellers, the bones in a fish's fins are not connected directly to their backbone. This means they cannot perform a weight- bearing function, as do the leg bones in terrestrial animals. Therefore, the claim that these fins slowly evolved into feet is groundless.

2) Heat protection: On land, temperatures can change very fast and within a wide range. A terrestrial animal's metabolism allows it to adapt to these temperature changes in. In the sea, however, temperatures change very slowly, and do not range as widely as on land. A creature accustomed to the sea's even temperatures therefore needs to acquire a protective system appropriate to the temperature swings on land. It would be ridiculous to claim that fish acquired such a system through random mutations as soon as they emerged onto dry land.

3) Use of water: Water is an essential requirement for living things, and on land, its availability is limited. For that reason water, and even moisture, must be used economically. For example, skin must prevent water loss and evaporation, and land dwellers must be able to feel thirst when they need water. Yet underwater creatures have no sense of thirst and their skins are not suited to a dry environment.

4) Kidneys: Due to the abundant water in their environment, marine creatures can immediately filter and expel their bodies' waste products, particularly ammonia. On land, however, water must be used at minimum levels. For that reason these living things have kidneys, thanks to which ammonia is filtered out as urea and stored in the bladder, and the minimum amount of water is used when it is expelled. In addition, there is a need for new systems that enable the kidneys to function. In order for a transition from water to land, creatures without kidneys will need to develop them immediately.

5) Respiratory system: Fish breathe the oxygen dissolved in water through their gills. Out of the water, however, they are unable to survive for more than a few minutes. In order to live on dry land, they need to acquire a pulmonary system.
It is of course impossible for all these physiological changes to take place by chance and all at the same time.

According to the evolutionist scenario, fish first evolved into amphibians. Yet there is no evidence for that scenario: Not a single fossil has been found to show that half-fish, half-amphibian creatures ever existed.


The "transition from water to land" scenario portrayed in many imaginative illustrations like the one above, is based on Lamarckist logic and conflicts even with the theory of evolution's own hypotheses.
Robert L. Carroll, the well-known evolutionist and author of Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, admits this, albeit reluctantly:
"We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians." 252 (See Amphibians.)
The evolutionist paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl wrote a book, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, in which she says:

Although the relationship of the rhipidistians to the amphibians will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter, it should be said here that none of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared, and those that came before show no evidence of developing the stout limbs and ribs that characterized the primitive tetrapods. 253

252. R. L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1988, p. 4.
253. Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985. p. 148.

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16654/transition-from-water-to-landhttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16654/transition-from-water-to-landMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:43:48 +0300
Transition from Sea to Land Thesis, The

The Kidney Barrier
Fish release harmful byproducts in their bodies directly into the water. Terrestrial animals, however, need kidneys. Therefore, any animal that makes the transition from water to land requires kidneys before making the change. However, kidneys have a highly complex structure. Moreover, a kidney has to be fully formed and flawless if it is to function. Only 50%, or 70% or even 90% of a kidney will serve no purpose. Since the theory of evolution is predicated on the idea that organs that are not used disappear over time, a kidney that is 50% lacking will be eliminated from the body at the first stages of evolution.

According to the theory of evolution, life began in the seas, and the first advanced vertebrate animals were fish. Again according to the theory, these fish began to move toward dry land and in some way, came to use feet instead of fins and lungs instead of gills!

Many books on evolution never consider the how of this major claim, whose baselessness is glossed over in most scientific textbooks in some summary like ". . . and living things moved from the water to dry land."

If one fish that moved out of the water onto dry land couldn't survive for longer than a minute or two, then any of the other fish that did so would also die within a few minutes. Even if fish kept making the same attempts for millions of years, the end result would always be the same: All the fish would die. No organ as complex as the lung can emerge suddenly, by way of mutation. Yet a half-lung would serve no purpose at all.

Both fossil findings and physiological studies totally disprove the claim that fish are the ancestors of terrestrial animals. The huge anatomical and physiological differences between marine and terrestrial animals cannot possibly be bridged by gradual evolution based on chance. Among the most evident of these differences:

1) Weight bearing: Marine creatures do not face the problem of having to support their own weight, so their bodily structures are not directed towards such a function. Those living on land, however, expend 40% of their energy just in moving around. Any water dweller about to pass onto dry land needs to develop new muscles and a new skeletal structure to meet that need-but it is impossible for such complex structures to form through random mutations.

Evolutionists imagine the coelacanth and other similar fish to be the ancestors of terrestrial animals because of the bony nature of their fins. They assume that these bones gradually developed into weight-bearing feet. Yet unlike the feet of land dwellers, the bones in a fish's fins are not connected directly to their backbone. This means they cannot perform a weight- bearing function, as do the leg bones in terrestrial animals. Therefore, the claim that these fins slowly evolved into feet is groundless.

2) Heat protection: On land, temperatures can change very fast and within a wide range. A terrestrial animal's metabolism allows it to adapt to these temperature changes in. In the sea, however, temperatures change very slowly, and do not range as widely as on land. A creature accustomed to the sea's even temperatures therefore needs to acquire a protective system appropriate to the temperature swings on land. It would be ridiculous to claim that fish acquired such a system through random mutations as soon as they emerged onto dry land.

3) Use of water: Water is an essential requirement for living things, and on land, its availability is limited. For that reason water, and even moisture, must be used economically. For example, skin must prevent water loss and evaporation, and land dwellers must be able to feel thirst when they need water. Yet underwater creatures have no sense of thirst and their skins are not suited to a dry environment.

4) Kidneys: Due to the abundant water in their environment, marine creatures can immediately filter and expel their bodies' waste products, particularly ammonia. On land, however, water must be used at minimum levels. For that reason these living things have kidneys, thanks to which ammonia is filtered out as urea and stored in the bladder, and the minimum amount of water is used when it is expelled. In addition, there is a need for new systems that enable the kidneys to function. In order for a transition from water to land, creatures without kidneys will need to develop them immediately.

5) Respiratory system: Fish breathe the oxygen dissolved in water through their gills. Out of the water, however, they are unable to survive for more than a few minutes. In order to live on dry land, they need to acquire a pulmonary system.
It is of course impossible for all these physiological changes to take place by chance and all at the same time.

According to the evolutionist scenario, fish first evolved into amphibians. Yet there is no evidence for that scenario: Not a single fossil has been found to show that half-fish, half-amphibian creatures ever existed.


The "transition from water to land" scenario portrayed in many imaginative illustrations like the one above, is based on Lamarckist logic and conflicts even with the theory of evolution's own hypotheses.
Robert L. Carroll, the well-known evolutionist and author of Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, admits this, albeit reluctantly:
"We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians." 252 (See Amphibians.)
The evolutionist paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl wrote a book, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, in which she says:

Although the relationship of the rhipidistians to the amphibians will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter, it should be said here that none of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared, and those that came before show no evidence of developing the stout limbs and ribs that characterized the primitive tetrapods. 253

252. R. L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1988, p. 4.
253. Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985. p. 148.

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16653/transition-from-sea-to-landhttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16653/transition-from-sea-to-landMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:42:42 +0300
Transition from Land to Air Myth, TheSince evolutionists believe that birds evolved in some way, they claim that they are descended from reptiles. One of the theories they propose to account for the origin of flight is that reptiles developed wings while attempting to catch flies. In fact, however, birds have totally different structures from those in terrestrial animals. No physical mechanism can be accounted for in terms of gradual evolution.

First of all, the flawless structure of the wing, the evolutionary main distinguishing feature of birds, represents a major dilemma for evolutionists. The question of how the wing could have developed as the result of consecutive random mutations is one that evolutionists cannot answer. Evolution is unable to explain how a reptile's front legs could have turned into wings as the result of some mutation arising in its genes. No new organ can form as the result of mutations, and any reptile would be naturally disadvantaged if its forelegs lost functionality. (See The Origin of Wings and The Origin of Flight.)

In addition, simply possessing wings is not enough to turn a terrestrial animal into a bird. Land dwellers lack many of the structural mechanisms that birds use to fly. For example, avian bones are much lighter than those of terrestrial creatures. Their lungs have a wholly different structure and function. Birds have different muscular and skeletal structures, as well as far more specialized heart and circulatory systems-mechanisms that cannot form gradually, being added to one another.

Evolutionists who maintain that dinosaurs developed wings while chasing flies cannot explain how those flies developed wings in the first place. Yet according to their own claims, the flies' wings in their most complex forms must have come into being through various mutations. This clearly demonstrates that the claims of evolutionists are simply fictional. In addition, no fossil record confirms this unscientific tale. There are thousands of perfectly formed bird fossils, but not a single example of bird-like creatures, with half-developed wings, has ever been found.

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16652/transition-from-land-to-airhttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16652/transition-from-land-to-airMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:41:13 +0300
Transition From Jungle to Open Savanna Myth, TheSince the science of genetics and the laws of heredity were not fully known in the 19th century, Darwin and the early evolutionists who followed him regarded bipedalism as something easy to account for. The most popular theory was that apes living in the African savanna grew more upright in order to be able to see over the surrounding grasses.249 However, it did not take long to realize that this Lamarckist theory was completely wrong.

Modern-day evolutionists have only a single thesis with which they seek to account for the origin of bipedalism. According to the theory of transition from jungle to open spaces,, the ancestors of humans and apes once lived together in the jungle. Due to jungle shrinking or for some other reason, some of them moved over to open plains, and bipedalism was born as a result of adaptation. Both the apes in the trees and the bipedal human beings began evolving in their own separate directions.

When examined, however, this thesis, dreamed up under the logic of "making the best of a bad job," is seen to be just like its predecessors, very far from being able to account for bipedalism. It is impossible at the molecular level for there to be such an adaptation. Even if such a thing is assumed to have taken place, there is no evidence of it in the fossil record. Moreover, according to this theory, the East African jungles must have begun shrinking 10 to 15 million years ago. Yet research carried out proves the exact opposite, and no such development ever took place in East Africa. 250 The plants observed in the region have remained unchanged for millions of years. In short, the transition from jungle to the open plains never happened.

Even when considered in logical terms, the theory in question about the origin of bipedalism is unacceptable. In the event of trees disappearing, the most natural course would be for apes to migrate to another region, or be wiped out with the elimination of their natural habitat. There is no basis for the theory that monkeys adapted to living on the ground.

Uluğ Nutku, who holds evolutionist views, describes why the account based on the shrinking of the jungles is insufficient:

It may be suggested that the shrinking of the jungles was the factor that initiated the phenomenon of humanization. This is a palaeontological fact. Napier's thesis is compatible with this, but it leaves out the following question: While one animal species was leaving the jungle and setting out on the path to becoming human, why did its closest relative, the ape, remain in the jungle? The less speculation, the harder it is to find an answer. The answer given by Hermann Klaatsch, in the early part of the century, when anthropology was in its infancy, was very interesting. According to Klaatsch, hominid apes also attempted to become human, but theirs was ‘an unfortunate endeavour.' They were unable to rise up in the process of evolution, and withdrew into the ‘protective darkness of the jungles.' But then the question of ‘Why were apes unsuccessful?' comes to mind. 251

There were a great many other questions apart from "Why were apes unsuccessful?", and they are all unanswered

249. Donald Johanson, "Comment J'ai Trouvé le Passage du Singe a L'homme: Du Nouveau Sur Les Ance[circonflex needed!)tres De L'Homme," Cahier Sciences du Figaro-Magazine, 1983, p. 110.
250. J. D. Kingston, "Isotopic Evidence for Neogene Hominid Paleoenvironments in the Kenya Rift Valley," Science, vol. 264, 1994, pp. 955-959.
251. Uluğ Nutku, Felsefe Arşivi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Vol. 24, 1984, p. 86.

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16651/transition-from-jungle-to-openhttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16651/transition-from-jungle-to-openMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:40:17 +0300
Theropod Dinosaurs

It is impossible for birds to have evolved from theropod dinosaurs, and there is no mechanism to support such an illusory claim.

The theory of evolution claims that birds evolved from a small, carnivorous reptile known as the theropod dinosaur. In fact, however, a comparison of birds and reptiles shows that these classes are very different from one another and that no evolution can have taken place between them. (See The Origin of Birds.)

An examination of the anatomies and fossil records of birds and reptiles also shows no evidence that evolution ever happened. In an article titled "Demise of the ‘Birds Are Dinosaurs' Theory," the American biologist Richard L. Deem writes:

The results of the recent studies show that the hands of the theropod dinosaurs are derived from digits I, II, and III, whereas the wings of birds, although they look alike in terms of structure, are derived from digits II, III, and IV . . . The second study shows that the theropod dinosaurs did not possess the correct skeletal structure or lung structure to have evolved into birds. The evolution of theropods into birds would have required the introduction of a serious handicap (a hole in their diaphragm), which would have severely limited their ability to breathe. As Dr. Ruben said, such a debilitating mutation "seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage."246

There are other problems regarding the "Birds Are Dinosaurs" theory. In comparison with Archaeopteryx, theropods' front legs are very small in relation to their bodies. (See Archaeopteryx.) Bearing in mind the body weight of these animals, the development of any proto-wing appears impossible. The majority of theropod dinosaurs have no semilunatic wrist bone (which is found in birds), and possess other wrist components that are absent in Archaeopteryx. In all theropods, the VI nerves leave the skull from the side, together with various other nerves. In birds, however, the same nerves leave the skull through a hole, which is unique to them, in the front of the skull. Another problem is that a great many theropods emerged after Archaeopteryx. 247

Another major distinguishing feature between theropod dinosaurs and birds is the structure of these dinosaurs' hip bones. Dinosaurs are divided into two kinds, depending on their hip bone structure: Saurischian (with reptile-like hip bones) and Ornithischian (with bird-like hip bones). In members of the Ornithischian group, the hip bones really do closely resemble those of birds, hence their name. However, in other respects they bear no resemblance to birds whatsoever. For that reason, evolutionists are forced to regard Saurischian dinosaurs (those with reptile-like hip bones), which include the theropods, as the ancestors of birds. Yet as can be seen from their description, the hip bone structure in these dinosaurs bears absolutely no resemblance to that in birds. 248

In short, it is impossible for birds to have evolved from theropod dinosaurs, because no mechanism exists that could possibly overcome the enormous differences between the two classes.

246. Richard L. Deem, "Demise of the ‘Birds are Dinosaurs' Theory," http://www.direct.ca/trinity/dinobird.html
247. Ibid.
248. Duane T. Gish, Dinosaurs by Design, Master Books, AR, 1996, pp. 64-65.

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16650/theropod-dinosaurshttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16650/theropod-dinosaursMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:39:05 +0300
Theorytheory. To put it another way, a theory is a deep-rooted hypothesis. However, although a theory is proven with experiments, it may also be disproved.
For example, the claim that "The atom is the smallest known component of matter," known as Dalton's atomic theory, today has lost all validity.240 Advances in science and technology have revealed the existence of much smaller particles than the atom and even the proton, such as the quark.

A scientific theory is an attempt to explain certain phenomena occurring in nature. A frequently occurring phenomenon may be explained in terms of a theory, a fact, or a law. Gravity, example, is a fact. Even if we cannot perceive gravity directly, we can still see its effect when we drop something. There is also a theory of gravity that answers the question of how this takes place. Even if we do not know exactly how gravity works, there are theories that seek to account for it. The law of gravity formulated by Isaac Newton is one such.

In summary, a scientific fact is an observable natural law, and a scientific theory is a mathematical description of how a scientific law works.

The first and most important requirement of empirical (experimental) science is that the object or phenomenon we wish to investigate should be observable. The second condition is that the object or phenomenon should be repeatable. Any observable and repeatable event must be capable of being tested. This enables us to determine whether or not an experiment validates a theory. If the explanation that someone postulates regarding a phenomenon is one that cannot be tested or validated, then this is not a theory, but a belief.241

Evolutionists say that the main evolutionary changes take place very slowly, or so rarely that people cannot observe them during their lifetimes. According to the evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, even when evolutionary changes occur, they are events that by nature are rare, unrepeated and irreversible. Paul Ehrlich, a well-know evolutionist, maintains that the theory of evolution cannot be refuted by any observation, for which reason it needs to be regarded as being outside the scope of empirical science.242

On the other hand, by suggesting that evolution takes place in two ways-observable micro-evolution and unobservable macro-evolution-evolutionists attempt to portray this imaginary evolutionary process as a scientific fact. (See The Invalidity of Micro-Evolution and The Macro-Evolution Myth.) According to evolutionists, macro-evolution is the process of infinite variation necessary for reptiles to turn into birds, or apes into human beings. Yet nobody has ever observed this happening.243

Micro-evolution, on the other hand, again according to evolutionists, is a limited process of variation of a specific species that we can observe and that produces divergence. However, the changes postulated as micro-evolution cannot produce a new species or a new characteristic. Therefore, they are not, as is claimed, mechanisms with any evolutionary power. In addition, micro-evolution is raised in order to imply that it is a dorm of variation that gives rise to macro-evolution. (See Variation.) This is mere conjecture regarding a phenomenon that cannot be observed and which lacks any evidence. 

Evolution cannot be observed and cannot be repeated, and for these reasons, is therefore not a scientific fact or theory. Neither is it an evident scientific fact, as some circles imagine or as they seek to portray it.244 On the contrary, when the theory of evolution is compared with scientific findings, a great contradiction emerges. In terms of the origin of life, population genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology and biochemical systems, the theory of evolution is in a state of crisis, as the famous biochemist Michael Denton puts it.245

240. Musa Özet, Osman Arpacı, Ali Uslu, Biyoloji 1, İstanbul: Sürat Yayınları, 1998, p. 7.
241. Dr. David N. Menton, Is Evolution a Theory, A Fact or A Law?, 1993,  http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm;
242. Ibid.
243. Ibid.
244. Ibid.
245. Prof. Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London:,Burnett Books, 1985.
]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16649/theoryhttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16649/theoryMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:37:34 +0300
Tetrapod Finger Structure, TheJust about every book about evolution points to the hand and foot structure of tetrapods —that is, land-dwelling vertebrates—as an example of homology. Tetrapods have five digits on their front and rear feet. Even if these do not always fully resemble fingers or toes, these creatures are still regarded as pentadactyl (having five digits) because of their bone structure.

The hands and feet of a frog, a lizard, a squirrel or a monkey are all of this kind. Even the bone structures of birds and bats agree with this basic design. Therefore, evolutionists claim that all these life forms are evolved from a single common ancestor and for long, they regarded the phenomenon of pentadactylism as evidence of this. In our own time, however, it was realized that this claim actually lacked any scientific validity.

Even evolutionists admit that pentadactylism is a characteristic found in different living groups among which they cannot construct any evolutionary relationship. For example, in two separate articles published in 1991 and 1996, the evolutionist biologist M. Coates states that the phenomenon of pentadactylism emerged on two separate occasions, independently of one another. According to Coates, a pentadactyl structure emerged in both Anthracosaurs and in amphibians, quite independently of each other.164 This finding indicates that pentadactylism cannot represent any evidence for the hypothesis of a common ancestor. (See Common ancestor.)

Another difficulty for the evolutionists is that these vertebrates have five digits on both their front and hind feet. Yet nowhere in the evolutionist literature is it suggested that front and back feet developed from a common ancestor and it is not hypothesized that they then developed independently. Therefore, we would expect front and back feet to have different structures as a result of different random mutations.

Michael Denton has this to say on the subject:

 [T]he forelimbs of all terrestrial vertebrates are constructed according to the same pentadactyl design, and this is attributed by evolutionary biologists as showing that all have been derived from a common ancestral source. But the hind limbs of all vertebrates also conform to the pentadactyl pattern and are strikingly similar to the forelimbs in bone structure and in their detailed embryological development. Yet no evolutionist claims that the hind limb evolved from the forelimb, or that hind limbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source. . . . Invariably, as biological knowledge has grown, common genealogy as an explanation for similarity has tended to grow ever more tenuous. . . . Like so much of the other circumstantial “evidence”” for evolution, that drawn from homology is not convincing because it entails too many anomalies, too many counter-instances, far too many phenomena which simply do not fit easily into the orthodox picture. 165

The real blow to the claim of five-digit homology, so long propagated in evolutionist publications, was dealt by molecular biology. The hypothesis collapsed when it was realized that finger structure was controlled by different genes in different species with a pentadactyl digit structure.

The biologist John Randall describes the collapse of the evolutionist thesis regarding pentadactylism:
 The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the ‘pentadactyl’ [five bone] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now, if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down. 166

164 Coates M. 1991. New palaeontological contributions to limb ontogeny and phylogeny. In: J. R. Hinchcliffe (ed.) Developmental Patterning of the Vertebrate Limb 325-337. New York: Plenum Press; Coates M. I. 1996. “The Devonian tetrapod Acanthostega gunnari Jarvik: postcranial anatomy, basal tetrapod interrelationships and patterns of skeletal evolution,”, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 87, pp. 363-421.
165 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 151, 154.
166 John Randall, quoted in William Fix’s The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 189.
]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16648/tetrapod-finger-structure-thehttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16648/tetrapod-finger-structure-theMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:36:12 +0300
TaxonomyBiologists divide living things into specific classes. This classification, known as taxonomy, dates back to Carolus Linnaeus in the 18th century. The classification system that Linnaeus constructed has been expanded and revised, but is still in use today.
This system of classification contains hierarchical categories. Living things are first divided into kingdoms, such as the animal and plant kingdoms. Kingdoms are then subdivided into phyla, which are then further subdivided. Classification takes the following form, in descending order:

kingdom
phylum (plural phyla)
class
order
family
genus (plural genera)
species

Most biologists today accept the existence of five separate kingdoms. In addition to the plant and animal kingdoms, they regard fungi, monera (single-celled organisms with no cell nucleus, such as bacteria) and protista (cells with a nucleus, such as algae) as separate kingdoms.

The most important of these is without doubt that animal kingdom. The major divisions within the animal kingdom are its various phyla. In the classification of these phyla, their differing bodily structures are considered. Arthropods, for example, constitute a separate phylum, and all the creatures within that phylum have a similar body plan. The phylum known as  Chordata consists of creatures with a central nervous system. All the animals familiar to us such as fish, birds, reptiles and mammals are included in the vertebrate category, a subdivision of the Chordata.

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16647/taxonomyhttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16647/taxonomyMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:33:52 +0300
Taung Child Fossil, The

The Taung Child fossil

All Australopithecus fossils have been unearthed in the southern part of the African continent. The reason why this species has been given the name Australopithecus, meaning "South African ape," is that these animals have features very similar to those of present-day apes.

The first fossils claimed to belong to this species were found in a coal mine in the Taung region of South Africa in 1924. The first fossil described as Australopithecus consisted of a young ape's face and lower jaw bones, and a skull  of 410 cubic centimeters in volume. The discoverers of the fossil took it to Raymond Dart, an anthropologist.

Based on the skull's fine structure and thinking that its teeth resembled human teeth, Dr. Dart suggested that the fossil belonged to a hominid. Shortly afterwards, he published an article in Nature magazine titled "Australopithecus: Ape-Man in South Africa." Scientists who said that the fossil actually belonged to a chimpanzee did not take Dart seriously. Yet he persisted with the idea that the fossil was a hominid and convinced Dr. Robert Bloom, a famous physicist, of this, devoting the rest of his life to finding support for the new species he had found. Even then, scientific circles began jokingly referring to the fossil he had found as "Dart's baby." Evolutionists then lined up behind the fossil, inventing a new species to which they had given the name Australopithecus. The first fossil discovered was given the full name Australopithecus africanus.

Following the discovery of this fossil, which was given the nickname of "the Taung Child" because it was thought to belong to a young individual, other paleontologists-especially the Leakey family-stepped up their own research. In the 1950s, other fossils regarded as belonging to Australopithecus were found in digs financed by National Geographic magazine in Kromdraai, Swartkrans and Makapansgat in South Africa. Some of these ape fossils had a coarser structure, while others were smaller and finer. The coarser ones were bulkier and heavier than the others, with a larger bottom jaw and bony protrusions over the eyebrows being their most distinguishing features.

Although these are all typical examples of gender differences between modern-day male and female monkeys, scientists persisted in regarding them as separate species.

After Dart presented the fossil given the name Australopithecus africanus, he received substantial criticism from scientists. Arthur Keith, one of the most prominent anatomists to comment on the fossil, said:

[Dart's] claim is preposterous, the skull is that of a young anthropoid ape . . . and showing so many points of affinity with the two living African anthropoids, the gorilla and chimpanzee, that there cannot be a moment's hesitation in placing the fossil form in this living group. 237

According to evolutionists, what Australopithecines shared with human beings was they had left the trees and adapted to bipedalism (walking upright). Dart concluded that the Taung Child he had found was able to walk on two legs, since according to him, that part of the spinal cord known as the magnum was further back than that in humans, but further forward than in monkeys. On the basis of this, Dart then claimed that the animal was capable of standing on its two hind legs. This theory was not accepted by scientists at the time, but was supported until the 1950s. However, no part of the skeleton that might permit an estimation of bipedalism was available. The only specimens consisted of the skull and a few fragmented thigh, hip and foot bones. Yet evolutionists still insisted on their claims regarding bipedalism.

Lord Solly Zuckerman had carried out perhaps the most detailed studies of the Australopithecines family. Despite being an evolutionist, Zuckerman thought that Australopithecus was nothing more than an ape. Together with a four-member team, Zuckerman used the most advanced methods of anatomical investigation, which began in 1954 and lasted for several years. In the wake of these investigations, he declared that these creatures had not walked on two legs and were not an intermediate form between humans and apes. The concluding report by Zuckerman and his team read:

For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the Australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable. 238

These judgments, published by Zuckerman in the mid-1950s, were confirmed by subsequent researchers. Dean Falk, a specialist in neuroanatomy, declared that the Taung skull belonged to a young monkey. "In his 1975 article, Dart had claimed that the brain of Taung was humanlike. As it turned out, he was wrong about that. . . . Taung's humanlike features were overemphasized," claimed Falk, who went on to say:

Like humans, [apes and monkeys] go through stages as they grow up. In his analysis of Taung, Dart did not fully appreciate that infant apes have not had time to develop features of the skull, such as thickened eyebrow ridges or attachment areas for heavy neck muscles, that set adult apes apart from human. Apparently he did not carefully consider the possibility that Taung's rounded forehead or the inferred position of the spinal cord might be due to the immaturity of the apelike specimen rather than to its resemblance to humans. 239

The protrusions over the eyebrows, the most important feature that led to Australopithecus africanus being described as a hominid, can be seen in young gorillas today. From all this, it appears that the skull ascribed  to Australopithecus africanus by evolutionists did not belong to an ancestor of man but in all probability, to a young ape.

237. David Johanson and James Shreeve, Lucy's Child, NewYork: William Morrow and Co., 1989, p. 56.
238. Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower (1970), p. 93.
239. Dean Falk, Braindance, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1992, pp.12, 13.

]]>
http://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16646/taung-child-fossil-thehttp://returningtofaith.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16646/taung-child-fossil-thehttp://imgaws1.fmanager.net/Image/objects/51-evrim-sozlugu/16103_taung_cocugu_fosili.jpgMon, 17 Aug 2009 16:33:13 +0300