Re: OT : The link that James A. Chappell does NOT want for you to see

Yahya says

"EVOLUTIONIST CLAIMS &THE FACTS

In previous chapters, we examined the invalidity of the theory of
evolution in terms of the bodies of evidence found in fossils and from
the standpoint of molecular biology. In this chapter, we will address a
number of biological phenomena and concepts presented as theoretical
evidence by evolutionists. These topics are particularly important for
they show that there is no scientific finding that supports evolution
and instead reveal the extent of the distortion and hoodwink employed
by evolutionists.


Variations and Species

Variation, a term used in genetics, refers to a genetic event that
causes the individuals or groups of a certain type or species to
possess different characteristics from one another. For example, all
the people on earth carry basically the same genetic information, yet
some have slanted eyes, some have red hair, some have long noses, and
others are short of stature, all depending on the extent of the
variation potential of this genetic information.


DID WHALES EVOLVE FROM BEARS?
In The Origin of Species, Darwin asserted that whales had evolved from
bears that tried to swim! Darwin mistakenly supposed that the
possibilities of variation within a species were unlimited. 20th
century science has shown this evolutionary scenario to be imaginary.

Evolutionists predicate the variations within a species as evidence to
the theory. However, variation does not constitute evidence for
evolution because variations are but the outcomes of different
combinations of already existing genetic information and they do not
add any new characteristic to the genetic information. The important
thing for the theory of evolution, however, is the question of how
brand-new information to make a brand-new species could come about.

Variation always takes place within the limits of genetic information.
In the science of genetics, this limit is called the "gene pool". All
of the characteristics present in the gene pool of a species may come
to light in various ways due to variation. For example, as a result of
variation, varieties that have relatively longer tails or shorter legs
may appear in a certain species of reptile, since information for both
long-legged and short-legged forms may exist in the gene pool that
species. However, variations do not transform reptiles into birds by
adding wings or feathers to them, or by changing their metabolism. Such
a change requires an increase in the genetic information of the living
thing, which is certainly not possible through variations.

Darwin was not aware of this fact when he formulated his theory. He
thought that there was no limit to variations. In an article he wrote
in 1844 he stated: "That a limit to variation does exist in nature is
assumed by most authors, though I am unable to discover a single fact
on which this belief is grounded".151 In The Origin of Species he cited
different examples of variations as the most important evidence for his
theory.

For instance, according to Darwin, animal breeders who mated different
varieties of cattle in order to bring about new varieties that produced
more milk, were ultimately going to transform them into a different
species. Darwin's notion of "unlimited variation" is best seen in the
following sentence from The Origin of Species:

I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural
selection, more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and
larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.152


The reason Darwin cited such a far-fetched example was the primitive
understanding of science in his day. Since then, in the 20th century,
science has posited the principle of "genetic stability" (genetic
homeostasis), based on the results of experiments conducted on living
things. This principle holds that, since all mating attempts carried
out to produce new variations have been inconclusive, there are strict
barriers among different species of living things. This meant that it
was absolutely impossible for animal breeders to convert cattle into a
different species by mating different variations of them, as Darwin had
postulated.

Norman Macbeth, who disproved Darwinism in his book Darwin Retried,
states:

The heart of the problem is whether living things do indeed vary to an
unlimited extent... The species look stable. We have all heard of
disappointed breeders who carried their work to a certain point only to
see the animals or plants revert to where they had started. Despite
strenuous efforts for two or three centuries, it has never been
possible to produce a blue rose or a black tulip.153

Luther Burbank, considered the most competent breeder of all time,
expressed this fact when he said, "there are limits to the development
possible, and these limits follow a law." 154 The Danish scientist W.
L. Johannsen sums the matter up this way:

The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis
cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such a
variability does not contain the secret of 'indefinite departure.155


Antibiotic Resistance and DDT Immunity are not Evidence for Evolution

One of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present as
evidence for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics.
Many evolutionist sources show antibiotic resistance as "an example of
the development of living things by advantageous mutations". A similar
claim is also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides
such as DDT.

However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too.

Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by micro-organisms
to fight other micro-organisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin,
discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realized that mould
produced a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this
discovery marked a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics
derived from micro-organisms were used against bacteria and the results
were successful.

Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to
antibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this: A large
proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but
some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate
rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire
population becomes immune to antibiotics.

Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by
adapting to conditions".

The truth, however, is very different from this superficial
interpretation. One of the scientists who has done the most detailed
research into this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who
is also known for his book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner
maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different
mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of
evolution. These two mechanisms are:

1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.

2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data
because of mutation.

Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published
in 2001:

Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to
these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the
antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... The organisms
having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them
resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a
particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in
accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a
variety of antibiotics.156

Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the
kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account
for Evolution. The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory
must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add
new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only
spreads around genes that are already in some species.157

So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic
information is produced: genetic information that already exists is
simply transferred between bacteria.

The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation,
is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes:

....A microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic
through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin,
which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first
reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire
resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the
process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of
streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations
needed by NDT[Neo Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants
resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its
molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. This change in the
surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin
molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It
turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore
a loss of information. The main point is that (Evolution) cannot be
achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there
are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only
degrade specificity.158

To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that
bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the
"decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic
information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure
of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes
"disabled". (Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the
mutated bacterium is less functional than that of normal bacterium).
Since this "disability" prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the
ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops.

Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic
information".

The same situation holds true for the immunity that insects develop to
DDT and similar insecticides. In most of these instances, immunity
genes that already exist are used. The evolutionist biologist Francisco
Ayala admits this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required for
resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently
present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made
compounds."159 Some other examples explained by mutation, just as with
the ribosome mutation mentioned above, are phenomena that cause
"genetic information deficit" in insects.

In this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity mechanisms in
bacteria and insects constitute evidence for the theory of evolution.
That is because the theory of evolution is based on the assertion that
living things develop through mutations. However, Spetner explains that
neither antibiotic immunity nor any other biological phenomena indicate
such an example of mutation:

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No
random mutations that could represent the mutations required by
Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level
have added any information. The question I address is: Are the
mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for
support? The answer turns out to be NO!160


The Fallacy of Vestigial Organs

For a long time, the concept of "vestigial organs" appeared frequently
in evolutionist literature as "evidence" of evolution. Eventually, it
was silently put to rest when this was proved to be invalid. But some
evolutionists still believe in it, and from time to time someone will
try to advance "vestigial organs" as important evidence of evolution.

The notion of "vestigial organs" was first put forward a century ago.
As evolutionists would have it, there existed in the bodies of some
creatures a number of non-functional organs. These had been inherited
from progenitors and had gradually become vestigial from lack of use.


All instances of vestigial organs have been disproved in time. For
example the semicircular fold in the eye, which was mentioned in the
Origins as a vestigial structure, has been shown to be fully functional
in our time, though its function was unknown in Darwin's time. This
organ lubricates the eyeball.

The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on
insufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact
organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered". The best
indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in
evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S.R. Scadding, an
evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can
vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the
journal 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.161

The list of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist R.
Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 organs, including the
appendix and coccyx. As science progressed, it was discovered that all
of the organs in Wiedersheim's list in fact had very important
functions. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was
supposed to be a "vestigial organ", was in fact a lymphoid organ that
fought against infections in the body. This fact was made clear 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."162

It was also discovered that the tonsils, which were included in the
same list of vestigial organs, had a significant role in protecting the
throat against infections, particularly until adolescence. It was found
that the coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column supports the
bones around the pelvis and is the convergence point of some small
muscles and for this reason, it would not be possible to sit
comfortably without a coccyx. In the years that followed, it was
realised that the thymus triggered the immune system in the human body
by activating the T cells, that the pineal gland was in charge of the
secretion of some important hormones, that the thyroid gland was
effective in providing steady growth in babies and children, and that
the pituitary gland controlled the correct functioning of many hormone
glands. All of these were once conside-red to be "vestigial organs".
Finally, the semi-lunar fold in the eye, which was referred to as a
vestigial organ by Darwin, has been found in fact to be in charge of
cleansing and lubricating the eyeball.

There was a very important logical error in the evolutionist claim
regarding vestigial organs. As we have just seen, this claim was that
the vestigial organs in living things were inherited from their
ancestors. However, some of the alleged "vestigial" organs are not
found in the species alleged to be the ancestors of human beings! For
example, the appendix does not exist in some ape species that are said
to be ancestors of man. The famous biologist H. Enoch, who challenged
the theory of vestigial organs, expressed this logical error as
follows:

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?163

Simply put, the scenario of vestigial organs put forward by
evolutionists contains a number of serious logical flaws, and has in
any case been proven to be scientifically untrue. There exists not one
inherited vestigial organ in the human body, since human beings did not
evolve from other creatures as a result of chance, but were created in
their current, complete, and perfect form. "

.

Relevant Pages

  • Science Disproves Evolution
    ... ancestors. ... They were called vestigial organs. ... of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened. ... the evidence for evolution. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs
    ... Topic:-Vestigial organs not necessarily proof of evolution for Darwin ... I would argue that vestigial organs do not necessarily ... in his time, there were no common tools to carry out varied, ... It is unwise jump to conclusion that intelligent designer has to make ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Vestigiality is a placeholder for secular ignorance not evidence of evolution
    ... so I have been brushing up recently on evolution. ... I noticed numerous and extensive rebuttals from creationists ... It was claimed that there were no fewer than 180 vestigial organs ... Unfortunately for the atheists By ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... They were called vestigial organs. ... of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened. ... If this is the best you can do Pahu, an exercise is self delusion, ... 'macro evolution'; you shouldnt even be talking about macro ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Re: Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs
    ... Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs ... Associate Prof of Medicine ... Topic:-Vestigial organs not necessarily proof of evolution for Darwin ... and then a second MS Word document that I format ...
    (talk.origins)