Re: How do the complex structures of the most ancient creatures demolish the theory of evolution ?
- From: "Iain" <iain_inkster@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Sep 2005 06:59:10 -0700
harunyahya wrote:
> How do the complex structures of the most ancient creatures demolish
> the theory of evolution ?
>
> HARUN YAHYA
> www.harunyahya.com
>
> Living things form a chain in the fossil record. When we look at these
> from the oldest to the more recent, they emerge in the form of micro
> organisms, invertebrate sea creatures, fish, amphibians, reptiles,
> birds, and mammals. Proponents of the theory of evolution describe this
> chain in a prejudiced manner, and try to present it as proof of the
> theory of evolution. They claim that living things developed from
> simple to complex forms, and that during this process a wide variety in
> living species came about. For example, evolutionists suggest that the
> fact that no human fossils are to be found when 300-million-year-old
> fossil beds are examined is in some way proof of this.
> The Turkish evolutionist Professor Aykut Kence says:
> "Do you wish to invalidate the theory of evolution? Then go and find
> some human fossils from the Cambrian Age! Anyone who does that will
> disprove the theory of evolution, and even win the Nobel Prize for his
> discovery."
>
> Let us examine the evolutionist logic that pervades Professor Kence's
> words. The statement that living things developed from primitive forms
> to complex ones is an evolutionist prejudice that in no way reflects
> the truth. The American professor of biology Frank L. Marsh, who
> considered that evolutionist claim, maintains in his book Variation and
> Fixity in Nature, that living things cannot be arranged in a
> continuous, unbroken series from simple to complex.
>
> The fact that almost all known animal phyla suddenly emerged in the
> Cambrian period is strong evidence against evolutionist claims in this
> regard.
Not when one considers how long the Cambrian era is.
Where is your evidence that the Cambrian era is too short for this to
occur?
> Furthermore, those creatures which suddenly emerged
They did not suddenly emerge.
> possessed
> complex bodily structures, not simple ones-the exact opposite of the
> evolutionist assumption.
You have not stated what organism you have in mind. The first known
organisms did not possess complex bodily structures at all. Any such
structures they might have had certainly are not irreducably complex.
Moreover, any that possessed 100% rudimentary structures we would not
expect to be fossilised, which complements our knowledge of
paleogeology and does not compromise our understanding of evolutionary
history one bit.
One would not expect to ever find much in the way of fossilised
single-celled organisms -- Why would we?
> Trilobites belonged to the Arthropoda phylum, and were very complicated
> creatures with hard shells, articulated bodies, and complex organs. The
> fossil record has made it possible to carry out very detailed studies
> of trilobites' eyes. The trilobite eye is made up of hundreds of tiny
> facets, and each one of these contains two lens layers.
Complexity! One of the telltale signs of natural selection.
> This eye
> structure is a real wonder of design.
It is not design; It is natural.
> David Raup, a professor of
> geology at 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."
So? Nature has always overtaken science in many ways. What's your
point?
Complexity is not an argument against evolution, because evolution
involves natural selection, which systematally churns out complexity
via simple natural principles.
> Another interesting aspect of the matter is that flies in our day
> possess the same eye structure. In other words, the same structure has
> existed for the last 520 million years.
Yyyyeeees. So?
> Very little was known about this extraordinary situation in the
> Cambrian Age when Charles Darwin was writing The Origin of Species.
Since evolution by natural selection has been re-discovered a
thousandfold since Darwin's time, it doesn't really matter what
knowledge Darwin lacked, unless one is studying the history of science.
> Only since Darwin's time has the fossil record revealed that life
> suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age,
It did not emerge suddenly.
> and that trilobites and other
> invertebrates came into being all at once.
They did not.
> For this reason, Darwin was
> unable to treat the subject fully in the book.
Why Darwin? Darwin's book is not important, nor are the intricasies of
his words; A million textbooks fill in that knowledge. If he were alive
today, I'm sure he'd bring out a second edition. Darwin's Origin of
Species was not an official scientific publication or textbook as such,
but a popular book about science based on his findings. You cannot
overhaul biology by scrutinising that book as if it were a Holy Book.
> But he did touch on the
> subject under the heading "On the sudden appearance of groups of allied
> species in the lowest known fossiliferous strata," where he wrote the
> following about the Silurian Age (a name which at that time encompassed
> what we now call the Cambrian):
Why is this relevant?
> For instance, 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.
And??? Darwin alone couldn't answer one particular question in the 19th
century, of his own asking, and that is supposed to be catastrophic to
modern biology???
> Darwin said "If my theory be true, it is indisputable that the world
> swarmed with living creatures before the Silurian Age." As for the
> question of why there were no fossils of these creatures, he tried to
> supply an answer throughout his book, using the excuse that "the fossil
> record is very lacking."
Why the Darwin business? Why pick on one particular biologist?
That the "fossil record is very lacking" is accurate -- especially
given the small likelihood of fossilisation of very small fragile
organisms.
> But nowadays the fossil record is quite
> complete,
It is not, and never will be.
> and it clearly reveals that creatures from the Cambrian Age
> did not have ancestors.
Didn't have ancestors???? Why do you think that???
> This means that we have to reject that sentence
> of Darwin's which begins "If my theory be true." Darwin's hypotheses
> were invalid, and for that reason, his theory is mistaken.
Only if you leap to the conclusion that there are no ancestors of
Cambrian life.
> Another example demonstrating that life did not develop from primitive
> forms to complex ones and that life was already exceedingly complex
> from the moment when it first emerged is the shark, which the fossil
> record shows to have emerged some 400 million years ago. This animal
> possesses superior features not even seen in animals created millions
> of years after it, such as the way it can regenerate lost teeth.
> Another example is the astonishing resemblances between mammals' eyes
> and those of octopuses which lived on Earth millions of years before
> mammals.
> These examples make it clear that living species cannot be neatly
> arranged from the primitive to the complex.
>
> This fact also emerged as the result of analyses of studies of living
> things' forms, functions, and genes. For instance, when we examine the
> very lowest levels of the fossil record from the point of view of shape
> and size, we see many creatures that were much larger than those which
> came later (such as dinosaurs).
>
> When we look at the functional properties of living things, we see
> exactly the same thing. As regards structural development, the ear is
> an example that disproves the claim of "development from the primitive
> to the complex." Amphibians possess a middle-ear space, yet reptiles,
> which emerged after them, have a much simpler system, based on a single
> small bone, and have no middle-ear space at all.
There is no supposed reason why structures cannot simplify, just that
there is an temporal inclination toward the complex. Your point?
> Genetic studies have produced similar results. Research has
> demonstrated that the number of chromosomes has no relation to animals'
> complexity. For example, human beings possess 46 chromosomes, the
> copepode six, and the microscopic creature called radiolaria exactly
> 800.
>
> Living things were created at the most "appropriate" time for them
>
> The real fact that emerges from examination of the fossil record is
> that living things emerged in the periods most suitable for them. God
> has designed all creatures superbly, and has made them well-suited to
> meet their needs at the times when they emerged on the Earth.
> Let us consider one example of this: the Earth at the time when the
> oldest bacteria fossils emerge, some 3.5 billion years ago. Atmospheric
> and temperature conditions at the time were not at all suited to
> support complex creatures or human beings. That also applies to the
> Cambrian Age, the finding of human fossils from which, according to the
> evolutionist Kence, would invalidate the theory of evolution. This
> period, which refers to some 530 million years ago, was definitely
> unsuitable for human life. (There were no land animals at all at that
> time.)
>
> The situation is the same in the great majority of succeeding periods.
> Examination of the fossil record shows that conditions able to support
> human life have only existed for the last few million years. The same
> applies to all other living things. Each living group emerged when the
> appropriate conditions for it had been arrived at-in other words, "when
> the time was right."
> Evolutionists make an enormous contradiction in the face of that fact,
> trying to explain it as if these appropriate conditions themselves had
> created living things, whereas the coming about of "appropriate
> conditions" only meant that the right time had come. Living things can
> only emerge with a conscious intervention-in other words, a
> supernatural creation.
>
> For this reason, the emergence of living things by stages is evidence
> not of evolution, but of the infinite knowledge and wisdom of God, Who
> created them. Every living group created established the appropriate
> conditions for the next group to emerge, and an ecological balance with
> all living things was set up for us over a long period of time.
> On the other hand, we must be aware that this long period of time is
> only long to us. For God it is but a single "moment." Time is a concept
> that only applies to created things. As the creator of time itself, God
> is not bound by it. (For more details see Harun Yahya: Timelessness and
> the Reality of Fate.)
>
> If evolutionists wish to show that one species turned into another,
> then showing that living things emerged step by step on the Earth is no
> good. The evidence they have to come up with is fossils of the
> intermediate forms that link these different species together.
All fossils are of that nature.
> A theory
> that maintains that invertebrates turned into fish,
Ye, we have early fish.
>fish into reptiles,
Yes, we have those.
> and reptiles into birds
....and those...
> and mammals has to find the fossils to prove
> it. Darwin accepted that, and wrote that countless examples of these
> would have to be found, even though none were so far available. In the
> 150 years that have passed since then, no intermediate forms have been
> found.
All fossils are intermediate, unless they died without children.
Very late homo-erectus may possibly have bred with very early-homo
sapiens -- We left no space between the species when we defined them,
so your request makes no sense.
> As the evolutionist paleontologist Derek W. Ager has admitted,
> the fossil record shows "not gradual evolution, but the sudden
> explosion of one group at the expense of another."
"Sudden" refers to several hundred thousand generations instead of
millions.
Your point?
Just as one would logically predict, actual speciation happens in
accordance with events inducing isolation and environmental pressure --
So relative to organims keeping stable forms, it's only natural that
major change would happen in comparatively short bursts.
> In conclusion, natural history reveals that living things did not come
> about by chance, but that they were created, stage by stage, over long
> periods over time. This is in complete agreement with the information
> about creation given in the Qur'an, in which God reveals that he
> created the universe and all living things in "six days":
>
> God is He Who created the heavens and the Earth and everything between
> them in six days and then established Himself firmly upon the Throne.
> You have no protector or intercessor apart from Him. So will you not
> pay heed? (Qur'an, 32: 4)
>
> The word "day" in the verse (yawm in Arabic) also means a long period
> of time. In other words, the Qur'an notes that all of nature was
> created over different times, not all at once. Modern geological
> discoveries paint a picture that confirms this.
My dear lad, have you gone off your rocker?
If you intended to say "our knowledge of pre-Cambrian life is murkey",
then I agree. To conclude from that that you have shot down our
knowledge of the process behind life on earth is ludicrous.
~Iain
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: How do the complex structures of the most ancient creatures demolish the theory of evolution ?
- Next by Date: Re: The first Law of Thermodynamics
- Previous by thread: How do the complex structures of the most ancient creatures demolish the theory of evolution ?
- Next by thread: Re: How do the complex structures of the most ancient creatures demolish the theory of evolution ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
