Mighty Fine Equine

National Geographic Darwin Error

The November issue of National Geographic magazine (NG) posed the question "Was Darwin Wrong?" on its front cover. Naturalist David Quammen, author of the article of the same name, replied "No" to this question of his own perspective, and said that the Darwinian theory of evolution is now supported by strong scientific evidence. Quammen repeated the main conclusions of book of Darwin's Origin of Species, but overlooked one important detail.

Darwin added a new chapter in his book, one called "Difficulties on Theory" and openly admitted the existence of difficulties in these terms:

This is the sum of the various objections Chief and difficulties in May that be justly urged against my theory ... I felt these difficulties far too heavy for many years doubt their weight. 1

The fact is, however, that the NG article discussed not one of the phenomena that Darwin regarded as a problem for his theory, and even ignore their existence. For example, although Darwin alludes in his book how the fossil failed to back his theory and complexity in the eye, NG magazine does not even touch on topics such as the theory of evolution is incapable of realizing that the explosion Cambrian biological complexity and the origin of genetic information.

Quammen, who is therefore more than a Darwinist Darwin himself, emerged as the defender not a theory that can explain the difficulty, but a "dogma" that must be immune from criticism.

In this section, so-called evidence is analyzed and Quammen Darwinism propaganda launched by the magazine NG refuted.

An example of dogmatic position NG Turkey

The English edition of the NG article "Was Darwin Wrong? Also devoted space works of Harun Yahya on the theory of evolution. In the section describing the reactions in the world against evolution, the following words appeared in reference to Harun Yahya:

Their discomfort is paralleled by Islamic creationists such as Harun Yahya, author of a recent book entitled The Evolution Deceit, who points to the story of the creation of six days in the Koran as the literal truth and calls the theory of evolution "nothing but a deception imposed on us by the dominators of the world system."

Interestingly However, Harun Yahya does not appear in NG Turkish version, and this section has been amended, assuming the following form: "This discomfort shows a parallelism between those who support the Islamic idea of creation. "

As someone who claims that his primary objective being that of describing the philosophy and scientific invalidity of Darwinism Harun Yahya has closely followed the Darwinist propaganda in recent years and has responded in the light of results Scientists at the pro-evolutionary writings and broadcasts of media organizations, which is a NG. (see www.darwinism-watch.com)

If Darwinism were actually based on a body of evidence, as alleged in this NG article, then why is NG Turkey attempts to prevent Scientific criticism of Harun Yahya to be heard? Could it be that the GN Turkey is concerned that Darwinism is incapable of withstanding criticism as scientific? In fact, this attitude by the office of Turkey NG not only shows that the magazine is not willing to inform its readers of the source of criticism Efficient evolution, but also confirms the criticism that he tries to keep his feet on Darwinism as an ideology.

NG is not prepared to deal with Modern Scientific Facts

There is no doubt that in order to provide a realistic response to the question "Was Darwin Wrong? we must look at what Darwin actually said and to compare this to modern scientific facts. In his book The Origin of Species, in which he outlined his theory of evolution, Darwin provided a very important criterion to test his theory. Therefore, concrete is the criterion that in the words of Darwin, he would "absolutely break down" theory. Darwin wrote:

"If we could prove that any complex organ existed, which could not have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. "2

Darwin supports that organs evolved in a gradual process. The reflections of this imaginary process in reverse, it seems that Darwin has assumed that these bodies have reducibility. However, progress in the field of biochemistry, particularly over the last 40 years have revealed that the cell has a higher complexity, the details are unknown at the time of Darwin, which is why he has been treated a black "box", and that certain structures within the cell actually possesses the "irreducible complexity".

"Irreducible complexity" is a phenomenon based on empirical evidence and is literally the antithesis of the theory Darwin. The figure most important to bring this concept to the scientific agenda is the biochemist Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University in the USA. In his book published in 1996 Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution Behe examines the irreducibly complex nature of the cell and some other biological structures, and reveals that they absolutely can not be explained in evolutionary terms. Behe states the fact that irreducible complexity has on the and claims of Darwinism:

"For Darwin, the cell was a" black box "- its inner workings were utterly mysterious for him. Now the black box has been opened and we know how it works. Applying the criterion of Darwin to ultra-complex world of machinery molecular and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years we can say that Darwin's theory has "absolutely broken down "" 3.

Irreducible complexity has demolished Darwinism, and proved that life is the product of intelligent design, otherwise said that God created all living things. NG how it seeks to keep its readers is a flight from reality.

Tales biogeographic NG

In his article in the NG, Quammen begins his account of the so-called evidence for Darwinism with biogeography, and it may be useful to provide a description of this concept at this point. Biogeography is a branch of science that studies the geographical distribution of species and seeks an answer to the question of how they came to these areas of habitat by mapping their location on Earth.

Most books in the field of biogeography are filled with facts that do not say anything, either for or against the theory of evolution as the cards of life settlements species, the characteristics of these areas, issues concerning the spread of organisms, and the grouping of species based on the geographical ... 4

When their distribution on Earth is examined, one can see that species generally have a worldwide distribution. Species are rather dispersed in large groups in areas with specific climatic conditions and environmental factors. Since Darwin, evolutionists have searched to describe this gap as evidence of evolution, but regarding the "basic categories living in the geographical distribution of their efforts have not succeeded in developing a scenario evolving.

In their book, Systematics and Biogeography, G. Nelson, N. Platnick New York American Museum of Natural History analyzed the studies in this area and presented their findings:

We conclude, therefore, that biogeography (or the geographic distribution of organisms) has not been demonstrated that the evidence for or against evolution in all directions. 5

If evolutionists really willing to offer proof of their theory, then they should do is abandon their fairy tales about "whether this living thing is here, then it must have evolved here, and if this life thing is there then it must have evolved there "and, instead of scientifically document their own answers to the question of how living beings are born first. (This is a indisputable fact that the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection can not explain the origin of species.)

The fact that claims based on the evolutionary biogeography are myths without any scientific evidence clearly shows the inspection of complaints about NG paleontology. The fossil record shows clearly that the idea that living things spread by evolution is a myth.

NG Paleontology deception

NG is a generalization of the fossil beds, telling its readers that the so-called species closely relatives are usually found side by side in successive strata, and that life forms dating back millions of years in stratum is followed by a similar though not identical, one in the next layer. An example of this generalization, he cites the sequence of equine that even evolutionists abandoned years ago, she contends that the horse of modern times emerged at the end of the sequence Hyracotherium, Orohippus, Epihippus and Mohippus, whose fossils found in successive layers.

What is NG is here consists of a flagrant deception. The sequence equine is unfounded, whose disability has been demonstrated. That being the case, put forward as a generalization on the fossil record can only be described as nothing but an attempt to check the spread of misleading example.

The life forms emerged without progenitors of evolution, but in a unique and perfect bodily structures

Darwin, who argued that living things arose through the gradual evolution and hoped that the fossils to confirm this allegation would be obtained in future excavations, was wrong. The fossils obtained from endless searches conducted by paleontologists from around the world have produced results that refute openly the idea of a gradual change in the consecutive layers. These facts relate to the phenomena of sudden appearance and stasis.

Species appear suddenly, without evolutionary progenitors but with flawless bodily structures. In his 1999 book Fossils and Evolution, Tom Kemp, Curator of the Zoo Collections in Oxford University Museum of Natural History, admits:

In virtually all cases, a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms. 6

Fossils of the hundreds of millions years, which have nothing
trace the evolution of invalidating the neo-Darwinism

In addition, species may have no progressive change, as suggested by the generalization NG. Species with a natural history of hundreds of millions of years have "stability" demonstrating continuously throughout the geological layers. The shark, coelacanth, ants, salamanders and many other species whose fossils were found and which have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, has led paleontologists to accept stasis as a of the most striking aspects of the fossil. This refutes Darwinism prediction of progressive change and invalidate the theory. Teacher Geology of Peter J. Williamson describes this in Nature magazine:

The main problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be an exhaustive explanation of the evolutionary process, failed to predict the stagnation Long-term morphological now widely recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record. 7

In short, the claim is a graduate NG change through the geological strata is a myth supported in the face of the science of paleontology. The way that NG is designed to support that myth with equine sequence makes matters worse.

The truth in that sequence of equine NG seeks to conceal from his readers

The equine sequence is based on several hoofed fossils unearthed in North America. Darwinists define these in such a way that establish a sequence, based on fossil dental characteristics and number of toes, and for years to bring these facts as evidence for Darwinism. Continuing the paleontological excavations, however, definitively revealed inconsistencies in this series. NG, known for his blind devotion Darwinism did not hesitate to hide this evolution of its readers and writing that the ancestors of the presumed evolution Horse succeed in consecutive strata.

Former BBC science writer Gordon Rattray Taylor describes how the sequence of equine is no evidence for Darwinism:

But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find phylogenies convincing or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change ... The horse is often cited as the only completely successful example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. He is alleged to show a continuing increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Samples from different sources can be grouped into a convincing looking sequence, but there is no evidence they were actually ranged in this order in time. 8

At a meeting in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of Natural History, attended by 150 evolutionists, a speaker, Boyce Rensberger, said there was no basis in the fossil record for the scenario of equine evolution, and that no equine gradual evolution ever took place:

The example commonly spoken of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures who lived there nearly 50 million years to become much bigger horse fingers, has long been known to be false. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, then turn off. Transitional forms are unknown. 9

Discoveries that included living in the fantasy sequence of equine evolution has actually lived in the same time, even all, totally refute Quammen. One of the most striking examples of this occurred in 1981. Fossils of thousands of living beings, 10 million years, who had been buried under lava following a volcanic eruption and whose skeleton had been preserved to Nowadays, were unearthed in the U.S. state of Nebraska. With this discovery, it appeared that the three horses and one tip expected have lived at different times and have ancestral relationships between them within the equine sequence imaginary evolutionists actually lived coast to coast. Interestingly, the source of this information is NG magazine. 10

The myth of the evolution of whales

I see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with outlets larger and larger until a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale. 11

From fishing to watch bears along a riverbank, Darwin outlined his ideas on the origin of whales in these words in his book The Origin of Species, although he has chosen delete this section from later editions of the book. Yet evolutionists who came after Darwin had no hesitation Adoption of this myth, with several minor changes, which came down as a monument of the nature of his unlimited imagination. They continued to propagate the myth that whales evolved not from the bears, but other land mammals, as if it were a scientific fact.

It can now be seen that the GN, one of the main representatives of the Darwinian mythology, not behave differently, and tries to portray This great myth, supported for reasons of dogma of evolution, as representing evidence of evolution.

There are huge differences in terms of basic physiological characteristics such as water conservation, vision and communication between whales and land mammals who were their ancestors. Now for the dilemma facing the scientific myth of evolution by examining the design of whales:

The special water conservation planning in the bodies of whales

Although they live in water, the whales are unable to meet their water needs from seawater salt. They need fresh water to live. Even if you do not know exactly how they meet their water needs, we believe much of it is obtained by eating sea creatures that contain concentrations of salt that are 30% lower than those of the ocean water.In such an environment, where freshwater is extremely rare, the maximum retention of water in living bodies Things "and a minimum consumption thereof are critical. Water levels are of great importance for whales, why, like camels, whales do not perspire. Their kidneys regulate the urine in such a way as to provide water.

Why is milk fat whale?

Another delicate balance in For water requirements appears in the fat content in milk of female whale. The mother whale feeds her young with a very thick milk, the consistency cheese. This milk is ten times more fat than human milk. There is a reason why this chemical milk contains a high level of fat. Water is produced as a side product, fats are treated as having been consumed by the baby. In this way the mother responds to the need for her offspring to water with minimal water loss.

Design in the eyes of whales

Over there are complex arrangements for the design Eye whale and its communication systems, no examples of which are found in terrestrial mammals. Terrestrial mammals have eyelids to protect against dust and impact. Whales, on the other hand, have a hard coating to protect against a different threat, pressure under the sea. In addition, the index refraction in the design of the whale's eye allows for an orca to leap and catch a fish six feet above the water level in a park Amusement with considerable accuracy. In addition, the eyes of whales are on each side of the head, unlike terrestrial mammals, protecting and current. Thank you at the rod and cone cells in the eye, their level of sensitivity to the nuances of color of light, and other are very high. In addition to this ratio, the presence of phosphorus in the eyes is a design that facilitates their ability to see in the dark depths of oceans.

The mathematical calculation used by whales

The sense used by whales in the location of food sources and a another is not really a view, but rather hearing. Many whales expel the dark regions at the bottom of the sea through a natural form of sonar. Brain of the whale emits clicking sounds in a manner not yet fully understood by scientists. The distance of an object is determined by a mathematical calculation. The whale brain increases the speed at which it emits sounds hit an object and bounce back by the time required for this and dividing the result by two. The result is the distance of the object from itself. In addition, the whale also has the ability to concentrate sound waves with his brain on a specific issue and issue them as a pulse of light. The waves of return are analyzed and interpreted in brain of the animal. This interpretation determines the shape of the body in front of it, its size, speed and position. The skull of the animal is soundproofed to protect against the bombing of powerful sound waves, it constantly emits and which could even seriously damage the brain itself. The sound system of the animal is incredibly sensitive, so the U.S. Navy mimics the design of sonar in marine mammals in the development its own technology. 12

Special designs for whale calf

Drawings perfect whales are by no means limited to these. The form the mouth of a whale has been designed so to be perfectly suited to meet his mother's breasts, so that the calf is able to suckle without losing a drop of milk without taking a drop of seawater In addition, they have lungs that store high levels of oxygen for long dives and cone earrings designed to protect high pressure.

These arrangements, each of which denotes a clear design, include whales and should not be found in all terrestrial mammals. NG, however, he expects that readers to put aside reason and believe that these all came by chance. NG deny that whales have been intelligently designed, maintaining instead that one fine day, a terrestrial mammal has decided to live in the sea, the whale has evolved as the result of unconscious mechanisms such as random mutations and natural selection.

However, changing what could possibly produce sonar in a mammal that was the ancestor whale? Bearing in mind the effect of mutations and the importance of the brain to the survival of the whale, it is clear that mutations damage the brain, paralyzing or killing whales. Could the brain, which produces sound waves, can focus them on a particular issue and determine the location objects using a mathematical calculation to acquire sonar perfect in an area that would be damaged during this process random? By coincidence, what could it produce a quality sonar units such as high technology, even the U.S. Navy for development have been unable to match? What changes could turn the feet of a terrestrial mammal is fins and tail is capable of powering several tons weight?

There is no doubt that these issues may also be asked with regard to systems that use water productively, the suction system and protection systems in the eye and ear. However, NG has no reasonable answer to to these questions. There is only one answer. The whales were created fully formed in a single moment. God created whales to be impeccable, with all the systems to their needs, as did all other living things. In a verse of the Koran it is revealed that:

The humanity! Remember God's blessing for you. Is there any creator other than God provides for you from heaven and the earth? There is no god but Him. So how have you been perverted? (Qur'an, 35: 3)

(For a more detailed response to history of the great whale NG see http://www.harunyahya.com/70national_geographic_sci29.php)

NG Error embryology

Another error in the article in NG Quammen is the repetition of a myth, once known as the "law of recapitulation." This belongs to the German biologist Ernst Haeckel and his claim to the embryology Darwin was largely "inspired" by Haeckel. The law of recapitulation supports the embryonic development of living organisms repeat steps imaginary suffered during the raid of the alleged ancestors of evolution.

The fact that Quammen devotes space to this in his article reveals a wide gap of knowledge on his part. Objections in the sense that the claims Haeckel were devoid of any scientific justification and that the evidence was forged it offered 136 years ago13 began and the end of the law of recapitulation as a subject of scientific debate came there as far as 80 years 14. Even George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, admitted this fact 42 years ago in the words:

Haeckel incorrectly principle of evolution into question. It is now clearly established that ontogeny does not repeat not phylogeny. 15

Furthermore, the myth of recapitulation, which Ng has no qualms about summary itself is what is embryologist Colombia referred to 1997 as "the most experienced fraud in the history of biology." In his book Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (History creation and natural), written in 1868, Haeckel had deliberately distorted the image of the monkey man and dog embryos in a so to support his claim.

A striking aspect of this fraud is that it is also a "monument's centennial" dogmatism Darwinism. Until recently, a number of Darwinist sources, including textbooks, continued to be used designs such counterfeit they were, or to repeat the myth of recapitulation. Professor of Harvard University and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould posted great common sense and offered the following criticism:

... [W] e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century Mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in many if not most, of modern textbooks! 16

NG did not use Designs of counterfeiting. Yet he has no hesitation about using recapitulation, whose disability occurred there at least 80 years, support for Darwinism.

We urge to consider the words NG Stephen Jay Gould's.

NG errors against the morphology

Quammen presents a more suggestive approach in this section where he deals with claims of Darwin on the subject of morphology. The way a zoo is organized into birds, monkeys, deer, crocodiles or fish in the aquarium is interpreted as evidence of evolution. According Quammen, the fact that living beings can be classified under a hierarchical system in families, orders and kingdoms must be the product of an evolutionary process.

However, the representation of hierarchical Quammen evidence of evolution is absurd. It is because the fact that life forms can be classified hierarchically not a prediction first made by evolutionists, then confirmed by thereafter. The Swedish scientist Carl von Linné, the father of the modern system of classification, was a scientist who believed in creation out of nothing and that the classification considered the product of intelligent design. Which is consistent with what we see with our own eyes, is based in common sense. The ability to be classified hierarchically is a well-known characteristic of intelligent design. Transportation, for example, can be classified as land, air and sea vehicles, and may be decomposed into sub-categories and sub-groups even smaller. However, this classification does not show that the modes in question has arisen through evolution.

Indeed, in an article published in the magazine New Scientist, the eminent evolutionary Mark Ridley made the following statement:

The mere fact that species can be classified hierarchically into genera, families, and so on, is not an argument for evolution. It is possible to classify any set of objects in a hierarchy of whether their variation is adaptive or not. 17

Preconception Quammen's

In the same way Quammen writes are far from supporting his request, it discloses also how it is based on preconceptions rather than on scientific evidence:

This pattern of similarities at various levels? Groups similar species nested within larger groupings, and all descendants of a single source? is not naturally present in Other collections of objects. You will not find anything equivalent if you try to categorize rocks, or musical instruments or jewelry. Why not? Because rock types and styles of jewelry do not reflect unbroken descent from common ancestors. Biodiversity fact. The number of features shared between one species and another indicates how recently those two species diverged from a shared lineage. (p. 13)

Quammen placed hierarchical categorization in living in a separate place, because it reflects a continuous chain of descent from an ancestor common. This term, however, is helpless in the labeling of Quammen's desperate attempts to prove Darwin right.

As explained above, there are no fossils that could be offered as evidence of an evolutionary link between categories of life. Lyrics the eminent evolutionist paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould that "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the ends and nodes of their branches "are an admission that there is actually no evidence for the evolution of links assumed to exist between living beings. 18

In short, the origin of the chain of evolution down Quammen claims between the various categories Life is not a scientific fact, as the fossil record, but rather his own dogmatic mentality.

The structure of the skeleton five-digit error

Quammen argues that the way that various vertebrates such as bats, dolphins and human beings all share the characteristic of having five digits of the progeny derived from a common ancestor. This claim rests on the fact that although there is the same basic plan in the face and legs Rear living beings in question, they can still be easily differentiated (claim homological). This claim can Quammen's course deceive those readers who do not know the facts of modern science. Progress in the field of molecular biology to invalidate final This morphology-based claim. A striking discovery that led to this is that the production of these bodies, supposed to be a legacy of common ancestor, is in fact controlled by different genes in different creatures.

The evolutionary biologist William Fix describes the collapse of the evolutionary thesis concerning pentadactylism (having five digits) in this area in the face of this discovery:

The former textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious similarities between the skeletons of members of different animals. Thus, the "chiridien 'pattern class is in the arms of a man, wing of a bird, and fin whales, which shall state their common origin. However, if these different structures have been transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by selecting the environment, the theory would make sense. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes transmitted from a common ancestor has broken down. 19

NG vestigial Darwinism

Quammen striking displays a determination not to grasp the fact that allegations of Darwin have been demolished by modern science. An indication of this is his repetition of the claim for rudimentary organs, a claim which is quite illusory. It is maintained in the article that bodies such as the male nipple, structures claimed to be the remains of back legs some snakes, or the wings are covered with beetles that are not actually used, are redundant, organ function without left by the process scalable. Quammen obviously ignores the final results of scientific developments:

The list of more than 180 supposed vestigial organs early 20th century eventually dropped to almost nothing in the face of discoveries in scientific research. One by one, it appeared that many organs, such as appendix and Semilunaris plica, once thought to be rudimentary organs, are actually functions.20 "Science" is all case, the process by which humans come to know what was hitherto unknown. The gradual emergence of functions of organs that were once considered relics shows that, logically, the functions of the organs of years remaining whose functions are unknown will soon revealed.

Indeed, many present day evolutionists have admitted that the myth of "rudimentary organs" is an argument rooted in ignorance. In an article entitled "Do Vestigial organs Represent Evidence for Evolution?" Published in the journal Evolutionary Theory, the evolutionary biologist SR Scadding acknowledge this fact:

As it is not possible to unambiguously identify the structures unnecessary, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that "the vestiges organs' provide no special evidence the theory of evolution. 21

Evolutionists claim 'on the subject of vestigial organs not follow a vestigialism in these organs, but the nature of the remains of their own prospects. The existence of any living thing that proves the existence of God, his creator. The way that inanimate and unconscious atoms combine to produce a sound, smell, touch and see the human being is evidence of perfect creation of God. Whether because it is impossible for atoms, which can not feel, hear or see, want to be perceived and united in this goal. For a collection material to stand up and look in a mirror, or for the substance to taste and touch itself, has no place in the logic of evolution. These feelings can be explained in terms of a superior creation, ie the existence of God and His creation without flaw. Despite this evident truth, evolutionists hold to the belief irrational and blind, who are themselves the product of matter and blind chance, which shows their complaint on rudimentary organs is an approach based on the biased and dogmatic.

The realization that the bodies seen by evolutionists as the remains are actually functions is proof. For example, structures described as the remains of hind legs in some snake species are now known to help them understand one another during mating. Regarding the male nipple as the product of a process evolving which is also based on a distorted logic. If the male nipple is a vestige of an evolutionary process, then males must have evolved from a population consisting solely of women, a scenario that is so unimaginable that no evolutionary thought he could accept. Coleoptera, Another example cited by Quammen, is also no evidence of evolution. Insect species that do develop functional wings are generally seen in open habitats with high winds, such as Ocean islands. In an environment where strong winds blow and surrounded by large bodies of water, insects "to be able to fly is far from being an advantage, and may even be dangerous. Because flying insects in the air are exposed to the effects of wind and can be thrown into trees or rocks, being paralyzed or dead. There may, therefore, tended to them to move towards a lifestyle based in soil. Over time, the population of insects that live near the ground is to consist of individuals who develop no wings to full. This is because, unlike flying insects, mutations that prevent the insects that live near the ground level developing wings may not be detrimental to the insect (the provision that they do not cause total disruption in physiology).

A mutation that prevented the development of the wings of a flying insect that live in houses without being influenced by winds would be harmful and perhaps even fatal. This is because normally an insect that uses its wings to feed and avoid predators would have wings without function because of this mutation and would not survive and therefore eliminated from the population.

On the other hand, in insects living in a habitat affected by the winds and use their feet to move in the same way non-flying insects, a mutation in the wings might not be fatal. Because the insect will already be accustomed to a lifestyle where he does not have wings, and he will make no difference if its wings are healthy or lose function due to mutation (provided that the mutation in question is not one that affects the general physiology of the insect). In short, a mutation destructive leading to the loss of wings of an insect may not be fatal in an environment where the wings are in any case irrelevant.

However, he can not say the beetles that are supposed to have undergone such a process are evidence of evolution. The theory of evolution suggests that the organs gradually assume a more complex form. The genetic changes proposed in support of this claim must be such as to add new genetic information from DNA of creatures. " Clearly, however, that the beetles do not gain new genetic information during this process and, instead, they suffer a loss of information in the genes that wing development control.

Is this acquisition of genetic information, which is not seen in beetles, be observed in any other living being? Absolutely not. Evolutionists have been unable to show the emergence of a new body, or even a novel protein, through random mutations.

In short, the theory of evolution maintains that living things acquire new organs with the addition of new information gene in their DNA, but the vestigial organ argument is one that involves a loss of function, in other words a loss of genetic data. Therefore, organs remains do not support the scientific theory of evolution. The reason evolutionists wish to register this claim in the scientific program is more psychological than scientific. Their display of blind devotion to materialism leads them to adopt a perspective residual to the obvious truth of creation. (You can read the article by Harun Yahya that demolishes perspective vestigial by evolutionists. Http: / / www.darwinism-watch.com/hurriyet_science0407.php)

James P. Gills, MD, founder of St. Luke's Cataract and Laser Institute in Tarpon Springs, Florida, is a science of creationism. There is also a world-renowned ophthalmologist. In his book Darwinism under the Microscope, gills cites many proofs of creation that totally undermine evolution, and he wrote that the only reason why scientists still insist on the development of cataract is the spiritual thought of themselves as product of blind chance. 22

The error of thinking that resistance to antibiotics and DDT is evidence of evolution

Article NG seeks to show that the immunity of bacteria to antibiotics and insect resistance to pesticides such as DDT is evidence of evolution. On the issue of resistance of microbes that seem to develop drugs Quammen trust states:

There is currently no more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory of this process of forced transformation among our enemy germs. (p. 21)

However, the excitement Quammen in depicting the immunity of bacteria as evidence for evolution is totally misplaced. It is explained below why these two phenomena are not evidence for Darwinism.

The first of these molecules "mortal" used against micro-organisms has been Penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming discovered a molecule that killed the bacteria Staphylococcus mold, after which antibiotics taken from micro-organisms have been used against various bacteria. Although it seemed at first definitive results were been obtained, the truth later emerged: bacteria gradually acquire resistance to antibiotics. The vast majority of bacteria exposed to antibiotics die, but from a small minority remain unaffected that multiply rapidly and eventually come to constitute any population. So the entire population becomes resistant to the antibiotic.

However, there is no question of the bacterium develops by mutation here, because the bacteria already possess the characteristics in question before being exposed to antibiotics. Despite being published evolution, the journal Scientific American has admitted these facts in its March 1998 edition:

Many bacteria possess genes for resistance before well as commercial antibiotics came into use. Scientists do not know exactly why these genes have evolved and been maintained. 23

Acquiring insect resistance to pesticides such as DDT in the same way, and again the same way, this represents no evidence of evolution.

The eminent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala accepts the truth of this in these words:

The genetic variants required for resistance to many different kinds of pesticides were apparently present in each of the populations exposed to these synthetic compounds. 24

One of those to make the most detailed research on this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner. In his book Not by chance, published in 1997, Spetner showed that the bacterial immunity effected by two different mechanisms, but these provide no support for the theory of evolution. For more details on this topic, see http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions05.php # Q19 and http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_01.html)

Another so-called piece of evidence in the article by NG, in addition to resistance in bacteria and insects, the concerns of genetic similarities.

The disappointment that evolution can be observed

NG argues that evolution can actually be seen in nature and in the laboratory. This, however, a claim is frivolous and without merit. In an article entitled "How are new species formed?" published in the June 14, 2003, edition of New Scientist, George Turner confessed following "significant":

Not long ago, we thought we knew how species formed. We felt that the process has almost always started with complete isolation of populations. It has often occurred after a population has experienced a severe "genetic bottleneck" as can happen after a pregnant woman was swept to a remote island and her offspring mated with each other. The beauty of what we called "founder effect" model is that it could be tested in the laboratory. In reality, it does not hold water. Though efforts by evolutionary biologists, no one even got close to creating a new species from a founder population. Moreover, as far as we know, no new species formed after the man released a small number of organisms in exotic environments. 25

As we have seen, evolutionists do not really know how new species are formed. In other words, the claim about Quammen able to witness evolution in action is totally without foundation. The fact that the long years of study conducted by subsidies to the length of finch beaks on the Galapagos Islands is cited in support is the result of Darwinism distort the changes represent evidence for himself. (For more information, see http://www.harunyahya.com/nas04.php)

Conclusion

As we have seen, Darwin was wrong. National Geographic asking whether it was wrong is as ridiculous as asking, "Is Freud wrong?" Or "Is Marx had deceived? "Because, like Marxism and Freudianism, Darwinism is a theory that came to the end of his life. We call NG magazine abandon support this outdated myth and accept that creation is the true origin of life.

What should do is NG to fix his preconceptions aside and cease support Darwinism as a dogma, and to cope with the scientific evidence that undermines this theory. Discoveries over the past 40 years in particular have finally revealed the invalidity of the naturalist philosophy at the heart of Darwinism. If NG does deal with this reality, he will see that the organized complexity of life and genetic information which it depends not on purpose intelligent, in other words that life did not evolve on its own luck and thanks to natural events, but has been "created".

NG - and all other Darwinists - have so far avoided dealing with this, and therefore may have been used to conceal the difficulties encountered by their theory. However, they must be aware that this refusal will not help in keeping their theory alive. Because development major in the world of science is significant that the age of sweeping issues under the rug has come to an end.

The way the motion design Smart, which has swept across the United States over the last 10 years, has unmasked by the dogmas of Darwinism, has been of wide interest. The intellectual foundations of this movement is the "theory of intelligent design." The theory in question argues that complex biological structures containing large amounts of information can not be explained in terms of intelligence based on the causes and these causes may be studied empirically in the field of biology. 26

A statement that the intelligent design movement may represent the dynamic changes major cultural is the way it actually is and how widespread evidence showing that for so long taught as evidence for Darwinism in schools actually consists of mythology, deception and even fraud. The University of California at Berkeley Professor Phillip E. Johnson, Head of the motion, said that Darwinism happen in the dustbin of history in the course of this century. 27

It will be useful here to recall the natural gas damage a determined persistence in its policy of uncritical defense of Darwinism. We recall that the GN has announced the discovery of Archaeoraptor fossil discovered in China as definitive proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs, without waiting for it to be described in referred journals. Later, however, we realized that the fossil does not represent a missing link at all, but was a forgery "produced" by a Chinese peasant.26 Because of his blind devotion to Darwinism NG did not hesitate to embrace this fossil as "proof" by unscientific methods, and later is found in "modern paleontology greatest embarrassment. "29

According to ornithologist Dr. Storrs Olson, "National Geographic has reached a lower level for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. "30

Representation Claim recapitulation, who died there are at least 80 years, as evidence of evolution in the NG article "Was Darwin Wrong" shows that it lacks the seriousness required by science and continues with his "unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism." NG does not behave intelligently. Maintaining this approach does not provide any support for Darwinism. Instead, NG is the documentation of its own dogmatism with ever more obvious.

We invite NG to examine these points and to accept that creation is the true origin of life.

There is no doubt that Lord of all living beings on earth, in heaven, and between God. In a verse of the Qur'an, God reveals that:

Your God is one God. There is no god but He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. (Qur'an, 2: 163)

Under the pseudonym Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar has written nearly 250 works. His books contain a total of 46,000 pages and 31,500 illustrations. Of these books, 7,000 pages and 6,000 illustrations deal with the collapse of the Theory of Evolution. You can read, free, all the books Adnan Oktar has written under the pseudonym Harun Yahya on these websites www.harunyahya.com

1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Electronic Text Center, University Library of Virginia.
2. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.
3. Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996
4. For more information on the evolutionary theories of biogeography, please see Walter J. ReMine "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory," St. Paul Science, 1st ed edition, 1993. 538.
5. G. Nelson & N. Platnick, Systematics and biogeography: Cladistics and vicariance, Columbia University Press, 1981, p. 223.
6. Fossils and Evolution, Dr TS Kemp - Curator of Zoological Collections, University of Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 246.
7. Peter G. Williamson, morphological stasis and developmental constraint: real problems for neo-Darwinism, "Nature, vol. 294, November 19, 1981, p. 214; Stephen E. Jones, http://members.iinet.net.au/ ~ sejones /
8. Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984 230.
9. Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15.
10. Voorhies MR, "Creates a Ashfall Ancient Pompeii of prehistoric animals," National Geographic, Vol. 159, No. 1, January 1981, pp.67-68, 74, "Horse Found defy Evolution "Creation Ex Nihilo 5 (3): 15, January 1983, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3723.asp
11. Charles Darwin, The Origin of species: a facsimile of the first edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 184.
12. Spotting Mines Dolphin Sonar, ScienceNOW 1998: 2
13 L. Rutimeyer, "Referate," Archiv für Anthropologie, 1868
14 Keith S. Thompson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny summarized," American Scientist, vol. 76 May / June 1988, p. 273
15 GG Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt Brace & World, New York, 1965, p. 241.
16 Stephen Jay Gould, "Abscheulicher! - Atrocious! - The precursor of the theory of natural selection, "Natural History, March 2000, p. 45.
17 Mark Ridley, "Who doubts evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 90 (June 25, 1981), p. 832.
18 SJ Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, May 1977, p. 13-14.
19 William Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, 1984 189.
20 J. Bergman & G. Howe, rudimentary organs are fully functional, CRS Books, Terre Haute, IN, 1990.
21 SR Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' prove evolution?" Evolutionary Theory vol. 5 May 1981, p. 173.
22 James P. Gills, MD & Thomas Woodward, Ph.D., the Darwinism under the microscope, Charisma House, 2002, p. 39.
23 Stuart B. Levy, "The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance ", Scientific American, March 1998, p. 35
24 Francisco J. Ayala, "The Mechanisms of Evolution", Scientific American, Vol. 239 September 1978, p. 64
25 George Turner, "How Are New Species Formed?" New Scientist, vol. 178, Issue 2399, June 14, 2003, p. 36
26 http://www.arn.org , Http: / / www.discovery.org/csc/
27 Phillip E. Johnson, "Mothballed Science, Touchstone Magazine, December 2003
28 For more information on Archaeoraptor false, please see http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions03.php # Q7
29 Tim Friend, "the fossil" missing link "that was not, "USA Today, 02/01/2000
30 Open letter to the National Geographic Society by Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds, National Museum Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

About the Author

ABOUT THE AUTHOR, HARUN YAHYA
Born in Ankara in 1956, Adnan Oktar writes his books under the pen name of Harun Yahya. Ever since his university years, he has dedicated his life to telling of the existence and oneness of Almighty Allah, and to disseminating the moral values of the Qur'an. He has never wavered in the face of difficulties and despite oppression, still continues this intellectual struggle today exhibiting great patience and determination. For mor information pls visit: http://www.harunyahya.com/theauthor.php

Groundwork Training With a Young Horse : Using One Lunge Line to Teach Cross Tying to a Young Horse