Thread Last Poster Posts Last Post Archive through June 30, 2005 Tess (Tess) 10  06-30-05  08:43 pm Archive through July 02, 2005 Jim Armstrong (Njaeo 10  07-02-05  04:48 pm Archive through July 20, 2005 Jim Armstrong (Njaeo 10  07-20-05  10:11 pm Archive through July 21, 2005 zaheer - uddin (Zahe 10  07-21-05  11:54 pm Archive through July 24, 2005 zaheer - uddin (Zahe 10  07-24-05  05:52 pm   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Zaheer Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2012 - 12:53 am:    A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic http://harunyahya.com/en/Makaleler/3378/A_whale_fantasy_from_National_Geographic by Harun Yahya © 2001 Harun Yahya. All Rights Reserved. Although TrueOrigin is unreservedly committed to the biblical Christian faith and worldview, the following article by a well-read Muslim scholar not only demonstrates excellent analysis of National Geographic’s unscientific practices, but is also clear evidence that objections to evolution are not limited to any particular religious foundation: Evolution fails primarily on the basis of the facts, not one’s faith. National Geographic is popularly regarded as an important scientific magazine that carries out research all over the planet and shares the results with its readers. The magazine is a major source of information in a great number of important areas, yet few readers are aware of the extent to which it passes this information through an ideological ‘filter’ before handing it on to its readers, and sometimes even twists the data according to the demands of this ideology and builds-up completely imaginary stories. The ideology in question in National Geographic is a blend of philosophical naturalism and the current brand of evolutionism, known as Neo-Darwinism. In the name of defending that theory, it generally presents prejudiced views of discoveries, and even opens the door to scientific falsehoods. For example, there was the falsehood of the Archaeoraptor fossil, which was presented by National Geographic in 1998 as an infallible evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but which later proved to have been ‘hand made.’ Even scientists who support the theory criticize the magazine for the blind propaganda it carries. According Dr. Storrs Olson, the Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, “National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.”[1] One instance of National Geographic’s ‘sensational, unsubstantiated and tabloid’ evolutionist propaganda was its ‘Evolution of Whales’ article carried in the issue of November, 2001. The article maintained that a string of fossil discoveries had proved the evolution of whales thesis, and even quoted paleontologist Hans Thewissen as arguing that whales were one of the best examples of evolution. The pictures, reconstructions and diagrams plastered all over the 14-page article were intended to visually reinforce the same claim in readers’ minds. However, the ‘evolution of whales’ scenario, so fiercely defended by National Geographic, was—and is—nothing but a fairy tale, devoid of any scientific evidence. The parade of reconstructions on pages 66-69 in National Geographic’s November 2001 issue were meant to sum up the magazine’s claim regarding the origin of whales. A whole string of creatures were lined up one after the other and described as transitional forms in the evolution of the whale. According to the magazine, the order of these creatures, according to the geological periods they lived in, was as follows: • Pakicetus (50 million years ago) • Ambulocetus (49 million years ago) • Rodhocetus (46.5 million years ago) • Procetus (45 million years ago) • Kutchicetus (43-46 million years ago) • Durodon (37 million years ago) • Basilosaurus (37 million years ago) • Aeticetus (24-26 million years ago) National Geographic’s list continued, but included known categories of dolphins and whales. There are very misleading features in this list. Let us consider the most fundamental of these. According to National Geographic, the first two creatures in the list, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, were both ‘walking whales,’ yet the claim that these two terrestrial creatures were ‘whales’ is totally fictitious, even ridiculous. Let us first consider Pakicetus. Pakicetus inachus: A Quadrupedal Forced to be the ‘Ancestor of the Whale’ Fossil remains of the extinct mammal Pakicetus inachus, to give it its proper name, first came onto the agenda in 1983. P. D. Gingerich and his assistants, who found the fossil, had no hesitation in immediately claiming that it was a ‘primitive whale,’ even though they actually only found a skull. Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale. Its skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises or crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one. So, why was a quadrupedal land dweller announced to be a ‘primitive whale’ and why is it still presented as such by National Geographic? The magazine gives the following reply: What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in combination—the arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull—are absent in other land mammals but a signature of later Eocene whales.[2] In other words, based on some details in its teeth and ear bones, National Geographic felt able to describe this quadrupedal, wolf-like land dweller as a ‘walking whale.’ Just one look at the reconstruction of Pakicetus by the evolutionist illustrator Carl Buell will reveal the absurdity in terming it a ‘walking whale.’ Distortions in The Reconstructions of National Geographic Paleontologists believe that Pakicetus was a quadrupedal mammal. The skeletal structure on the left, published in the Nature magazine clearly demonstrates this. Thus the reconstruction of Pakicetus (below left) by Carl Buell, which was based on that structure, is realistic. National Geographic, however, opted to use a picture of a ‘swimming’ Pakicetus (below) in order to portray the animal as a ‘walking whale’ and to impose that image on its readers. The inconsistencies in the picture, intended to make Pakicetus seem more ‘whale-like,’ are immediately obvious: The animal has been portrayed in a ‘swimming’ position. Its hind legs are shown stretching out backwards, and an impression of ‘fins’ has been given. Pakicetus reconstruction by National Geographic The features of the details discussed by National Geographic, “the arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull” are no compelling evidence on which to base a link between Pakicetus and the whale: • As National Geographic also indirectly stated while writing “subtle clues in combination”, some of these features are actually found terrestrial animals as well. • None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then it is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree of life. (In fact their similarity indicates common design—not common descent.) Pakicetus, which National Geographic declared to be a ‘walking whale,’ was a unique species harboring different features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of which Pakicetus should be a member, as “exhibiting an odd combination of characters.”[3] Such prominent evolutionists as Gould accept that ‘mosaic creatures’ of this type cannot be considered as transitional forms. In short, describing Pakicetus, which is clearly a land dweller, as ‘walking whale’ simply on the structural features in its ear bones and molars, is nothing but another example of National Geographic’s tradition of ‘sensational, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.’ In his article ‘The Overselling of Whale Evolution,’ the creationist writer Ashby L. Camp reveals the total invalidity of the claim that the Mesonychid class, which should include land mammals such as Pakicetus, could have been the ancestors of Archaeocetea, or extinct whales, in these words: “The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales.”[4] Ambulocetus natans: A False Whale with ‘Webbed’ Claws The second fossil creature after Pakicetus in National Geographic’s imaginary sequence is Ambulocetus natans. This fossil was first brought to the world’s attention in 1984 in an article in Science magazine. It is actually a land creature that evolutionists have insisted on ‘turning into a whale.’ The name Ambulocetus natans comes from the Latin words ‘ambulare’ (to walk), ‘cetus’ (whale) and ‘natans’ (swimming), and means ‘a walking and swimming whale.’ It is obvious the animal used to walk because it had four legs, like all other mammals, and even wide claws on its feet and hooves on its hind legs. Apart from evolutionists’ prejudice however, there is absolutely no basis for the claim that it swam in water, or that it lived on land and in water (like an amphibian). In order to see the border between science and wishful imagination on this subject, let us have a look at National Geographic’s reconstruction of Ambulocetus. This is how it is portrayed in the magazine: National Geographic’s little manipulations: Imaginary webs added to claws, and rear legs made to look like fins. If you look at it carefully you can easily see the two little visual manipulations that have been employed to ‘turn the land-dwelling Ambulocetus into a whale: • The animal’s rear legs are shown not with feet that would help it to walk, but as fins that would assist it to swim. However, Carroll, who examines the animal’s leg bones, says that it possessed the ability to move powerfully on land.[5] • In order to present an impression of adaptation for water, webbing has been drawn on its front feet. Yet it is impossible to draw any such conclusion from a study of Ambulocetus fossils. In the fossil record it is next to impossible to find soft tissues such as these. So reconstructions based on features beyond those of the skeleton are always speculative. That offers evolutionists a wide-ranging empty space of speculation to use their propaganda tools. With the same kind of evolutionists touching up that has been applied to the Ambulocetus drawing, it is possible to make any animal look like any other. You could even take a monkey skeleton, draw fins on its back and webbing between its fingers and present it as the ‘primate ancestor of whales.’ The invalidity of the deception carried out on the basis of the Ambulocetus fossil can be seen from the drawing below, based on real paleontological data: The real Ambulocetus: The legs are real legs, not ‘fins,’ and there are no imaginary webs between its toes such as National Geographic had added. (Picture from Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, p. 335) In publishing the picture of the animal’s skeleton, National Geographic had to take a step back from the retouching it had carried out to the reconstruction picture which made it seem more like a whale. As the skeleton clearly shows, the animal’s feet were designed to carry it on land. There was no sign of the imaginary webs. The Myth of the Walking Whale In fact, there is no evidence that Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are ancestors of whales. They are merely described as ‘possible ancestors’ by evolutionists keen to find a terrestrial ancestor for marine mammals in the light of their theory. There is no evidence linking these creatures with the marine mammals that emerge in the fossil record at a very similar geological time. After Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, the National Geographic plan moves on to so-called sea mammals and sets out (extinct whale) species such as Procetus, Rodhocetus and Archaeocetea. The animals in question were mammals that lived in the sea and which are now extinct. (We shall be touching on this matter later). However, there are considerable anatomical differences between these and Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. No matter how much National Geographic tried to reduce these to a minimum by slight touches of the brush, when we look at the fossils it is clear they are not ‘transitional forms’ linking each other: • The backbone of the quadrupedal mammal Ambulocetus ends at the pelvis, and powerful rear legs then extend from it. This is typical land mammal anatomy. In whales, however, the backbone goes right down to the tail, and there is no pelvic bone at all. In fact, Basilosaurus, believed to have lived some 10 million years after Ambulocetus, possesses the latter anatomy. In other words, it is a typical whale. There is no transitional form between Ambulocetus, a typical land mammal, and Basilosaurus, a typical whale. • Under the backbone of Basilosaurus and the sperm whale, there are small bones independent of it. National Geographic claims these to be vestigial legs. Yet that same magazine mentions that these bones actually had another function. In Basilosaurus, these bones ‘functioned as copulary guides’ and in sperm whales ‘[act] as an anchor for the muscles of the genitalia.’[6] To describe these bones, which actually carry out important functions, as ‘vestigial organs’ is nothing but Darwinistic prejudice. In conclusion, despite all National Geographic’s best efforts, the fact that there were no transitional forms between land and sea mammals and that they both emerged with their own particular features has not changed. There is no evolutionary link. Robert Carroll accepts this, albeit unwillingly and in evolutionist language: “It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales.”[7] Other scientists accept that the animals that evolutionist publications such as National Geographic try to portray as ‘walking whales’ actually have nothing to do with true whales, but are a separate living group. Although he is an evolutionist, the famous Russian whale expert G. A. Mchedlidze does not support the description of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans and similar four-legged creatures as ‘possible ancestors of the whale,’ and describes them instead as a completely isolated group.[8] Problems With National Geographic’s Superficial Sequences Visual effects (plans and drawings) play a major role in the imposition of Darwinism on society. Yet these are sometimes completely unscientific, and at other are scientific discoveries interpreted in a biased manner. National Geographic’s time scale diagram (pages 64-77) of mammals that become increasingly more ‘whale-like’ through time is an example of these deceptive tools. We have so far been considering small, but misleading adjustments to the reconstructions of the animals in the diagram. Alongside this, the dates ascribed to them by National Geographic have been selected in line with Darwinist prejudices. The animals are shown as following each other in a geological line, whereas these are questionable. Ashby L. Camp clarifies the situation, based on paleontological data: “In the standard scheme, Pakicetus inachus is dated to the late Ypresian, but several experts acknowledge that it may date to the early Lutetian. If the younger date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus is nearly, if not actually, contemporaneous with Rodhocetus, an early Lutetian fossil from another formation in Pakistan. Moreover, the date of Ambulocetus, which was found in the same formation as Pakicetus but 120 meters higher, would have to be adjusted upward the same amount as Pakicetus. This would make Ambulocetus younger than Rodhocetus and possibly younger than Indocetus and even Protocetus.”[9] In brief, there are two different views of when the animals that National Geographic chronologically sets out one after the other really lived. If the second view is accepted, then Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, which National Geographic portrays as ‘the walking whale,’ are of the same age as, or even younger than true whales. In other words, no ‘evolutionary line’ is possible. National Geographic has totally ignored the problem and has only used views that correspond to its own thesis. This is a method of propaganda, not of science. Tales About Ears and Noses Any evolutionary scenario between land and sea mammals has to explain the different ear and nose structures between the two groups. By means of the showy graphics it used, National Geographic has tried to give the impression that the question has been resolved. Yet that impression is a false one. Let us first consider the ear structure. Like us, land mammals trap sounds in the outside world in the outer ear, amplify them with the bones in the middle ear, and turn them into signals in the inner ear. Marine mammals have no outer ear. They hear sounds by means of vibration-sensitive receptors in their lower jaws. National Geographic claims that the second system evolved from the first. This is made clear on Page 71 in the diagram headed ‘hearing aids.’ This diagram has been drawn in such a way as to give the reader the impression that hearing organs evolved in stages. However, there is no evolution by stages here. A look at the text used by National Geographic will suffice to make this clear: “Pakicetus... This walking whale lacked the fat pad extending to the middle ear that modern ceteans have, a clue that it had kept terrestrial attributes. In later whales, the jawbone, with the fat pad, adapted to receive sounds.” We have already seen that Pakicetus was a typical land mammal, and that it is ridiculous to call it a ‘walking whale.’ The logic employed by National Geographic is no less ridiculous: It first describes the land-dwelling Pakicetus as a ‘walking whale’ and then says that the animal kept terrestrial attributes. That is like calling the cow a ‘walking bat’ and then saying, ‘It has no wings, it keeps its terrestrial attributes.’ That is one aspect of the matter. The aspect that concerns us here is the clear difference between Pakicetus and whale ears. After the National Geographic extract above, we must naturally look to see if there is a transitional form between the two. After Pakicetus in the family tree comes Ambulocetus, which evolutionists call a ‘walking-swimming whale’ but which was actually a land mammal. National Geographic uses the following words about Ambulocetus: “Though more aquatic than Pakicetus, Ambulocetus still heard directly through its ear.” In other words, there is no evolution towards a whale ear in Ambulocetus. When we come to the third animal in the National Geographic list, we suddenly meet an enormous change. The above extract continues: Sounds were transmitted to the middle ears of Basilosaurus as vibrations from the lower jaw. In other words, Basilosaurus possesses a typical whale ear. It was a creature that perceived sounds around it not through an outer ear but by vibrations reaching its jaw. And there is no transitional form between Basilosaurus’ ear and that of Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, which National Geographic put before it in its scheme. When the subject is examined theoretically, it can be seen that in any case such a transitional form would have no chance of surviving. Any evolution by stages between one perfect aural system to a completely different one is impossible. The transitional phases would not be advantagious. An animal that slowly loses its ability to hear with its ears, but has still not developed the ability to hear through its jaw is at a disadvantage. The question of how such a ‘development’ could come about is an insoluble dilemma for evolutionists. The mechanisms evolutionists put forward are mutations and these have never been seen to add unequivocally new and meaningful information to animals’ genetic information. It is unreasonable to suggest that the complex hearing system in sea mammals could have emerged as the result of mutations. A similar situation applies to National Geographic’s account of the ‘sliding nose.’ The magazine set out three skulls from Pakicetus, Rodhocetus and a Grey Whale from our own time above one another and claimed that these represented an evolutionary process. Whereas the three fossils’ nasal structures, especially those of Rodhocetus and the Grey Whale are so different that it is impossible to accept them as transitional forms in the same series. Furthermore, the movement of the nostrils to the forehead would require a ‘new design’ in the anatomy of the animals in question, and believing that this could happen as the result of mutations is nothing but fantasy. National Geographic’s Lamarckian Tales Actually, National Geographic’s writers and most of the evolutionist community share a basic superstition about the origin of living things, and that is the real problem. This superstition is the magical ‘natural force’ that allows living things to acquire the organs, biological changes or anatomical features that they need. Let us have a look at a few interesting passages from National Geographic’s article ‘Evolution of Whales:’ “I tried to visualize some of the varieties of whale ancestors that had been found here and nearby... As the rear limbs dwindled, so did the hip bones that supported them. That made the spinal column more flexible to power the developing tail flukes. The neck shortened, turning the leading end of the body into more of a tubular hull to plow through the water with minimum drag, while arms assumed the shape of rudders. Having little need for outer ears any longer, some whales were receiving waterborne sounds directly through their lower jawbones and transmitting them to the inner ears via special fat pads. Each whale in the sequence was a little more streamlined than earlier models and roamed farther from shore.”[10] On close inspection, in this whole account the evolutionist mentality says that living things feel changing needs according to the changing environment they live in, and this need is perceived as an ‘evolutionary mechanism.’ According to this logic, less needed organs disappear, and needed organs appear of their own accord! Anyone with the slightest knowledge of biology will know that our needs do not shape our organs. Ever since Lamarck’s theory of the transfer of acquired characteristics to subsequent generations was disproved, in other words for a century or so, that has been a known fact. Yet when one looks at evolutionist publications, they still seem to be thinking along Lamarckian lines. If you object, they will say: ‘No, we do not believe in Lamarck. What we say is that natural conditions put evolutionary pressure on living things, and that as a result of this, appropriate traits are selected, and in this way species evolve.’ Yet here lies the critical point: What evolutionists call ‘evolutionary pressure’ cannot lead to living things acquiring new characteristics according to their needs. That is because the two so-called evolutionary mechanisms that supposedly respond to this pressure, natural selection and mutation, cannot provide new organs for animals: • Natural selection can only select characteristics that already exist, it cannot create new ones. • Mutations cannot add to the genetic information, they can only destroy the existing one. No mutation that adds unequivocally new, meaningful information to the genome (and which thus forms a new organ or new biochemical structure) has ever been observed. If we look at the myth of National Geographic’s awkwardly moving whales one more time in the light of this fact, we see that they are actually engaging in a rather primitive Lamarckism. On close inspection, National Geographic writer Douglas H. Chadwick “visualizes” that“ Each whale in the sequence was a little more streamlined than earlier models.” How could a morphological change happen in a species over generations in one particular direction? In order for that to happen, representatives of that species in every “sequence” would have to undergo mutations to shorten their legs, that mutation would have to cause the animals no harm, those thus mutants would have to enjoy an advantage over normal ones, the next generations, by a great coincidence, would have to undergo the same mutation at the same point in its genes, this would have to carry on unchanged for many generations, and all of the above would have to happen by coincidence and quite flawlessly. If the National Geographic writers believe that, then they will also believe someone who says: ‘My family enjoy flying. My son underwent a mutation and a few structures like bird feathers developed under his arms. My grandson will undergo the same mutation and the feathers will increase. This will go on for generations, and eventually my descendants will have wings and be able to fly.’ Both stories are equally ridiculous. As we mentioned at the beginning, evolutionists display the superstition that living things’ needs can be met by a magical force in nature. Ascribing consciousness to nature, a belief encountered in animist cultures, is interestingly rising up before our eyes in the 21st century under a ‘scientific’ cloak. The well-known French biologist Paul Pierre Grassé, the former president of the French Academy of Sciences and a foremost critic of Darwinism, has once made it clear that this faith is just daydreaming: “The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.”[11] More recently, Henry Gee, the science editor for the Nature magazine and an undisputedly prominent evolutionist, pointed to the same fact and admited that explaining the origin of an organ by its necessity is like saying; “... our noses were made to carry spectacles, so we have spectacles. Yet evolutionary biologists do much the same thing when they interpret any structure in terms of adaptation to current utility while failing to acknowledge that current utility need tell us nothing about how a structure evolved, or indeed how the evolutionary history of a structure might itself have influenced the shape and properties of that structure.”[12] Another scenario which National Geographic is trying to impose, without too much discussion, concerns the body surface of the animals in question. Like other mammals, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, which are accepted as land mammals, are generally agreed to have had fur-covered bodies. And they are both shown as covered in thick fur in National Geographic. Yet when we move on to later animals (true marine mammals), all the fur disappears. The evolutionist explanation of this is no different from the fantastical Lamarckian-type scenarios we have seen above. The truth of the matter is that all the animals in question were designed in the most appropriate manner for their environments. It is irrational to try to account for this design by means of mutation or facile Lamarck-type stories. Like all design in life, the design in these creatures is evidence for creation. The Marine Mammal Scenario Itself We have so far examined the evolutionist scenario that marine mammals evolved from terrestrial ones. Scientific evidence show no relationship between the two terrestrial mammals (Pakicetus and Ambulocetus) that National Geographic put at the beginning of the story. So what about the rest of the scenario? The theory of evolution is again in a great difficulty here. The theory tries to establish a phylogenetic link between Archaeocetea (archaic whales), sea mammals known to be extinct, and living whales and dolphins. National Geographic set the claim out in a very simplified form (Pages 156-159). However, many experts think rather differently. The evolutionary paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl writes: “The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales.”[13] The evolutionist account of the origin of marine mammals faces a huge impasse in the form of discoveries in the field of molecular biology. The classical evolutionist scenario assumes that they two major whale groups, the toothed whale (Odontoceti) and the baleen whale (Mysticeti), evolved from a common ancestor. Yet Michel Milinkovitch of the University of Brussels has opposed this view with a new theory. He stresses that this assumption, based on anatomical similarities, is disproved by molecular discoveries: “Evolutionary relationships among the major groups of cetaceans is more problematic since morphological and molecular analyses reach very different conclusions. Indeed, based on the conventional interpretation of the morphological and behavioral data set, the echolocating toothed whales (about 67 species) and the filter-feeding baleen whales (10 species) are considered as two distinct monophyletic groups. ...On the other hand, phylogenetic analysis of DNA ... and amino acid ... sequences contradict this long-accepted taxonomic division. One group of toothed whales, the sperm whales, appear to be more closely related to the morphologically highly divergent baleen whales than to other odontocetes.”[14] In short, marine mammals defy the evolutionary scenarios for which they are being forced to be subjects. Conclusion Contrary to the claims of the paleontologist Hans Thewissen, who assumes a major role in evolutionist propaganda on the subject of the origin of marine mammals, and is one of National Geographic’s most important sources of information, we are dealing not with an evolutionary process backed up by empirical evidence, but by evidence coerced to fit a presupposed evolutionary family tree, despite the many contradictions between the two. What emerges, if the evidence is looked at more objectively, is that different living groups emerged independently of each other in the past. This is compelling empirical evidence for accepting that God created all of these creatures. Loud evolutionist propaganda about marine mammals, however, resembles the ‘horse series’ that was once put forward in the same way, but which evolutionists then admitted was invalid. A number of extinct mammals that lived at different times were lined up behind one another, and the evolutionists of the time tried to impose this as ‘firm evidence.’ Yet the truth emerged over time, and it was realized that these animals could not be each others’ ancestors, that they had emerged in different periods, and that they were actually independent extinct species. Niles Eldredge, the well-known paleontologist at American National History Museum, where the schemes of horse evolution were exhibited and where they are still kept in a basement, has this to say about them: “There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.”[15] The evolution of whales fairy story, so fiercely defended by National Geographic, is another of these fantasies of natural history. Like its predecessors, it too will soon find itself in the waste bin of science. References [1] Open Letter to National Geographic by Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution. [RETURN TO TEXT] [2] National Geographic, “Evolution of Whales”, November 2001, p. 68 [RETURN TO TEXT] [3] Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.329 [RETURN TO TEXT] [4] Ashby L. Camp, “The Overselling of Whale Evolution”, Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society, May/June 1998 [RETURN TO TEXT] [5] Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.333 [RETURN TO TEXT] [6] National Geographic, “Evolution of Whales”, November 2001, p. 73 [RETURN TO TEXT] [7] Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, 329 [RETURN TO TEXT] [8] G. A. Mchedlidze, General Features of the Paleobiological Evolution of Cetacea, trans. from Russian (Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1986), 91. [RETURN TO TEXT] [9] Ashby L. Camp, “The Overselling of Whale Evolution”, Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society, May/June 1998 [RETURN TO TEXT] [10] National Geographic,“ Evolution of Whales”, November 2001, p. 69 [RETURN TO TEXT] [11] Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 103 [RETURN TO TEXT] [12] Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time: Beyond The Fossil Record To A New Hýstory Of Life, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 103 [RETURN TO TEXT] [13] B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., 1985, p. 489. [RETURN TO TEXT] [14] Michel C. Milinkovitch, “Molecular phylogeny of cetaceans prompts revision of morphological transformations,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10 (August 1995): 328-334. [RETURN TO TEXT] [15] Niles Eldredge, Harper’s, February 1984, p. 60 [RETURN TO TEXT] The Author Harun Yahya is a prominent Turkish Muslim author, who has penned more than 150 books over the last two decades. His main focus has been the refutation of Darwinism and materialism, two modern myths which are imposed to conceal the fact of Creation, a truth both revealed in the Bible and the Koran. Mr. Yahya believes that Christians and Muslims should cooperate in many matters, including the unveiling of the truth about origins. His works have inspired the studies of the unofficial Turkish Science Research Foundation (SRF), to which Science magazine (in its issue of 18 May 2001) refers as “one of the world’s strongest anti-evolution movements outside of North America”. Harun Yahya lives in Istanbul, Turkey.   Pmbulo Starlite Member Username: Pmbulo Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 03:26 am:    DARWINISM: Darwin used as evidence for his theory the fact that some organs seen in adults and embryos appear to be vestigial. According to the evolution theory such organs as the tiny buried hind-limb bones of whales are remnants of the walking legs of their terrestrial ancestors. The Creation theory has trouble explaining them. DOUBLE SHALOM: Most previous evolutionists, such as Darwin's grandfather Erasmus, had inclined towards an alternative theory of the mechanism of evolution, now usually associated with Lamarck's name. This was the theory that improvements acquired during an organism's lifetime, such as the growth of organs during use and their shrinkage during disuse, were inherited. So who is believing in Lamarckism? Here is my poem for you: The Genes Have Decreed Darwin wondered and complained about “Remnant whale’s legs being vestigial” But Creationism is not in doubt “Nothing about the whale’s bones is residual” ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Now who is believing in Lamarckism? How can a whale loose legs by Darwinism? It is Charles and the rest of his clones All wearing Erasmus’s aprons Genes should preserve the whale’s legs But Lamarck takes them away through the ages ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Please Lamarck bring them back Darwinism is vanishing in the dark Please Lamarck don’t cut them with a knife Even if it goes back to aquatic life Whales should have legs if ever they had indeed Because the genes should have decreed ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ © 2006 13/01/2006 By Potpher C. Mbulo But science does not support the idea that disuse of organs results in shrinkage of the organs so much that it can be inherited by the offspring of the organism. Nor is it theoretically plausible. Genetic information does not travel “backwards” from body cells into the inherited “germ-line”. It is still inconceivable that embryonic development could reverse itself so that bodily dissimprovements acquired during disuse of an animal's lifetime can encode themselves in the genes. In Darwin's time the matter was also in doubt, and Darwin himself flirted with a personalized version of Lamarckism when his natural selection theory ran into a difficulty. That difficulty arose from current views of the nature of heredity. I was reading one of Richard Dawkins articles in which he said that in the 19th century it was almost universally assumed that heredity was a blending process. On this blending inheritance theory, not only are offspring intermediate between their two parents in character and appearance, but the hereditary factors that they pass on to their own children are themselves intermediate because inextricably merged. It can be shown that, if heredity is of this blending type, it is impossible for Darwinian natural selection to work because the available variation is halved in every generation. This was pointed out in 1867 and it worried Darwin enough to drive him in the direction of Lamarckism. It may also have contributed to the odd fact that Darwinism suffered a temporary spell of unfashionableness in the early part of the 20th century. A temporal solution to the problem that so worried Darwin lay in the theory of particular inheritance developed by Gregor Mendel, published in 1865 but unfortunately unread by Darwin, or practically anyone else, until after Darwin's death. Mendel's research, rediscovered at the turn of the century, demonstrated what Darwin himself had at one time dimly glimpsed, that heredity is particulate, not blending. Whether or not offspring are bodily intermediate between their two parents, they inherit, and pass on, discrete hereditary particles we call genes are at play. An individual either definitely inherits a particular gene from a particular parent or it definitely does not. Since the same can be said of its parents, it follows that an individual either inherits a particular gene from a particular grandparent or it does not. This argument can be applied repeatedly for an indefinite number of generations. Word of caution here: a phenotype (what is expressed on the body of an organism) can be affected by many genes. For example, when a blackman and white woman sexually reproduce, the child does not have yellow as in “white” nor brown as in “black”. I’m having problems to express myself because English is a racist language and it is not my language. I think in my language and then translate my thoughts into English words. Anyway, I meant to say that the child is neither light skinned or dark skinned but somewhere in between. Lets proceed. Discrete single genes are shuffled independently through the generations like cards in a pack, rather than being mixed like the ingredients of a pudding. If heredity is particulate, natural selection really can work on allele frequency. But it does not cause arising of a new species (speciation). 350 years before Darwin, Martin Luther said: “The best argument that there is a GOD - and it often moved me deeply - is this one that he proves from gensw4r53yeration of species: a cow always bears a cow, a horse a horse, etc. No goldfinch produces a siskin. Therefore it is necessary to conclude that there is something that directs everything thus.” The Intelligent Designer insured that preservation of species is directed through genes. Natural selection accounts for the adaptation i.e. for such progressive qualities as evolution may controversially exhibit. Natural selection is the differential reproductive success of varieties in a population: What Darwinists mean, I think, in so far as they mean anything, is that what, it is important because of its consequences for the differential survival of genes in gene pools. It depletes gene pool. It does not yield species. A yellow pig can be selected while a blue one becomes less frequent in a population but ultimately the yellow pig is still a pig. Here is colour example in nature: It is infact natural selection's most famous example, the peppered moth, which has turned out to be based on bad science. The "evolution" of the peppered moth, Biston betularia, was preached that a new species has evolved from light coloured moths into dark-coloured moths. The colour change that peppered moths underwent during the 1800s is an example of natural selection at work. Before the Industrial Revolution took place in Britain in the late 1700s, light-coloured peppered moths that blended with the lichen-covered bark of trees were far more prevalent than dark-coloured peppered moths. However, pollution from the Industrial Revolution killed the lichen on trees, leaving their dark bark exposed, and the contrasting light-coloured moths became easy prey for birds. The dark peppered moths, easily camouflaged on the dark bark, soon became far more common than the lighter varieties. Now that pollution is less, the light-coloured peppered moths are increasing again. There was no speciation. This study simply shows microevolution, or change within a kind, not a new kind coming into existence. It boils down to: when the trees are white, there are more white moths - conversely, when the trees are dark, such as from pollution, more of the dark moths survive to pass this trait along. The moths are still moths. They don't become a whole new creature. Despite 40 years of effort, scientists have seen only two moths ever resting on tree trunks - they never have landed consistently on tree trunks, but hide under branches! I demand that evolution textbooks in schools to be rewritten. Unfortunately, die-hard Evolutionist Richard Dawkins dismissed the new data, saying that, "nothing momentous hangs on these experiments.” As was first realized by the British mathematician G. H. Hardy and the German scientist W. Weinberg, there is no inherent tendency for genes to disappear from the gene pool. Sexual reproduction and genetic recombination due to crossing over see to it that genetic variation is rapidly distributed and recombined in the gene pool hence preserving the variations in a population. Even dominant phenotype in its genome carry with them recessive alleles in a hypothesized small founder population. Thus in nature it is impossible to wipe out any allele from a population because Dipolidy hides alleles for future exhibition. Diploid character of eukaryotes hides a considerable amount of genetic variation in form of recessive alleles in heterozygotes. The recessive alleles (assumably harmful in a present environment) can persist in a population through the propagation by heterozygous individuals. For example, if 0.01 is the frequency of recessive alleles, then 0.99 (99%) copies of that recessive allele are protected in heterozygotes, and only 1% recessive alleles are present in homozygotes. The conclusion is that the rarer the recessive allele, the greater the degree of protection afforded by heterozygosity. You should understand that we are dealing with large numbers here in a population. Even if certain genes were to disappear in a small population through a mind-blowing gigantic Genetic Drift collegial with nerve-tilting enormous catastrophic event, it does not cause speciation. Stephen J. Gould’s “evolution by jerks” and old-fashioned Darwinists’ “evolution by creeps” does not yield speciation. A whale with no legs is still a whale. By no means I’m I suggesting that whales had legs. A flying beetle and a non-flying beetle are both equally beetles. However sexual reproduction keeps the genes shuffled, and it is in this sense that the long-term habitat of a gene is the gene pool. Any given gene in a gene pool exists in the form of several duplicate copies. That is what is meant by gene frequency in the gene pool. Some genes, such as the albino gene, are rare in the gene pool however they come to be expressed even if the immediate parents or grand parents are not albinos. Other genes are common. I would like to demonstrate that adaptation is but a tine force that fails to shift the load uphill. • Worker ants are sterile, but they can still affect the representation of copies of their genes in the gene pool, by favouring the reproduction of their close relatives, such as their mother or their reproductive sisters which admittedly are disadvantageous for adaptation. The result is mal-adaptive evolution. Non-adaptive is common too. In a notable theoretical advance, W. D. Hamilton proposed “inclusive fitness” as a generalization of “Darwinian fitness” which took account of such indirect, kinship effects which do not yield best traits in future generations. • Not all evolutionary change is necessarily adaptive. At the molecular level, in particular, there is growing support for the idea that most evolutionary change is actually neutral. It is also known as anti-Darwinism. The “neutral theory of evolution” has been most effectively championed by the distinguished Japanese geneticist Motoo Kimura. The neutral theory is not about genes doing nothing useful. It about stating that different forms of the same gene are indistinguishable in their effects. Therefore a mutation from one form of the gene to another is neutral in that the change has no effect upon the phenotype where natural selection could act upon. This pushes a species to stasis (unchanging).Richard Dawkins says that the most obvious example of neutral theory of evolution is synonymous mutation. Since the genetic code is “degenerate” (i.e. more than one triplet codon can lead to the same amino acid), a mutation from a gene to its exact synonym, though a true mutation when viewed at the molecular genetic level, has no effect that natural selection can “notice”. Even where mutations are not synonymous at the DNA level, the proteins for which they code may exert an identical enzymic effect (for example, because the mutation has no effect on the 3-dimensional coiled structure of the protein). The final phenotypic expression of two forms of the gene can therefore be identical, and mutation from one form to the other is again neutral. Kimura and his colleagues point to evidence that the majority of gene substitutions in nature are neutral. It is, in their view, that the main cause of genetic variation preservation in wild populations is seen. • Biologist estimate that only 1.5 % of total DNA material on the strand is used for coding protein. But more importantly, all scientists in genetics agree that most mutations occur in somatic cells. These are cells that have nothing to do with reproduction. Thus these mutations die with an individual. Thus adaptation is tangent. • Every biologist knows that well over 99% of mutations that alter a protein enough to affect its function are harmful. In this respect what is the overall net contribution to a gene pool? NEGATIVE contribution!!!. Now, natural selection only favors the best from the available variations in a gene pool of a population. It is only logical to conclude that species loose their vitality and prowess with time as rare mutations persist. • It has been proven scientifically that crossbreeding of varieties within a species increases immunity to various diseases while inbreeding results in organisms being prone to diseases and deformity in human beings. So the very natural selection postulation of small new founder population is detrimental while none natural selection could be positive. • Mbulo’s Thoery Of Differential Sexual Appeal Success Over Sex Of Blind Dating (MTODSAS Over SOBD). This is my theory. In my opinion, in general, the true natural selection is all about sex and not advantageous competitive traits. A male who manages to persuade a female to mate with him rather than with a rival is likely to contribute his genes to future gene pools. Genes for sexually attractive entails Willy and Nilly to have an advantage that compensates for their admitted disadvantages. Don’t you think so? I’m the only one that is both handsome and intelligent. Hahahaha!!! That is not to take away any credit from my theory. I can improve it by stating that: “The differential reproductive success of the bodies is a result of the differential prowess of genuine sexual appeal over sex of blind dating.” Laughable as it may sound, my assumption is verifiable. My theory’s basic concepts and fundamental hypotheses are close if not to exact of experience: Differential prowess of genuine sexual appeal over sex of blind dating is always positive disregarding illogical blind lunatics and irrespective of homosexuals and various other forms of perverts. Hahahaha!!! I told you that can refine my theory. Seriously, genuine sexual appeal is a greater force than random sex because the later is not as common as the former hence the best adaptive survival traits are not selected because they are out of tune with genuine sexual appear. Thus at genetic level, evolution may be defined as the process by which gene-frequencies change in gene pools by natural selection but more importantly by sexual appeal. Even under this we have classes and my theory is that sex is common within a class. This theory postulates that classes are preserved within a population. Generalize it – variations are preserved by sex. Adaptation should be viewed as a discreet force acting against many monumental discreet forces that preserve a species and those that deplete it of its prowess. It is but a tine force that fails to shift the load uphill. This is confirmed by Biogenetic law. This law has 2 provable concepts to it: (a) Life can only come from life. (b) Like kinds always give rise to like kinds. In all the years of observing nature, scientists have never seen this law broken or violated. Every individual, of either sex, will tend to inherit its mother's genes for preferring its father, and its father's genes for the qualities preferred. This correlation, today technically and painfully to evolutionists is called linkage disequilibrium. Even geneticist, R. A. Fisher, held that even if the prevailing fashion in female taste is for male qualities that are deleterious to male survival, selection can tend to favour sexual attractiveness for its own sake. The genuine male quality is rarely the best traits for adaptation and survival. Thus it is shallow thinking to assume that the best traits are selected resulting in perfect organisms. Now, all in all, this is microevolution and not macroevolution. So you see that microevolution does not support perfectionism. It is Macroevolution that does but unfortunately itself has no scientific support. There is no speciation even in scientific theoretical logical argument nor in observation in nature. According to evolutionist Mark Isaak, a theory is a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. If there is no observable phenomena, then it follows that there must be no theory. A scientific theory only is demanded and indeed arises to explain for what is observed. What can you explain for that which does not exist? So you see that evolution is not a scientific theory. It's a religion of speculation and conjecture accounting for that which is not observed. The old Neo-Platonist idea of a Great Chain of Being, with single-celled life at the bottom and humans just below the angels, has evolved into neo-Darwinism. Plato of 428 - 347 BC), Greek philosopher, is still one of the most creative and influential thinkers in Western philosophy. Now when I say that natural selection and mutation is no more than a bullet shot into an engine of a car with the hope of improving engine performance or a computer program relying on copying mistakes to give it better functions and conclude that evolution cannot have craft perfect organism from imperfect organism, the evolutionist retaliate by saying that evolution does not necessary cause perfectionism because they don’t want to be associated with Plato. However when they turn to past animals and the fossil record, it is theoretically respectable at least to ask whether there is progressive change over time. From this perspective, progress is undeniable. I mean according to them, before a certain date, all life was prokaryotic. After that date there was prokaryotic and eukaryotic life. Another watershed date separates a time when all eukaryotic life was unicellular from a later time when it was both unicellular and multicellular. Later watershed dates separate purely aquatic life from aquatic and terrestrial life, then aquatic, terrestrial, and aerial life. Whether or not average brain size has increased, it is obviously true that maximum brain size has increased. So what is wrong with saying evolution is about perfectionism? The truth is that it is shallow thinking to assume that the best traits are a result of mutation and are selected resulting in perfect organisms. I know of a German scientist, Haeckel, who was trying to disprove creationism but in the end his ideas discredit evolution. He attempted to use embryological development to prove evolution. Amazingly he even tried unifying theory of biology, science in general, and even religion. According to Haeckel, each animal retraces, during its embryological development, the evolutionary steps that led to its place in the natural order. Thus, a human foetus begins its development as a single cell, just as life must have begun. About eight days later the cell grows into a hollow sphere (the blastula) that is similar in morphology to the sponges. The embryo then invaginates to form a two-layered, cup-like structure (the gastrula) that is similar to coelenterates such as jellyfish and the corals. The human embryo next begins to elongate, and within 30 days it has passed through stages with gills, a tail, and fin-like limbs typical of fish and amphibians. Soon the embryo takes an obviously mammalian form, but only after two months is it clearly seen to be a primate. In Haeckel's words, “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” literally translated as embryonic development and evolutionary development. Although a great deal of evolutionary imaginations can be found in this most famous of Haeckel's conjectures, his attempts to reconstruct evolutionary lineages on the basis of embryological development led to phylogenies now known to be wholly inaccurate. But here is one that must be accurate: Comparative Anatomy Theory that states that like features inside two different creatures moans that they are distant cousins on the evolutionary tree, many features that the scientists use to prove like ancestry usually come from different areas on the DNA strand. According to Darwinists logic, we conclude then that they are not ancestors. Furthermore Comparative Anatomy Theory, at molecular DNA strand level, dispels ramous about vestigial organs. Darwinists like asking the question: “Why are there imperfect organisms in creationism?” That is a very good and valid question. They are not imperfect, as you perceive them. A simple but perfect answer is that an intelligent designer insured that they be perfect food for their predators. Furthermore, He also insured that that the victims have other advantages such as high reproduction propensity. The Intelligent Designer was looking at a bigger perfect picture. But Darwinists don’t like simple answers. They claim it is unscientific. But listen to what Albert Einstein had to say: “I believe that every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist, no matter how pure a ‘positivist’ he may fancy himself. The metaphysicist believes that the logically simple is also the real. The tamed metaphysicist believes that not all that is logically simple is embodied in experienced reality, but that the totality of all sensory experience can be ‘comprehended’ on the basis of a conceptual system built on premises of great simplicity. The skeptic will say that this is a ‘miracle creed.’ Admittedly so, but it is a miracle creed which has been borne out to an amazing extent by the development of science.” [Einstein on Gravitation, April 1950 by Scientific American, Inc.[http://www.sciam.com/] There is no scientific law that denies simple answers to be true. Darwinists should learn something from echo systems. In nature we observe that traits of a particular species or of individuals in a species’ population for that matter are not all weak for natural selection to wipe out the species or individuals. Most species have been wiped out due to catastrophes and not ordinary natural events. Even in economics, it is folly to expect Microsoft to wipe out all its competitors in the IT solution business. They might ride on your back or if you are unlucky as often is the case, the more you make money the more you attract competitors to take away a market share as they take advantage of the huge profits in that particular sector of business. What we see eventually in nature are equilibriums. This is best summarized in the bible as follows: “All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from there they return again.” Ecclesiastes 1:7 I like this verse because it also unveils a lot of other mysteries. How can a primitive King Solomon, king of ancient Israel (reigned 961-922 BC), disclose a concealed working of a rain cycle? The Intelligent Designer must have inspired him. Indeed, what we see eventually in nature are equilibriums. If you are too fast, you might end up being a victim of your own success. A good example is a big fish in a small pond. Such a fish in evolution may have advanced in size giving it a competitive advantage of eating small fish but the limited environment will eliminate it. This is just a theoretical illustration to show that in nature things are balanced. If there is loss of balance there arises an upheaval due to the disturbance but eventually modified 2LOT brings back equilibrium. Now lets go back to vestigial organs. Why would a whale that is recent on evolution timetable loose legs while a reptile such as a crocodile still has legs yet it is much older? Well you might say because the crocodile spends part of its life on land. My question is what about the seal that also considerably spends time on land to breed and to rear their young? Couldn’t it have re-evolved the legs? In my language there is a popular saying: “Munda wakale suvuta kulima.” It is literally translated in English as: “The field that was cultivated back in time is easier to cultivate now than the one that was never cultivated before.” Wau!!! I didn’t know that English can be so inefficient. Imagine my language uses only 4 words yet English uses 21 words to mean the same thing. Anyway the point I was making is that it is expected for a seal to easily reacquire the legs than the first time it did acquire them. I demand you give me the seal’s legs. Why would a snake loose legs yet it is on land? I demand that you give me its legs too. The sea slug is impressive design that can be used to show evolution’s falsehood. Sea slugs feed on the sea anemone. What makes this so impressive is that the anemones have poison harpoons that stick out and would paralyze anything that came in contact with it. The sea slug however, is able to put these darts inside its own stomach to store and use for its own defense. You would have to have all of these abilities from the start or the organism would die the 1st time it came in contact with the dart. A slow evolutionary process would have been deadly! What happened to natural selection? What natural selection pressures were at play? Does it only work when evolutionists decide it should when it is in favour of the theory? Here is an illustration. What happened to a whale’s legs? “It was fashionable for male whales to have sex with legless female whales hence leglessness propagated but legness diminished”, says a Darwinist. My question hasn’t been answered. What happened to the legs in the first place? “The male whale demanded that mutation should cut them off from female whale so that she cannot run away when male whale wants to have sex with her” retorts a desperate Darwinist. OK jokes aside, Darwinists say mutations are blind and don’t listen to male whales. Fine, I give them a plus. Now here is my other question: Why was female whale avoiding sex? “It was a painful experience for female whale to have sexual intercourse”, answers a Darwinist. I follow it up with my killer question: If the presumption is true about pain, in the deep blue waters, why then haven’t female whales evolved faster swimming abilities to counteract their male counterparts? “The male whale demanded that mutation should not give female whale bigger fins for swimming faster so that she cannot swim away when male whale wants to have sex with her” Sorry I forgot that mutations are blind and don’t listen to male whales. A self perceived wise man says, “It is now that sex is sweet for female whales.” Listen you fool, if sex is sweet now for female whales, it was equally pleasurable to her then before loosing her legs. Hahahaha!!! Now I’m tired of laughing. But before I rest let me say that I know there has been a question lingering in your mind. You ask, “In Intelligent Design, why are there vestigial organs?” Don’t attack my theory. I’m the noblelest of the aristocrat. You might get embarrassed. Hahahaha!!! They are only vestigial in your mind and not in the organism’s need. Darwinists at one time complained that the appendix is vestigial. Well has it ceased to be vestigial? Of course yes and so will the rest of your complaints. Keep smiling patiently. We shall address them in time. In fact, at one time, it was believed a human being had over 200 vestigial organs. In actuality, all the organs have been found to have important bodily functions. This is true for the appendix also. Doctors have quit removing it, as it has been proven to be a great aid in digestion. Science News, Vol. 164 #24, December 10,1994, "Does nonsense DNA speak it's own dialect?" reported extremely significant results of genetic research. It cited the December 5, 1994 issue of Physical Review Letters containing research by molecular biologists at Harvard Medical School and physicists at Boston University strongly indicating that so-called "junk" DNA, is not "junk" after all. Their study of 37 DNA sequences containing 50,000 base pairs from a variety of organisms showed that the "junk" DNA, amounting to 90% of the human genome, is actually written in a special language. Their tests showed "language like properties" in the "junk" DNA indicating it to be distinctly different from the "code" of the genes. Plainly, this development effectively removes the "junk" which evolutionists have supposed is left over from eons of evolutionary trial and error, and enormously strengthens the argument that an Intelligent Designer made the genetic code to begin with. It has been wondered just where in the genome are the instructions that tell the genes when to "express" and when not to -- so you get fingernails on your fingers and not on your elbows, for example. It would seem the "junk" DNA, now discovered to have its own programmed language, might turn out to be the place. I know a Darwinists hate the idea of intelligent design. They ask, “Where is God?” But since the electromagnetic field exists even in a vacuum, didn’t the discoverer of electromagnetism conceive it as a state of a “carrier,” or shouldn’t we rather endow it with an independent existence not reducible to anything else? In other words, how do we conceive a force that is not tangible in Newtonian mechanics? If we can then why can we imagine a parallel universe that I term spiritual world? There is no scientific law that restricts such imagination or inquiry. Neither hate the game nor the player, but enjoy the moment!!! It’s not by confining of one’s neighbour that one is convinced of one’s own sanity. Chau!!! Shalom! Shalom! Ever-loving, Potpher C. C. Mbulo. B.Eng (UNZA), MBA (ESAMI & MsM), R.Eng (IEEE) +260-979-743434 and +260-955-996712 pmbulo@yahoo.com; pmbulo@zesco.co.zm   Pmbulo Starlite Member Username: Pmbulo Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 05:19 am:    What do we mean by life? Spiritually speaking, life is a status. Scientifically, life is not a status, but a process - a series of chemical reaction using carbon-based molecules, by which matter is taken into the system and is used to assist the system's growth and reproduction, with waste products being expelled. I shall restrict myself to discuss this subject within the scientific broad view definition of life. A virus can not qualify to be a living organism because matter is not taken into a system and waste products are not being expelled out of a system. It is for this reason that biologists disagree on whether viruses should be considered a form of life. A cell is a biological system in which the processes occur. Early experiments suggested that it was relatively simple to produce some of the building blocks of life such as amino acids, the components of proteins. However, the euphoria of the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 has given way to a paradigm crisis of 1993 in origin of life research. The wishful, yet workable atmosphere of ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor has been replaced by the more realistic, but stingy atmosphere of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen cyanide. This is the vernon that volcanoes vomit. These are poisonous to life. This atmosphere poses a much more difficult challenge. Molecules relevant for life would be much rarer. Even more damaging is the possibility of the presence of molecular oxygen in the atmosphere from the break-up of water vapor induced by UV rays. Molecular oxygen would poison any reaction leading to biologically significant molecules. As we see it now, it is evident that the much talked about Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 has currently been thrashed aside by new data that indicate a more realistic, but stingy atmosphere of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide, nitrogen and carbon dioxide. These are the gases that volcanoes vomit out and we all admit that. The wishful yet workable atmosphere of ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor that Chemist S. L. Miller used can not find place in the origin of life in the light of what volcanoes belch out. Worse still, even today's experiments in which researchers try to simulate the early earth have been severely crippled. These experiments generally use purified reactants, isolated energy sources and exaggerated energy levels. These are procedures that unrealistically drive the reaction toward the desired product. Another thing to lament about is that the products are protected from the destructive effects of the energy sources that produced them in the first place. It is thus unthinkable to conceive that life could have evolved in the deep ocean vents. How about at the surface, precisely the more promising ponds that have special clays that act as catalysis for formation of organic molecules? What one needs is just to answer the question: what are the effects of oxygen gas on organic molecules? The sure answer is oxidation of the very thing we hypothetically want to achieve. If we presume an atmosphere that has no oxygen then we ought to bear in mind that the ozone layer is a product of oxygen. No oxygen means no protection from deadly UV. Worse still some of the water vapor molecules will be broken down by UV rays resulting into Oxygen gas, which causes oxidation of organic molecules. Dr. Klaus Dose once wrote: More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. [From Interdisciplinary Science Review 13(1988): 348-56.] Recently, in 1983, evolutionist researcher C. Ponnamperuma announced that all five of the critical organic compounds called "bases" (Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine, Uricil and Adenine) that are responsible for coding genetic information in the DNA and RNA of living cells were synthesized in a Miller-Urey type of experiment. But firstly, it should be noted that experimental results are totally different from natural results as earlier pointed out in my preamble where I did say that these experiments generally use purified reactants, isolated energy sources and exaggerated energy levels. These are procedures that unrealistically drive the reaction toward the desired product. If asked I can elaborate more. Secondly, what was achieved in the experiment were bases and not and an array of bases that can depict a gene. Thirdly, but all of these difficulties together, as staggering as they are, are not the real problem. A harpaharzedly and arbitrary arrangement of a simple array of such bases can not be equated to the complex DNA molecule and its numerous highly specialized codes for synthesis of proteins. The major difficulty in chemical evolution scenarios is how to account for the informational code of DNA without intelligence being a part of the equation. DNA carries the genetic code - the genetic blueprint for constructing and maintaining a biological organism. DNA is "transcribed" into RNA; RNA is "translated" into protein; geneticists speak of the "genetic code". All these words imply intelligence, and the DNA informational code requires intelligent preprogramming, yet a purely naturalistic beginning does not provide such input. Though chemical experiments may be able to construct small sequences of nucleotides to form small molecules of DNA, this doesn't make them mean anything. There is no source for the informational code in a strictly naturalistic origin of life. The simplest possible cell, according to recent theoretical analysis, would need a bare minimum of 256 genes coding for the required enzymes, which are long polypeptides. And it is doubtful whether such a hypothetical organism could survive, because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage, could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes, would lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its environment. Indeed the major difficulty is linking up the building blocks at all, let alone in the right sequence. This is because thermodynamic considerations show that long molecules like proteins and nucleic acids tend to break up into their component monomers (amino acids and nucleotides respectively). Any undirected energy input is more likely to be destructive rather than constructive, and to increase the variety of undesirable side reactions possible. Again which one evolved first between DNA and RNA? You need DNA to make up RNA while you need RNA to make up DNA. Genetic information does not just spontaneously arise from random DNA sequences. The informational code, the relevant molecules, all catalysts and a "house" constitute a complex irreducible system that needs all it's constituents to be present and functioning. The terminology "irreducible complexity" was coined by Professor Michael Behe. One time I was privileged to watch him on TV and this is what he had to say: "A system is irreducibly complex if it is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Life at the molecular level is replete with such systems, and biochemists do not even attempt to explain how any one of them could have come into existence by the Darwinian mechanism.” The result of biochemical investigation of cellular mechanisms, according to Behe, "is a loud, clear, piercing cry of ‘Design!’" The much celebrated evolutionist biologist Sidney W. Fox's experiment that shows that simple heating of dry amino acids can create protein molecules leaves a lot to be desired. Once water is added these proteins assume the shape of round, cell-like objects called proteinoids, which take in small molecules from the surrounding liquid, grow by attaching each other and divide. This at face value seems to depict a resemblance to bacteria and infact experts have trouble distinguishing them from bacteria. But ladies and gentlemen, liquid water must have been critical to achieve evolution of the first organic molecules. After all, the first living things were strictly aquatic creatures. Not only that, liquid water is a fluid medium in which materials could move and aggregate. A point should be noted here that in the sea you need high concentration to make it possible for aggregation. Back to the topic at hand, furthermore, don't evolutionists believe we all evolved from the sea? I Potpher know that all cells of all living organisms are strictly aquatic. Land-based organisms are merely more-less like protective shells filled up with millions of aquatic cells. So as it were if we presume that evolution did bring forth life from organic molecules which in turn did evolve from inanimate none living world, then the place of this process must be the sea. This fact then defeats Sidney W. Fox's initial dry environment. I'm in no way suggesting that I believe that life evolved in the sea. If the sea was primordial soup of amino acids and simple proteins, why don't we have a record in fossil of such a prevalent occurrence imbedded in sediment containing the organic slime of the primitive sea? Another issue to consider is how did big molecules such as complex proteins and DNA find themselves inside an impenetrable primitive cell membrane (proteinoid)? How about how did only left-handed molecules find themselves inside such a closet? Worse still don't we know that left-handedness is destroyed by intense heat? It is a scientific fact that without the ozone layer, the UV light will destroy organic molecules. It is for this reason that indeed fossil and geochemical evidence suggest that life did not emerge on earth's land surface until oceans plants which were shielded from sunlight by the sea water, emitted enough oxygen to build up the ozone (O3) layer in the earth's atmosphere. This layer could then shield land-based life from UV rays. But as earlier argued, a dry environment rich in protein with heat energy is a prerequisite needed to achieve a primitive cell membrane. So if it was dry then it also means that UV did a stoppage to the assumed progress. Even more damaging is the possibility of the presence of molecular oxygen in the atmosphere from the break-up of water vapor. It therefore appears that both the shield and the organism simultaneously evolved against the dictates of natural law and probability. So one just has to conclude as persuaded by evidence that design is the only option that could have conceived life. Shalom! Shalom! Ever-loving, Potpher C. C. Mbulo. B.Eng (UNZA), MBA (ESAMI & MsM), R.Eng (IEEE) +260-979-743434 and +260-955-996712 pmbulo@yahoo.com; pmbulo@zesco.co.zm   Michael .P (Mik3y) Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 06:57 pm:    While Myth[Half-truth] is accurate, i can't help but think you are implying it has No truth at all. Science has never called Evolution Fact..so it cannot be a lie. Man has never claimed to know exactly how God created us and the earth either..we have vivid descriptions and that is all. The conflict between religion and Science only exists because of those who either want to say im right Or im Right. Seems no one can settle for realism we both could be right, or we both might not have it exactly right. Tomorrow man could find a transitional fossil and what would you do if you were blindly in the faith? Would you conclude the Bible has lied and other such nonsense?! The Bible Nor Science has lied aabout creation, they have simply thought out there understanding of what God has revealed to them. God reveals truth..so Scientists aren't ignorant to it, nor are believers. We all believe in God obviously because we get up everyday and carry on living Michael william James   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 04:13 pm:    The Darwin Myth '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.' (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302) The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's 'fatal stroke'. This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengtson, who confesses the lack of transitional links while describing the Cambrian Age, makes the following comment: 'Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us'.. (Stefan Bengston, Nature, Vol. 345, 1990, p. 765.) for video click http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/   ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne) Starlite Member Username: Alianne Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 10:58 am:    The role of mathematics in nature, P. A. M. Dirac states in Scientific American of May 1963: �It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it. You may wonder: Why is nature constructed along these lines? One can only answer that our present knowledge seems to show that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and he used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe. Our feeble attempts at mathematics enable us to understand a bit of the universe, and as we proceed to develop higher and higher mathematics we can hope to understand the universe better.�   Michael .P (Mik3y) Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 07:20 am:    Rolex's are a waste of money anyway ;) lol I prefer not to wear watches.. i'd prefer not to have a mobile too but bah i was forced to get one more or less by my mother. So i do check the time occasionaly with that but very rarely. Even still though i know time roughly when i look at the sun or the sky. Time exists way beyond me. Michael william James   Satanic Inc (Satanic_inc) Starlite Member Username: Satanic_inc Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 12:09 pm:    ok those are natural things... and a rolex is still usless with or withour time... it controls our every need... I'm shackled to this alter sacrificed to their God   Michael .P (Mik3y) Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 08:43 am:    Cause and effect is flawed especially since Science wants to use the Big Bang theory..or rather people who read up on a bit of science want to use the Big bang theory as there main argument. The big bang completely defies the whole cause and effect logic. Time was not made by men.. time exists beyond us we can barely measure time. None of us control the sun, moon, stars, and sky.. none of us make day or night. A watch would be a piece of junk if time didn't exist. Michael william James   Satanic Inc (Satanic_inc) Starlite Member Username: Satanic_inc Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 12:44 pm:    time is a science not a religion... if you notice the bible does not have a rolex stuck in the pages telling us what time it is... jeez... again with the bible talk.. bible bible bible... I'm shackled to this alter sacrificed to their God   ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne) Starlite Member Username: Alianne Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 07:58 pm:    Sat: if you believe that man created time, I could tell you a little about the history of time In the meantime here is something on evolution that might interest you The creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that Jehovah God created earth�s living things �according to their kinds.� (Ge 1:11, ftn) Toward the end of the sixth creative day the earth was supplied with a great variety of basic created �kinds,� which included very complex forms of life. These were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring �according to their kind(s)� in a fixed, orderly manner.�Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33. The Biblical �kinds� seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between �kinds� is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.   Satanic Inc (Satanic_inc) Starlite Member Username: Satanic_inc Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 06:08 pm:    want to know who created time? we did.. we made it a into a clock... if che change the values of the clock we change time.. and the way everything works... by expanding or shortening time values.. thats all we made time since we made the machine that controls our life.. the clock. and before that.. maybe because we had no god damn sun?! think damn it.. "natural" causes and effect... I'm shackled to this alter sacrificed to their God   ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne) Starlite Member Username: Alianne Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 11:44 am:    PHILIP, WELCOME!!! YOU ARE CORRECT GOD CANNOT BE CONTAINED AS HE SAYS SO IN HIS WORD THE BIBLE. HE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE HUMANS FIND HARD TO UNDERSTAND SOMETIMES. HOPE YOU CHECK THE OTHER THREADS OUT AND GIVE US YOUR THOUGHTS ON THINGS.   Michael .P (Mik3y) Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 05:06 am:    Well science and man still fails to define time. We try and measure it via day and night but thats it. In genesis when it says "God created day and night" You could take that as God creating time. If this was the case before he created day and night time did not exist. Michael william James   philip Botha (Phried) Starlite Member Username: Phried Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 02:08 am:    Hi im new... Have you guys ever considered that God might not be confined to time... did he need to begin... if God is the creztor then he should not be limited should he???   ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne) Starlite Member Username: Alianne Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 11:25 am:    ZAHEER: I LIKED YOUR POSTING ON Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 07:57 am: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point i wasnted to make here was God is the creator of the universe, science can only attempt to explain how it happened but has no clue as to why it happened. why it happened??? WAS IT NOT AN ACT OF LOVE THE REASON; THAT MADE GOD CREATE AND WANT TO SHARE THE UNIVERSE WITH MANKIND???   Michael .P (Mik3y) Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 12:03 am:    Gotcha..soz im not up to speed yet with all the terms heh most i've got down pat though! i swear it lol Michael william James   Satanic Inc (Satanic_inc) Starlite Member Username: Satanic_inc Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 01:19 pm:    G-W good work I'm shackled to this alter sacrificed to their God   Michael .P (Mik3y) Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 07:16 am:    Sorry, Satanic Inc im not sure by what you mean "GW" etc...? Michael william James   Satanic Inc (Satanic_inc) Starlite Member Username: Satanic_inc Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 12:07 am:    mike GW!!! that stops many critters from posting mindless junkies like mee I'm shackled to this alter sacrificed to their God   Michael .P (Mik3y) Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 10:44 pm:    Please excuse the few typos lol..but thankyou its always good when people understand where you are comming from. Its not really the point if they agree or not, but if they can at least see the truth that your trying to share with them then thats Awesome Michael william James   Jim Armstrong (Njaeok) Starlite Member Username: Njaeok Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 11:46 am:    Michael-- Well said. I agree wholeheartedly. Jimbo   Michael .P (Mik3y) Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 06:01 am:    I think the problem lies in people either shouting out Evolution is Fact or that evolution has no logic or truth at all. As far as facts go it is a theory that is unproven either way, however the fact it has some evidence gives it a firmer stance. As Far as Religion and science go they should not fight with each other because its pointless. Many Scientists were very much involved in the faith but they would use science to explain to people perhaps how this world might of been created. I forget which scientist it was but he basically said i use scientist to give myself and others an insight into what God might of done and actually be. Words to that effect anyway. As much as no one has proved Evolution wrong..no one has proved the theory the Church holds of there been a divine creator wrong.. The only mystery is if such a creator designed this world how did he and what is he? So i never turn a Blind eye to Science nor does the church the only ignorance i show is to those who mouth off how a particular theory is fact and that the faith is rubbish. To lable either as rubbish is pure ignorance! The end point is though Jimbo that matter was made by something or someone who we have yet to understand..according to science. However according to the Faith such things have been revealed to us in parts and it goes beyond our human imagination to understand. When we actually have a relationship with our creator that is something Science is yet to achieve, right?! So as i hope you can clearly see Faith and Science go Hand in Hand..no matter what your beliefs Faith is the security in them. Michael william James   Satanic Inc (Satanic_inc) Starlite Member Username: Satanic_inc Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 04:30 pm:    lets see... in dogs there is a subset, we have DIFFIRENT BREEDS DIFFIRENT THIS AND THAT ITS NOT HAPPENING PHISICALY BUT GENETICALY. If anymals didnt change we wouldnt have multiple genetic bariations of a same species... think of that I'm shackled to this alter sacrificed to their God   ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne) Starlite Member Username: Alianne Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 02:35 pm:    SAT: THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES IN ANIMALS OR PLANTS FOR THE PAST 6000 YEARS SO TELL ME" WHEN ARE THESE CHANGES IN ANIMALS AND PLANTS SUPPOSED TO OCCUR?????? A GORILLA IS STILL A GORILLA , A DOG STILL A DOG, A CAT STILL A CAT...   Satanic Inc (Satanic_inc) Starlite Member Username: Satanic_inc Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 12:58 am:    zaheeer i believe that there you are definately wrong we produce mutant plants and animals all the time usuing specific traits that we want a sertain animal or plant to have. I call that natural "assisted" selection. and in either form the plan was or animal was bound to make those changes in long terms of time I'm shackled to this alter sacrificed to their God

Add Your Message Here Post: -Color- Black Red Green Blue Yellow Purple Orange Cyan Gray White -Font- Arial Courier Symbol Times Verdana -Size- Smallest (-2) Small (-1) Normal Large (+1) Largest (+2) Username: Posting Information: This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here. Password: Options: Enable HTML code in message Automatically activate URLs in message Action: