National Geographic's Darwin Error

The November edition of National Geographic magazine (NG) posed the question
"Was Darwin Wrong?" on its front cover. Natural scientist David Quammen,
author of the article by the same name, replied "No" to that question from
his own perspective, and claimed that Darwin's theory of evolution was today
backed up by powerful scientific evidence. Quammen repeated the main claims
from Darwin's book The Origin of Species, but overlooked one important
detail.
Darwin added another chapter to his book, one called "Difficulties on
Theory," and openly admitted the existence of difficulties in these terms:
Such is the sum of the several chief objections and
difficulties which may justly be urged against my theory… I have felt these
difficulties far too heavily during many years to 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 ignored their
existence. For example, although Darwin referred in his book to the way the
fossil record failed to back up his theory and to the complexity in the eye,
NG magazine did not even touch on such subjects which the theory of
evolution is unable to account for as the Cambrian Explosion, biological
complexity and the origin of genetic information.
Quammen, who thus appears to be more of a Darwinist than Darwin himself,
emerged as the defender not of a theory that can account for difficulties,
but of a "dogma" that needs to be shielded from criticism.
In this article, Quammen's so-called evidence is analysed and the Darwinist
propaganda embarked on by NG magazine refuted.

An Example of NG Turkey's Dogmatic Stance
The English language edition of the NG article "Was Darwin Wrong?" also
devoted space to Harun Yahya's works about the theory of evolution. In the
section describing worldwide reactions 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 volume titled The Evolution Deceit, who
points to the six-day creation story in the Koran as literal truth and calls
the theory of evolution "nothing but a deception imposed on us by the
dominators of the world system."
Interestingly though, Harun Yahya did not appear in NG's Turkish version,
and this section was altered, assuming the following form: "This unease
displays a parallelism among those who support the Islamic idea of
creation."
As someone who states his primary aim as being that of describing the
philosophy and scientific invalidity of Darwinism, Harun Yahya has closely
monitored Darwinist propaganda in recent years and has responded, in the
light of scientific findings, to the pro-evolutionist writings and
broadcasts of media organisations, of which NG is one. (see
www.darwinism-watch.com <http://www.darwinism-watch.com/> )
If Darwinism really were supported by a mass of evidence, as claimed in this
NG article, then why is NG Turkey trying to prevent Harun Yahya's scientific
criticisms from being heard? Could it be that NG Turkey was concerned that
Darwinism will be unable to withstand such scientific criticism? In fact,
this attitude by NG's Turkey desk not only shows that the magazine is
unwilling to inform its readers of the source of effective criticism of
evolution, but also confirms the criticism that it is seeking to keep
Darwinism on its feet as an ideology.

NG Is Unwilling to Face the Modern Scientific Facts
There can be no doubt that in order to provide a realistic response to the
question "Was Darwin Wrong?" one needs to look at what Darwin actually said
and to compare this to modern scientific facts. In his book The Origin of
Species, in which he unveiled his theory of evolution, Darwin provided a
very important criterion by which to test his theory. So concrete is that
criterion that in Darwin's own words it could "absolutely break down" the
theory. Darwin wrote:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed,
which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." 2
Darwin maintained that organs evolved during a gradual process. Thinking of
this imaginary process in reverse, it appears that Darwin assumed that these
organs possessed reducibility. However, advances made in the field of
biochemistry, especially over the last 40 years, have revealed that the cell
possesses a superior complexity, the details of which were unknown in
Darwin's time, for which reason it was equated to a "black box," and that
certain structures within the cell actually possess the feature of
"irreducible complexity."
"Irreducible complexity" is a phenomenon based on empirical evidence and
literally constitutes the antithesis of Darwin's theory. The most important
figure to bring this concept onto the agenda of the scientific world is the
biochemist Michael J. Behe from Lehigh University in the USA. In his 1996
book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution Behe
examines the irreducibly complex natures of the cell and certain other
biological structures, and reveals that these cannot possibly be accounted
for in terms of evolution. Behe sets out the effect that irreducible
complexity has on the claims of Darwinism thus:
"To Darwin, the cell was a 'black box' -- its inner workings
were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we
know how it works. Applying Darwin's test to the ultra-complex world of
molecular machinery 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, in other words that God has created all
living things. The way that NG seeks to keep this from its readers
constitutes a flight from reality.

NG's biogeographical tales
In his article in NG, Quammen begins his account of the so-called evidence
for Darwinism with biogeography, and it may be of use to provide a
description of this concept at this point. Biogeography is a branch of
science that investigates the geographical distribution of species and seeks
an answer to the question of how they came by these habitat regions by
drawing up maps of their locations on the Earth.
Most books in the field of biogeography are full of facts that say nothing,
neither in favour nor against, the theory of evolution: such as maps of
living species' habitat areas, the features of those areas, questions
regarding the spread of organisms, and the grouping together of species on
the basis of geographical area ... 4
When their distribution on the Earth is examined it can be seen that species
do not generally exhibit a global distribution. Species have rather spread
in large groups in areas possessing specific climatic and environmental
conditions. Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have sought to portray this
spread as evidence for evolution, though with regard to the "fundamental"
living categories of geographical distribution their efforts have failed to
come up with a consistent evolutionary scenario.
In their book Systematics and Biogeography, G. Nelson and N. Platnick of the
New York American Museum of Natural History analysed the studies performed
in this field and set out their conclusion:
We conclude, therefore, that biogeography (or geographical
distribution of organisms) has not been shown to be evidence for or against
evolution in any sense. 5
If evolutionists really wish to offer evidence for their theory then what
they need to do is to abandon their fairy tales about "if this living thing
is found here then it must have evolved here, and if that living thing is
found there then it must have evolved there," and instead scientifically
document their own responses to the question of how living things came into
being in the first place. (It is an indisputable fact that the mechanisms of
random mutation and natural selection cannot account for the origin of
species.)
The fact that evolutionist claims based on biogeography are myths devoid of
any scientific evidence clearly emerge on inspection of NG's claims about
palaeontology. The fossil record clearly reveals that the idea that living
things spread by evolving is a myth.

NG's palaeontology deception
NG makes a generalisation about the fossil strata, telling its readers that
so-called closely related species are generally found side by side in
consecutive strata, and that a life form going back millions of years in one
stratum is followed by a similar, though not identical, one in the
subsequent stratum. As an example of this generalisation it cites the equine
sequence that even evolutionists abandoned years ago; it maintains that the
modern-day horse emerged at the end of the sequence Hyracotherium,
Orohippus, Epihippus and Mohippus, fossils of which are found in consecutive
strata.
What NG is doing here consists of a blatant deception. The equine sequence
is an unfounded one, the invalidity of which has now been demonstrated. That
being the case, putting it forward as a generalisation regarding the fossil
record cannot be described as anything else than an attempt to verify that
generalisation with a deceptive example.

Life forms emerged with no evolutionary progenitors, but in a single moment,
and with flawless bodily structures
Darwin, who maintained that living things emerged through graduated
evolution and who hoped that the fossil record to confirm that claim would
be obtained in future excavations, was mistaken. The fossils obtained in
endless excavations carried out by palaeontologists all over the world have
produced findings that openly refute the idea of gradual change in
consecutive strata. These facts concern the phenomena of sudden appearance
and stasis.
Species emerge suddenly, with no evolutionary progenitors but with flawless
bodily structures. In his 1999 book Fossils and Evolution, Tom Kemp, Curator
of the Zoological Collections in Oxford University Museum of Natural
History, admits this:
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 hundreds of millions of years old that bear no trace of evolution
invalidate
neo-Darwinism
Furthermore, species exhibit no gradual change as suggested in the NG
generalisation. Species with natural histories of hundreds of millions of
years exhibit a "stability" demonstrating a permanency throughout geological
strata. The shark, coelacanth, ant, salamander and many other species,
fossils of which have been found and which have remained unchanged for
hundreds of millions of years, have led to palaeontologists accepting stasis
as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record. This phenomenon
refutes Darwinism's prediction of gradual change and invalidates the theory.
Professor of Geology Peter J. Williamson describes this in Nature magazine:
The principal problem is morphological stasis. A theory is
only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which
claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed
to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as
one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record. 7
In short, NG's claim of graduated change throughout geological strata is a
myth supported in the face of the science of palaeontology. The way that NG
seeks to support that myth with the equine sequence only makes matters
worse.

The truth in the equine sequence that NG seeks to conceal from its readers
The equine sequence is based on various hoofed fossils unearthed in North
America. Darwinists set these out in such a way as to establish a sequence,
according to the fossils' dental characteristics and numbers of toes, and
for years put this forward as evidence for Darwinism. Continuing
palaeontological excavations, however, definitively revealed the
inconsistencies within that series. NG, known for its blind devotion to
Darwinism, has no qualms about concealing this development from its readers
and writing that the alleged evolutionary ancestors of the horse follow one
another in consecutive geological strata.
Former BBC science editor Gordon Rattray Taylor describes how the equine
sequence constitutes no evidence for Darwinism:
But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the
failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of
organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change... The horse is often
cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line
from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual
increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than
Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought
together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that
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, one speaker, Boyce Rensberger, stated that
there was no basis in the fossil record for the scenario of equine
evolution, and that no gradual equine evolution ever took place:
The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a
gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly
50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been
known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate
species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct.
Transitional forms are unknown. 9
Discoveries that living things included in the imaginary sequence of equine
evolution actually lived at the same time, and even together, totally refute
Quammen. One of the most striking examples of this came to light in 1981.
Fossils of thousands of living things, 10 million years old, that had been
buried under lava as the result of a volcanic eruption and whose skeletons
had been preserved down to the present day, were dug up in the US state of
Nebraska. With that discovery it emerged that three- and single-toed equines
assumed to have lived at different periods and to have ancestral
relationships with one another in the framework of evolutionists' imaginary
equine sequence, actually lived side by side. Interestingly the source of
this information is NG magazine. 10

The myth of whale evolution
I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered,
by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits,
with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as
a whale. 11
>From watching bears fishing along a river bank, Darwin set out his ideas on
the origin of whales in these words in his book The Origin of Species,
though he elected to remove that section from subsequent editions of the
book. Yet evolutionists who came after Darwin had no hesitation over
adopting this myth, with various minor amendments, that came down as a
monument to the unrestricted nature of his imagination. They continued to
propagate the myth that the whale evolved not from the bear but from other
land mammals, as if this were a scientific fact.
It can now be seen that NG, one of the main representatives of Darwinian
mythology, is behaving no differently, and is seeking to portray this great
myth, supported for the sake of the dogma of evolution, as representing
evidence for evolution.
There are enormous differences, in terms of such basic physiological
characteristics as water conservation, sight and communication, between
whales and the land mammals alleged to have been their progenitors. Let us
now consider the scientific dilemma facing the myth of evolution by
examining the design in whales:

The special water conservation design in whales' bodies
Although they live in water, whales are unable to meet their water
requirements from salty sea water. They need fresh water to live. Although
it is not known exactly how they meet their water needs, it is thought that
a large part of it is obtained by eating sea creatures that contain levels
of salt that are 30% lower than those of the ocean water.In such an
environment, where fresh water is exceedingly scarce, the maximum
conservation of water in living things' bodies and minimum consumption
thereof are critical. Water levels are of great importance to whales, for
which reason, just like camels, whales do not perspire. Their kidneys
regulate urine concentration in such a way as to supply water.

Why is whale milk fatty?
Another delicate balance with regard to water needs appears in the fat level
in the female whale's milk. The mother whale feeds her young with a very
thick milk, of the consistency of cheese. This milk is ten times fattier
than human milk. There is a chemical reason why this milk contains such a
high level of fat. Water is produced as a side product as fat is processed
after being consumed by the baby. In this way the mother meets her
offspring's need for water with minimal water loss.

The design in whales' eyes
There are complex arrangements in the design of the whale eye and its
communication systems, no examples of which are to be found in terrestrial
mammals. Land mammals have eyelids to protect against dust and impact.
Whales, on the other hand, have a hard layer to protect against a different
danger, the pressure under the sea. Moreover, the refractive index in the
design of the whale eye makes it possible for a killer whale to leap up and
catch a fish six metres above the water level in an amusement park with
considerable accuracy. In addition, whales' eyes are on either side of the
head, unlike terrestrial mammals, thus protecting them from the current.
Thanks to the levels of rod and cone cells in the eye, their sensitivity
levels to light, colour and other details are very high. In addition to that
ratio, the presence of phosphorus in the eyes is a design that facilitates
their ability to see in the dark depths of the oceans.

The mathematical calculation employed by whales
The sense used by whales in the location of sources of food and of one
another is not actually sight, but rather hearing. Many whales hunt at the
dark regions at the bottom of the sea thanks to a form of natural "sonar."
The whale's brain emits clicking sounds, in a way not yet fully understood
by scientists. The distance of an object is determined by means of a
mathematical calculation. The whale brain multiplies the speed at which the
sounds it emits strike an object and bounce back by the time necessary for
this, and divides the result by two. The result is the distance of the
object from itself. Furthermore, the whale also possesses the ability to
focus the sound waves with its brain on a specific point and to emit these
like a light impulse. The returning waves are analysed and interpreted in
the animal's brain. This interpretation determines the shape of the body in
front of it, its size, speed and position. The animal's skull is
sound-proofed to protect it from the bombardment of powerful sound waves it
constantly emits and which could even seriously damage the brain itself. The
sonic system in the animal is unbelievably sensitive, so much so that the US
Navy imitates the sonar design in sea mammals in developing its own
technology. 12

Special designs for whale calves
The perfect designs in whales are by no means limited to these. The shape of
a whale calf's mouth has been designed in such a way as to be ideally suited
to fit its mother's teats, so that the calf is able to suckle without losing
a drop of milk and without taking in a drop of sea water. Moreover, they
possess lungs capable of storing high levels of oxygen for protracted dives
and an ear membrane designed to protect them from high pressure.
These arrangements, every one of which indicates an evident design, are
particular to whales and are not to be found in any terrestrial mammal. NG,
however, expects it readers to set reason aside and believe that these all
came about by chance. NG denies that whales were intelligently designed,
maintaining instead that one fine day a land mammal decided to live in the
sea, and that the whale evolved as the result of unconscious mechanisms such
as random mutations and natural selection.
Yet what mutation could possibly produce sonar in a mammal that was
allegedly the progenitor of the whale? Bearing in mind the effect of
mutations and the importance of the brain to the whale's survival, it is
clear that mutations would damage the brain, crippling or killing the whale.
Could the brain, that produces sound waves, be able to focus these on a
particular point and determine the location of objects using a mathematical
calculation, acquire a perfect sonar in an area that would be damaged during
this random process? By what coincidence could it produce sonar of such a
high quality that even the US Navy's technology development units have been
unable to match it? What mutations could turn a land mammal's feet into fins
and a tail capable of propelling several tons of weight?
There is no doubt that these questions may also be asked with regard to the
systems that make it possible to use water so productively, the suckling
system and the protective systems in the eye and ear. However, NG has no
reasonable response to give to these questions. There is but one answer.
Whales were created fully formed in a single moment. God created whales to
be flawless, endowed with all the systems for their needs, just as He did
all other living things. In one verse of the Qur'an it is revealed that:
Mankind! remember God's blessing to you. Is there any
creator other than God providing for you from heaven and earth? There is no
god but Him. So how have you been perverted? (Qur'an, 35: 3)
(For a more detailed reply to NG's fantastical whale story see
http://www.harunyahya.com/70national_geographic_sci29.php
<http://www.harunyahya.com/70national_geographic_sci29.php> )

NG's error regarding embryology
Another error in Quammen's article in NG is the repetition of a myth once
known as the "law of recapitulation." This belonged to the German biologist
Ernst Haeckel and in his claim regarding embryology Darwin was to a large
extent "inspired" by Haeckel. The law of recapitulation maintains that the
embryological development of living things repeats the imaginary stages
undergone during the descent of the alleged evolutionary ancestors.
The fact that Quammen devotes space to this in his article reveals a wide
gap of knowledge on his part. Objections along the lines that Haeckel's
claims were devoid of any scientific justification and that the evidence he
offered was forged began 136 years ago13, and the end of the law of
recapitulation as the subject of scientific debate came as far back as 80
years ago 14. Even George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of
neo-Darwinism, admitted this fact 42 years ago in the words:
Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is
now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny. 15
Moreover, the myth of recapitulation, which NG has no qualms over
recapitulating itself, involves what one British embryologist referred to in
1997 as "the best known fraud in the history of biology." In his book
Natürliche Schِpfungsgeschichte (The History of Natural Creation), written
in 1868, Haeckel deliberately distorted the pictures of human, monkey and
dog embryos in such a way as to support his claim.
One striking aspect of this fraud is that it also constitutes a "centennial
monument" to Darwinist dogmatism. Until recently, a number of Darwinist
sources, including text books, continued either to use the counterfeit
drawings as they were, or else to repeat the myth of recapitulation. The
Harvard University professor and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould displayed
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 of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence
of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!
16
NG has not used counterfeit drawings. Yet it has no hesitations over using
recapitulation, the invalidity of which emerged at least 80 years ago, as
support for Darwinism.
We urge NG to consider Stephen Jay Gould's words.

NG's errors with regard to morphology
Quammen exhibits a most thought-provoking attitude in that section in which
he deals with Darwin's claims on the subject of morphology. The way that a
zoo is organised into birds, monkeys, big cats, crocodiles or fish in the
aquarium is interpreted as evidence for evolution. According to Quammen, the
fact that living things can be classified under a hierarchical system in
families, orders and kingdoms must be the product of an evolutionary
process.
However, Quammen's portrayal of hierarchical classification as evidence for
evolution is nonsensical. That is because the fact that forms of life can be
classified hierarchically is not a prediction first put forward by
evolutionists and then subsequently confirmed. The Swedish scientist Carl
Linnaeus, the father of the modern system of classification, was a scientist
who believed in creation from nothing and regarded that classification as
the product of intelligent design. That is compatible with what we see with
our own eyes and is grounded in common sense. The ability to be
hierarchically classified is a well known hallmark of intelligent design.
Means of transport, for example, can be classified as land, air and sea
vehicles, and may be broken down into subcategories and even smaller
subgroups. Yet this classification does not show that the modes of transport
in question came into being through evolution.
Indeed, in an article published in the magazine New Scientist, the prominent
evolutionist Mark Ridley makes the following statement:
The simple 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 into a hierarchy
whether their variation is evolutionary or not. 17
Quammen's preconception
In the same way that what Quammen writes on this subject are far from
supporting his claim, it also reveals how he relies on preconceptions rather
than scientific evidence:
Such a pattern of tiered resemblances?groups of similar
species nested within broader groupings, and all descending from a single
source?isn't naturally present among other collections of items. You won't
find anything equivalent if you try to categorize rocks, or musical
instruments, or jewelry. Why not? Because rock types and styles of jewelry
don't reflect unbroken descent from common ancestors. Biological diversity
does. The number of shared characteristics between any one species and
another indicates how recently those two species have diverged from a shared
lineage. (p. 13)
Quammen placed the hierarchical categorisation in living things in a
separate place, on the grounds that it reflects a continual chain of descent
from a common ancestor. That term, however, is helpless labelling in
Quammen's desperate attempts to prove Darwin right.
As is made clear above, there is no fossil record capable of being proposed
as evidence of any evolutionary link between living categories. The words of
the prominent evolutionary palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould that "The
evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and
nodes of their branches" are an admission of the fact that there is actually
no evidence for the evolutionary links assumed to exist among living things.
18
In short, the origin of the evolutionary chain of descent that Quammen
claims exists among living categories is not scientific fact such as the
fossil record, but rather his own dogmatic mentality.

The five-digit skeletal structure error
Quammen maintains that the way that various vertebrates such as the bat, the
dolphin and human beings all share the feature of having five digits stems
from descent from a common ancestor. This claim rests on the fact that
although there is the same basic plan in the front and rear legs of the
living things in question, these can still be easily differentiated (the
homological claim). This claim of Quammen's can of course only deceive those
readers who are unaware of the facts of modern science. Advances in the
field of molecular biology definitively invalidate this morphology-based
claim. One striking discovery that led to this is that the production of
these organs, assumed to be a legacy from a 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 older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of
homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the
limbs of different animals. Thus the `pentadactyl' limb pattern is found in
the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is
held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were
transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations
and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense.
Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be
produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The
concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common
ancestor has broken down. 19
NG's vestigial Darwinism
Quammen displays a striking determination not to grasp the fact that
Darwin's claims have been demolished by modern science. One of the
indications of this is his repetition of the claim regarding vestigial
organs, a claim which is utterly illusory. It is maintained in the article
that organs such as the male nipple, structures claimed to be the vestiges
of rear legs in certain snakes, or the covered wings in coleoptera that are
not actually used, are redundant, functionless organs left over from the
evolutionary process. Quammen is clearly ignoring the definitive results
from scientific developments:
The list of up to 180 supposed vestigial organs at the beginning of the 20th
century eventually shrank to almost none in the face of discoveries from
scientific research. One by one it emerged that a great many organs, such as
the appendix and the plica semilunaris, once supposed to be vestigial
organs, do actually have functions.20 "Science" is in any case the process
by which human beings come to know what was previously unknown. The gradual
emergence of the functions of organs that were once regarded as vestigial
shows that, logically, the functions of the last few remaining organs whose
functions are still unknown will soon be revealed.
Indeed, a great many present-day evolutionists have admitted that the myth
of "vestigial organs" is an argument rooted in ignorance. In an article
headed "Do Vestigial Organs Represent Evidence for Evolution?" published in
the journal Evolutionary Theory, the evolutionary biologist S. R. Scadding
admits this fact:
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless
structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not
scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special
evidence for the theory of evolution. 21
Evolutionists' claim on the subject of vestigial organs stem not from any
vestigialism in these organs, but from the vestigial nature of their own
perspectives. The existence of any living thing proves only the existence of
God, its creator. The way that inanimate and unconscious atoms combine to
produce a hearing, smelling, touching and seeing human being is proof of
God's flawless creation. That it is because it is impossible for atoms,
which cannot smell, hear or see, to wish to have perception and to combine
together for that purpose. For a collection of matter to stand and look at
itself in front of a mirror, or for matter to taste and touch itself, has no
place in evolutionary logic. These feelings can only be explained in terms
of a superior creation, in other words the existence of God and His flawless
creation. Despite this self-evident truth, evolutionists hold to the
irrational and blind belief that they themselves are the product of matter
and blind chance, which shows that their claim regarding vestigial organs is
one based on this prejudiced and dogmatic perspective.
The realisation that the organs regarded by evolutionists as vestigial do
actually have functions is a proof of this. For example, the structures
portrayed as the vestiges of rear legs in certain species of snake are now
known to help them to grip one another during mating. To regard the male
nipple as the product of an evolutionary process also rests on a distorted
logic. If the male nipple were a leftover from an evolutionary process then
males must have evolved from a population consisting solely of females,
which is a scenario so unimaginable that no evolutionist has felt able to
accept it. Coleoptera, another example cited by Quammen, also constitute no
evidence for evolution. Insect species which do not develop a functional
wing are generally seen in open habitats with strong winds, such as ocean
islands. In an environment where strong winds blow and surrounded by large
masses of water, insects' being able to fly is by no means an advantage, and
may even represent a danger. That is because insects flying in the air are
exposed to the effects of the wind and can be hurled into trees or rocks,
ending up crippled or dead. There may, therefore, have been a tendency for
them to move towards a ground-based lifestyle. Over time, the insect
population that lives near the ground comes to consist of individuals that
do not develop fully fledged wings. That is because, unlike flying insects,
mutations that prevent insects that live near to ground level developing
wings may not be damaging to the insect (on the provision that they do not
cause a total interruption in its physiology).
A mutation that prevented wing development in a flying insect living in a
habitat uninfluenced by winds would be harmful and maybe even lethal. That
is because normally an insect that uses its wings to feed and to avoid
predators would possess functionless wings because of that mutation and
would be unable to survive and thus eliminated from the population.
On the other hand, in insects living in a habitat affected by winds and that
used their feet to move about in the same way as non-flying insects, a
mutation in the wings might not have lethal consequences. That is because
the insect will already have grown accustomed to a life style in which it
does not use wings, and it will make no difference whether its wings are
healthy or else lose their function due to mutation (as long as the mutation
in question is not one that affects the insect's general physiology). In
short, a destructive mutation leading to the loss of an insect's wings may
not be lethal in an environment where wings are in any case of no
consequence.
However, it cannot be said that the coleoptera that are assumed to have
undergone such a process represent evidence of evolution. The theory of
evolution proposes that organs gradually assume a more complex form. The
genetic change proposed in support of this claim must be of such a kind as
to add new genetic information to creatures' DNA. It is evident, however,
that coleoptera do not gain any new genetic information during this process
and that, on the contrary, they suffer a loss of information in the genes
that control wing development.
Can this acquisition of genetic information, which is not seen in
coleoptera, be observed in any other living thing? Definitely not.
Evolutionists have been unable to show the emergence of a new organ, or even
a new protein, by means of random mutations.
In short, the theory of evolution maintains that living things acquire new
organs with the addition of new genetic information to their DNA, but the
vestigial organ argument is one that concerns a loss of function, in other
words a loss of genetic data. Therefore, vestigial organs provide no
scientific support for the theory of evolution. The reason for
evolutionists' determination to place this claim on the scientific agenda is
psychological rather than scientific. Their display of blind devotion to
materialism leads them to adopt a vestigial perspective towards the evident
truth of creation. (You can read Harun Yahya's article that demolishes
evolutionists' vestigial viewpoint here.
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/hurriyet_science0407.php
<http://www.darwinism-watch.com/hurriyet_science0407.php> )
James P. Gills, M.D., founder of St. Luke's Cataract and Laser Institute in
Tarpon Springs, Florida, is a creationist scientist. He is also a
world-renowned ophthalmologist. In his book Darwinism Under the Microscope,
Gills cites a great many proofs of creation that totally undermine
evolution, and writes that the only reason why scientists still insist on
evolution is the spiritual cataract of thinking of themselves as the product
of blind chance. 22

The error of thinking that resistance to antibiotics and DDT is evidence of
evolution
The NG article seeks to show that bacterial immunity to antibiotics and
insects' resistance to such pesticides as DDT constitutes evidence for
evolution. On the subject of the resistance that microbes appear to develop
to drugs Quammen confidently states:
There's no better or more immediate evidence supporting the
Darwinian theory than this process of forced transformation among our
inimical germs. (p. 21)
However, Quammen's excitement in portraying bacterial immunity as evidence
for evolution is totally misplaced. It is explained below why these two
phenomena do not represent evidence for Darwinism.
The first of the "deadly molecules" employed against micro-organisms was
penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming discovered a
molecule that killed the Staphylococcus mould bacterium, after which
antibiotics taken from micro-organisms were used against various bacteria.
Although it appeared at first that definitive results had been obtained, the
truth later emerged: bacteria gradually acquire resistance to antibiotics.
The great majority of bacteria exposed to antibiotics die, but since a small
minority remain unaffected this rapidly multiply and eventually come to
constitute the entire population. Thus the entire population becomes
resistant to the antibiotic.
However, there is no question of bacteria developing through mutation here,
because the bacteria already possess the characteristics in question before
being exposed to antibiotics. Despite being an evolutionist publication,
Scientific American magazine admitted these facts in its March 1998 edition:

Many bacteria possessed resistance genes even before
commercial antibiotics came into use. Scientists do not know exactly why
these genes evolved and were maintained. 23
Insects acquire resistance to pesticides such as DDT in the
same way, and, again in the same way, this represents no evidence for
evolution.
The prominent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala accepts the truth of
this in the words:
The genetic variants required for resistance to the most
diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the
populations exposed to these man-made compounds. 24
One of those to carry out 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 bacterial immunity is brought about by two
different mechanisms, but that these offer no support for the theory of
evolution. For more detail on this subject see
http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions05.php#q19
<http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions05.php> and
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_01.html
<http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_01.html> )
Another so-called piece of evidence in the NG article, in addition to the
resistance in bacteria and insects, concerns genetic similarities.

The deception that evolution can be observed

NG claims that evolution can actually be witnessed in nature and in the
laboratory. This, however, is a fantastical and groundless claim. In an
article titled "How Are New Species Formed?" published in the 14 June, 2003,
edition of New Scientist, George Turner made the following significant
"admission":
Not long ago, we thought we knew how species formed. We
believed that the process almost always started with complete isolation of
populations. It often occurred after a population had gone through a severe
"genetic bottleneck," as might happen after a pregnant female was swept off
to a remote island and her offspring mated with each other. The beauty of
this so-called "founder effect" model was that it could be tested in the
lab. In reality, it just didn't hold up. Despite evolutionary biologists'
best efforts, nobody has even got close to creating a new species from a
founder population. What's more, as far as we know, no new species has
formed as a result of humans releasing small numbers of organisms into alien
environments. 25
As we have seen, evolutionists do not actually know how new species are
formed. In other words, Quammen's claim about being able to witness
evolution in action is totally unfounded. The fact that the long years of
study carried out by the Grants into chaffinch beak lengths on the Galapagos
islands is cited in support is the result of Darwinism misrepresenting
variations to represent evidence for itself. (For further information, see
http://www.harunyahya.com/nas04.php <http://www.harunyahya.com/nas04.php> )

Conclusion
As we have seen, Darwin was wrong. National Geographic's posing the question
whether he was wrong is as ridiculous as asking "Was Freud wrong?" or "Was
Marx wrong?" That is because, like Freudianism and Marxism, Darwinism is a
theory that has come to the end of its life. We call upon NG magazine to
abandon its support for this outdated myth and to accept that creation is
the true origin of life.
What NG needs to do is to set its preconceptions to one side and cease
supporting Darwinism as a dogma, and to face up to the scientific evidence
that undermines this theory. Discoveries in the last 40 years in particular
have definitively revealed the invalidity of the naturalist philosophy at
the heart of Darwinism. If NG does face up to that fact it will see that the
organised complexity of life and the genetic information on which it depends
point to intelligent design, in other words that life did not evolve on its
own through chance and natural events, but was "created."
NG - and all other Darwinists - have so far avoided facing up to this, and
may therefore have resorted to covering up the difficulties facing their
theory. Yet they must be aware that this avoidance will be of no use in
keeping their theory alive. That is because a major development in the world
of science is serving notice that the age of sweeping matters under the
carpet has come to an end.
The way that the intelligent design movement, that has been sweeping through
the USA over the last 10 years, has one by one unmasked the dogmas of
Darwinism, has made it the focus of wide interest. The intellectual basis of
this movement is the "Theory of Intelligent Design." The theory in question
maintains that complex biological structures containing large amounts of
information can only be explained in terms of intelligence-based causes, and
that these causes can be empirically studied in the field of biology. 26
One indication that the intelligent design movement may represent the
dynamic for major cultural changes is the way it is effectively and in a
widespread manner revealing that the evidence for so long taught as evidence
for Darwinism in schools actually consists of mythology, deception,
misrepresentation and even fraud. California Berkeley University's Professor
Phillip E. Johnson, the leader of the movement, stresses that Darwinism will
pass into the dustbin of history sometime in this century. 27
It will be of use here to remind NG of the damage from a determined
persistence in its policy of uncritical defence of Darwinism. It will be
remembered that NG announced the discovery of the Archaeoraptor fossil
discovered in China as definitive proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs,
without waiting for it to be described in referred scientific journals.
Later, however, it was realised that the fossil did not represent a missing
link at all, but was a counterfeit "produced" by a Chinese peasant.26
Because of its blind devotion to Darwinism NG had no hesitation in embracing
this fossil as "proof" by unscientific methods, and later found itself in
"modern paleontology's greatest embarrassment." 29
According to the ornithologist Dr. Storrs Olson, "National Geographic has
reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated,
tabloid journalism." 30
The portrayal of the claim of recapitulation, which died at least 80 years
ago, as evidence for evolution in NG's article "Was Darwin Wrong" shows that
it is devoid of the seriousness required by science and is continuing with
its "unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism." NG is not behaving intelligently.
Maintaining this approach does not provide any support for Darwinism. On the
contrary, NG is documenting its own dogmatism in an ever more obvious way.
We invite NG to consider these points and to accept that creation is the
true origin of life.
There is no doubt that the Lord of all living things, on Earth, in the Sky,
and between, is God. In one verse of the Qur'an God reveals that:
Your God is One God. There is no god but Him, the
All-Merciful, the Most Merciful. (Qur'an, 2: 163)

1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Electronic Text
Center, University of Virginia Library.
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 about the evolutionist theses on biogeography,
please see Walter J. Remine, "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message
Theory", Saint Paul Science; 1st ed edition, 1993. page 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,
Oxford University, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 246.
7. Peter G. Williamson, "Morphological stasis and developmental constraint:
real problems for neo-Darwinism," Nature, vol. 294, 19 November 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, p. 230.
9. Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15.
10. Voorhies M.R., "Ancient Ashfall Creates a Pompei of Prehistoric
Animals," National Geographic, Vol. 159, No. 1, January 1981, pp.67-68,74 ;
"Horse Find Defies Evolution" Creation Ex Nihilo 5(3):15, January 1983,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3723.asp
11. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First
Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 184.
12. Spotting Mines With Dolphin Sonar , ScienceNOW 1998: 2
13 L. Rutimeyer, "Referate," Archiv fur Anthropologie, 1868
14 Keith S. Thompson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated", American
Scientist, vol. 76, May / June 1988, p. 273
15 G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt Brace and
World, New York, 1965, p. 241.
16 Stephen Jay Gould, "Abscheulich! - Atrocious! - the precursor to the
theory of natural selection," Natural History, March 2000, p. 45.
17 Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 90 (25 June
1981), p. 832.
18 Gould S.J, "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, p. 189.
20 J. Bergman & G. Howe, Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional, CRS Books,
Terre Haute, IN, 1990.
21 S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?,"
Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.
22 James P.Gills, M.D. & Thomas Woodward, Ph.D., 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, 14 June 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 about Archaeoraptor forgery, please see
http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions03.php#q7
29 Tim Friend, "The 'missing link' fossil that wasn't", USA Today,
02/01/2000
30 Open Letter to National Geographic Society by Storrs L. Olson, Curator of
Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

http://www.harunyahya.com <http://www.harunyahya.com/>