BASIC FALLACIES IN THE VIEW OF EVOLUTION: 1 CONFUSION OF SCIENTIFICITY, BELIEF AND IMPARTIALITY
Dr. Academician Kasım TAKIM
Harran University, Veterinary Faculty Biochemistry Department Şanlıurfa.
It is really thought-provoking and an example of bigotry for the scientific community, which regards skepticism as a principle, to strongly embrace evolution, which is a claim based on no evidence, and accept it unconditionally.
The scientific community regards skepticism as a principle but it is really thought-provoking that some scientists strongly embrace evolution, which is a claim based on no evidence, and accept it unconditionally.
Evolution is one of the most current debates that occupy the world agenda. It is used as the main argument of many faiths such as atheism, deism and agnosticism. Thus, it has become a faith system rather than a scientific theory. Evolutionists regard themselves as scientific in all aspects by claiming that no other view except theirs is scientific. In logic, the obligations that are supposed to be accepted without any evidence and signs are called false claims.
No fossil, no transitional form and no living beingshowing that evolution took place, or is in progress and that it can be realized using laboratory facilities has been found. The fact that no experimental study about it has been included in the literature is one of the most important issues that lead to the discussion of the scientificity of evolution. As such, it is interesting to note that such an approach about which there is no evidence and which consists entirely of guesses based on simple similarities and that is far from scientific methodology extent has spread so much and has been accepted in the scientific world to a great extent; it is worthy of being a separate research subject.
In science, a claim has to be tested in the field (on earth, factory, hospital, etc.) or in the laboratory and the results have to be obtained in order to be accepted as a scientific reality.For example, if I claim that blood sugar is lowered by testosterone instead of insulin, the scientific community will demand a lot of laboratory work and field research to confirm this claim; otherwise, they will not accept my claim. Today, all evolutionists claim that a prokaryotic cell evolved into a eukaryotic cell as a result of mutations.
However, no scientific journal says that this claim must be tested and realized in the laboratory and that otherwise they cannot accept it. Moreover, today’s technology offers us the opportunity to make as many mutations in the cell as we want. Why do they argue on television screens and on the pages of mediaand make false claims instead of working in the laboratory? This is like magic;decorated words and interesting metaphors are used in order to delude and confuse humanity.
We will deal with the issue based on the following plan:
A-Fields of Confusion
1st Principle:Confusion of Scientificity/Faith
2nd Principle: Confusion of Impartiality
B-Fields of Conflict
1st data: Conflict of Antioxidants and Evolution
2nd Data: Conflict of Genetics and Evolution
A-Fields of Confusion
1st Principle: Confusion of Scientificity/Faith in the View of Evolution
In this study, we will discuss whether evolution is a scientific discussion or an issue related tofaith. It is really necessary to discuss the scientificity of a claim about which there is no evidence found on the earth and which has no sample or process proved in laboratory. There is an accepted rule in the scientific community, especially in the field of life and physical sciences:Any issue that cannot be examined in the universe or laboratory or whose sample cannot be seen is not accepted scientifically.
Coincidence/chance has no value for scientific studies because statistical analysis is requested for each study. In other words, the study or any data claimed to be found must be both reproducible and verifiable. Results that cannot be reproduced and that do not show a significant difference from to the positive or negative control group to which they are compared are worthless and have no scientific value. For example, if I claim that the physical state of substance A is liquid at -70° C and under 100 atmospheric pressure and that I have observed it in the laboratory, and if I cannot repeatedly show that the substance is liquid, that is, if I cannot give a statistically significant result, the committee of judges who evaluate my observation will judge that I was wrong. They will think
-that I have not been able to provide the conditions I have claimed
-or that the substance I have tested and the substance I claim are not the same
-or that there was a different substance in the medium that deviated the result of the experiment, etc.
Coincidence/chance has no value for scientific studies because statistical analysis is requested for each study. In other words, the study or any data claimed to be found must be both reproducible and verifiable. Results that cannot be reproduced and that do not show a significant difference from to the positive or negative control group to which they are compared are worthless and have no scientific value.
Similarly, why isan evolutionist who tries to explain the claim that species A evolved into species B with mutations that took place as a result of environmental factors not asked to do the same thing? The claim that such a transformation took place though there is no evidence about it must remain as a claim until it is proved. To think that such a transformation took place means to accept that it should be so because of a necessity and lack of alternatives or to wish that it should be like that. If an alternative claim were offered for the first one, that is, if it is said,“No, the differentiation of species did not take place in the form of transformation from one another; each species came into being separately and at the same time; their progenies continued and reached today”, and if a person chose one of those two unproven claims, could it be something beyond being a matter of faith?
However, there are more powerful signs for the second choice: The greatest sign that species emerged at the same time all of a sudden is the Cambrian explosion and the absence of transitional forms. Moreover, we see that every living being is built on a complete DNA program. Is it possible that something that is like this today was not the same at the beginning? That is, the claim that the gene program was made by a master and intelligent designer first and the body was built based on that program not closer to reason, logic, heart and conscience?
In that case, the evolutionists’regarding themselves as scientific and accusing the monotheistsof bigotry must be a great error caused by their Jacobean views.
2nd Principle: Confusion of Impartiality
Evolution can only be a faith style that is seen as the new view of religion in the age of enlightenment; it is presented as unquestionable just like faiths.
As it is known, man cannot be independent of ideology. Even a person who says, “I have no ideology, I am against all ideologies” has inadvertently developed an opposing ideology. That is why the evolutionist ideology has labeled the thoughts against it as ideological and non-scientific andhas claimed that it is impartial, closing its door to the truth and preventing itself from facing the facts. Although there is no valid evidence and empirical study, they claim that their opinion is the absolute truth and that all ideas against it are ideological delusions, which is a great obsession, a blind allegiance, surrender and acceptance. Even though the notion of evolution is based on observations on physical similarities without any evidence or experiment, it is one of the best examples of theconfusion of impartiality to accept it as the absolute truth and accuse those who defend the opposite of absolute bigotry.
Even the data claimed to be proved by experiments are not regarded as absolute truth in the scientific community and they are treated with suspicion in case they are refuted by another experiment in the future but it is not applied to evolution; it is still one of the most interesting examples of unconditional surrender and partiality.
Even the data claimed to be proved by experiments are not regarded as absolute truth in the scientific community and they are treated with suspicion in case they are refuted by another experiment in the future (which is the most important tool in the advancement of science)but it is not applied to evolution; it is still one of the most interesting examples of unconditional surrenderand partiality.
Evolution can only be a faith style that is seen as the new view of religion in the age of enlightenment; it is presented as unquestionable just like faiths. If the world of science had regarded classical physics as the absolute truth, it would have been impossible to attain quantum physics. In that case, this correct attitude towards physics should be adopted toward biology; the view of evolution should be questioned and new ideas should be sought.
B-Fields of Conflict
1st data: Conflict of Antioxidants and Evolution
Antioxidants are the only warriors in our body that disinfect and cleanse radical, overactive molecules that occur as a result of biochemical reactions and that are harmful to the vital molecules of our cells such as DNA. ,
When I asked the professor a question in a doctorate class, we watched in astonishment how the sophistry of evolution, to which the professor was blindly devoted for years, was refuted by the lesson that he gave. Thus, we witnessed all together that the antioxidants that destroyed the harmful substances in our material body also destroyed the radicals of unbelief like chance/coincidence and coming into being spontaneously, which are harmful to our spiritual body.
However, I had never thought that antioxidants could cleanse the ideas of radical evolution until a moment of discussion with an evolutionist biology professor related to antioxidants during a doctorate class.
The professor argued that the cell developed in the evolutionary process in a few million years according to the events it encountered, that is, he claimed that the cell formed and evolved on its own. He explained the importance of antioxidants in the lecture that day and said,
“Every day, at least 10,000 radical attacks target our DNA, the most fundamental component of our cell, and antioxidants protect DNA from those attacks. If the attack increases and the defense fails, the DNA strand breaks down. As a result, the cell either gets cancer or dies”. ,
I asked the professor the following question:
-“Suppose that evolution exists. How many years does it take a cell to evolve in the evolutionary process?”
-“In a few million years.”
- “Suppose that DNA, which has been subjected to 10,000 attacks in one day, did not exist when the antioxidant defense system was first created, and that it developed this defensive capability over the course of several million years during the evolutionary process, can this cell continue to live? Can it transfer itself properly to next generations? Is it possible for a cell that gets cancer or dies due to apoptosis if only one of the 10,000 daily attacks is successful to live a million years without antioxidants and to survive? Is it not necessary for that cell to have been created with all the devices and systems when it first came into being? Is it not necessary for all living beings to have been created perfectly at the first moment they exist; is it not necessary for them to have been created by a perfect mind, will, and power?”
The professor was astounded by the surprising and hard questions that followed one another. He said,
-“‘Yes, but what will happen now?” He watched in astonishment how the sophistry of evolution, to which he was blindly devoted for years, was refuted by the lesson that he gave; we witnessed all together that the antioxidants that destroyed the harmful substances in our material body also destroyed the radicals of unbelief like chance/coincidence and coming into being spontaneously, which are harmful to our spiritual body.
2nd Data: Conflict of Genetics and Evolution
When the view of evolution first appeared, the theory was tried to be built on the findings of that day, as genetics had not yet developed. That is, the protein was essential. Therefore, the first thing that would have to be formed for the life of a being should be its amino acids, its building blocks. Although it was not possible for an amino acid to form accidentally under atmospheric conditions, the Müller experiment claimed that it was possible to do it in the laboratory by creating atmospheric conditions; the evolutionists ‘clung to it and began to take comfort in it by saying, “Evolution proved itself; it is over”.
However, the real thing began after that. First of all, this experiment was carried out by an intelligent and knowledgeable human being who had will. Secondly, suitable conditions for the experiment were designed. So, the issue had nothing to do withcoincidence/chance.
Thirdly, there are 20 different amino acids that function in a living being. That experiment cannot manage to produce all amino acids; it is claimed that only a few amino acids can be produced. Moreover, each amino acid requires a different test environment and different conditions.
Fourthly, let us assume that all these challenges have been overcome. That is, let us assume that all types of amino acid have beenproduced successfully under atmospheric conditions and that there is enough amount of each amino acid. The issue is not over yet. For, it is necessary for thoseamino acids to come together in a certain order and sequence for a protein to function. If the order of only one amino acid changes, the protein becomes nothing but a stack of amino acids. For example, the hemoglobin protein is composed of a total of 564 amino acids carried by 4 different amino acid chains. Only when one amino acid in position 6 of the b chain is replaced by a different amino acid, the genetic disease calledMediterranean anemia (thalassemia) occurs, causing the disruption of the shape of the blood cell and leading to serious illnesses.
The probability of a hemoglobin protein to form on its own or by chance can befound by a simple logarithmic calculation (if all the conditions for the reactions are met, but we do not take it into account): 20564 = 101128, that is, if you put one thousand, one hundred and twenty-eight zeros next to 10. Since there were 20,000 kinds of proteins in a cell, it is necessary to calculate those possibilities one by one for each protein and to believe in the calculation of probability that will consist of the total number.
The world of science regardsa number bigger than 10 to the power of 50 as impossible, but, for some reason, it did not hesitate to cling to these possibilities, which amounted to 10 to the power of billions. So much of bigotry is unbelievable.
However, those dreams came to an end with the discovery of DNA. The fact that proteins did not come into being by chance, but that they were encoded in DNA on a regular basis with genetic codes became as clear as day. In fact, it was necessary for this discovery to completely eliminate the validity of the view of evolution and to finish the debate because the age of coincidences was over andit was proved that everything was designed according to a certain plan and program in life. Unfortunately, it did not happen like that because the view of evolution also evolved.It was necessary for this new belief system of the modern age to update itself. That was what happened. They started to dream new things under the name “DNA First Hypothesis” They began to build evolution on DNA. According to them, the first thing that came into being by chance should be DNA, not protein. They told a lot of tales about it.
The foundations on which evolutionists base themselves were destroyed as scientific studies developed, and they were driven to seek a different way each time. The only unchanging view in them is the fallacy that evolution is scientific.
However, as the secrets of DNA were revealed, their dreams came to naught and their tales turned out to be impossible. Let us listen to this collapse from the mouth of an evolutionist:
“According to the DNA First Hypothesis, DNA was produced in a helix state according to natural, physical action-reaction forces, which could not be fully explained but within the framework of basic chemical reactions, and then continued its duty by synthesizing RNA. However, this hypothesis has many deficits. The most important of them is that DNA does not have acatalyzing effect,a chemical property that has a reducing effect (accelerating the reaction) of the activation energy of the chemical reactions. This reduces the likelihood of such complex and large molecules being formed because, a reaction that takes place in a few seconds in a catalyst environment can take days, weeks, years and even hundreds, thousands of years without the catalyst. The advocates of the DNA First Hypothesis argue that the conditions in which the first creature was formed acted as a catalyzing factor andattempt to refute the counter-thesis like that but their explanations are not scientifically satisfactory”.
The person quoted above approached the issueonly from the aspect of catalyst. However, when we include the genetic letters (bases), their arrangement and combination, it really becomes a big deadlock. Let us calculate it:
A bacterium, which evolutionists call simple, has around 600,000 base pairs (such as CG and TA). The probability of this chain being formed by chance is one in 4600.000. It means it is impossible. In addition to DNA’s probability of forming on its own being so difficult, it is definitely impossible for it to form a regular protein because a medium-sized protein molecule contains about 300-350 amino acids. Since every three bases encode an amino acid in the DNA, the DNA chain controlling it will need to have about 1000 bases. If we consider that there are four kinds of bases in a DNA chain, a sequence of 1000 bases can be in 41000 different forms. This number, which is found with a small logarithm calculation, is far beyond the comprehension limit of the mind.
Just think about it: science always undermines their foundations, and they still believe that evolution is scientific. This originates from the fact that evolutionists who are masters in their fields distort scientific data with demagogical methods.
What is more grave is the paradox of the interdependence of proteins and DNA. That is, DNA can only be produced and replicated under the catalysis of a number of enzymes in the protein structure. The synthesis of these proteins can only take place according to the information in DNA. Since both are interdependent, both must be present at the same time for DNA to occur. Though these discoveries and even the inexorable paradox should have brought an end to evolution, this hypothesis was also evolved by the demagogical masters of this style of faith;this time, the materialistic societies were deceived by "RNA First Hypothesis".
The discoveries that led to this hypothesis are the ribozymes where some RNAs can work as an enzyme, and the retroviruses that form an exception because they act contrarily to the normal process by moving from RNA to DNA, and from there to protein instead of the normal process, that is, moving from DNA to RNA, and from there to protein. According to them, the first molecule that formed in the RNA First Hypothesis is a ribozyme (a type of RNA); this enzyme was formed by natural processes over millions of years of trial and error, and selection process; then,it rapidly reproduced. This simple RNA first began to play the role of genetic and regulatory material in living beings; thus, the molecule that would coordinate all chemical reactions within the coacervate began to form. Afterwards, this enzyme-RNA structure became more similar to the RNA we know in the course of chemical evolution; then, DNA was produced from the RNA by means of a reaction that is called back-transcription and that shows that “the central dogma”is wrong (remember retroviruses).Because of its chemical structure, the ribozyme is capable of triggering a self-generating reaction as long as there are nucleotides that will form it,, .
This is probably the most obvious example showing how desperate evolutionists are and how they cling to even the smallest sign they find as if it is strong evidence. In fact, the paragraph above is a story of deception where a lot of lies are combined.
There is a story about a man who tells the following story to his friends in a meeting:
“Hz. Isa (Jesus) held his sword, made his daughter lie down. He was about to slaughter her when an ox was sent down from the sky; that day started to be celebrated as eid al-fitr.” The man in the story wanted to talk about eid al-adha. The paragraph above is full of nonsense just like the story of the man.
First of all, RNA is the most unstable one among the genetic materials. It is very unstable outside the cell;even when the temperature changes, it immediately breaks down. Moreover, it has the same sensitivity in the cell, and we go to great lengths to prevent RNA from degradation in experiments and we prepare very extreme conditions. Suppose that we accept that the RNA came into being by chance (which is 1/430possibility for the simplest RNA). How could such an unstable compound tolerate a selective process of trial and error of millions of years though it is impossible for it to be present in atmospheric conditions on its own for even an hour?
Secondly those ribozymes are not structures composed of RNA alone. They work together with proteins. Moreover, those who discovered ribozymes and fair scientists call them ribonucleoproteins. In addition, none of the experiments so far have shown that a ribosome can produce itself without protein or can be transformed into DNA. RNA polymerase enzymes, which are actually proteins, and other enzymes are also required to produce RNA. So the paradox in DNA is exactly the same as in RNA. RNA cannot come into being without protein and protein cannot come into being without RNA; so, the two have to come into being together.
As for the issue of retrovirus, according to scientific data, viruses cannot survive outside a living organism. In other words, they can continue to live only in the cells they infect because they have no mechanisms and equipment to produce the necessary materials for life and reproduction; they can reproduce only by using the host living cells. Once a retro virus enters the cell, it synthesizes DNA from its previous genetic material, RNA, with an enzyme called “reverse transcriptase“. The synthesized DNAis added to the DNA of the cell by integrase, which is another virus enzyme. The cell cannot distinguish between its DNA and the DNA of the virus; so, it begins to produce the proteins it encodes as if they were its own proteins. That is, transformation into DNA from RNA is not possible without proteins. The same paradox again: RNA cannot be without protein; protein cannot be without RNA. Inthat case, both of them have to exist together. Therefore, it is not even possible for a virus to reproduce on its own without another living cell; it must be an abdication of reason to assume that it may be the beginning of all life. 
In conclusion, as it can be understood from the discussions above, the foundations on which evolutionists base themselves were destroyed as scientific studies developed, and they were driven to seek a different way each time. The only unchanging view in them is the fallacy that evolution is scientific. Just think about it: science always undermines their foundations, and they still believe that evolution is scientific. This originates from the fact that evolutionists who are masters in their fields distort scientific data with demagogical methods. This is such a great mastery of demagogy: As it can be understood from the text quoted from the evolution website above, they can actually use the evidence that is against them in favor of them. Some people who look at the issue superficially and lack the habit of inquiry surrender unconditionally because these words come from the mouth or pen of a scientist.
 Ferit, U. S. L. U. "Bilimselliğin kriteri ve sınırları problemi-bilim, bilim olmayan ve sahte bilim." Hitit Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 10.19 (2011): 5-35.
 Salter, J. W.. A monograph of the British trilobites from the Cambrian, Silurian, and Devonian formations. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
 Darwin, C. The Origin of Species. p. 179.
 Takım, K. Kiraz yaprağı ekstraktlarının antioksidan kapasitesinin ve oksidatif DNA hasarı üzerine etkisinin belirlenmesi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İnönü Üniversitesi, Malatya, 2010.
 Uysal, M. Serbest radikaller, lipit peroksidleri organizmada prooksidan antioksadan dengeyi etkileyen koşullar, Klinik Gelişim, 11: (1998) 336-341,
 Ames, B.N., Shigenaga, M.K., Hagen, T.M.: Oxidants, antioxidants, and the degenerative diseases of aging. Proceding of the National Academy of Science, 1993; 90: 7915–7922.
 Mercan, U. Toksikolojide serbest radikallerin önemi, Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Veterinerlik Fakültesi Dergisi, 15: (2004) 91-96.
 POLAT, A. and Kanada O.. "Yerküre üzerindeki yaşamın kökenine ve evrimine jeolojik bir bakış açısı."
 DİNÇOL, G. "Thalassemia (Talassemi)." Türkiye Klinikleri Journal of Hematology 2.2 (2004): 144-152.
 Güçlü, S., et al. "Evrimin Moleküler İzleri Ve Evrimin Moleküler Kanıtları Molecular Traces And Evidences Of Evolution."
 Karaçay, B. ‘‘DNA’mızdaki Virüs Fosilleri’’ Bilim ve Teknik June 2009.
 Frank B. Salisbury. Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution, p. 336.
- Are there answers to questions about intraspecies and interspecies evolution?
- What kind of time problem does evolution have in terms of the half-life of the unstable components in living beings?
- Question 50: Is the existence of a living cell necessary for the formation of amino acids that join the structure of a living being?
- What kind of time problem does evolution have in terms of time dependence of biochemical reactions?
- PROTEINS AND ENZYMES REJECT COINCIDENCE
- Can living cells be produced in laboratories?
- EVIDENCES OF ONENESS IN FISH OIL
- DILEMMAS OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
- Is the mud from which the first man was created DNA molecule?
- BASIC FALLACIES IN THE VIEW OF EVOLUTION: 2 CONFUSION OF CONCEPTS