BASIC FALLACIES IN THE VIEW OF EVOLUTION: 2 CONFUSION OF CONCEPTS

Dr. Academician Kasım TAKIM
Harran University, Veterinary Faculty Biochemistry Department, Şanlıurfa
[email protected]

If the scientific world today cannot bring an approach that can contribute to the happiness of humanity despite such material advancement and cannot produce a better philosophy than the philosophy of Heraclitus, Aristotle and Plato, evolutionist opinion and materialist movement must have a serious role in it. Orhan Hançerlioğlu 

One meaning can be expressed with many concepts; similarly, a concept can contain many meanings. However, there is a very important point: concepts can sometimes be used interchangeably and cause confusion. Confusion of meaning leads to serious debates on scientific studies and faith values, and can reach the dimensions that will make the communities aggressive against one another. As a matter of fact, although evolution expresses a certain meaning as a concept, it affected the scientific world seriously as a result, left disinformation effects on beliefs and brought societies to such dangerous points as to push toward the world wars because it is a whole of many concepts and is used as a substitute for many concepts.

We definitely do not claim that world wars occurred between evolutionists and their opponents. However, due to the confusion of concept, evolution was confused with the concept development and triggered the races of imperialist hegemony because it gave rise to the idea of ​​superior and pure races, resulting in wars. The Nazis’ pure race ideology, the cause of World War II, resulted in the deaths of 40-50 million people.[1]

In addition, it contained fabricated concepts like natural selection and instilled the notion ‘‘the strong will survive and the weak are bound to be eliminated’’ into people, regarded the strong communities’ oppressing and exploiting the weak communities legitimate, supported oppression, paving the way for massacres.[2]

It caused Europe’s 200 years of material development to be ruined in a few years and its people to become selfish and to be transformed into monsters. In this respect, it is still a serious obstacle to the world peace.

The confusion of meaning in the concept of evolution has also had a serious impact on science, faiths and cultural values. Since it caused science to be explained with a materialist approach, it was more concerned with how the universe came into being than the meaning of the book of the universe; it was concerned withthe physical, chemical and mathematical relations of the letters, and acted as a serious obstacle to the study of the philosophical aspect of the issue.

As a matter of fact, if the scientific world today cannot bring an approach that can contribute to the happiness of humanitydespite such material advancement and cannot produce a better philosophy than the philosophy of Heraclitus, Aristotle and Plato, evolutionist opinion and materialist movement must have a serious role in it.[3]

This issue will be dealt with based on the following plan:

     A-Fields of Confusion

     1st Principle: Confusion of Concepts

     2nd Principle: Confusion of Superficial Outlook

     B-Fields of Conflict

     1st Data: Conflict of Adaptation and Evolution

     2nd Data: Conflict of Mutation and Evolution

A-Fields of Confusion

1st Principle: Confusion of Concepts

Concept is the general expression that contains common properties of objects or incidents and that gather them under the same name. Concepts are also a general thought that includes several different perceptions; therefore, a concept causes confusion by forming different concepts.[4]

In the science of logic, there is a principle that makes it necessary for a concept to continue to be used based on the same meaning as the one used previously.[5]

To try to give a different meaning to a concept that is accepted by the society in general with a specific meaning originates from either ignorance or trying to use the concept for one’s own purpose. Since the concept of evolution has been given about 30 different meanings, there is a lot of confusion of concept about it. In this section, the concepts confused with evolution will be examined comparatively.

The concept of evolution: It includes the concepts of perfection, change, change of state, metamorphosis, coincidence, differentiation, self-formation, mutation, adaptation and selection;it is a whole of concepts that is often used for only one or some of those concepts by mistake  and that generally refers to the transformation and change of one species or state into another species or state. Therefore, trying to explain the concept of evolution with only one of the ten concepts mentioned above, or showing any of the concepts that take place in the universe in the form of law as an example of evolution, is one of the most important issues leading to confusion ofconcepts or resulting from confusion of concepts.

The concept that is confused most with evolution is perfection. Even before the concept of evolution was expressed, some philosophers, including some Islamic philosophers like Ibn Khaldun, believed that the world and all living things formed through perfection.

The concept that is confused most with evolution is perfection. Even before the concept of evolution was expressed, some philosophers,including some Islamic philosophers like Ibn Khaldun, believed that the world and all living things formed through perfection. In fact, when the theory of perfection of Ibn Khaldun was translated into English,it coincided with the time when Darwin emerged, which suggests that Darwin might have been influenced by Ibn Khaldun in his view of evolution. This concept has been confused with the concept of change for a long time. Perfection means the maturation of something that is raw, the completion of what is missing, the perfection of something simple, the emergence ofwhat is programmed and what is a draft in order to reveal its reality, and the perfection of the weak by strengthening, which is the law that we encounterthe most in the universe and by which we have already been influenced.

Change means replacing one thing with another, one position with another, a state with another, and the previous one with the next one. This is one of the most important laws that are valid in the universe. Double ignoranceis the ignorance that occurs when a person thinks he knows but actually he does not know; it often occurs when two different sciences or two different laws are combined. One thinks he is in the highest point of science, but he does not know that he has struck the bottom of ignorance. When the law of perfectionwas combined with the law of change, the concept evolution emerged, causing many people to say , “I know! I have found it!” and swimming in the river of ignorance.

Now, let us try to understand this confusion of concept with examples from the universe. When the realm of beings is in question, it is necessary to start the issue with hydrogen, which is its first nucleus,. According to modern physics, all elements are formed from the hydrogen atom. For example, deuterium is formed by combining two hydrogens and a hydrogen atom is added to it to form a carbon atom. Is forming another element from hydrogen

-the perfection of hydrogen,

-the change, change of state, metamorphosis or differentiation of hydrogen,

-the evolution of hydrogen?

-Is this transformation an improvement or regression?

Now, let us look for answers to those questions after clarifying the concepts first. Evolutionis a concept that can encompass all of the meanings like development, change, transformation and adaptation. In the world literature, it is generally defined as the transformation of a being into another more complex, higherbeingthan itself, and adapting to another environment under the influence of the environmental conditions. If you say that the transformation of hydrogen into carbon is a progression or evolution, you have to claim that carbon has a higher structure than hydrogen, and you have to accept that carbon is more perfect, more mature and more active than hydrogen. However, such an acceptance is nothing more than a reflection of not recognizing hydrogen. For, hydrogen can be converted to all elements, but carbon does not have such a property. The carbon atom definitely has its own wonderful properties that are not found in the hydrogen atom.

However, it is necessary to evaluate each one in its own context. The only difference that separates one from the other is that they are different from each other. While each has its own distinct and beautiful features, there is no question of superiority and sophistication among them. So, it is meaningless to compare them with each other. Therefore, the answer is not progress and evolution.

Changeand change of state means the transformation of a being or state into another being or another state. The transformation of hydrogen to carbon can be expressed with those two terms. They are the most common laws that we encounter in the universe. As a matter of fact, our globe was a mass of fire; then, a part of this fire was transformed into stone and the stone layer was changed to soil; thus, it was transformed into a place suitable for living beings to live. This act is an act of change and change of state just like the change from hydrogen to carbon.

Now let us consider a highly organized stem cell. We know from modern medicine and molecular biology that all different tissue cells are formed from those stem cells. Is the transformation of a stem cell into a liver cell evolution, perfection, change or change of state? We know from molecular biology that the it is only a change and change of state because all stem cells have the potential to turn into all other tissue cells. That stem cell is transformed into whatever tissue cell it needs to bechanged. There is no increase, decrease or mutation in the genetic material of the stem cell. If that happened, we could call it evolution. However, when the stem cell is to be transformed into a tissue cell, the gene regions related to that tissue will work and other regions will be suppressed; thus, the stem cell is transformed into the tissue cell in question.

Each one of the living beings like the fish, hippopotamuses, monkeys and human beings are species with different characteristics and beauties equipped with wonderful features in the regions where they live.

So, this is not evolution or perfection because no sane and knowledgeable person can claim that the liver cell is more perfect than and superior to the stem cell. This can only be a change or change of state.

Let us now take into account all the facts mentioned above and have a look at the formation of the first cell and the cells of different species: There are three ways here:

     1st Way:A cell was created just like the differentiation of the tissue cells today; the cells of the other species were formed from that cell through change and change of state. 

     2nd Way:The first cells of each species or the species themselves were formed separately.

     3rd Way:The carbon and nitrogen in the clay and hydrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere came together with the ingenious effect of sunlight to form amino acids; the amino acids got bored because of being alone, they came together to form proteins; and they worked together and formed the first cell by reproducing. The first cell also underwent mutations and evolved as a result of environmental factors to form other cells.

Now, let us try to look at the formation of different species from these perspectives. According to what evolutionists claim, the first highly organized living beings were aquatic organisms; they evolved into more complex and highly organized living beings that could live both in water and on land; they evolved into living beings that could live only on land in the course of time. In other words, a prokaryotic living being turned into a eukaryotic one, which turned into a simple fish, which turned into a more advanced fish, and then into hippopotamuses, into other creatures and finally into humans.

Accepting that human beings evolved from chimpanzees means accepting that 400 meaningful and wise books as large as the Quran could be written by themselves, by chance or by mutations.

However, each one of the living beings like the fish, hippopotamuses, monkeys and human beings are species with different characteristics and beauties equipped with wonderful features in the regions where they live. Comparing these creatures with one another means that one is higher and more perfect than the other, which  is nothing but a fallacy that cannot go beyond a relative and subjective evaluation. First of all, if there had been indeed a transformation from fish into hippopotamus, we would have called it a change, not evolution and perfection. To argue that a dolphin is a simpler living being than a hippopotamus is delirium that will make even the dolphins laugh at us. Therefore, since the issue cannot be explained with the point of simplicity and development, it cannot be called evolution and perfection. If it had actually taken place, it would have been called change. It should have been possible to be made under current laboratory conditions so that it could have been based on a scientific foundation and been proved that it was true.

To accept evolution means to mix those laws with one another and to admit that all laws occur together in a living being. In other words,  to say perfection but to mean change is a way of deception, making it necessary to combine two opposing concepts (coincidence/chance and perfection) that are opposite to each other in a living being. In that case, we must first establish the concepts well and re-consider the issue by avoiding the presuppositions like development. Only then will we begin to open the darkest curtains that obstruct the sun of truth.

2nd Principle: Confusion of Superficial Outlook

To look at something superficially means not to look at something deeply, not to penetrate into the meaning and content and not to comprehend all aspects of it, often leading to wrong judgments about that thing. This outlook can make a person see the most impossible things possible and the most distant thing very close by making that person look at things from a distance. For instance, from a distance, the horizon of the mountains appears to be united with the stars, but there may be a distance of millions of kilometers. This image may mislead the human eye, but the distance can be known and found with the eye of the mind.

Chimpanzees are the most similar beings to human beings in terms of physical appearance and genetic sequence. Yes, there is asimilarity of about 86-96%.[6]

So, even with the most optimistic calculation, the difference is 4%. How small is the difference and how big is the similarity? This similarity, therefore, makes people say why should man not come from chimpanzee. In fact, such a possibility seems reasonable because 96% is perceived as ninety-six out of a hundred and 4%as four out of a hundred. However, when we look at the issue more deeply, it becomes clear that things are not so simple.

Despite such advanced technology and accumulated experience, it is impossible to transform one species into another with mutation.

We know from the human genome project that there are about 3 billion nucleotides (genetic letters) in the human genome. [7] Therefore, the 4% difference corresponds to approximately 120,000,000 (one hundred and twenty million) letters. Those letters correspond to the total letters of 400 books like the Quran. It does not look so hard when we look at the issue as four out of 100. However, when we look at the issue as 120 million out of 3 billion, we realize what kind of impossibility we have to accept. In other words, accepting that human beings evolved from chimpanzees means accepting that 400 meaningful and wise books as large as the Quran could be written by themselves, by chance or by mutations.

Fields of Conflict

1st Data: Conflict of Adaptation and Evolution

The evolutionist view went so far in the superficial view and reached such a point in the confusion of concepts that evolutionists believed that the diversity among the species was initially caused by environmental factors, which was later understood to be different due to genetic software, and claimed that species that were similar in appearance were derived from one another; they still cling to that  claim.

Lamarck, who was the second teacher of evolutionists, formed the concept of adaptation by claiming the following: ”Living beings can transfer the characteristics that they acquire due to the conditions of the environment to their offspring; organs can develop when they are used for a long time and they will undergo atrophy when they are not used for a long time”.[8]

They went so far as to claim that the human beings first had tails and then the tail dropped off due to environmental factors and that the new generations were now tailless. Believing in this, Weisman did an experiment on rats to prove this claim. He cut off the tailsof rats(parents) for 20 generations, and waited for their generations to be born without tail, but every rat that was born had a tail. This scientist, who devoted half of hislife in order to prove such a nonsense ultimately, proved that this claim was invalid. [9]

At the time of those studies, the science of genetics had not developedand it would be possible for those people to be deceived by such a wrong delusion. However, after the development of the science of genetics, it was really difficult to justify such people who insisted on these claims even after it became clear that everything in life was pre-planned, that inter-species diversity occurred due to genetic differences, and that all activities in a living being were carried out based on this plan and program. However, as always, they evolved evolution and began to cling to a new genetic action called mutation. In other words, they began to try to explain the concept of adaptation with mutations.

2nd Data: Conflict of Mutation and Evolution

Mutation is the name given to genetic disorders that occur in the gene regions for various reasons and that cause sequencing errors. Genetic letters, called nucleotides in DNA and RNA, which consist of four kinds of bases, are arranged in a great order. When the letters of the words in a book change and sometimes even only one letter changes or is replaced by another letter,the meaning of the word changes like (MAIL-TAIL-SAIL); similarly, the error of one or more letters in the genetic sequence will cause major problems that lead to genetic diseases in the future. For, every activity in living beings is done according to the software in those genetic codes. The error in software will emerge as an error in production. Note that mutation is equivalent to negative words such as disorder, inaccuracy, irregularity and error. Regularity is not expected from irregularity and disorder; something true is not expected from an error and mistake. However, the evolutionists somehow attributed this wonderful order and difference in living beings to those mutations. According to them, mutations in the tissues of living beings brought about by environmental conditions caused changes and these changes were passed on to their offspring.

Many experiments that have been done show that a mutation in tissue cells cannot be transferred from generation to generation because it is not related to genetics.

However, many experiments that have been done show that a mutation in tissue cells cannot be transferred from generation to generation because it is not related to genetics.The somatic mutations are not related to genetics in this sense. However, only gamete mutations become related to genetics and can be passed on to the following generations. The evolutionary view, which witnessed these facts, underwent a new evolution with the development of the science of genetics. A new concept was added to the concepts of mutation and adaptation to create a new confusion of concepts. They started to call“the acclimatization to the environment that took place as a result of mutations ‘modification’ if it is not related to genetics, and ‘adaptation’if it is related to genetics”. The claim that inter-species diversity and adaptation of living beings to their environment could be realized as a result of random mutations, increases or decreases in their genes was the issue that was embraced the most by evolutionists.

Yes, perhaps it was possible in theory. However, it was an issue that had to be studied and proved or refuted in practice. If there was such a possibility, it would have to be tested in the laboratory. For instance, if a simple cell they called prokaryotic had really evolved into a highly organized cell called eukaryotic, it could have been done in the laboratory too. For, technology had advanced a lot and provided many opportunities for evolutionists in all aspects, including the formation of mutation and adaptation. However, it never became possible since it was impossible for such a highly organized system to emerge from such a disorder. They have never done such an experiment. Instead of attempting to do such an experiment, they ‘clung to the following lie: “Those mutations occurred in millions of years and after millions of trial and error. We have to live so long in order to achieve it”. They thought that nobody would be able to live so long and that nobody would refute their claims anyhow. However, the developing technology and science showed their lie and refuted their claims.

Yes, it was a lie because there is a concept called multi-experiment environment in the laboratory; the experiments that take a long timecan be reduced to short time periods by forming multimedia. And, millions of trial and error can be realized in very short periods of time by increasing the equipment that is used. If a beneficial change is to made in thegenetics of a living being, it can only be done by the careful work of genetic engineers since it requires a great engineering task. We call these changes engineering,not mutation. The products resulting from such expert work (genetically modified products) might provide efficiency in their own species, but can cause serious harm to the species that feed on it. For, all living beings are created in harmony with one another. A change in one species will only be useful if the other species associated with it are also taken into account; otherwise, it meansdestroying one party while improving another.

Even if such advanced technology and accumulated experience are used, it is impossible to transform one species into another with mutation. For example, it is impossible for a chimpanzee to become a human by mutations because there is a difference of 120,000,000 nucleotides between them. The probability of this difference being covered by random mutations is 1/ 4120.000.000. So, put 72 million zeroes next to 1. What is the number that you get? That is the probability of the chance of success of that mutation.

Let us calculate this possibility also in terms of time, to which evolutionists often cling. According to the evolutionist view, this transformation took place in 100 million years as a result of mutations. So, how many mutations are necessary in a year? Let us calculate it.

1*1072,000,000,000 /100,000,000 years = 1*1072,000,000,000/1*108= 1*1072,000,000,000-8

It means you will put 71 million 999 thousand 992 zeroes next to 1. That is a possibility of it. In fact, millions of years does not weaken such a low possibility. Even if they say billions of years, only 10 will be subtracted from 72 million. How much can it decrease if ten or a hundred is subtracted from a million? Is it possible to call a person who thinks such a possibility can take place a sane person? Moreover, so many regular mutations have to occur every year. Why should we accept that so many mutations occurred in one year in the past though the total number of mutations in a cell in a year can be counted on the fingers of one hand?

Another obsession is that evolutionists use the evidence that is actually against them as if they are in favor of them. For example, they present the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics as evidence for evolution. They try to form a perception as if bacteria try to change their genetic code when they encounter antibiotics and obtain resistance like that. However, even that is a great hoax. For,if there are codes related to resistance in the genes of a bacterium, proteins related to resistance are synthesized using these codes and resistance is created in this way. If there is no gene region related to resistance, the second way is to transfer the relevant gene packs from the bacteria carrying resistance genes. If there is no such genetic code or cannot be transferred, resistance cannot be developed. As a matter of fact, two scientists called Luria and Delbrück carried out an experiment on the development of antibiotic resistance on E. coli bacteria and made an invention that would disappoint the expectations. For, only the bacteria with drug resistance genes in their genetic code displayed resistance; those which did not carry the relevant genetic code died, forcing the evolutionists to speak as follows:

Scientific studies have shown that antibiotic resistance is present in bacteria from the moment they first exist.

‘‘The genetic basis that determines adaptive property does not occur based on the environment; the genetic variant already exists because it provides an advantage to the individual carrying it.’’ [10]

Bacteria have used genetic materials that have existed since the first time they came into existence.

As you can see, they admitted that adaptation would not occur under the influence of environmental conditions, and unfortunately they had to attribute it to the concept of natural selection, which they virtually deified. In addition, scientific studies have shown that antibiotic resistance is present in bacteria from the moment they first exist.

As a matter of fact, antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been isolated from the Lechuguilla cave, which has been isolated for 4 million years, in New Mexico state of the US. This shows that the resistance of the bacteria to antibiotics has been present from the very first moment they were created, and that it was not an acquired property. [11]

Many bacteria are definitely susceptible to antibiotics. However, antibiotic resistance is achieved by horizontal and vertical gene transfer in bacteria. Bacteria have used genetic materials that have existed since the first time they came into existence.

Yet another obsession is the effort of scientification of mutation. The scientists trying to decode DNA bemeaned the gene regions (inrons) that are not converted into proteins by naming them junk DNA, and called them mutations caused by retro viruses.However, subsequent studies showed that the relevant regions were not junk, but control regions used to regulate gene expression. In other words, the regions that were tried to be introduced as functionless and incidental were proved to be vital and important regions in the operation of DNA. That was the end of another lie.

In the light of all these data, it can be said that although mutation and adaptation are actually concepts that refute and invalidate evolution, it is interesting thatthey have become the most sacred concepts of evolutionists. And with the mastery of demagogy, they continue to console a large community with them. The following confession related to the issue is very significant:

When we enter into details, we cannot prove that even a single species has changed. We cannot prove that the assumed changes are beneficial, which is the basis of the theory.[12]

Thus, they deceive people through confusion of concepts by making them look at things superficially.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Fidan, C. "Holokost Dönemi Çocukları. " 15-17 May 2015.  IV. Uluslararası Canik Sempozyumu’nda (Geçmişten Günümüze Çocuk Ve Şehir) Samsun.
[2] Tarhan, N., Psikiyatrik Boyutlar. "Şiddetin Psikososyopolitik Boyutu." ŞİDDET (2014).
[3] Hançerlioğlu, O. Düşünce tarihi. Remzi Kitabevi, 1977.
[4] Yağbasan, R., ve Çağlar, G. "Fen Öğretiminde Kavram Yanılgılarının Karakteristiklerinin Tanımlanması. " Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi dergisi 13.13 (2003): 102-120.
[5] Emiroğlu, İ,. "Klasik mantığa giriş." (2004).
[6] http://evrimagaci.org/article/tr/insan-ile-diger-canlilarin-genom-kiyaslamasi-ve-benzerlik-miktarlari : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
[7] https://www.hemensaglik.com/makale/insan-genomu
[8] http://www.biyologlar.com/adaptasyon-veya-uyum
[9] Yahyaoğlu, Z. "Bitki Islahı ve Genetik ders notları." KÜ Orman Fakültesi yayın no. 48 Trabzon (1981).
[10] https://evrimteorisionline.com/xmlrpc.php
[11] Bhullar, K., Waglechner, N., Pawlowski, A.,  Koteva, K.,  Banks, E.D.,  Johnston, M.D.,  Barton, H.A., Wright, G.D.,  Antibiotic Resistance Is Prevalent in an Isolated Cave Microbiome.PLos one, April 2012, Volume 7, Issue 4.).
[12] Bhullar, K., Waglechner, N., Pawlowski, A.,  Koteva, K.,  Banks, E.D.,  Johnston, M.D.,  Barton, H.A., Wright, G.D.,  Antibiotic Resistance Is Prevalent in an Isolated Cave Microbiome.Plos one,April 2012, Volume 7, Issue 4.).

Read 14 times
In order to make a comment, please login or register