Miscomprehension of Process in Evolution
PERFECTION IN A PERIOD OF TIME
The biggest dilemma of the evolutionists is the process problem. According to them; each living creature become perfect as time goes by. In other words, living creatures evolve from their very simple forms to their sophisticated structures.
Now here is what I want to ask them:
How could the fact that it is necessary for a living creature to have a faultless system in order to survive be ignored?
Let me clarify what I meant by this question.
For example, think about a spacecraft. It has thousands of ultra tech pieces in its structure. Let us assume one of its screw is loosened, one of its cable is broken or forgotten to be mounted and this has made all its system invalid in space. Indeed, a similar example happened after the launch of the Hubble telescope to space. Engineers made a mistake in calculating the angle of the mirror and this made all the system functionless. After millions of dollars of additional expenses, a new team was sent to space. So finally, they were able to fix it. One can easily observe that even the misplacing of a single piece of the system can cause the whole system to be inoperative.
Like the example above, all of the systems of a cell, which is the building block of living creatures, have to be present at the same moment so that there would be life in that cell. In other words, for a cell to be alive, all its units should be complete and exact at the very first moment. Even when one building block of the Hubble telescope is missing, it does not work, how is it possible that a much more complex cell forcing limits of science by containing bodies such as DNA, RNA, endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria could work with missing systems?
As a more astonishing example, let us take a look at the improvement process of human in the uterus. Until the human embryo reaches the perfection to live independently its birth time, it has to be fed by an outside support from its mother’s placenta and of the needs of its cells have to be met. As evolutionists claim, if we put a human embryo in a forest, could it develop as a baby? İn other words, without grabbing the wall of the womb and without being fed by its mother, is it possible foran embryo to finish his development process on its own in a forest?
As another example, let us have a look at the countless hormones which are in the structures of organs like liver and pancreas. If, at the beginning, one or few of these hormones are missing, life does not continue. As life does not continue, how will the process of adaptation to environment work? Likewise, for example if 10.000 years is needed for the formation of the valve of the pharynx which separates air and liquid and guide them to lung and stomach consequently, how can that animal live during that 10.000 years? For, if this pharynx valve does not exist or work properly water will fill up his lung and end his life.
For example, how could it be possible that a predator eagle’s talons are continuing to develop and the eagle cannot grip its hunt for thousand years, that the venom of a snake cannot yet poison its prey, that a spider cannot spin a web, that a shark’s broken tooth is not replaced by new one, that a baby dolphin does not know how to swim just after its mother has given birth, that a baby gazelle cannot learn how to hide itself, that a cat does not have its maternal instincts, that the equilibrium center of the inner ear is not functional, that the sense of smell cannot detect harmful external factors for life for thousands years. In short, how can it be possible that all living beings live for thousands of years as prototypes with missing or undeveloped organs? Is it a scientific approach to accept such an impossibility?
Those examples can be increased. From histology to endocrinology, from urology to cardiology, it is possible to exemplify each line of billions of pages of medicine books like this. As it is seen, in the world of living creatures, life cannot continue with missing or undeveloped building blocks. Therefore, the claim of evolutionists that organs have completed their improvements in the long period of time does not match with the reality.
Another paradox in the claims of evolutionists is the environment delusion. From atom to cell, the basic issue their theory is based on is that the living creatures gained their perfection within the environment itself. For example, according to them, a bird became perfect within its environment. However, a bird has to have a perfect aerodynamic system with its wings in order to enter into its environment, which is “air”. If it does not enter air, how can it adapt itself to that specific environment? In other words, the bird must be perfect with all its organs to enter its environment. However, according to evolutionists, living creatures are becoming perfect as they entering into their environment. That is a real paradox.
Here is another paradox. For example, an eye should exist in order to recognize light, which is its environment and according to the view of evolutionists, it should adapt itself to it. However, if the eye is not yet present in its environment, how could it adapt itself to light?
Another paradox; how can a leech would know the coagulation factor of a living creature whose blood it sucks without being present in the environment? How can it arrange itself as such an environment is not present?
So, what happens in the realm of living creatures do not improve randomly or by coincidence from its simple form to its sophisticated structure as evolutionists claim. All limbs needed by a living creature are given to it and handled with the order and control of an exceptional Personality, who has limitless knowledge, will and power.
“For example, if the stones of the dome of Hagia Sophia are not dependent on the command and skill of its architect, all the stones must have skill in the art of building like that of the architect Sinan, and must be either subject to, or dominant over, the rest of the stones. That is, they must have the power to say: “Come, we shall stand shoulder to shoulder in order not to fall and collapse. In the same way, if the particles in creatures, which are thousands of times more skilfully fashioned, wonderful, and full of wisdom than the dome of Hagia Sophia, are not dependent on the command of the master builder of the universe, to each of them must the ascribed as many attributes of perfection as those of the universe’s Maker.”1
In architecture, in structures like dome and cove, there are units named keystones which support the whole building. In a dome, if we assume that stones are not assembled with cement, the whole dome will collapse. Here, there is an important point of our main subject for the ones who do not accept the scaffold and engineer: if the stones are not together all at the same time, they cannot constitute a dome.
For a cell to have a life, its mitochondria needs to have an excellent function. According to the approach of evolutionists, billions of years of adaptation is necessary for the mitochondria to have a certain function. However, the cell will not be able to survive as its mitochondria is not perfect. How can a non-living entity can adapt or evolve? In other words, the obligation that “all stones in the dome should be perfect at the same moment” refutes all those process theories that “every living creature becomes perfect as time goes by” claimed by evolutionists.
1 Nursi, B. S. Sözler. Envar Neşriyat, Istanbul,1997, p. 554.
- EVIDENCES OF ONENESS IN FISH OIL
- DILEMMAS OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
- THE VIEW OF EVOLUTIONISTS AND CREATIONISTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
- BASIC FALLACIES IN THE VIEW OF EVOLUTION: 2 CONFUSION OF CONCEPTS
- The Proofs of Creation # 18: The Proof of the Perfection in Actions
- EVOLUTION: IS IT GRADUAL IN CREATION?
- SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION THAT ARE IMPOSED ON THE COMMUNITY AS IDEOLOGY
- BASIC FALLACIES IN THE VIEW OF EVOLUTION: 1 CONFUSION OF SCIENTIFICITY, BELIEF AND IMPARTIALITY
- What are the viewpoints of Muslim scholars on evolution theory?
- Was the first man created out of dust or did he come from a monkey?