Are there answers to questions about intraspecies and interspecies evolution?
- There are some things that are claimed as evidence of evolution. I have read the information on your site; please answer my questions:
- The fact of evolution occurring at the intraspecies and interspecies level has been proven experimentally, and speciation processes are also observed in nature.
- Fossils are important because they show the evolutionary development of living beings in geological periods, and paleontologists study fossils to learn about the evolutionary history of life.
- It is written above that macro evolution has been scientifically proved. Please read the article. What would you say about pseudogenes and phylogenetics mentioned in the article? It is written that it has been observed experimentally.
- This is a scientific article site. More evidence related to common ancestry comes from gene remnants in DNA regions that are also found in close relatives of organisms, which are non-functioning evolutionary relatives of permanently degenerated genes such as pseudogenes. (I clicked on the pseudogene in the link and got it from Wikipedia) Pseudogenes are considered as junk DNA, since they are thought to be the last stage of genetic material being discarded from the genome.
- However, it is possible to follow their interesting biology and evolutionary history within pseudogene sequences. This is because the pseudogene shares a common lineage with a functional gene. A pseudogene and its associated functional gene share a common ancestor and have been diverged from each other by differentiating over millions of years.
- The degree of similarity among modern species is determined by comparing the structures, genomes, and embryonic development of living organisms. There are morphological, embryological and biogeographical evidences of evolution in references 6-7-8. Will you please evaluate each paragraph in the article in the link separately?
- Besides, there is the evolutionary history of life evolution timeline in the see also section. What do you think about it?
Submitted by on Mon, 27/02/2023 - 09:11
Dear Brother / Sister,
What you want to express in this long text can be summarized as three questions. We can express these questions as follows:
Question 1: Has the fact of evolution occurring at the intraspecies and interspecies level been proved experimentally?
Question 2: Can pseudogene and phylogeny be evidence for evolution?
Question 3: Do fossils form evidence for macroevolution?
The answers to those questions:
Question 1: Has evolution at the intraspecies and interspecies level been experimentally proved?
It is a known and observed fact that there is a change in the living and nonliving universe. However, this change is not in the form of one species changing into another. Change can happen be within certain limits. We cannot talk about unlimited change. There is intraspecies change, and it is necessary for living species to survive in nature and adapt to different environments.
There is no scientific problem for those who defend creation. Allah creates every living being and provides the needs of every cell of those beings. That is, even an atom cannot move without Allah’s permission and command. For example, there are an average of 40-50 trillion cells in man. Allah brings about three thousand different reactions, that is, changes, in each cell in one second. In other words, the changes that take place in the human body in one second are 50 trillion x 3 thousand =....
If only one reaction is wrong here, one’s life will be in danger.
If it is not attributed to Allah, to whom can it be attributed? Could the sparrow in the air or the frog in the swamp cause these changes in humans? If any being can do it, man can do it. Although man is the most intelligent and conscious being on earth, he cannot make the changes that occur in his own body. How can other creatures do them themselves? How can the bird come out of the egg itself? How will it grow? How will it do the development and differentiation in its body? How will the calf make itself? How will it develop and become a cow or a bull?
The genetic structures of living species are not handled as individuals. It is considered as a gene pool consisting of all members of that species. For example, the genetic structure of all humans is considered as a gene pool. Not all humans are created with the same genetic characteristics like photocopy paper. There are some genetic differences among individuals. With the marriage of people of different characters, , God Almighty creates different color and race characters according to the rules called Mendel’s Laws. For example, eye color may change. Lengthening or shortening of the height may occur. Eye, face and head shapes can change at certain rates. However, all these changes are still changes within the human species.
That is the case in humans as well as in the nightingale species. It is the same in the rose species too.
Such changes are not macroevolution. They are variants or variations. They are called varieties.
That is what evolutionists call the changing of species.
A living group changes and differentiates within itself with the knowledge, will and power of Allah. It is called a variant, that is, a variety. As a matter of fact, the Corona-19 virus has displayed many variants, i.e., changes in itself. For example, if there are 20 spikes, the disappearance of one or both of them brings about a new variant. However, it is still the Corona-19 virus. Bacteria or mice do not arise from this virus. Evolutionists call the variant microevolution in order to mislead young people regarding the issue. After that, they make a generalization and say, “That is how it happens in interspecies evolution.”
- Can Allah not create another living being from a living being if He wills? For example, a rabbit from a mouse?
- He can. However, Allah has no such law. He made the genetic structure of every living being stable under certain conditions. That genetic structure does not bring about another living being by changing.
There are genetic laws set by Allah in this regard. Those laws are called Mendel’s Laws because Mendel was the first one to discover those laws in the 1880s. According to those laws, an individual is genetically similar to the mother 25%, the father 25%, the grandmother 25% and the grandfather 25%.
The effect of Mendel’s Laws on offspring may change due to changes in the environment or in the organism’s own body. They are included in the genetics books as deviations from Mendel’s Laws. Those deviations from Mendel’s Laws are not in a way to create a new basic living species because the genetic structure of that creature was created in a way that would not allow such a major change. Such a big change can only happen at the embryo stage. And at that stage, the living being cannot develop and dies.
The Covid-19 virus, which has taken different forms in millions of people for three years, has shown various variations. However, it has still remained a virus. If Allah wanted, He could create bacteria from that virus, and sparrows from the bacteria. However, there is no such law of creation today. It did not happen in the past either because there is not the slightest evidence that it happened.
It is the definition of species that causes confusion about evolution.
It is the ambiguity in the definition of species that causes confusion about evolution. It is necessary to look at the concept “species” in biology to understand biological evolution. Species is defined as follows: “a community of living beings that can mate with one another and produce fertile offspring when they mate”. The basic invariant group in the classification of living beings is the species. There are supergroups over the species listed as genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom. Under the species, there are intraspecies groups called races in animals and varieties in plants. For example, the cat is a species. It has intraspecies breeds such as Van cat, Siamese cat and tabby. There may be variations within the cat species. However, no cat has evolved into another new species, and it is not scientifically or technically possible.
In animals, the definition of species is based on interspecific breeding barriers. However, the case is different in plants. Interspecific reproduction, which we express as interspecific crossing or hybridization, is possible in plants.
To avoid this confusion, creationists rely on the basic type definition instead of the species definition. For example, flint corn, starchy corn, sweet corn, hard corn and bird corn exist in the maize basic type. They are varieties of the basic type of corn.
Another example is the Galapagos Island finches, which Darwin grouped according to beak size alone. The finches depicted as different species are all variants of the finch species linked to one basic type.
- Well, why do some people intensely defend evolution? Why do they claim that living beings change and give rise to different living beings?
- It is because they do not accept the existence of a creator, that is, Allah. They claim that living beings emerged spontaneously from one another in succession.
If they accept that every living being came into being separately, they will not be able to explain each one by chance and nature and will have to attribute them to Allah; therefore, they claim that they came into being by chance in succession.
There is no scientific problem for those who defend creation. Allah creates every living being and provides the needs of every cell of those beings. That is, even an atom cannot move without Allah’s permission and command.
It is not possible to explain all this without attributing it to Allah.
If you ask them this, they will say “Allah” willingly or unwillingly because great minds think alike. There is no other explanation for it.
Question 2: Can new species arise with epigenetics?
What is a gene?
A gene is a sequence of genetic letters that can produce a protein. 25,000 gene regions have been identified in the human genetic structure. Those regions are called exon gene regions. There are also gene regions in human DNA that do not produce any proteins. They are called intron regions. The intron regions are 3% more than exon regions.
Until recently, those who defended the evolutionist approach called those intron regions useless, waste or junk genes. They argued that they were useless remnants that adhered to human DNA with viruses. However, as the secrets of genetic structure were solved, it was understood that those regions controlled the functioning of DNA.
Thus, another obsession maintained by the evolutionist approach was eliminated.
However, a very interesting operation has emerged recently in these regions. It is epigenetics.
The word epigenetics is generally used to express changes that cannot be explained by normal genetic principles. Although there is no change in the nucleotide arrangement responsible for determining the genetic structure of the living being, some different characters emerge in the external appearance, that is, in the phenotype of the living being.
The reason for this is this: Some parts of the DNA responsible for determining the genetic structure are temporarily closed by junk genes under the influence of some environmental conditions. Since the genetic structure of those closed regions is not read, the effect of the genes there is not visible in the living being. This condition is called gene silencing.
The most common form of it occurs as follows: The methyl (CH3) molecules of genetic letters are closed temporarily and the function of that region stops. In that case, the amount of protein produced from the closed gene regions decreases, and as a result of this decrease, color change and height shortening can be seen in the living being. It is such a structure that affects many features in plants, such as the narrowing of the leaf surface.
The benefit of epigenetics is to make the living being adapt to changing environmental conditions.
A protein called melanin is responsible for determining human skin color. Those melanin pigments are encoded in the exon gene region. The functioning of those genes is controlled by an intron gene region. Normally, some of those intron regions are created with methyl groups attached to the ends of genetic letters. A certain and small amount of melanin is produced there. However, if the skin is exposed to the sun for a long time, these methyl groups are removed from the genes. Then, more melanin is produced. Thus, the color of the skin becomes more brownish.
The same mechanism operates in all changes such as the development of muscles, lengthening or shortening of people who work hard or do intense sports.
All those changes depending on the environment are also called adaptation. Until recently, mutations were shown as the cause of those changes and were called microevolution. It was claimed that macro evolution, that is, the transformation of one species into another, could occur with the accumulation of those microevolutions in living beings.
Today, it has been understood that epigenetic functioning, not mutations, is the determining factor in the adaptation mechanism.
Unlike what is claimed, the methylation is not an advantage gained from the environment. This functioning, which was created so that living beings would keep up with environmental changes, is a gift and an advantage granted by our Lord in the creation of that creature.
This genetic functioning is calculated beforehand and how this process will be done is coded into the genetic codes. Therefore, the enzymes that will take part in the methylation process and the working laws of those enzymes are present in our genetics. In other words, it is not an accidental and random operation, but rather a carefully planned thing that necessitates engineering.
In the nineteenth century, at a time when DNA had not been discovered, genetic mechanisms had been unknown, and epigenetics had never been talked about, Darwin’s evolutionist approach, which he put forward by observing the lengthening/shortening of beaks in finches, is still persistently pursued by evolutionists today.
In this period when DNA and epigenetics have been understood, the persistence of the evolution mentality of 150 years ago is the product of an ideological obsession based on atheism, not a scientific thought.
Question 3: Has the macroevolution of fossils been proved?
I am sending you a long article so that you can have a good idea regarding the issue. Inshaallah it will be useful.
Claims of intermediate forms and deadlocks of the view of evolution
What is evolution?
We will now make a brief evaluation of the view of evolution, also known as Darwinism, in which everyone, young and old alike, is interested more or less.
Let us start the issue with a question:
Why is everyone, young and old alike, interested in this issue of evolution?
It is because this view of evolution attributes the past of humans to monkeys. Everybody naturally wants to have accurate information about who their ancestors were and they object to the monkey being imposed as their ancestors though it is irrelevant.
So, what is the truth regarding the issue? Why is it so insistently emphasized and brought up in every topic? Everyone probably wants to have correct knowledge regarding the issue.
At the very beginning of the issue, we should state in advance that it is not an ordinary theory. It is a view based on positivist philosophy, which is based on denial of a creator, that is, Allah. This view, which is based on atheism, is supposedly presented as a law under the name of scientific knowledge.
It is the easiest and most effective way to destroy a nation from within because this view inculcates especially to young people that they came into being as a result of coincidences, that their history is based on monkeys, and that it is scientific knowledge. However, Islam states that man was created in the best way and from clay.
In the face of such an indoctrination, young people hesitate and think as follows:
Science shows that man emerged from other living beings by chance. Religion, on the other hand, declares that man was created from clay. So, should I believe in science or religion?
Faced with such a dilemma, he at least hesitates. On the other hand, it is constantly suggested that science is the truth and religion is based on belief and metaphysics and that it is not scientific.
Then, the young person remains distant from religion; at least, he remains indifferent. The evil forces have an easy job from then on. Young people are constantly told that everything is a result of chance, that human beings are born by chance, that they have no responsibility towards anyone, that there is no concept of haram-halal and that they have the freedom to live as they wish.
Young people who are exposed to such propaganda become open to all kinds of negative ideologies. They begin to take a stand against the order, family, state and religion.
That is the reason why this view, which has no scientific value and serves the ideology of irreligion, is insistently emphasized at the international level. In other words, it is a plan to turn the youth of a nation against their religion, state and nation.
Therefore, it is necessary to know the inner face of this evolution issue well.
Since the issue is so important, let us take a closer look at evolution.
Let us start with the definition of it first. “What is evolution? Let us have a look at it.
Definition of evolution
The word evolution is used in place of many words and phrases that are different from each other like change, metamorphosis, differentiation, progress and evolvement. Some of them are as follows:
Evolution, takamul (evolvement), taraqqi (improvement), istihala (differentiation), tatawwur (moving from one state to another), tahawwul (changing from one state to another), tabdil (changing the shape of something), tabaddul (exchange), taghyir (transformation), taghayyur (metamorphosis), tadanni (regression), sudur (occurrence), zuhur (appearing), tajdid (renewal), ontogeny and phylogeny.
Each of these terms actually means different things.
A question may come to mind here:
Why are terms that express so many different meanings gathered under one word, evolution?
That is the key point. By doing so, they kill several birds with one stone.
With the word “Evolution”, it is easy to give people false and superstitious information as well as the truth. On the other hand, conceptual confusion is formed. In other words, people understand a different meaning and thought from the word “Evolution”.
Let us try to present what we mean with a few examples.
For example, let us deal with the word “Takamul (evolvement)”. “Takamul” is used instead of “Evolution”.
“Takamul” is the gradual, i.e., step by step maturation of something over time. The chick that comes out of the egg evolves into a chicken or a rooster thanks to infinite knowledge, will and power. The apple seed evolves and becomes a sprout, sapling and fruit tree.
Starting from a cell in the mother’s womb, a person undergoes evolvement and is sent to the world as a baby in about nine months. The baby becomes a mature human being with evolvement.
The Earth did not take this shape suddenly. It was placed here by being separated from the sun; it cooled and was encrusted with evolvement, and over time it was made inhabitable.
As you can see, evolvement takes place in all beings.
To put it briefly, the law of gradual evolvement is essential in the entire animate and inanimate realm.
If you mean “Evolvement” by the word “Evolution”, it is a law, not a theory.
Another word used instead of evolution is the word “Tahawwul”. It is used in the sense of change of state, changing from one state to another. The transformation of a bud into a flower or a leaf, the transformation of a flower into a fruit, and the ripening of the fruit are all forms of tahawwul.
The term “Tahawwulat adh-Dharrat” is used for the elements. In other words, it means changing of an element or atom from one state to another. For example, oxygen has the property of burning. Hydrogen is flammable. When the two are combined, they change state. In other words, they undergo tahawwul and water is formed.
The degradation of all the nutrients taken into the bodies of living beings, i.e., plants, animals and humans, and the combination of elements are all forms of transformation.
If you mean “Tahawwulat” by the word “Evolution”, it is a law, not a theory.
Another question may come to mind:
What is the issue that evolutionists and creationists disagree on?
The issue they disagree on is the usage of the term “Evolution”.
What is evolution?
Evolution is a view claiming that all plants, animals, and humans emerged from one another in succession, in the form of a living being emerging from another one and that one from yet another one.
Evolutionists imagine a family tree for it. They place a cell at the root of this tree. They accept that this cell came into being by itself from inanimate substances. Then, they divide this tree into two branches. They place the plant kingdom on one branch and the animal kingdom on the other.
Barley, wheat, corn and rye, which are described as monocots among plants, are considered primitive. Those in the form of a tree are imagined as advanced structures. In other words, barley and wheat emerged first, from which beans, potatoes and tomatoes were formed. Plants such as pear, apple and walnut tree emerged from them as they were transformed by chance.
The animal kingdom also emerged like that in succession with gradual changes over time.
The life of man, which started with a single cell and continued with a field mouse, ended in this way by chance when he was changed from the monkey in the last link of the chain.
The evolutionary family tree drawn by evolutionists according to their dreams.
Question: What is the evidence for evolutionists that living beings came into being by changing with this evolution stick just like the witch’s stick in fairy tales changing realms and beings?
Answer: It is either everything or nothing.
Everything is evidence of evolution
When Darwin put forward this view in the 1850s, that is, about 150 years ago, he promised that there would be thousands of transitional or intermediate forms showing that living beings emerged from one another in succession.
He argued that the living beings adapting to the changing environmental conditions survived and that the living beings that could not adapt were eliminated, causing different species to come into being.
For example, he claimed that when the waters began to recede in the seas, fish turned into frogs. However, he never mentioned how fish continued living at the same time.
Those who came after him and were more Darwinists than Darwin himself claimed that there were many organs of unknown functions in living beings, especially in humans, that they were in fact useless vestigial organs left over from man’s animal ancestors, and that it constituted the greatest evidence for human evolution. Apart from it, they claimed that new species were formed with intermediate forms, embryological evidence and mutations.
Nothing is evidence of evolution
Question: How many of the alleged intermediate forms have been found in the past one hundred and fifty years?
Question: How does the science of genetics answer the evolutionist view of evolution in the sense of evolution?
The answer is: “No to evolution.”
The science of genetics states that each living being has been created with its own genetic characteristics.
No Changes Occurred in the Creatures Exposed to Radiation in Space
It is impossible for the genetic structure of a species to change in a way that will change the basic structure of that living being. In the last fifty years, unicellular organisms such as the coli bacteria (Escherichia coli) and multicellular organisms such as the vinegar fly (Drosophila) were taken to space. They were exposed to ultraviolet and radiation rays. In the beginning, it was imagined that they would change into different living beings but all those dreams came to naught. There was no change in the genetic structure of the organisms.
Some abnormalities were seen in the bodies of vinegar flies (Drosophila ssp). The shapes of their wings were distorted. The color of their eyes changed. There were changes in the number of feet but the organisms were still vinegar flies. The imagined new species did not come into being. Oddly enough, when those creatures were left to natural conditions on earth, it was observed that those abnormal structures in their bodies did not pass on to their offspring.
Another example is that today’s Covid-19 virus has displayed many variants, namely changes. However, it is still the Corona-19 virus. Bacteria or mice do not arise from this virus. Evolutionists call the variant microevolution in order to mislead young people regarding the issue. After that, they make a generalization and say, “That is how it happens in interspecific evolution.”
Whoever Creates the Single Cell Today and However He does it Created It Yesterday
Now let us have a look at the evolutionists’ family tree. The history of all living beings is attributed to a single cell. In other words, once upon a time, a living cell somehow emerged, and from it, living beings emerged on the earth in succession.
With how many cells do living beings come to the world today? All of them are sent to the world in the form of single cells. Did each of us not start life with a single cell in the womb? In the same way, all plants and all animals begin life with a single cell. There is no need to go back to ancient times for it.
Whoever creates the single cell today and however he does it created it the ancestor of every living being in the same way in the past. He will create future generations in the same way too.
Why Man Was Created Is More Important Than How He Was Created
By keeping man busy with how he was created, evolutionists make him forget why he was created. However, a person must know the purpose of being sent to this world and act accordingly.
Why was he sent to this world? What is his main task here? Who sent him here? Where will he go from here when he dies?
One has to find and know the correct answer to these questions first.
The Inconsistency of Evolution Claims
Before the genetic material, namely DNA, was discovered, those who defended evolutionary view said that one amino acid formed first and then other amino acids formed. They evolved, combined, and formed a protein. Those claims were first called the protein hypothesis. As we said, since DNA had not been discovered at that time, the basis of life was thought to be protein. Therefore, they said protein first. Then, they gave up on this idea because the science of genetics advanced and discovered DNA. After that, they said DNA first; then, they gave up on that too and said RNA first. I know it is a bit confusing; let us deal with this process in an understandable way.
Amino acids combine with the command of our Lord and form a certain sequence. As a result of this sequence, proteins are created. It was claimed that those proteins could occur in the evolutionary process.
In fact, Miller claimed in his experiment that he formed amino acids in random environments. And he said that an amino acid could be formed by chance, which meant that they could form over time and combine to form a protein. Miller said he provided the coincidence conditions for this experiment. However, those conditions were prepared by Miller, who was smart, knowledgeable, powerful and willed. In other words, the event was not completely attributed to chance. On the contrary, the necessity of a person who provided those conditions was pointed out.
Brains hypnotized by positivist philosophy in the name of science
Let us have a look at Miller’s experiment and show its absurdity.
Let us first have a look at what kind of scholarly career Miller had.
Miller was a chemistry graduate student and he did his experiment in 1953. The discovery of DNA was in 1955. So, when he did his experiment, a lot of things about genetics were unknown.
I want to draw your attention to an issue here:
It has been about 70 years since this experiment was conducted. Why is an experiment done by a graduate student 70 years ago still given as an example of evidence for spontaneous and coincidental formation in evolution? Does it not sound strange to you?
I can tell you this much that all experiments on the issue have been unsuccessful, and it has been seen that it is impossible for organisms to arise on their own or by chance. In this regard, the Miller experiment has no concrete aspects. However, he was a graduate student after all. His scientific mistakes should not be emphasized because he was a student.
However, the truth of the issue is not like that. Many young people are conditioned in the name of evolution and are made pro-evolutionists, by being presented that graduate student’s experiment as scientific proof that living beings formed by chance. They have been successful to a great extent. Every year, tens of thousands of young people lose their way behind the fallacy of spontaneous formation, which has no basis but is presented as scientific knowledge.
That is the reason why an experiment of a graduate student that has no scientific value has been in textbooks for 70 years.
I would like to narrate a similar incident here.
Let us read a reminiscent of Rafet Kavukçu, who studied at Erzincan Primary School in the 1930s:
“The early 1940s. I was a student at a primary school in Erzincan. Once, the teacher said; ‘There is no such thing as Allah. Nature does everything. Everything is the work of mother nature. Ask Allah for candy. In the classroom, we all shouted, ‘O Allah! Give us candy.’ Nothing happened. The teacher said: Say, ‘Mother nature! Give us candy’. We shouted all together; ‘Mother nature! Give us candy.’ We looked up and saw candies falling from the hole in the ceiling of the wooden roof of the building. We later found out that the teacher had taken the school janitor to the roof and had candy thrown from there.” (see Özcan Ö. Ağabeyler Anlatıyor. Nesil Yayınları, 2018, 7/310)
That is all for the reminiscence. You can say, “What does it have to do with the Miller Experiment?”
Let us have a look at the Miller Experiment and see if there is a similarity or not.
Stanley Miller wanted to show that some amino acids could be synthesized by chance, by spontaneous assembling of gases, which are considered to be the gaseous composition of the primordial atmosphere.
He had dissolved methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in water, placed them in a glass balloon and subjected it to an electric discharge. He made the steam of the heated elements in the system pass through the cold trap he set up, enabling them to cool and condense.
In this experiment, in addition to many compounds, three amino acids, which are abundant in nature, were formed as droplets within 24 hours. They were glycine, asparagine and alanine.
Question: What was the purpose of the experiment?
Answer: To prove that amino acids came into existence spontaneously by chance under natural conditions.
Question: Was there anyone who prepared the conditions for this experiment and did it?
Answer: Yes, there was. Miller.
So, how does it prove coming into being spontaneously by chance?
Since the students did not see the school janitor who threw candies from the ceiling in the name of mother nature in the primary school reminiscence above, they believed that mother nature threw the candy. Although they also say who threw the candy, or rather did the experiment, they want us to believe that it happened spontaneously and by chance, and we wholeheartedly believe it.
That is the best indication of how positivist philosophy based on atheism hypnotizes people to believe the fallacy that it happened by itself or by chance in the name of science. Can there be a bigger error than this, or can it be thought of, in the name of science and in the world of science?
Do you think there is a difference between primary school students who believed that the candies thrown from the ceiling were sent by mother nature, and scientists who presented this nonsense as science? Accepting and defending such an idea is the biggest disgrace for science both in this century and in the past; and on behalf of scientists, it makes people feel ashamed of their humanity.
Besides, the expression “coming into being on its own” is also invalid in terms of logic because how can something that does not exist in the beginning make itself?
Probability calculations also show the impossibility of coincidence/chance.
So far, we have explained that amino acids do not come into being by chance. We have seen the Miller experiment fail.
Let us say amino acid but it does not prove anything because the random combination of amino acids only creates a pile of amino acids, not a protein.
Even if amino acids are formed by chance as Miller said, it still does not indicate that a protein will form easily because amino acids are arranged in a regular and meaningful way; as a result of it, they form a protein. Even if the order of only one amino acid were changed, the result would not be a protein but just a pile of amino acids. Could these amino acids, by chance, arrange themselves in a proper sequence and produce a protein?
For example, let us think of the hemoglobin protein. This hemoglobin protein helps carry oxygen in the blood. If the place of one of the amino acids in this protein, which forms a regular sequence, is changed, thalassemia, also known as Mediterranean anemia, occurs. Can these amino acids really form a regular protein sequence by chance?
Let us calculate now. Let us do a calculation on the hemoglobin protein. There are 564 amino acids in hemoglobin. In total, there are 20 kinds of amino acids; so, 20 kinds of amino acids will form a sequence in 564 different positions for a meaningful code. And when we calculate it, the figure is 20564. Let us write it in decimal form again to make it easier to understand. It is 10734; that is, you will put 734 zeros next to 10, and you will try as many times as possible so that a protein will come out.
Evolutionary thinking says it is highly improbable but it could happen in millions of years. The age of the universe is 14 billion years but we will give you 100 billion years; make this test 1000 times a second for 100 billion years. The resulting number of attempts has only 22 digits. However, the number of trials required for a protein to form has to have 734 digits. We see the inconsistency of evolution regarding the issue again.
Then they said DNA first because the science of genetics advanced and DNA was discovered. Evolutionists immediately said that proteins were not the basis of life, but that proteins were produced from DNA. That is why DNA was formed first. Let us deal with the decision that they changed.
This claim of theirs, that is, the claim that DNA occurred first, is again an inconsistent claim. DNA is necessary for the formation of protein, and proteins, i.e., enzymes are necessary for the formation of DNA. So, one cannot exist without the other; it is called irreducible complexity. Proteins are already made up of DNA helixes. Therefore, no protein is formed without DNA. Enzymes are necessary for the 3.5 billion letters in DNA to come together and merge. Enzymes are also proteins. In other words, there is no DNA without protein. Therefore, it cannot be said DNA first or protein first. The claims of evolution regarding the issue are completely wrong. According to the evolutionary process, one of them must have existed before the other and evolved. However, we see that both must exist at the same time, as the creationist claim says. Evolution is inconsistent regarding this issue too.
After that, evolutionists said something like this: Then, RNA was formed first. So, they looked for some kind of way out but this one is closed too because RNA is the most unstable molecule; it is very fragile. It decomposes in a few seconds in normal environment.
Well, how will RNA, which normally lives for a few seconds and then decomposes, wait for millions of years to evolve? It is absolutely impossible. In addition, RNA consists of a helical structure. Enzymes are necessary for the formation of this structure. As we have said, enzymes are proteins. There is irreducible complexity between RNA and proteins just like DNA. One cannot exist without the other. So, one cannot exist before the other. As creationists say, it is necessary for both to exist at the same time.
The invalidity of the three differing ideas of evolution is quite obvious.
Antioxidant defense systems and the contradiction of evolution
There are about 50 trillion cells in our body. Our body is formed by the combination of those cells. There are 10,000 radical attacks per day on each cell. If even one of those attacks is successful, the cell either gets cancer or goes to programmed death. The Creator has appointed antioxidants to protect cells from those attacks. If antioxidants were not present, all of those attacks would be successful and it would be impossible for the cell to survive.
According to the evolutionary view, first the cell was formed and then the cell developed a defense system for itself over millions of years. How is it possible for a cell that receives 10,000 attacks a day to survive for millions of years without a defense system? Can such an imaginary idea be considered scientific?
Imagine that you have so many enemies that there are 10,000 attacks on your home every day, and these attacks are blocked by your security team every day. Is it possible for you to survive if we eliminate this security team? It is definitely not possible. Similarly, a cell that is exposed to 10,000 attacks every day cannot expect to produce a defense system for itself for millions of years without any defense system.
That is why the evolution of the cell is unacceptable.
Confusing chimpanzee resemblance
Evolutionists say that all living beings came into being by evolving from one another. They show genetic similarity as the basis for it, for example, chimpanzees and humans. The genetic similarity is 96% and the difference is 4%. Evolution says this gap closed in millions of years. However, we will see with the calculation we will do in a moment that it is not possible for such a thing to happen in 100 billion years, let alone in millions of years.
There are nearly 50 trillion cells in the human body. Humans are formed by the combination of those cells. There is DNA in each cell, and these DNAs consist of nucleotides, which consist of 3.5 billion letters. 3.5 billion nucleotides are formed from the regular arrangement of 4 letters called Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine, like AGCT. If even only one of the 3.5 billion nucleotides, in which 4 letters are arranged in a regular manner, is wrong, genetic disorders occur. The issue is about such a delicate sequence.
We have said that there are 3.5 billion nucleotides in a cell. The genetic difference between the chimpanzee and man is 4%. In other words, 96% of the 3.5 billion letters are similar to one another, while 4% are different. Evolutionists claim that this 4% difference was closed in millions of years.
Let us see if something like that is possible. 4% of this 3.5 billion letters has to change and look like a human gene. Let us calculate if such a thing is possible. 4% of 3.5 billion is 140 million, that is, the number of different nucleotides between chimpanzees and humans. Since this sequence consists of 4 different letters, it means that 4 different letters will be arranged in 140 million different positions. According to the calculus of probability, it is one in 4140000000.
To understand it easily, we can write it like this: 1080000000. What does this number mean? You will put 80 million zeros next to 10 and try as many times as the resulting number.
Only then can you make the chimpanzee’s 4% non-human genes resemble human genes. So, is it possible? The universe now has a lifespan of 14 billion years, but let us give it a little more time and assume that it would be tried 1000 times per second for 100 billion years. How many times would it be it tried? There would be only as many attempts as a 22-digit number, but an 80-million-digit number of attempts would be required to close this 4% difference.
While science considers a probability of 1060 impossible, the effort to accept 1080000000 is in vain. The lifespan of the universe is not enough for evolution’s expectations from the world.
One of the fundamental pillars of evolution is mutation. Mutations are sudden changes that occur in the living body. The slightest change in the DNA helix in a cell is called a mutation. Evolutionists claim that living beings evolved from one another by mutating.
Examples of these mutations are 6-fingered births and double-headed babies in humans. Only a few of the millions of letters in a single cell change places and humans can be born with double heads.
Evolution says these mutations took place over millions of years in such a way that they were beneficial. In other words, the sequence of millions of letters in that cell was distorted; and it is not enough; it is also assumed that it continued like that for millions of years.
More than 100 new mutations are observed in the human organism throughout man’s life, and some of them are passed on from generation to generation. In this context, infant anomaly that can be seen in 2-3% of babies and Mendelian Diseases seen in tens of thousands of people suggest that the DNA of the human lineage is deteriorating. It has also been shown that newly formed mutants are always featureless or even sick. Thus, mutations could not make the existing living being better equipped, let alone causing developments that could be carried out of that genus. Science has shown us that mutations make our genetic makeup worse, not better. Therefore, mutation cannot be the beginning of a new species.
Adaptation means an organism’s harmony with its environment. How will a living being be in harmony with the living environment? This harmony is definitely limited to the organs and feelings given to it. For example, suppose that a creature lives in a swamp. Its genetic potential was planned by Allah for the swamp. There will be some maximum and minimum conditions caused by living there. The genetic potential of this creature will determine whether it will survive within the limits of that change. According to changing environmental conditions, all changes that may occur in the structure of this creature in terms of adaptation to that environment are defined as adaptation.
The limit of these changes is the structures given to that creature by Allah in its creation. We cannot know what the genetic potential limit of each living being is by its phenotype, that is, by its appearance. To determine it, we try to understand the limits of life by artificially subjecting that creature to the maximum and minimum conditions of that environment.
For example, it cannot be said beforehand what changes can occur when a fish is exposed to a certain radiation. More precisely, such an approach would not be scientific. You take the fish and subject it to radiation at the dose you want. Then, you write the result.
It seems that Allah creates each species with a certain genetic potential according to the environmental conditions in which it can live. That being can show some shape changes within the limits of change Allah has given to it. All of this happens and is shaped by the knowledge, will and power of Allah every moment.
The task of science should not be to deny a creator, but to examine the structures of existing living beings down to the smallest detail. Otherwise, presenting some ideological and philosophical thoughts and imaginary things under the name of science and keeping people busy with unnecessary things do not suit the ethics of science at least.
Since the French Revolution, that is, for nearly two hundred years, scientific studies in the world have been shaped according to positivist philosophy based on atheism. According to this philosophy, there is no creator in the universe. Everything happens randomly and by chance.
From time to time, voices are raised against this education system in the Western world too but their statements are usually concealed and those scholars are discredited in society.
The statements of a few of them about the theory of evolution are as follows:
Anthropologist Walker attributes the defense of the Theory of Evolution to its rejection of a creator and states the following:
“The only reason why many scientists and technologists defend Darwin’s Theory must be sought in its denial of the existence of a creator.” (Walker, M. Quadrant. October, 1982, p. 44)
The evolution view explains the emergence of all beings through chance. Pierre Grassé complains that the concept of “chance” has been turned into a deity and says:
“The concept of ‘chance’ has become a deity worshipped under the guise of atheism.” (Grassé, PP Evolution of Living Organisms. Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.107)
This philosophical thought, which is based on irreligion, is systematically presented in educational institutions like proven scientific knowledge.
With such an approach, young people are severed from their national, spiritual, cultural and religious values and ties and are exposed to all kinds of negative propaganda and harmful habits.
It is one of the easiest ways to destroy a nation from within. Therefore, this theory of evolution should not be regarded as an ordinary theory; it should be taken into account that there are very powerful lobbies all over the world behind this theory.
Will you please click on the link given below;
It has been discovered that the genetic structure of human brain cells does not remain fixed during man's life and that it changes. Is this genetic change not evolution? Is this change in genes not transferred to the next generation?
Questions on Islam
- BASIC FALLACIES IN THE VIEW OF EVOLUTION: 1 CONFUSION OF SCIENTIFICITY, BELIEF AND IMPARTIALITY
- DILEMMAS OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
- What is the role of genes in programmed death?
- BASIC FALLACIES IN THE VIEW OF EVOLUTION: 2 CONFUSION OF CONCEPTS
- PROTEINS AND ENZYMES REJECT COINCIDENCE
- EXAMINATION OF PSEUDOGENES FROM THE VIEWPOINTS OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION
- Question 61: The faces and fingerprints of all people are different since their DNA’s are different. How can such diversity be possible?
- Question 9: Is it true that the genetic similarity between man and ape is 98%?
- Did Hz. Adam have the genes that would enable all mankind to come into being in different shapes and structures?
- Knowing the Creator and understanding Creation through Questions