T HE F ALL OF D ARWINISM. Mustafa Akyol, MS HARUN YAHYA INTERNATIONAL. Science Shatters The Greatest Myth of The Modern Age. The Alleged “Tree of Life”. According to Darwinism, life should have diversified over time. Phyla: The Most Distinct Animal Categories. Richard Monastersky:
THE FALLOF DARWINISM
Mustafa Akyol, MS
HARUN YAHYA INTERNATIONAL
Science Shatters The Greatest Myth of The Modern Age
According to Darwinism, life should have diversified over time.
A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of the Earth's Cambrian Period, some 530million years ago, marks theevolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. …
The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.
Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient,” Discover, April 1993, p. 40.
THE TRILOBITE FOSSIL diversity’… The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing.”
520 MILLION-YEAR-OLD PERFECT EYE
“The trilobites used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today.”
David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, Vol 50, p. 24.
Richard Dawkins: a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today.”
The Cambrian strata of rocks,
arethe oldest ones in which
we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear.
It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London, 1986, p. 229.
Charles Darwin a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today.”:
Why, if species have descendedfrom other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?…
As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we notfind them embedded in countlessnumbers in the crust of the earth?…
This difficulty for a longtime quite confounded me.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, The Modern Library, New York, p. 124-125.
Robert Carroll a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today.”:
“Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin’s death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected…
Most major groups appear to originate and diversify over geologically very short durations, and to persist for much longer periods without major morphological or trophic change.”
Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge, 1997, p. 25, 146.
LIVING FOSSILS: No Evolution At All a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today.”
135 MYR. OLD DRAGONFLY
50 MYR. OLD BAT
100 MYR. OLD ANT
400 MYR. OLD COELACANTH
Science a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today.”, 5 September, 1997
The impression [Haeckel’s drawings] give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, … ‘The embryos often looked surprisingly different.’
Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size.
In reality, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway.
‘It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology’ Richardson concludes.
ICON 2: are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, PepperedMoths
“Evolution experts are quitely admitting that one of their most cherished examples of Charles Darwin's theory, the rise and fall of the peppered moth, is based on a series of scientific blunders.
Experiments using the moth in the 1950's and long believed to prove the truth of natural selection are now thought to be worthless, having been designed to come up with the "right" answer. Scientists now admit that they do not know the real explanation for the fate of Biston betularia, whose story is recounted in almost every textbook on evolution.“
Robert Matthews, "Scientists Pick Holes in Darwin's Moth Theory",
The Daily Telegraph, London, 18 March 1999
“Flawed science, dubious methodology, and wishful thinking…”
ICON 3: most cherished examples of Charles Darwin's theory, the rise and fall of the peppered moth, is based on a series of scientific blunders. ‘Vestigial’ Organs
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure
of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.
R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?",
Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.
The Ultimate Icon: “Human Evolution” structures, and since the structure
MAURICE WILSON structures, and since the structureAPRIL 1964
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SEPTEMBER 1960
BASED ON A SINGLE SKULL
1. structures, and since the structureAustralophithecus
2. Homo habilis
3. Homo erectus & ergaster
4. Homo sapiens
Bernard Wood: structures, and since the structure
“When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush.
We have a menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.
Nature, 11 July 2002
”There's no doubt about it, that in the past, structures, and since the structure
and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned
as something with elements which are,
let us say, akin to being a secular religion ...
And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism.”
Michael Ruse, "Nonliteralist Antievolution”, AAAS Symposium: The New Antievolutionism, Boston, February 13, 1993