Welcome to Islam, - The desperate efforts of neo-Darwinism

Share ::-

:->







To counter the setback to Darwin's theory, neo-Darwinists propose fantastic new scenarios
The crisis surroundingDarwin’s theory deepened because of the laws of genetics discovered in the first quarter of the 20thcentury CE. An Austrian monk,Gregor Mendel, published his work in the proceedings of the local society of naturalists in Brünn, Austria )now Brno, Czech Republic(, in 1866 CE, but none of his contemporaries appreciated its significance. It was not until 1900 CE, 16 years after Mendel's death, that his work was rediscovered independently byHugo de Vriesin Holland,Carl Erich Corrensin Germany, andErich Tschermak von Seyseneggin Austria.
Like several investigators before him, Mendel experimented on hybrids of different varieties of a plant. Mendel investigated the common pea plant )Pisum sativum(. His methods differed in two essential respects from those of his predecessors. First, instead of trying to describe the appearance of whole plants with all their characteristics, Mendel followed the inheritance of single, easily visible and distinguishable traits, such as round versus wrinkled seed, yellow versus green seed, purple versus white flowers, etc. Second, he made exact counts of the numbers of plants bearing this or that trait; it was from such quantitative data that he deduced the rules governing inheritance.
Nevertheless, a group of scientists who were determined to remain loyal to Darwin endeavoured to come up with solutions. They came together at a meeting organized by the Geological Society of America in 1941 CE. Geneticists such as G. Ledyard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky, zoologists such as Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, paleontologists such as George Gaylord Simpson and Glenn L. Jepsen and mathematical geneticists such as Ronald Fisher and Sewall Right, after long discussions finally agreed on ways to “patch up” Darwinism.
This cadre focused on the question of the origin of the advantageous variations that supposedly caused living organisms to evolve – an issue that Darwin himself was unable to explain but simply tried to side-step -- by depending on Lamarck. The idea they now focused on, was “random mutations”. They named this new theory “The Modern Synthetic Evolution Theory”, which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin’s natural selection thesis. In a short time, this theory came to be known as “neo-Darwinism” and those who put forward the theory were called “neo-Darwinists”.
The following decades were to become an era of desperate attempts to prove neo-Darwinism. It was already known that mutations – or “accidents” – that took place in the genes of living organisms were always harmful. Neo-Darwinists tried to establish a case for “advantageous mutation” by carrying out thousands of mutation experiments. All their attempts ended in complete failure.
They also tried to prove that the first living organisms could have originated by chance under primitive terrestrial conditions that the theory posited but the same failure attended these experiments too. Every experiment that sought to prove that life could be generated by chance failed. Probability calculations prove that not even a single protein, the building-blocks of life, could have originated by chance. And the cell -- which supposedly emerged by chance under primitive and uncontrolled terrestrial conditions according to evolutionists – could not be synthesized by even the most sophisticated laboratories of the 20thcentury CE.
Neo-Darwinist theory is also defeated by fossil records. No “transitional forms”, which were supposed to show the gradual evolution of living organisms from primitive to advanced species as the neo-Darwinist theory claimed, have ever been found anywhere in the world. At the same time, comparative anatomy revealed that species that were supposed to have evolved from one another had in fact very different anatomical features and that they could never have been ancestors or descendants of each other.
Neo-Darwinism was never a scientific theory anyway, but was an ideological dogma that was elevated to the status of a pseudo “religion” by evolution scientists. This is why the champions of the theory of evolution still go on defending it in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. However, they cannot agree on one point to prove the "truth" behind Darwinism and have proposed many different models to facilitate the realization of evolution as the “right” one. One of the most important of these models is the fantastic scenario known as “punctuated equilibrium”.
Even a layman taking an objective look at the neo-Darwinist theories that are being propagated with such fierce fanaticism, realizes how implausible they appear. When so-called 'rational' scientists adhere to them ignoring common-sense and scientific proof alike, one is forced to wonder whether there is something other than Science at stake.

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M

Welcome to Islam, - The design in color

Share ::-

:->










Coloris a concept that helps us to identify the properties of objects and define them more precisely. Reflecting on the colors of objects around us, we cannot help but notice what a variety of detailed colors we are surrounded by. Everything -- animate or inanimate -- has a particular color. Living creatures of the same species have the same pattern of colors everywhere in the world. No matter where you go, the color of the flesh of a water-melon is always red, kiwi-fruits are always green, seas are always the same interchanging shades of blue and green, snow is always pristine white, lemons are yellow, the gray color of elephants is the same in any part of the world as are the colors of trees. They never change. This goes for artificially produced colors as well. Wherever you go on the earth, if you mix red with yellow, you will get orange or if you mix black and white you will get gray. The result is always the same.
How are the colors of objects formed?
We can explain this by an example. Imagine that you walk into a store and see fabrics of different designs and models, the colors of which blend harmoniously with each other. Surely, those fabrics did not come there by chance: conscious people drafted their designs, determined their colors, subjected them to a number of dyeing processes and after putting them through many other intermediate stages, displayed them in that store. In short, the existence of these fabrics depends on the people who designed and manufactured them. This design is manifested in every stage -- from the formation of light to its becoming a colorful image in our brain. This is one of the greatest evidences of the existence of an Owner, that is, a Designer of the design in colors.
Light brings colors to life
Sunlight is the only source of heat and light on earth, supplying all life-forms with heat by radiating energy and helping plants with photosynthesis. The existence of daylight and a colorful world depend on the rays emitted from the sun.
Light striking matter
Light coming from the sun reaches the earth at a speed of 300,000 km per second. Owing to the speed of light, we always see a world full of color. This leads to the question: how is this uninterrupted image formed, that enables vision?
Light from the sun passes through the atmosphere at enormous speed, reaches the earth and strikes objects. When light strikes an object at this speed, it interacts with the atoms of the object and reflects at different wavelengths corresponding to different colors. In this way, the view you see when you look outside: trees, buildings, cars, the sky, birds, cats, in short everything your eyes see, reflect their colors.
The molecules enabling these colors to be reflected are pigment molecules and the color reflected by an object depends on the pigment molecules present in it. Every pigment molecule has a different atomic structure, varying atomic number and a different sequence of arrangement of atoms. Light hitting such diverse pigments is reflected in different shades of color. However, this is not enough for the formation of color. In order to be seen, reflected light possessing a certain color quality has to reach a visual apparatus capable of perceiving it.
Light reaching the eye
In order to be perceived as color, rays reflected by objects should reach the eye. The existence of the eye is not sufficient in itself. After reaching the eye, the rays ought to be converted into nerve signals that reach a brain working in harmony with the eyes.
Let us think about our own eyes and brains as the closest example. The human eye is a very complex structure that consists of many different parts. As a result of the simultaneous and harmonious functioning of all these parts, we see and perceive colors. In addition to the extraordinary nerve web that establishes its connection to the brain and an extremely complex vision area, the eye has a very special structure, the existence of which cannot be attributed to mere coincidence.
The perception of color begins with the cone cells in the retina. There are three main cone cell groups that strongly react to certain colors of light. These are classified as blue, green and red cone cells. The colors red, blue and green to which cone cells react, are the three primary colors existing in nature. With the stimulation of cone cells )which are sensitive to these three colors( at different degrees, millions of different colors appear.
The cone cells convert this information into nerve impulses through the pigments they contain. Next, nerve cells connected to these cone cells transmit the nerve impulses to a specific area in the brain. The place where the multi-colored world that we view throughout our lives is formed is this area in the brain, measuring just a few square centimeters.
A colorful world within our dark brain
The final stage in the formation of color takes place in the brain. Nerve cells in the eye convey the images that have been converted into nerve impulses to the brain. Everything we see in the outer world is perceived in the vision center of the brain. At this point, we are confronted with an amazing fact: the brain is a piece of flesh, an organ that is completely dark inside! External objects create images on the retina of the eye, which are converted into nerve impulses and are deciphered in the brain, which is completely dark inside. Images of objects )with their colors and all other properties( are formed as perceptions at this visual center. How does this process of perception take place in what is essentially, a piece of soft meat?
A lot of questions remain regarding how colors are perceived. Chromatists are still unable to answer certain questions, such as how nerve impulses are transmitted to the brain via optic nerves and what kind of physiological effect this creates in the brain. All they know is that the perception of colors as realities takes place within us, that is, at the center of vision in our brain.
The brain has been fulfilling all its functions perfectly since the moment man came into existence, just as it does today. Unlike other life-forms, human beings experience a three dimensional world in its entirety, with its myriad colors, designs, sounds, smells and tastes due to a 'piece of flesh' weighing one kilogram – an accomplishment that is made possible only by the perfect creation of Allaah. Everyone finds this matchless miracle of creation ready at birth. Man has no control whatsoever, either in the development of its functions or in their continuity, or at any other stage.

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M

Welcome to Islam, - The evolutionist’s myth ofhomology

Share ::-

:->










Structural similarities between different species are called “homology” in biology. Evolutionists try to present those similarities as evidence for evolution.
Darwin thought that creatures with similar )homologue( organs had an evolutionary relation with each other and that these organs must have been inherited from a common ancestor. According to his assumption, both pigeons and eagles had wings; therefore, pigeons, eagles and indeed all other birds with wings were supposed to have evolved from a common ancestor.
Homology is a deceptive argument advanced on the basis of no other evidence than an apparent physical resemblance. This argument has never once been verified by a single concrete discovery in all the years since Darwin’s day. In no layer of the earth has anyone come up with a fossil of the imaginary common ancestor of the creatures with homologue structures. Furthermore, the following issues make it clear that homology provides no evidence that evolution has occurred.
1. One finds homologue organs in creatures of completely different species among which evolutionists have not been able to establish any sort of an evolutionary relationship;
2. The genetic codes of some creatures that have homologue organs are utterly different from one another.
3. The embryological development of homologue organs in different creatures is completely different.
Let us now examine each of these points one by one.
Similar Organs in Entirely Different Living Species
There are a number of homologue organs shared by different species among which evolutionists cannot establish any kind of evolutionary relationship. Wings are an example. In addition to birds, we find wings on bats )which are mammals(, on insects and even on some dinosaurs, which are extinct reptiles. Not even evolutionists posit an evolutionary relationship or kinship among those four different classes of animal.
Another striking example is the amazing resemblance and structural similarity observed in the eyes of different creatures. For example, octopus and man are two extremely different species between which no evolutionary relationship is likely even to be proposed, yet the eyes of both are very much alike in terms of their structure and function. Not even evolutionists claim that man and octopus had a common ancestor to account for their similar eyes. These and numerous other examples confirm that the evolutionist claim that “homologue organs prove that living species have evolved from a common ancestor” has no scientific basis.
In fact, homologue organs should be a great embarrassment for evolutionists. The famous evolutionist Frank Salisbury’s confession revealed in his statements on how extremely different species came to have very similar eyes underscores the impasse of homology: “Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example in the squid, the vertebrates and the arthropods. It’s bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim.”
The Genetic and Embryological Impasse of Homology
In order for the evolutionist claim concerning “homology” to be taken seriously, similar )homologue( organs in different creatures should also be coded with similar )homologue( DNA codes. However, they are not. In most cases the genetic coding is quite different. Furthermore, similar genetic codes in the DNAs of different creatures are often associated with completely different organs.
Michael Denton, an Australian professor of biochemistry, describes in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, The Genetic Impasse of the Evolutionist Interpretation of Homology: “Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology.”
Another point is that in order for the homology claim to be considered valid, the embryological development )developmental stages in the egg or mother’s womb( of the species with homologous organs should parallel one another. In fact, the embryological development of such organs is completely different in every living species.
To conclude, we can say that genetic and embryological research has proven that the concept of homology, defined by Darwin as “evidence of the evolution of living things from a common ancestor”, can by no means be regarded as any evidence at all. In this respect, science can be said to have proven the Darwinist thesis false time and time again.

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M