Darwinism, - The invalidity of the famous Darwinist claim that ''useful mutations do exist.''

Share

The false idea that useful mutations exist is a classic Darwinist claim. Although the whole scientific world knows, with absolute scientific evidence, that mutations have a destructive or fatal effect, this claim is still persistently made, out of a fear of humiliation. Because Darwinism is a theory that depends totally on mutations. All Darwinists know that if the destructive effect were to be mentioned just once, that would spell the end of Darwinism. It is for that reason they try to give the impression, citing invalid and utterly pitiful examples, that mutations can be beneficial. But this is a complete deception.
As we have set out many times before, mutations have a net harmful effect, with only 1% being neutral, though the latest scientific research has shown that even these can produce long-term damage in the organism. [1] The net harmful effect of mutations is not a psychological defense mechanism, but an explicit truth revealed by science.
If Darwinists object to this, then they are directly flying in the face of science. Because this is not a matter of opinion, but an absolute scientific fact.
It is impossible for mutations to bestow any useful characteristic. Under normal conditions, everything in a living body exhibits complete regularity, order and symmetry. In addition, these systems co-exist with the most delicate balances and exhibit a glorious complexity right down to the finest detail. Mutations are random interventions, such as with radiation, and mean breakages, impairments and dislocations. They INEVITABLY DAMAGE these extraordinarily complex systems, with their regularity, symmetry and order. It is illogical and a violation of science to maintain anything else.
The results at Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were all the results of mutations. Under the effect of mutations, organisms with regular structures either died or suffered severe damage, and this harmful effect even manifested itself in subsequent generations.
Darwinists generally cite various examples of immunity in order to try to corroborate their claims that “beneficial mutations do exist.” But these examples all consist of a variation or impairment in bacteria or immune cells.
Sometimes, a dislocation in a single DNA nucleotide, or base, can bestow immunity to an antibiotic on a micro- organism. But although this may be useful to the micro-organism, IT IS NOT A BENEFICIAL MUTATION. Because the mutation in question has actually harmed the micro-organism. The ribosome sequence belonging to the micro-organism has been impaired, and it prevents the antibiotic binding to the organism by damaging the lock and key harmony. In other words, rather than there being any novelty in the micro- organism, we are looking at a loss of information.
Mutations are literally like firing at a regular structure with a machine gun. Opening fire on a healthy structure will entirely do away with that structure. The fact that one bullet has no effect or destroys an existing infection in the body changes nothing. The organism will already have been killed by the other 99 bullets hitting it.
The example that Darwinists cite with such examples is like a bullet healing the body by destroying a single infection. The organism is devastated by mutations, but Darwinists concentrate on the one that heals this infection.
Since the subject of mutations constitutes one of the most damaging points for Darwinists they engage in demagoguery by depicting minor instances of variation or the effects examined above as major evidence. The fact is, however, that the adherents of evolution, who maintain that all living things acquired their present symmetrical and complex structures by way of evolution, have to be able to cite examples of mutations that take place one after the other and are all beneficial, and that also bestow new information on the organism.
What is more, Darwinists also have to provide evidence for the scenario of one living thing’s physiology turning into that of another life form through mutation at the macro level. BUT THEY CANNOT EVEN CONTEMPLATE PRODUCING SUCH EVIDENCE. Because as they know full well, mutations destroy and ruin and occasionally entirely destroy the organism concerned.
It addition, we need to make the following point very clear: mutations can never bestow any new data on an organism that is not already in its genome. That is impossible. The examples alleged to have “added new information” are all misleading. No new genetic information is ever added. All that happens is that information already existing in a living thing’s genes starts to be used by becoming more visible as a result of variations.
Breaks and dislocations in the bases that make up DNA CAN NEVER PRODUCE NEW INFORMATION. They do not equate to information that did not already exist being bestowed on a living thing. Darwinists are without doubt well aware of this. But they insist on depicting dislocations in genetic bases as new data. This is an example of Darwinist demagoguery.

Share

Darwinism, -

Share

Darwinists admit that the fossils portrayed supposed transitional forms are eventually taken back and removed from the literature, but they justify this by claiming that “a better one has been found.” The fossils brought to public view to great Darwinist fanfare in the last few years in particular show how comic this evolutionist claim really is .
- The evolution deception involves a process that has constantly been repeated in its 150-year history. First, a fossil is produced. An amazing scenario is dreamed up on the basis of that fossil, which is then claimed to be the ancestor of man. This is all set out with much decorative scientific terminology and illustrations in the Darwinist press. Finally, it transpires that the fossil actually comes from an orangutan or a pig, at which IT IS HASTILY REMOVED FROM THE MUSEUM THAT HAS BEEN EXHIBITING IT.
- Piltdown Man, made by adding an orangutan jaw to a human skull, and Nebraska Man, depicted living in wild surroundings together with his family on the basis of a single pig tooth, are the best known examples of this. Darwinists have had to retract all their countless such claims regarding fictitious ancestors. A huge number of supposed “ancestors” have had to be removed from the scientific literature.
- ALL OF THE SKULLS so far acclaimed as ancestors of man by Darwinists have transpired to belong wither to an extinct type of orangutan or else to a human race. The reason why none of the fossils in question can be brought up any more is that they have all turned out to be invalid.
- Unable to bear this major defeat, Darwinists claim that the fossils in question have been removed from the literature because “a better one has been found.” But these fossils they describe as “better” are made up of such infamous examples of fraud as Ida, Ardi and Australopithecus sediba that have also been retracted soon after.
- Ida, a lemur fossil heralded as the ancestor of man, was a fraud on the same sort of scale as Piltdown Man. All the fuss made about Ida, which even embarrassed some Darwinists, quickly turned into a profound silence and Darwinist publications soon had to admit that the fossil was nothing more than a lemur. Darwinists had no qualms about admitting the embarrassment they felt at all the fuss over Ida in their own Darwinist scientific journals. (You can find more detailed information on the subject from here .)
- Ardi, the next to be brought up, was also subjected to Darwinist speculation and an obvious monkey fossil was made to walk upright using computer software. Following that latest embarrassment, Darwinists again had to retract their claims. (See here for more detail)
- Darwinists next produced a little finger fossil and shamelessly used this in reconstructions of a “third species.” This strange-looking human figure, illustrated in full, appeared under captions suggesting it would “rewrite the history of man,” just as in the case of Nebraska Man, the product of a single tooth. The only evidence, however, is a little finger fossil belonging to a human race. (See here for more detail)
- The Australopithecus sediba deception , the latest in the line, will go down in history as one of the worst embarrassments for Darwinists. This fraud, that even the eminent evolutionist Carl Zimmer greeted with suspicion, saying, “Not another Ida?” against inflicted terrible humiliation on Darwinists. (See here for more detail)
- That is the humiliating picture painted by Darwinists in recent years. It is clear therefore, just how invalid the claim that “the others have been removed because better transitional forms have been found” really is.
- Darwinists are in a hopeless position. They are in a defeatist state of mind because no transitional forms have been found. So they engage in demagoguery and make illogical claims in order to avoid the truth revealed by science that is so troubling to them. But that demagoguery has now become too ludicrous to deceive anyone any more. Even world-renowned Darwinists are ashamed of it.
- The fact that Darwinists now have to accept – and that the whole world already knows – is that not a single transitional fossil exists. So long as they refuse to admit that, they will have to keep making nonsensical claims to keep their ideology propped up and will keep on being humiliated.

Share

General Articles, - The invalidity of the claim that ''transitional forms do not mean deformed living things''

Share

After the fact that 99% of mutations are harmful, one of the most difficult and problematic subjects for Darwinists is the total absence of the fictitious fossils known as transitional forms.
Darwinists have sought to explain the absence of transitional forms in other ways, in order to neutralize this fact that is so embarrassing for them, and say instead that “transitional fossils are different to what you imagine.”
First and foremost, this needs to be made crystal clear: the concept of the “transitional form” is one produced by Darwinists themselves. It was Darwinists who came up with the idea that countless transitional forms must have resulted from unsuccessful mutations between two life forms, and that the majority of these fictitious life forms would have been eliminated while only a very few survived. According to this tale, there must have been a time when a fish would supposedly grow feet or when reptiles’ arms would be wings. But this mythical period DOES NOT EXIST in the fossil record.
There is therefore no question of “a concept that we think of as transitional forms.” All descriptions of the entities referred to as transitional forms come from Darwinists. For years, paleontologists have sought but failed to find the transitional form described by Darwin himself. According to that description, transitional forms are DEFORMED AND MONSTROUS living things. It is impossible, according to that description, for them to be anything else.
Were the theory of evolution true, there is no doubt that traces of these fictitious intermediate periods should be found in the fossil record. Fish spending millions of years as its fins supposedly turned into legs, as evolutionists maintain, should exist in this alleged “intermediate state” in the fossil record.
And that is not all. Bearing that 99% of mutations are harmful, there should also be many more examples of all the failed stages pertinent to a life form. There should be millions or even billions of odd-looking life forms that emerged as a result of failed mutations everywhere on Earth.
Bearing in mind that mutations are blind and random processes and are inevitably harmful, then, no matter how unwilling Darwinists may be to admit the fact, all these supposedly successful or supposedly unsuccessful transitional forms would all have been deformed and twisted, with legs coming out of ears, half-fins and half-legs, with three ears instead of two...
Yet not one such deformed living things, nor any transitional form of the kind imagined by evolutionists, has ever been found among the more than 300 million fossils that have so far been unearthed. Indeed, what troubles Darwinists most is that all fossils are completely regularly, symmetrical and fully formed; in other words, that FOSSILS REFUTE EVOLUTION.
As readers will recall, Darwin’s greatest worry was that transitional forms would not be “IN A STATE OF CONFUSION” and that everything in nature HAS A PERFECT REGULARITY AND SYMMETRY:
HY, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, DO WE NOT EVERYWHERE SEE INNUMERABLE TRANSITIONAL FORMS? WHY IS NOT ALL NATURE IN CONFUSION INSTEAD OF THE SPECIES BEING, AS WE SEE THEM, WELL DEFINED? . . 1
MUTATIONS DO NOT PRODUCE SYMMETRY.. THEY KNOW NOTHING OF HARMONY, ORDER OR THE GOLDEN MEAN. THEY DO NOT CALCULATE WHAT WILL BENEFIT A LIVING THING. Mutations are unconscious processes. They cannot lead to two symmetrical eyes and ears, symmetrical heart valves or two legs of the same length.
That is why one Turkish Darwinist, well aware of this fact and that transitional fossils do not exist, despairingly DESCRIBED HIMSELF AS A TRANSITIONAL FORM on a television program.
This is really a desperate state of affairs for Darwinists. Darwinists have no hesitations over rejecting the scientific facts and humiliating themselves for the sake of their ideology.
People need to be reminded that demagoguery no longer has any effect on people, since it has become a laughing stock. Darwin’s nightmare has come true, the fossil record refutes evolution.

Share

Welcome to Islam, - Freedom in Islam and in democracy

Share

nations have called for, spoken about in length, and desired fervently in their hearts more than freedom. People have delivered speeches about it, written books on the subject, composed newspaper columns in support of it, and have raised banners calling for it; they have made it an objective for which all other matters could be sacrificed. On many occasions, people have keenly called for it while being unaware of what they wished to get from it.
This has remained the case until it became the means by which politicians achieved their political aims and personal interests, and used their apparent pursuit of it to attract people’s attention and gain their support. In many cases, this claimed pursuit of freedom has become a means and a justification to destroy any real freedom and wage wars against many nations.
It was made to sound as if democracy is the way to achieve such freedom, because democracy is founded upon freedom; thus the proponents of this ideology have made having a democratic system mandatory for achieving freedom; they argue that one leads to the other, and must exist in order for the other to do so; therefore, one who loves freedom must call for democracy and love it, and vice versa.Such people also claim that, consequently, whoever hates democracy and is an enemy of it is also an enemy of freedom.
The questions that arise here are: does democracy )as practiced by the Western nations( truly achieve the freedom that mankind desires and requires? Does it even raise the level of freedom that people enjoy? What is the type of freedom that democracy achieves for nations, and where are its boundaries? Is an American or a European truly free? Are the lives that they live in their nations ones of freedom, or even partly so? Does Islam oppose the principle of freedom or does it approve of it and call for it? If Islam does approve of it, then how does it deal with it and expect people to practice it, and what are the permissible types of freedom within Islamic boundaries? Also, is freedom in Islam the same as that in democracy, or are they different? Which one of the two 'freedoms' is more realistic and coincides with the sought freedom, the one in Islam or the one in democracy?
All these questions and many others force one to compare between freedom as Islam presents it and calls for it - how it was practiced under Islamic rule for fourteen hundred years and is still being practiced today, and how freedom is practiced in democratic systems, and how contemporary countries and nations apply it.
This comparison must be made in order to see which of the two is more beneficial, more realistic, more honest and closer to the truth.
The limited human mind is what defined freedom in democracy and decided what is good and what is bad in it according to what its desires and lusts imposed, which entails that freedom in democracy becomes limited at times and broadens at others, depending on what the decision makers feel is beneficial at the time.
This means that the nations who practice such systems become experimental laboratories and are in a state constant flux regarding what is allowed and what is not.
In Islam on the other hand, freedom is clearly defined and its limits and boundaries have been set by Allaah alone, who is the infallible Creator of all mankind Whose Qualities are perfect and beyond defect, weakness or incapability. He is All-Knowing of the condition of His creation and Knows best what their requirements are and what suits them.
Thus, freedom in Islam has a distinct feature, which is stability - what was permissible in Islam fourteen hundred years ago remains so until the Day of Resurrection.
In Islam, every person knows what he can and cannot do as well as the areas in which there is room for manoeuvre, according to what Allaah has permitted. Furthermore, freedom in Islam is underpinned by ultimate justice and authority because it comes from Allaah, contrary to that defined by democracy, which is man-made and therefore fallible and subject to shortcomings and injustice. In democracy, the limits of freedom move within the circle that has been defined by human legislators.
In democracy, freedom is opposed to and conflicts with whatever is defined as evil by human legislators, which, due to their limited knowledge and abilities, entails the inclusion of much evil in the circle of what is good and allowable. It also implies that much good will be included in the circle of the evil and forbidden.
Under democracy, many evil things have been made permissible based on its definition of freedom, but were later found to be immoral and oppressive, which caused them to then be prohibited. Likewise, many matters that were later found to be beneficial were initially prohibited, and this constant fluctuation causes the concept of freedom in democracy to be undermined and belittled.
Conversely, in Islam, freedom is opposed to and conflicts with whatever Allaah has defined as evil due to His comprehensive Knowledge and infallibility. Allaah has only permitted what is good and beneficial for mankind and has prohibited only that which is evil and dispraised. Consequently, the range of freedom in Islam is only from what is good to what is praiseworthy.
Freedom in democracy only serves to enslave people to one another - people who should in reality be slaves to Allaah only; it causes people to be under the control of others who may be lower in status than themselves; those who are in control are the ones who set their rules and forbid and allow them whatever they wish – all that those who are under such control can do is to submit and obey. What type of freedom is this which entails enslavement to other humans?
In Islam, freedom frees man from enslavement to other humans to the comprehensive enslavement to Allaah Alone. One might argue that both are forms of enslavement, so what is the difference?
- Allaah is the Creator; He provides for man, facilitated the universe for him and guided him to the right path; therefore, Allaah alone has the right to be worshipped and man should be grateful to Him and obey His commandments. Worshipping the Creator gives the slave might, honour and dignity, while on the other hand, being enslaved by other humans who are weak and incapable is a form of oppression and punishment.
- Man was created with the natural disposition of being a slave, so if he is not a slave to Allaah, then he will certainly become a slave to another human, and this is a false state of affairs, regardless of the form it takes and the status of the human who he is enslaved to.
- Worshipping Allaah represents the ultimate freedom because it frees one from being enslaved to other false gods. In democracy, freedom places man under varied types of pressures and external strains that make him lose a great portion of his freedom of thinking and choice.
Examples of these pressures are the media; the pressure of fulfilling his lusts using different means to do so; the pressure of earning provisions, which is one of the greatest that people face; the pressure that politicians and religious leaders place upon people, and how some of these people fabricate and alter facts; the pressure of intoxicants and drugs, which are now widespread; and the latest pressure, which is the threat to anyone who refuses to give in to the instructions that have been set to deal with the phenomenon of 'terrorism,' which is a powerful means of placing great pressure upon people.
These types of pressure deprive man from a great deal of the freedom of choice, freedom of thinking and freedom of adopting opinions that he would have taken if these pressures did not exist. These pressures deprive man from his freedom, despite the claim of some who live under such a system to be free.
The contemporary tyrants do not need to exert much effort to accomplish what they wish from other nations; all they have to do is apply some of these pressures for a short period, and sure enough, other nations usually surrender to their requests. These pressures are referred in the Quran.
Allaah Says )what means(:“Those who were oppressed will say to those who were arrogant: 'Rather, ]it was your[ conspiracy of night and day when you were ordering us to disbelieve in Allaah and attribute to Him equals.' But they will ]all[ confide regret when they see the punishment; and We will put shackles on the necks of those who disbelieved. Will they be recompensed except for what they used to do?”]Quran 34: 33[ They plot continuously, day and night, in a way that prevents one from having an opportunity to pause and think correctly in order to be guided to a sound decision.
In Islam, man is freed from all external pressures and effects that may limit or even deprive him from his freedom of choice and decision. Islaam frees man from all such pressures.
In democracy, freedom exposes man to all evils, corruption, and everything else that would ruin his good morals and pure nature; it causes him to become inclined towards aggression and abnormality. Its similitude is like that of a person driving a car without brakes who is also negligent of other drivers and pedestrians, therefore, he would slam into others and cause many accidents.
On the other hand, in Islam, freedom is a cause for one to adopt the finest and most courteous morals and behaviour, it does not allow one to transgress in any way and preserves man’s health, faith and thinking; its similitude is like that of one who drives a car with excellent brakes and who stops where he is supposed to and drives only when it is safe to do so.
Freedom in democracy appears as if it is a gift that man gives to another fellow human, and it is as if he has the right to give him as much of it as he desires and whenever it suits him. In Islam however, it is a right that Allaah has granted to His slaves, and no human has the right to deprive others from it except for a reason that is legislated by Allaah.
The words of‘Umar,may Allaah be pleased with him, clearly reflect this when he said: “Who gave you the right to enslave others when they were born free?”
This is freedom in democracy and in Islam, so which is worthier for the title?
Allaah Says )what means(:“…And remain on a right course as you are commanded and do not follow their inclinations]Quran 26:15[

Share