Dissection of Evolution Theory

Recently a very heated Chowk debate occurred on the topic of Islam and Darwin. When we presented the observations from various scientific fields against the worldly view of Evolutionist Theory, there ensued a lot of hue and cry. The debate deteriorated into war of words and personalities. On analyzing the debate in detail, we note that there is a misconception about the Islamic point of view of Creation of Man. The prime source of confusion was the worldly view of supporting "Pure Reason" in understanding the universe.

When a man tries to comprehend this universe on the basis of Pure Reason, it produces a "Thinking" which is as insignificant as his mind with respect to universe. Hegal made the society a dictator and reduced man to an inconsequential existence. Socialism reduced man to a machine that only needs fuel. Freud succeeded only in making a man bundle of perverted thoughts. Now evolutionist are making man a product of evolution.

Throughout history, we find people who believed that it is their MIND that is the god. They assumed that their thinking processes would alone enable them to comprehend the reality. However, they soon find themselves caught in the web of their own thought processes. See the extent of giant leaps they made with their minds:

AGE OF REASON

Evolution: I survive therefore I am [evolved]

or I have might therefore I am [right]

Capitalism: I greed therefore I am [satisfied]

Freudian: I pro-create therefore I am [perverted]

Marxism: Society distributes therefore I am [nothing]

Hegalism: Society dictates therefore I am [nothing]

Evolution [now]: I was chimp therefore I am


See the pessimism reflected in all above exponents of age of reason. How does this shallowness came about? Simply, when a man ignores his creator, his own position in this universe, then he relegates himself to the level his mind is capable of. We have divided this article into six chapters. We have discussed two modern competing theories of evolution in Chapter I. In Chapter II, problems with evolution have been narrated in a SIMPLE language for those who don't have much time or expertise in the subject. In Chapter III, two outdated evidences for evolution still quoted by people are dealt with. Chapter IV lists some of the evidences detail of which are provided in the Appendixes A-D. Quotes from scientists and evolutionists establishing the inadequacy of the theory are provided in Chapter V. Finally, Chapter VI provides the conclusion in the light of Islamic teachings.


Chapter 1 - Chapter II - Chapter III - Chapter IV - Chapter V - Chapter VI

Appendix A - Appendix B - Appendix C - Appendix D


Chapter I


Neo-Darwinism & Punctuated Equilibria

The discussion of evolution TODAY involves two competing theories, punctuated equilibria and neo- Darwinism. While both of these theories can explain small evolutionary changes, neither can explain the large changes that evolution requires.

Neo-Darwinism Is Not a Viable Theory:

Neo-Darwinism incorporates the discoveries of modern science into Darwin's ORIGINAL theory while leaving the basic tenets intact. Darwin proposed that individuals with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. Thus, nature selects life with favorable characteristics and preserves it. Darwin called this process natural selection. Supporters of neo-Darwinism believe that numerous, small, successive changes guided by natural selection gave rise to all animals and plants.

Genes are the chemicals that determine the traits and characteristics of animals and plants. Every trait has one or more gene associated with it. Thus, natural selection selects the animals and plants with the best genes. These genes are preserved in future generations whereas less favorable genes disappear. Natural selection forces animals and plants to adapt. Furthermore, natural selection is capable of driving small evolutionary changes in which existing genes are optimized to a particular environment. Such small changes are collectively known as micro evolution. Micro evolution does happen. It has been observed in numerous scientific experiments.

The real question is NOT whether or not micro evolution happens - it does, BUT can micro evolution be extended to explain large evolutionary changes? Such changes require new genes. Clearly, if a gene does not exist, it cannot confer a selective advantage. Thus, natural selection only operates on existing genes. As a result, neo- Darwinism can only explain the creation of new genes if existing genes are free to evolve into new genes. Herein lies the flaw. This site will show that existing genes can only be optimized, they are not free to evolve into new genes.

Natural selection preserves existing genes. For example, consider the gene that encodes crystallin. Crystallin is the protein that forms the lens in the vertebrate eye. If this gene tries to evolve into a new gene, the resulting animal will be blind. Since blindness is a selective disadvantage, natural selection prevents crystallin from evolving into a new gene. The gene that encodes crystallin can only be optimized to improve the animal's sight. This gene is locked into the function that it serves. It is not free to evolve into a new gene. The same argument applies to the vast majority if not every gene in animals and plants. They are all stuck. Natural selection prevents existing genes from evolving. Thus, natural selection fights evolution. Numerous, small, successive changes to existing genes cannot create new genes.

This means that micro evolution cannot be extended to support macro evolution. Micro evolution involves small evolutionary changes. These changes optimize existing genes. Natural selection guides micro evolution. Macro evolution involves large evolutionary changes. These changes require new genes. Since the biochemical processes behind micro evolution do not require new genes, the common practice often used by evolutionists of extending micro evolution to explain macro evolution is nothing more than an unjustified extrapolation. Furthermore, since natural selection guides micro evolution and it fights macro evolution, this extrapolation is very hard to justify.

All scientific experiments designed to test evolution, test micro evolution. Since micro evolution is possible and it does happen, these experiments are successful. Evolutionists then assume that "given enough time" many small changes will eventually result in the large changes that macro evolution requires. Is this a valid assumption? Micro evolution and macro evolution do not depend on the same cellular processes. In my opinion, a process that optimizes existing genes, micro evolution, cannot be used to explain a process that creates new genes, macro evolution.

Finally, one more very powerful argument can be made against neo-Darwinism. If neo-Darwinism is correct, then numerous, small, successive changes should be documented by the fossils of the animals and plants that lived in the past. This does not appear to be the case. The fossil record is not continuous in that it does not suggest gradual change. There are missing fossils (missing links) between every major group of animal and plant. The missing links undermine the entire theory of evolution. Many scientists have rejected neo-Darwinism because the fossil record does not support it (read some of them in 'What Do Scientists Say About Evolution & Origins of Life' below). Most of these scientists have endorsed punctuated equilibria.

Micro-evolution or speciation refers to population and species change through time. There are many published examples of speciation, if by the development of a new "species" we mean the development of a new population of individuals which will not breed with the original population to produce fertile offspring. Micro-evolution is a scientific fact which no one, including creationists, dispute. 4.Macro-evolution or general evolution refers the progression to more complex forms of life. The mechanisms of macro-evolution, including whether or not micro-evolution over a long enough time leads to macro-evolution, can be regarded as a "research topic" (Berra 1990, 12).

Chapter II


Problems with Evolution In SIMPLE language

1) Although there is plenty of evidence for adaptive changes in species, we do not, in recorded history, have evidence of one type of animal changing into another type. (Read "Neo-Darwinism" below).


2) The fossil record does not show the gradual changes leading to entirely new types of animals that Darwin predicted, and intermediate species are hard to find. (Read details in Evidence #1 Against Evolution below)


3) There can be errors in carbon dating and other methods that are used to determine the age of fossils and the Earth itself. (no details are presented for fear of length)


4) DNA and RNA comparisons between similar and dissimilar species at times confirm evolution, but in other circumstances are inconsistent. (see the discussion).

Chapter III


Detailed Evidences Against Evolution

Evidence #1


There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present (see Appendix A for details).


Evidence #2


Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order" (see Appendix B for details).


Evidence #3
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of ’finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were (see Appendix C for details).

Evidence #4
DNA and RNA comparisons between similar and dissimilar species at times confirm evolution, but in other circumstances are inconsistent. (see Appendix D for details).

Chapter IV


Some Outdated Evidence for Evolution

(1) Vestigial Organs


Evolutionists once claimed that within our bodies there are organs and other structures that once served a purpose to our ancestors that no longer serve any purpose. These organs, called vestigial organs, were believed to be "leftovers" from human evolution, and to not have any current uses. One hundred years ago a German scientist named Wiedersheim listed 180 supposed vestigial organs, including the tonsils, the appendix, the thymus gland, the pituitary gland, the pineal gland, and the coccyx. Now we know that all these organs on the list serve a purpose. We could not survive without the pineal, thymus, and pituitary glands. Even evolutionists have stopped considering the vestigial organs as evidence for evolution.

The cecum is a blind ending pouch near the end of the large intestine (colon) which provides additional space for colonic function and may in some animals, such as cows, contain special bacteria which aid in the digestion of plant material. In fact, almost every mammal has a cecum and many of these ALSO have an appendix! Man, for example, has both a cecum AND an appendix - neither is vestigial or useless. The appendix is a lymphoid organ (part of the bodies immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the bowel. Thinking it was a useless evolutionary "left over", many surgeons used to remove the appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. This is no longer done unless the appendix is terminally infected.

(2) Embryology


It was also once thought that the embryo provided strong evidence for evolution. Now, it's not even a question. The theory, called embryological recapitulation, was that as the human embryo went through its stages of growth, it also went through time. As the baby develops, it was thought that it went through the stages of human evolution history. It starts out as a single cell, later it looks like a fish with gill slits, then it looks like a tadpole, then a reptile, then a ape, finally becoming human. This theory was very popular during the eighteen hundreds. Now though, evolutionists admit that this theory has been disproved. There are no gill slits on the embryo, there are a series of bars and grooves, but these never open into the throat and become slits, and never become gills. Also, the teeth develop after the tongue, the blood vessels after the heart, and the nerve cords develop after the brain, the opposite of what you would get if the embryo follows human evolution.

Evolutionists today treat the theory of evolution as an undeniable truth, as part of the definition of science itself, or as a rigorously tested and thoroughly verified theory. In technical circles, where the empirical flaws are common knowledge, evolutionists debate the possibility that a new naturalistic explanation of life may be thought up, but in public presentations they preach evolution as a fact and pretend that the empirical problems do not exist.

Chapter V


What Do Scientists Say About Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Life?

Evolutionists today treat the theory of evolution as an unquestionable truth, as part of the definition of science itself, or as a rigorously tested and thoroughly verified theory. In technical circles, where the empirical flaws are common knowledge, evolutionists debate the possibility that a new naturalistic explanation of life may be thought up, but in public they preach evolution as a fact and pretend that the empirical problems do not exist.

"Winners of Nobel Prize are not more competent than God, religion, and life after death than other people..." (Vladimir Prelog, Nobal Laureate 1967, Zurich University)

"The origin of the universe is a mystery for science, surely for the present. It is a disturbing mystery. (When asked about the origin of life and and human beings, he said): The same answer applies." (Eugene Wigner, Nobel Prize winner in Physics for 1967, Priceton University)

"...life only started at the level of a functional cell...How such already quite complex structure may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of God, represents a satisfactory solution to me." (Werner Arber, Nobal Laureate 1978, microbiologist ar University of Basel)

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."- Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."-Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."- Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."- J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"- Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity-omnipotent chance."- T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."- Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

" ’The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "- Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."-James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

Quotes from Evolutionists


The following quotes are not from "ignorant Muslims" who bear a grudge against the theory of evolution, they are from non-Muslim experts friendly to the theory. The quotes are sufficient to convince one that the theory has problems to be addressed as we have detailed SOME of them above. It should be obvious that the theory is NOT a fact as many would like us to believe. The theory of evolution is still evolving due to some of the problems listed below.

"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has NOT yet been written." [Dr. Hubert P. Yockey, 'A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 67, 1977, p. 398.]

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have now been debunked." [Dr. Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology, Imperial College, London), 'The nature of the fossil record'. Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87 (2), 1976, pp. 132-133.]

(a) Human Ancestor Quotes


"I shall discuss the broad patterns of hominoid evolution, an exercise made enjoyable by the need to integrate diverse kinds of information, and use that as a vehicle to speculate about hominid origins, an event for which there is no recognized fossil record. Hence, an opportunity to exercise some imagination." [American Anthropologist, Distinguished Lecture; Hominoid Evolution and Hominoid Origins, by David Pilbeam. Vol. 88, No. 2 June 1986. p. 295.]

"Homo erectus has generally been dated at about 500,000 years to 700,000 years old. Now this species will have to be dated at more than twice that age. Richard E. Leakey announced this week the discovery of a complete Homo erectus skull that has been reliably dated at 1.5 to 1.8 million years... This skull helps to prove a hypothesis that he has long held-that true Homo coexisted with, rather than descended from, the more ape-like Australopithecus...It now seems clear that Homo and Australopithecus lived side-by-side more than 3 million years ago and that Homo continued to evolve after the australopithecine line died out about 1 million years ago." [Science News, March 13, 1976/No. 11, p. 164, Evolution Revolution.]

"There are broader implications for our understanding of human evolution. First, these results imply that the various Australopithecine are really not all that much like humans. It therefore becomes a most interesting problem in its own right to work out just what these creatures were. They may well have been bipeds, toolmakers, and hunters; but if so, it was not in the human manner." [Oxnard, Charles E., The American Biology Teacher, Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones. May 1979. vol. 41. No. 5 p. 274; 1986, Vol. 88, No. 2. Distinguished Lecture: Hominoid Evolution and Hominoid Origins. p. 29.]

(b) Missing Link Quotes (the first one is from Darwin himself!)


"...intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." [Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species," 1859, Chapter 11, "On the imperfection of the geologic record."]

Not convinced? So what if Darwin didn't have them in 1859, perhaps they were found in this century! Read on...

Steven J. Gould is a famous evolutionist from Harvard. He testified before Judge Overton in the Arkansas Creation-Evolution trial. He writes in one of his regular columns in Natural History magazine (May 1977): "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology (study of fossils) -- In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed."

The paleontologist Dr. David B. Kitts agrees: "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them"(Evolution 28,476).

Dr. David Raup, a paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, recently pointed out that Darwin himself was: "embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would -- different species usually appear and disappear from the record without showing the transitions that Darwin postulated -- we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- We have fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwins' time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information" (Field Museum Natural History Bulletin 50:22- 29).

The evolutionist Dr. Steven M. Stanley put it bluntly: "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition - "(Macro evolution: Pattern and Process, 1979, p.39). No wonder G.K. Chesterton quipped that folks "seem to know everything about the missing link except that it IS MISSING."

"The missing link between man and the apes...is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientist have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school..." [News week, Is Man a Subtle Accident? Nov. 3, 1980 p. 95.]

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging? Paleobiology, Vol. 6, January 1980, p. 127. Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.]

"Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." [Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963 p. 114.]

"Many new groups of plants and animals suddenly appear, apparently without any close ancestors. Most major groups of organisms--phyla, subphyla and even classes--have appeared in this way. This aspect of the record is real, not merely the result of faulty or biased collecting. A satisfactory explanation of evolution must take it into consideration and provide an explanation...The fossil record, which has produced the problem, is not much help in its solution." [The Evolution of Life by Everett C. Olson. The New American Library, New York and Toronto. 1965. p. 94.]

"Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species." [ New Scientist vol. 93 No. 1295, The Reptiles that became Mammals, by Tom Kemp, March 4, 1982, p. 581.]

Chapter VI


Conclusion

A few possibilities are:

(1) There is no Creator, human existence as well as the rest of life can be explained by evolution.

(2) The Creator gave the universe a set of physical laws and initial conditions that He knew would evolve the beings He wanted to create. The story of Adam and Eve is only metaphorical. In other words, we come from the primates.

(3) He created everything; plants and animals perhaps evolved, but Adam, being the first human being was directly created by Allah.

(4) All life was directly created by supernatural intervention.


Let us discuss each one of these possibilities:

(1) The falsehood of this premise does not need a comment. It is scientifically untenable and it contradicts revelation.

(2) This is a Western philosophical concept of dieism, it basically relegates the Creator to a Prime Mover of the ancient philosophers, or the First Cause. He is someone who does not take active part in creating and maintaining His creation. He is like a watchmaker who simply wound the watch - this universe - and then sat on the side. Now the watch is simply unwinding. This concept is incorrect. It is not the Creator, the Khaliq, that we believe in and worship, the One who revealed the Qur'an and and send Prophet Muhammad. The evidence that Allah is the only Creator of life may be found in many places in the Qur'an and Sunnah. For example:

"Blessed is He in Whose Hand is the dominion, and He is Able to do all things, Who has created death and life, that He may test you which of you is best in deed, and He is the All-Mighty, the Oft-Forgiving."
[al-Mulk 67:1-2]

"Is, then, He Who creates as one who creates not?"
[al-Nahl 16:17]

"Yet they have taken besides Him other gods that created nothing but are themselves created . . ."
[al-Furqaan 25:3]

" Whosoever is in the heavens and on earth begs of Him (its needs from Him). Every day He has a matter to bring forth (such as giving honor to some, disgrace to some, life to some, death to some, etc.)!" (Ar-Rahman 55: 29)

Allah challenged all of mankind to create even the most insignificant creature, i.e. a fly, but no one could do that and no one ever will. Allah says:

"O mankind! A similitude has been coined, so listen to it (carefully): verily! Those on whom you call besides Allah cannot create (even) a fly, even though they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly snatched away a thing from them, they would have no power to release it from the fly. So weak are (both) the seeker and the sought."
[al-Hajj 22:73]

Imam al-Bukhari reported in his Saheeh from Abu Sa'eed that the Prophet (Peace & Blessings of Allah be upon Him) said: "There is no created being but Allah created it." In Arabic, the word "khalaqa" means to make out of nothing, which is something that only Allah can do; it is impossible for anyone except Allah to do this. See Fath al-Bari Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhari, 13/390.

(3) This appears to be closest to reality, it is in comformity with revelation (The Qur'an and Sunnah) as well as established scientific facts (read above for details). Allah knows best.

(4) Depending on how one interprets this statement, it could be right or wrong. Obviously, for a Muslim all life is created by Allah. The statement is correct in this sense, but if it is taken to mean that no evolution of any sort occurred, then perhaps it is not correct, because it contradicts fairly well-established scientific facts as we have outlined above. Allah is the One who revealed the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and He is the One who has created this universe. His knowledge is perfect. Furthermore, He is too far exalted to lie. Therefore, whatever has reached us authentically of His revelation (authentic texts of the Qur'an and the Sunnah) must necessarily conform with what He has created (including the laws of the universe). There can be no contradiction between the two. If there "appears" to be a contradiction, then either our knowledge of the universe is incomplete, then of the three possibilities might be true:

Perhaps we missed something about the "scientific fact," our understanding of science is faulty,

The revealed text was not been transmitted authentically, Or we have not understood the revealed texts properly.

Most definitely it has to be one of these possibilities, both can not be true at the same time: a genuine "scientific fact" can not contradict authentically transmitted revelation. Since, evolution at some level appears to be possible, we do not have to reject it, but if it is extended to say human beings descended from the apes, then we have to reject it. Why? For two reasons:

(a) It is scientifically untenable. Read the discussion on evolution above. The "intellectual" loopholes in it are too much according to the experts to be accepted as a "scientific fact," as we have demonstrated with clear evidence above. The testimony of the experts shows it is far from being an established fact.

(b) More importantly, it clearly contradicts revealed texts of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and the way they have been understood by Muslims for over 1400 years. It is part of our belief that Adam is the first human being created by Allah and send down to this earth. The following are a few verses and authentic hadith that show beyond a doubt that indeed Adam was created by Allah in his human form. After seeing this evidence from revelation, no Muslim can hold an opinion to the contrary.

Allah informs us of the time when he created Adam:

'And He taught Adam all the names, then presented them to the angels; then He said: Tell me the names of those if you are truthful. They said: Glory be to You! We have no knowledge but that which You have taught us; surely You are the Knowing, the Wise. He said: O Adam! inform them of their names. Then when he had informed them of their names, He said: Did I not say to you that I surely know the secret of the heavens and the earth and (that) I know what you reveal and what you conceal? And when We said unto the angels: Prostrate yourselves before Adam, they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He refused and was arrogant, and so became one of the unbelievers. And We said: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) you will; but approach not this tree, for then you will be of the unjust. Then did Satan make them slip from the (garden), and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We said: "Get ye down, all (ye people), with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood - for a time." Then Adam received from his Lord words (of revelation), and He turned toward him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful. We said: "Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from me, whosoever follows My guidance, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. "But those who disbelieve and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein."' (2: 31-37)

"Verily We created man of potter's clay of black mud altered. And the Jinn did We create aforetime of essential fire". (XV:26-27)

" Verily We created man from a product of wet earth" (XXIII: 12)

Allah informs us that He choose Adam along with other prophets, some descendants of others:

'Allah did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of 'Imran above all people,- They were descendants one of another. Allah is Hearer, Knower.' (3: 33-34)

Allah informs us that Adam had two sons and what transpired between them:

'Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah): It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter: "Be sure I will slay thee." "Surely," said the former, "Allah accepts of the sacrifice of those who are righteous. (5:27)

Allah also informs us that He created Adam of clay:

'Behold! We said to the angels: "Bow down unto Adam": They bowed down except Iblis: He said, "Shall I bow down to one whom You didst create from clay?"' (17:61)

Adam is mentioned in many other verses of the Qur'an where one can read about him.

Let us now turn to the Sunna of Allah's Messenger:

Narrated Abu Dhar: 'Allah's Apostle said, "While I was at Mecca the roof of my house was opened and Gabriel descended, opened my chest, and washed it with Zam-zam water. Then he brought a golden tray full of wisdom and faith and having poured its contents into my chest, he closed it. Then he took my hand and ascended with me to the nearest heaven, when I reached the nearest heaven, Gabriel said to the gatekeeper of the heaven, 'Open (the gate).' The gatekeeper asked, 'Who is it?' Gabriel answered: 'Gabriel.' He asked, 'Is there anyone with you?' Gabriel replied, 'Yes, Muhammad I is with me.' He asked, 'Has he been called?' Gabriel said, 'Yes.' So the gate was opened and we went over the nearest heaven and there we saw a man sitting with some people on his right and some on his left. When he looked towards his right, he laughed and when he looked toward his left he wept. Then he said, 'Welcome! O pious Prophet and pious son.' I asked Gabriel, 'Who is he?' He replied, 'He is Adam and the people on his right and left are the souls of his offspring. Those on his right are the people of Paradise and those on his left are the people of Hell and when he looks towards his right he laughs and when he looks towards his left he weeps.' He then saw Idris, Moses, Jesus and Abraham. (Bukhari, Book of Prayers)

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: 'The Prophet said, "A man keeps on asking others for something till he comes on the Day of Resurrection without any piece of flesh on his face." The Prophet added, "On the Day of Resurrection, the Sun will come near (to, the people) to such an extent that the sweat will reach up to the middle of the ears, so, when all the people are in that state, they will ask Adam for help, and then Moses, and then Muhammad (p.b.u.h) ." The sub-narrator added "Muhammad will intercede with Allah to judge amongst the people. He will proceed on till he will hold the ring of the door (of Paradise) and then Allah will exalt him to Maqam Mahmud (the privilege of intercession, etc.). And all the people of the gathering will send their praises to Allah.' (Bukhari)

Narrated Abu Huraira: '...When He created him (Adam), He said to him, "Go and greet that group of angels, and listen to their reply, for it will be your greeting (salutation) and the greeting (salutations of your offspring)." So, Adam said (to the angels), As-Salamu Alaikum (i.e. Peace be upon you). The angels said, "As-salamu Alaika wa Rahmatu-l-lahi" (i.e. Peace and Allah's Mercy be upon you). Thus the angels added to Adam's salutation the expression, 'Wa Rahmatu-l-lahi,'' (Bukhari)

The hadith I have narrated above are agreed to be authentically transmitted from the Prophet by the consensus of the experts of the science of hadith (muhaddithun).

After reading these aayat and hadith can any one say that Adam was indeed not a man created by Allah? Besides, NOT a single Muslim has held a contrary belief for 14 centuries. Are we to say they did not understand the Qur'an. Was Allah so short of words that He choose to mislead Muslims for 14 centuries until truth was discovered by intellects that man was "descendant of apes"?

In the end I will say that Allah says:

". . . [they] are deceived by the life of this world . . ."
[al-An'aam 6:70]

"They know only the outside appearance of the life of this world, and they are heedless of the Hereafter."
[al-Rum 30:7]


Appendix A



1."There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind."

2."Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures."

3."If continuous evolution is a universal law of nature, as the evolutionist claims, then there should be an abundance of evidences of continuity and transition between all the kinds of organisms involved in the process, both in the present world and in the fossil record. Instead we find great gaps between all the basic kinds, and essentially the same gaps in the fossil record that exist in the modern world."

4.There are no links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals. There are no links whatsoever.

5."All of the present orders, classes, and phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record, without indications of the evolving lines from which they developed. The same is largely true even for most families and genera. There are literally an innumerable host of ’missing links' in the record."

6."There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present."

7."...the outstanding characteristics of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution."

8.If there were links then they would have been found since the fossil record is "...quite ample to represent the true state of the ancient world. Most individual species of fossil plants and animals have been collected in considerable numbers, but the hypothetical intermediate species have never been represented at all!"

9.Darwin stated, "Why, 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?"

10.Darwin admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

11."The occasional suggested examples of missing links (such as the famous archaeopteryx - supposedly linking the birds and reptiles) can usually be recognized on closer study to represent merely another type of one of the basic kinds it supposedly links (the archaeopteryx was a true bird, by any reasonable definition, with feathers and warm blood)."

12."Even if a creature shared characteristics belonging to two separate groups, however, this would not necessarily make it a transitional link as long as each of the characteristics themselves is complete and not in the process of transition from one type of structure or function into another type of structure or function."

13."Because of the lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record, more and more evolutionists are adopting a new theory of evolution known as macro evolution. The theory of macro evolution teaches that animals and plants changed suddenly from one kind to another without going through any gradual or transitional process."

14.Other evolutionists claim that the links are missing only because the changes are so small that they are not noticed. The problem here is that they are assuming that at every point in the evolution process the being would appear as complete or whole. Actually, they would appear as in transition as when a house is being built.

15."The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time."


Appendix B


1."All the ’information' for the development of each particular organism was already ’encoded' in the DNA of its parent. They must reproduce ’after their kinds'."

2."There are great numbers of ’genes' (or DNA molecules) in each germ cell, and these can be arranged in various ways to permit a wide range of variation in the individual members of a basic ’kind' of plant or animal, but the possible range of variation is nevertheless limited to the basic genetic framework of that particular ’kind'."

3."The genetic system permits a wide variety of specific features (eye color, height, shape of skull, etc.) within the limits of a particular kind. These characteristics vary in accordance with the Mendelian laws of heredity. Depending on factors such as possible isolation and inbreeding, some of these characteristics become fixed and a definite ’race' established."

4."Although the number of varieties or races that may be established from an original kind is undoubtedly quite large, it is clear that there are definite limits to this or even speciation has no true evolutionary significance. New varieties are established, but not new kinds."

5."For example, all the different races of dogs are simply variations and changes within the genetic boundaries of the dog kind. Although there is ample evidence of changes within kinds such as the various races of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., there has never been observed any changes across kinds, such as, for example, a dog becoming a cat or a horse becoming a cow; such changes are not possible since a dog does not have the information in its genes to become a cat...It is the various distribution and recombination of genes which ultimately produce the variations and physiological differences that we find within a family unit, race, or natural species."

6.In light of these facts, evolutionists have turned to mutations (small, random and almost always harmful changes in the genetic code) in the gene pool to explain their theory, "The general picture of how evolution works is now clear. The basic raw material is the mutant gene. Among these mutations most will be deleterious, but a minority will be beneficial. These few will be retained...". James F. Crow, a modern leader for evolution. Two problems with claiming mutations to be the source of positive change are as follows: "an accumulation of literally millions of such micro mutations would be necessary to change one basic ’kind' of plant or animal into another" and "an even more serious difficulty is the fact that practically all observed mutations are harmful, and usually even fatal, to the creature experiencing them. Truly beneficial mutations are so rarely observed, and even these are so questionable, as to leave their very existence still in doubt. Even evolutionary geneticists readily acknowledge that 99.9% of all observed mutations are harmful."

7.Mutation are small, random, and harmful or at best neutral to the organism, and rare. All four of these characteristics make mutations impossible to bringing evolutionary change. Any change that is random, because it is done to a highly ordered organism, will be harmful or neutral. A random change done to a wristwatch will not improve the watch. It will harm it or at very best, be neutral to it. An earthquake does not develop a city, it brings destruction to it.

8."Living creatures are extremely intricate assemblies of interrelated parts, and the parts themselves are also complex. It is impossible to imagine how the parts could change in unison as a result of chance mutation."

9."But, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that a beneficial mutation might occur; still the fact remains that for every beneficial mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones so that the net effect, or result, over time will be that the harmful mutations always win and will ultimately cause the organism, or even species, to degenerate or die."

10."...mutations are incapable of producing evolution because they can only alter and effect the existing structure of genes: they cannot create new genetic material or new genetic potential."

11."...only mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger, her baby would not, as a result, be born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring."

12.Survival of the fittest is a given but it only explains how an organism survived not how it evolved. Survival of the fittest is natural preservation not natural selection (evolution).

13.Put another way, in regard to mutations, we can say, "Species avoid genetic deterioration due to natural attrition among the genetically unfit. Darwinists claim that the same force of attrition has a building effect so powerful that it can begin with a bacterial cell and gradually craft its descendants...to produce such wonders as trees, flowers, ants, birds, and humans."

14.Breeding reproduces those animals with desired features. It is not evolution of the specimens. It is also within kind not crossing kinds, and all changes through breeding are lost after just a few generations. Breeding also, of course, cannot produce new genetic material or the potential for such. Cloning is the artificial stimulation of mitosis (cell division). It is not the creation of life.

15.Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, "It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true."

16."...an excess inflow of ’ordering energy' into the system from outside may cause it temporarily to grow and become more highly organized. Thus...a child may grow into an adult, or men may build a structure. But each of these, and all other illustrations of apparent decrease in entropy, are only local and temporary." Negative entropy (is required) for its maintenance."

17.A seed, for example, being genetically complete, provides the negative entropy for the growth of a tree.

18.Regarding the first law of thermodynamics (stating that a constant amount of energy is maintained) it is observed, "...all matter in the universe is some form of energy...(and) the total amount of energy in the universe always remains constant (or the same), and, therefore, energy itself is neither destroyed (that is, reduced to nothing) or created from nothing by any natural process.

19.These laws state that any natural process would involve conservation (1st law) and disintegration (2nd law). Evolution demands "integration and development" and is therefore impossible.

20.Regarding the validity of the laws, we note, "These laws are based upon more evidence than any other principles in science. They have been confirmed by countless thousands of experiments on systems ranging in size from the nuclear to the astronomic, and there is no known exception to either of them."

21.It is noted that the ’urge' to evolve is not at all found in chemistry.

22.In light of all of these scientific objections to natural selection, perhaps Darwin would have abandoned his own theory since he asserted, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."


Appendix C


1."Our task is not unlike attempting to assemble a 3-dimensional jigsaw puzzle in which most of the pieces are missing, and those few bits which are at hand are broken!" Famous Paleontologist Richard Leakey.

2."There is a strong tendency for fossils to be presented as if they were lucid texts to be read unambiguously rather than scrappy fragments of unknown morphologies." Famous Paleontologist Misia Landau upon realizing how poor the fossil evidence was.

3."’We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those.' Why? ’Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates.' That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating." Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History.

4.Several of the supposed finds have relied on mere tooth or jaw fragments. These include Piltdown man, Dryopithecus, Ramapithecus, and Hesperopithecus.

5.Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an Ape's jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape's or the skull to be a human's. Instead, they declared each part as an in between of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or ’Dawn Man'), and wrote some 500 books on it. The ’discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years.

6.Ramapithecus lasted twenty years as considered to be the first in-between of humans and apes by judgment based only on teeth. He is now know to be an extinct baboon.

7.Hesperithecus was actually created from one pig's tooth but it fooled the entire paleontology field and dental experts for fourteen years.

8.Similarly, hominids (supposed in between) are declared on the basis of such things as a piece of a leg bone, a hip, or a knee piece, etc.

9.Orce man was based on the skull cap of a donkey. 10.The famous find named Lucy placed together looked nothing more than picture #5 yet it was regarded as a hominid without reservation.

11.Regarding Lucy, in fact, it is known, "Lucy - when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the (earth) and more than two miles away."

12.Regarding the finder of Lucy we read, "...he regards the evolution of man from apes as self-evident, but who also regards the evidence as poppycock."

13.Rarely do they even know if the bone set is from the same individual.

14.The Boisei skull was broken in 400 pieces but pieced together and declared as all from the same skull.

15.Regarding the re-constructive drawings always made of these finds we note, "Well-known anthropologist E.A. Hooten has said that from a Neanderthal skull an artist can fashion the features of a chimpanzee or a philosopher and that it is wise to ’...put not your faith in re-constructions.'"

16.In addition to being poor, the fossils are also inconsistent. The Boisei skull has a large crest on the top unlike any supposed hominid before it or after it and nothing like any human ever.

17.The brow over the eyes which supposedly characterized lesser humans existed in none of the fossils prior to Neanderthal or after.

18.Paleontologists have called simple rocks as hominid tools.

19.Even bones and teeth were picked as tools of hominids.

20.The most non-descript footprints were called those of hominids.

21.Biochemists Allen Wilson and Vincent Sarich discovered that the first people had to originate less than 200,000 years ago and could only have come from an original two people. This made virtually all the paleontologist's dates wrong and made all the posited bushes of human origins incorrect.

22."(That modern humans evolved in many different areas at the same time) is theoretically implausible based on current knowledge (in population genetics)." Popular geneticist Shahin Rouhani

23.Famous Paleontologist Roger Lewin admits, "The mitochondrial DNA technique appears to support the Noah's Ark hypothesis (that we originated from one set of people at the same location not many people and places as the evolutionists concluded).

24.Outside the strict fossil evidence, therefore, each branch of scientific analysis that has focused on the origin of modern humans - mitochondrial DNA, population genetics, ecology - has cast its vote to replacement, the Noah's Ark Hypothesis.

25.The paleontologist dates had to be changed. They had hominids dating as far back as 63 million years.

26.Biochemists and Molecular Biologists note that inferring relationships from fossils was "Fraught with potential error."

27.Sarich put it bluntly, "...it (a fossil) could not be (a hominid), because it was too old."

28.Paleontologists were slow to admit their errors or even look at any of the data. At first they just "...trimmed (their) dates...just in case there was something in it (the biochemistry data)." Famous Paleontologist David Pilbeam . Wilson stated that the paleontologists "...functioned as if we did not exist. They just ignored us."

29.After fifteen years, the paleontologists reluctantly accepted the biochemistry evidence. "We anthropologists were forced to admit we had been wrong and that Sarich and Wilson were closer to the right track than any of us had even imagined." Paleontologist Richard Leakey.

30.Paleontologists had been producing a new lineage every 10 - 20 years for 60 years. They could not draw these since, "To put it crudely, the appearance in a single species of a combination of characteristics some of which appear early...while others appear late."

31.Famous Paleontologist David Pilbeam, regarding two of the finds now known not to be hominids, observes, "We should have been aware how flimsy our original arguments had been and that should have made us more cautious. But it didn't."

32."That 130 years of very determined efforts to confirm Darwinism have done no better than to find a few ambiguous supporting examples is significant negative evidence."


Appendix D


Is the molecular evidence conclusive?

(a) DNA and RNA comparisons

By comparing differences in the molecular sequences of DNA and RNA molecules, biochemists try to classify species by their degree of similarity at the molecular level. The validity of these calculations is controversial. For example, all frog species look similar, "but their molecules differ as much as those of mammals, a group which contains such fantastically diverse forms as the whale, the bat, and the kangaroo."(Johnson, 1991) Humans and apes do have similarities at the molecular level. However, similarities do NOT prove a common ancestry.

(2) Cytochrome c.

Another molecular comparison that is made uses cytochrome c., a protein. "A standard reference table shows the percent sequence divergence between the cytochrome c. of a particular bacterium and a wide variety of more complex organisms, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects and angiosperms (plants). The sequence divergence from the bacterial form ranges from 64 percent (rabbit, turtle, penguin, carp, screw worm,) to 69 (sunflower). Judged by cytochrome c. comparisons, sesame plants and silkworms are just about as different from bacteria as humans are." (Johnson, 1991)

(3) Mitochondrial DNA

Mitochondrial DNA has been analyzed in the study of human descent. This analysis shows that all contemporary humans are descendants of a woman who lived in Africa less than 200,000 years ago. If this is true, than all the hominid fossils found in Africa that are older than 200,000 years old "could not be in the line of descent leading to modern humans." Is the molecular evidence conclusive in proving evolution? The answer is "No".