HAECKEL'S EMBRYO DRAWINGS ARE FRAUDULENT

5:23 PM mindo , Posted in , , , , , , , 0 Comments



With his faked embryo drawings, Ernst Haeckel deceived the world of science for a century.
In his 1868 book Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The History of Natural Creation) Ernst Haeckel suggested that he had made various comparisons using human, monkey and dog embryos. The drawings he produced consisted of nearly identical embryos. On the basis of these drawings, Haeckel then suggested that the life forms involved had common origins.  

But the true state of affairs was very different. Haeckel had produced a drawing of just a single embryo, and then produced human, monkey and dog embryos from this by making very small changes. In other words, it was a hoax.
That was the supposed “scientific work” (!) that Darwin citied as a reference in his book The Descent of Man. In fact, some people realized that Haeckel’s illustrations were a distortion even before Darwin wrote his book. Following the exposure of the fraud, Haeckel himself admitted the huge scientific fraud he had perpetrated:
After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed.[i]

But in order to keep the dogma of Darwinism propped up, there was a need to declare that one of the false pieces of evidence in their possession was actually “proof of evolution.” The fraud perpetrated or Darwinists being aware of it was unimportant; what mattered in Darwinists’ eyes was for it to be heralded as evidence of evolution, even if it was fraudulent. 

Despite the exposure of the fraud, Darwin and the biologists who supported him continued to regard Haeckel’s drawings as a reference source. And that further encouraged Haeckel. In the years that followed he produced further series of comparative embryo illustrations. He prepared diagrams showing fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, rabbit and human embryos side by side. The noteworthy aspect of these was how the embryos of these different life forms initially resembled one another very closely and gradually diverged over the course of their development. The similarity between the human and fish embryos in particular was very striking indeed. So much so that fictitious “gills” could be seen in the human embryo drawings, just as in those of the fish. Under the scientific guise he gave these illustrations, Haeckel launched his “theory of recapitulation:” Ontology Repeats Phylogeny. The meaning of the slogan was this; according to Haeckel, during the developmental process it undergoes in the egg or the mother’s womb, every living thing repeats the “evolutionary history” of its species, right from the very beginning. For example, the human embryo in the mother’s womb first resembles a fish and then, in subsequent weeks, a salamander, a reptile and a mammal, finally “evolving” into a human being.

But this was a huge fraud.
In the 1990s the British embryologist Michael Richardson examined vertebrate embryos under the microscope and determined no resemblance to Haeckel’s drawings. Following their study, Richardson and his team published genuine photographs of embryos in the August 1997 issue of the journal Anatomy and Embryology. It appeared that Haeckel had taken various template designs and distorted them in various ways so that the embryos would resemble one another. He added imaginary organs to embryos, removed organs from others and depicted embryos of very different sizes as being the same in scale. The clefts that Haeckel depicted as “gills” in the human embryo had in fact nothing to do with gills at all. They were actually the middle ear canal and the beginnings of the parathyroid and thymus glands. The embryos did not in fact resemble one another at all. Haeckel had made all kinds of distortions in his illustrations.

An article about Haeckel’s drawings, for long maintained on the agenda as false evidence of evolution, appeared in the September 5, 1997, issue of Sciencemagazine titled “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” following which the whole scientific world agreed that there had been a fraud. The article contained the following lines:
Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. "It (Haeckel's drawings) looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology,"[ii]
In March 2000 the Harvard University evolutionist and paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said that he had long been aware of this fraud. But he had preferred to remain silent, as required by the system of the Dajjal.[iii] Once the public had learned that the drawings were fraudulent, Gould stated that it was academic murder for them still to be used and said: "We do, I think, have the right, to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks."[iv]
Haeckel’s fraud was so blatant and so great that he was accused of fraud by five different professors and found guilty by the Jena University court.[v]
Sir Gavin de Beer, from Great Britain’s Natural History Museum, described this terrible disgrace as follows:  
Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel’s ‘theory of recapitulation,’ facile, tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science.”[vi]
These false illustrations of Haeckel’s in fact achieved their intended aim on behalf of evolution. Although they had been declared to be false, they still had a negative impact as a great many people still imagined them to be genuine, and despite their scientific invalidity they still negatively altered the general views regarding human beings and themselves of people still undergoing education in schools. Henry M. Morris, founder of the Creation Research Society and the Institute of Creation Research analyzed the state of affairs in these terms:
Ever since Darwin—and especially since Freud—psychologists have assumed that man is merely an evolved animal and have evaluated his behaivoral problems on an animalistic basis. Experiments with monkeys or other animals (even with insects) are used for guidance in dealing with human problems...
The bitter fruit of the recapitulation theory (long since discredited scientifically) continued to grow in many areas of society...[vii]
Amazingly enough, Haeckel’s fraudulent illustrations, described as a scientific disgrace and treated with amazement even by some evolutionists when put forward as evidence, still maintain their place in various text books. This astonishing state of affairs shows the exact scale of the Darwinist deception. The University of California molecular biologist Jonathan Wells describes the situation thus:
Many textbooks use slightly redrawn versions of Haeckel’s embryos. One example is the 1999 edition of Peter Raven and George Johnson’s Biology, which accompanies its drawings with the following caption: “Notice that the early embryonic stages of these vertebrates bear a striking resemblance to each other.” The text also informs students: “Some of the strongest anatomical evidence supporting evolution comes from comparisons of how organisms develop. In many cases, the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors.”
Other examples include the 1998 edition of Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart’sBiology: the Unity and Diversity of Life, which accompanies its drawings with the mis-statement that “the early embryos of vertebrates strongly resemble one another;” the latest edition of James Gould and William Keeton’s Biological Science, which reports: “One fact of embryology that pushed Darwin toward the idea of evolution is that the early embryos of most vertebrates closely resemble one another;” and Burton Guttman’s 1999 textbook, Biology, which accompanies its redrawn version of Haeckel’s embryos with the following: “An animal’s embryonic development holds clues to the forms of its ancestors.”[viii]

The fact that Haeckel’s false illustrations are still used in biology text books, as if they represented proof of evolution, is without doubt no simple error. Although being forgeries, these illustrations are deliberately included in text books. The main reason for this is without doubt that they represent significant false evidence for the key point of Darwinism, the falsehood that man is an irresponsible animal. Jonathan Wells makes this comment about this lie deliberately maintained by Darwinist scientists:
Haeckel’s embryos seem to provide such powerful evidence for Darwin’s theory that some version of them can be found in almost every modern textbook dealing with evolution. Yet biologists have known for over a century that Haeckel faked his drawings; vertebrate embryos never look as similar as he made them out to be. Furthermore, the stage Haeckel labeled the “first” is actually midway through development; the similarities he exaggerated are preceded by striking differences in earlier stages of development. Although you might never know it from reading biology textbooks, Darwin’s “strongest single class of facts” is a classic example of how evidence can be twisted to fit a theory.[ix]
Although Darwinists were delighted in the short term that a lie planned by the dajjal was put forward as false evidence for a heretical theory and had such an impact, it in fact heralded terrible disappointment for them. Through Haeckel's drawings, people saw the scale of the deception to which a senior scientist would go in the name of Darwinism. It was thus once again proved how Darwinism was in constant need of a “lie.” People clearly saw how evolutionists could turn a blind eye to fraud. Haeckel's fraud was another significant piece of evidence of the destruction of the theory of evolution and the system of the dajjal. This fraud may have been met with silence in the 20th century, but the 21st century has seen this and similar frauds exposed and the genuine scientific evidence put on display. The more frauds have been exposed and the more genuine scientific evidence produced, the more the collapse of Darwinism has become ever more apparent.

DARWINISTS: ''WE APOLOGIZE ONCE AGAIN, WE WERE ALSO MISTAKEN ABOUT ARDI''

5:23 PM mindo , Posted in , , , , , , 0 Comments


Darwinists have had to keep apologizing for the last 150 years; “sorry, that was a hoax,” they said, “our mistake, it was a pig tooth, not a human one,” they said, “sorry about that, the moths were deliberately stuck onto the trees,” “the skull had been planed down,” “feathers had been stuck onto the dinosaur by hand,” “it appears that this fossil is still alive and not an intermediate form at all,” and “the primordial atmosphere was not like that at all,” they said. “Embryos are not like this at all, the illustrations are fakes,” they said. “We said it was the ancestor of man, but it appears it was just an ordinary ape,” they said. They have kept on apologizing and retracting their claims. They have hurriedly withdrawn fossils from museums. Declaring something to be an intermediate fossil in one issue of a journal, they have issued an apology in the subsequent edition. And this has carried on right down to the present day. 
 
The reason is this: DARWINISM IS SIMPLY A DEVIANT IDEOLOGY, WITH NOTHING SCIENTIFIC ABOUT IT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVEN A SINGLE PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. It is for that reason that Darwinists constantly manufacture false evidence. But their frauds are only short-lived.
When their frauds emerge into the light of day, Darwinists then have to stand up before the public and apologize. Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, the peppered moths, Haeckel’s embryo drawings, the Coelacanth, Lucy, Archaeoraptor, the equine evolution series, the skulls which they have tried to be depict as evidence for the myth of human evolution, Archaeopteryx and most recently Ida have all gone down as some of the worst frauds there have ever been. Ida, the subject of great show all over the world, was the most recent instance of this. This fossil, described falsely as “the ancestor of man” and as “the greatest evidence for evolution” on one of the world’s best known TV channels, the subject of documentary films and press conferences, eventually turned out to be nothing more than an ordinary lemur fossil. Following all the clamor they had created, Darwinists then had to apologize yet again. (You can find more detailed information on the subject here.)
ARDI HAS ALSO RECENTLY BEEN A PART OF ALL THIS FUROR. Darwinists took an ordinary monkey fossil and totally rebuilt the completely fragmented pelvic bone, which its millimetrically small pieces continues to shatter , in such a way as to permit it “to walk upright.” One of the main reasons why the fossil in question was chosen as the greatest potential candidate for the imaginary human evolution scenario was the fact that its pelvic bone was reconstructed by Darwinist scientists “in the way they wished.” Darwinists did what needed to be done in the name of Darwinism and Ardi was shamelessly portrayed to the whole world as an “upright-walking ape.” They had no hesitation in depicting it as the greatest evidence for supposed human evolution. But like all the others, this furor was also short-lived, and the Darwinist fraud soon came out into the light of day and directly, from statements made by Darwinist scientists. 
 
Now it’s time FOR THEM TO APOLOGIZE FOR ARDI.

The Darwinist William Jungers, head of the anatomical sciences department of the Stony Brook University, Long Island, medical center made this comment about the claims that Ardi represents an “ancestor of man:”
I think some of the things they said might have been for effect.[1]
The Darwinist Tim White from the University of California and his team, who examined Ardi and suggested that it might be the missing link in the supposed evolution of man, had to make this admission:  
"There are no apparent features sufficiently unique to warrant the exclusion of Ar. ramidus as being ancestral to Australopithecus,"[2]
The fact that the totally shattered pelvic bone and its surroundings were reconstructed completely in the light of Darwinist scientists’ interpretations was also explicitly set out by Darwinist scientists. Jungers said this on the subject:
Maybe the pieces do fit together nicely, but the reality is they start out with a very damaged specimen, and they end up with something very similar to an australopithecine [an imaginary human-like group including Lucy]". "It's very difficult not to make them look like something you have in your mind if there's any chance of play"
... Ardi, requires a lot of guesswork.[3]
After examining the fossil remains Jungers said, “there is no way that they could belong to ‘an animal that wasn’t often walking on its hind legs’ unless the data ‘were deliberately ignored or if we had made them up’.”[4] With that statement it was revealed that Tim White and his team had perpetrated yet another deception in the name of Darwinism. 
It is not only the pelvic bone findings that refute the claims made about Ardi. One article published in Science magazine stated that the anatomy of Ardi’s hind feet showed that it was a climbing animal. An article titled “How Humanlike Was Ardi?” by Katherine Harmon of Scientific American magazine said that not a single part of the animal’s feet showed that it stood upright. The feet, and the big toes in particular, exhibit features still found in present-day chimpanzees that assist in climbing. Jungers summarizes the situation by saying:
[Ardi] really doesn’t show any adaptations for bipedalism at all.[5]
Lacking a single piece of evidence with which to prove their claims, Darwinists are now resorting to the following deception in order to be able to portray this life form as the supposed ancestor of man: “The females were small, because they looked after the young while the males went hunting.” This wretched claim is in fact important evidence of the hopeless position in which Darwinists find themselves. Since they have no evidence in their possession, they have no hesitation over resorting to demagoguery. It is shameful for a scientist to make such a claim and, on the basis of it, to declare that a perfect bonobo monkey is in fact the ancestor of man. But no matter how embarrassing it may be, Darwinists are obliged to repeat these pitiful claims for the sake of deviant Darwinist ideology.

There is little need to take such a claim seriously and respond to it. But it will be useful, from the point of view of showing the wretched state into which those making it have fallen, to make this clear: human beings are not the only living things to have a family life that includes division of labor. Many living things live as families, and both males and females within the family have their own separate tasks. In many it is the males that hunt, while the females take care of the young. Therefore, the fact that the female of a particular life form does not hunt, but looks after the young, DOES NOT, OF COURSE, MAKE IT HUMAN. This ludicrous claim clearly reveals the deception of which Darwinist logic rests.

Conclusion:
The Darwinist dictatorship is now in a hopeless position. They are at a loss how to resurrect the deceased Darwin and his ideas. They are trying to retrieve the position in a state of despair and panic. They are therefore prepared to risk ridicule and espousing nonsensical claims to that end. That is how Darwinism has collapsed and been defeated in the 21st century. Ardi has again made that collapse and rout crystal clear. Darwinists have had to retract all their claims concerning Ardi, and have now realized that they can no longer deceive people as they used to in the past. False fossils that used to be displayed in museums for 40 years are now being exposed for what they really are, and frauds now have a life span of only a few days, or even hours. Darwinists’ efforts to bring evolution back to life with false fossils are all in vain. Darwinists themselves now see and admit this. 

THE EVOLUTION OF THE HORSE SERIES IS A FRAUD

5:22 PM mindo , 0 Comments


In 1879, two well-known evolutionists of the time went even further in their activities intended to constitute evidence for the fictitious evolution of the horse scenario and set up the equine series that Darwinists would maintain on the agenda for many years to come. The American fossil researcher Othniel Charles Marsh and Thomas Huxley (known as Darwin’s bulldog) established a series by setting out various hoofed fossils on the number of nails on the front and rear feet and the structure of their teeth. One small mammal fossil previously named Hyracotherium by Sir Richard Owen in 1841 was renamed in such a way as to echo evolution, being given the name Eohippus, meaning “Dawn Horse.” The pair published their claims and diagrams in the American Journal of Science, thus laying the foundations of the horse series laid out from Eohippus to the present day in museums and text books as supposed evidence of evolution. The main stages in this fictitious series were Eohippus, Orohippus, Miohippus, Hipparion and the present-day Equus.
This fictitious series was portrayed as the greatest supposed evidence for the evolution of the horse for the following century. The decrease in the number of toes and the regular increase in size, from smaller to larger, was enough to convince evolutionists.
 Shortly afterward, inconsistencies within the horse series began manifesting themselves. New fossils dug up and attempted to be inserted into the false horse series became a problem. Because characteristics such as the fossils’ location, age and toe number formed inconsistencies and impaired the series, which turned into an inconsistent and meaningless mass of fossils in the face of these new specimens.
Many Darwinists were gradually forced to admit that the Darwinist horse series scenario was not based on any genuine evidence. In November 1980 a 4-day conference was held in the Chicago Museum of Natural History, which was attended by 150 evolutionists and considered the problems facing the theory of evolution. Boyce Rensberger, who spoke at the conference, described how the horse series had no basis in the fossil record and that no such gradual process as the evolution of the horse ever happened:
The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown. [i]

 Hyracotherium, placed at the beginning of the so-called horse series, was originally identified by Richard Owen, an anti-Darwinist. But later paleontologists sought to conform this creature to evolution.  
Another problem in the fictitious evolution of the horse series is that of dating. Doctor Nicholas Comninellis comments: 
An additional challenge to the proposal of horse evolution is that the timing is inconsistent. The theory of evolution is based on the concept that one species is prone to evolve into another because it is better adapted for survival. This leads to extinction of the first species. In the case of horses, the three-toed must not have been as hearty as the one-toed. Evolution demands millions of years for transition to occur between species— plenty of time for the first species to die out.
However, today we know that the three-toed and one-toed horses lived together in North America. The fact that varieties of horses co-existed is completely inconsistent with evolution’s explanation. Add to this the fact that missing links between Hyracotherium, Miohippus, and Equus have never been identified. Rather than lending support for evolution, the history of the horse is more consistent with special creation—fully formed beings that were created simultaneously. ii
Although the invalidity of the evolution of the horse series has been brought out into the open day and Darwinists have admitted this state of affairs, this mythical series is still used, like other Darwinist frauds, in Darwinist publications and text books. The series is depicted as concrete fact and placed on display in museums of natural history curated by world-famous paleontologists and scientists. Dr. Niles Eldredge, an evolutionist and paleontologist who served as director of the world-renowned American Museum of Natural History, admitted some 20 years ago that evolutionist claims regarding the horse series on display in his own museum were based solely upon their powers of imagination. Eldredge also criticized the way that this speculative series was portrayed as scientific fact in such a way as to find its way into school books:
I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem. iii

Huxley, known as "Darwin's bulldog," was the first theoretician of the imaginary horse series.
The Darwinist Eldredge's analysis is a most accurate one. Since deliberate distortions represent the essence of the system of the dajjal, this system engages in all kinds of lies, deceptions, hoaxes and distortions. All the examples of Darwinist deception listed above have been exposed, and their false nature has even had to be admitted by Darwinist scientists. These examples are sufficient to show the true face of the system of the dajjal. But it will still be useful to issue the following reminder: the theory of evolution, Darwinist ideology in other words, is built on a lie intended to deny the existence of Allah. Therefore, all the claims, suggestions and evidence produced by Darwinism are false. All the statements to the effect that “proof of evidence has been discovered,” “living things evolved,” “or “human beings are descended from apes” are lies. Darwinists espouse a lie. Their illogical obedience and devotion to the system of the dajjal is blind devotion to the religion of Darwinism solely in order to be able to oppose belief in Allah.  
The fact is that they espouse a superstition, a terrible error. Almighty Allah, the Lord and Creator of All, says in His verses: 
If anyone desires anything other than Islam as a religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers. (Surah Al ‘Imran, 85)

Everyone in the heavens and everyone on the earth belong to Allah. Those who call on something other than Allah are not really following their partner-gods. They are only following conjecture. They are only guessing. (Surah Yunus, 66) 

 

Unable to Account for a Single Protein, Darwinists Now Place Their Hopes in Fossilized Footprints

5:21 PM mindo , Posted in , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments


There has been great excitement in the Darwinist media in recent days. Darwinists discovered a new tool for speculation and rushed to pontificate about it with a single voice. A tactic dating back 150 years was employed. Certain Darwinist publications were in unanimous agreement. The aim was to use the discovery of a footprint to defend the same false scenario as much as possible and to bring the evolution deceit that has gone on for so many years back to life in its final days. The subject of the speculation in question was footprints discovered in Poland belonging to a life form thought to date back 395 million years. In order to cover up their defeat, Darwinists claimed that these perfect prints belonged to “the first life form to move from water to dry land.” 
Darwinist propaganda is based on depicting something non-existent as actually existing, a fictitious history that never happened as if it were actually reality. Some people may therefore find it perfectly normal for Darwinists to make illogical claims, supported by no evidence, regarding the fossil. The fact is however, that Darwinists are DECEIVING people with these reports, as they have always done.
In particular, not a single transitional fossil exists to confirm such a fictitious event as the “passage from water to land.” (And not such on that subject; Darwinists have not a single transitional fossil to support any transition scenarios.) Darwinists’ attempts to use PERFECT FOOTPRINTS as evidence for this nonsensical claim, when there exists not one transitional fossil out of the millions that should exist according to their ideas, is totally illogical.
Darwinist scenarios of supposed evolution and once again been overturned
These footprints are exceedingly clear evidence that a perfect amphibian (a species of crocodile probably around 2.5 meters long) was living on Earth 395 million years ago. Darwinists’ amazement stems from the fact that these prints conflict with the false transition scenarios “from the primitive to the more developed.” In their view, no such perfect and complex terrestrial life form should have existed 395 million years ago. But the fossil records have always refuted Darwinists’ false evolutionary chronologies, and are still doing so today. Readers will recall that perfect and fully formed HORSES were living at a time (some 50 million years ago) when Darwinists claim that the only horses, fictitious ones, were about the size of a dog. Extraordinarily complex EYES were also in existence at a time when Darwinists claim that only worms and sponges should have been around. The footprints in question completely overturn all Darwinist fictitious evolutionary history scenarios. Unable to hide this perfect fossil, Darwinists have therefore looked for a solution in speculation. 

 

A 45-million-year-old wild horse skull
 

Trilobites with perfect compound eyes that lived around 540 million years ago
Here it will be useful to reiterate that the only supposed evidence that Darwinists had for their claims regarding a transition from water to land, that they repeated for so many years, was the Coelacanth. Darwinists’ engaged in such wide-ranging speculation about the fossil remains of this creature that people only realized they had been deceived when a living Coelacanth was caught. The Coelacanth, a bottom dwelling fish, completely rebutted all the claims about its supposed “primitive” nature. Since then, more than 300 living Coelacanths have been caught, and faced by their perfection and complexity, Darwinists no longer raise the subject at all.
The prints in question totally eliminate the Darwinist claims about Tiktaalik, the second fossil they sheltered behind after the Coelacanth debacle. Because these prints are 18 million years older than Tiktaalik, which Darwinists claim is a transitional fossil. Nonetheless, however, the prints are perfectly regular and belong to perfect, fossilized feet. There is no evolution here. Just perfectly regular footprints from a living thing. These footprints are 18 million years older than Tiktaalik, which Darwinists seek to depict as moving from water to dry land and whose fins, in their view, were just supposedly turning into feet. This eliminates the latest false proof on which Darwinists were relying and totally overturns the deception of a transition from water to dry land.
No matter how much fanfare Darwinists may make, this fossil, just like the others, totally overthrows the false concept of evolution. The first prints found on land and perfect ones. Not a trace exists of the evolution that Darwinists maintain happens as a result of mutation. The toes are in a perfect sequence. The animal was created in a manner ideally suited to carry its own weight. The steps it took show it walked in the same way as crocodiles today, and no error can be seen in the prints’ symmetry. The animal is not a deformed one that came into being through chance, haphazard mutations, but a perfect species of crocodile created, with its perfect and flawless body, in a single moment.
This point is very important:
Darwinists are inevitably defeated on all their claims. But the point that needs to be made clear here, AND THAT TOTALLY DEMOLISHES DARWINISTS, is THE FACT THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR A SINGLE PROTEIN in the claws of the animal that left these prints behind. Darwinism COMES TO A DEAD HALT HERE. Darwinists can produce as many claims as they like about fictitious evolutionary stages, footprints, fictitious fins and feet or dinosaurs trying to fly, BUT EVOLUTION ALREADY COLLAPSES AT THE VERY INITIAL STAGE OF LIFE. The pitiful Darwinist statements made, the pages of description and the scientific papers in the world’s best known Darwinist journals are all part of an intense mass deception. By making such statements, Darwinists are trying not to let on that they have been routed by a single protein. What really obliterates Darwinism, before fossils, paleontology, microbiology, genetics and the complexity in living things, IS A SINGLE PROTEIN.
By the will of Allah, this is the century in which A SINGLE PROTEIN, invisible to the naked eye, created by Allah as a work of His artistry, has totally demolished Darwinism and brought this terrible deception to an end. Despairing Darwinist wriggling will serve no purpose from now on.
Say: ‘Call on those you make claims for besides Allah. They have no power over even the smallest particle, either in the heavens or in the earth. They have no share in them. He has no need of their support.’ (Surah Saba’, 22)

WHY ARE DARWINISTS STILL RESORTING TO FALSE DINO-BIRD MYTHS?

5:20 PM mindo , Posted in , , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments


The reason is this: On the one hand, Darwinists are suffering the tension caused by their terrible rout and collapse, while on the other they are sheltering behind a philosophy of “nothing untoward has happened.” For that reason, they try to portray some fossils that fall into their hands in a deceptive light. This generally involves an extinct ape fossil, but sometimes also a dinosaur fossil, the original of which we have never seen in any Darwinist publication. They then blatantly lie about this fossil, using a false “scientific” mask and drawings made showing it flying with huge, long wings to describe it as a dino-bird.
What we need to remember is this: all the deceptions behind all the Darwinist claims for the last many years have been exposed in these pages, straight away and with incontrovertible scientific evidence. The claims made regarding all the dino-bird fossils brought up in recent months in particular have also been definitively silenced with the exposure of all the details of Darwinist frauds. Darwinists have been unable to rebut this scientific evidence. The extraordinary deceptions that the proponents of evolution have raised in order to deceive people by distorting the facts about fossils and in order to turn perfect dinosaurs into birds have all been clearly exposed. However, exposed to the terror and panic of defeat and ignorant of any other way than deception, Darwinists still have no compunctions about employing the same ready-made and primitive tactics.
The latest example of this is a 160-million-year-old, 3-meter long dinosaur fossil found in China and given the name Haplocheirus sollers. The greatest Darwinist claim about this fossil is that it has feathers, in other words, that it is a dinosaur beginning to become a bird. This impossible and fraudulent claim has appeared, as if it were true, adorned with scientific terminology, false analyses and fake drawings in the pages of all Darwinist scientific journals, including those in Turkey.
The fact is, as always, that the idea that these dinosaurs had feathers is a huge lie. Note how in all Darwinist publications the best-known Darwinist deceptive tactic of “false illustrations” is on show regarding the fossil in question. There is no other evidence, not a single picture, regarding the existence of the fossil. In fact, the original paper published in the journal Science makes no reference to the fossil in question having feathers, but as a requirement of the need to deceive people, feathers were merely mentioned in order to be able to make a link between them and dinosaurs. What other Darwinist publications quickly did was to herald this dinosaur fossil as the oldest ancestor of birds by adding a statement to the effect that “it had feathers on its wings.” The fact is, however, that the animal is a perfect, scale-covered reptile. This is a clear example of the Darwinist demagoguery that has been going on for years.
 
Not a single example of a transitional fossil exists
No matter how much fuss Darwinists may make about every dinosaur fossil they find, those fossils have always represented perfect, fully formed and complete dinosaurs. According to the claims made by Darwinists, who regard random mutations as their false gods, these life forms allegedly evolved gradually and by chance, and they should be monstrous-looking, abnormal and indescribably entities, with all their organs in totally all the wrong places. But they are not like that at all. Not a single fossil meeting that description has ever been found. On the contrary, all the fossils ever found belong to perfect and flawless life forms. Faced by the fact that living things are perfectly symmetrical, equipped with the Golden Ratio and immaculate and fully formed, Darwinists are in a state of trouble and in a total quandary. Indeed, the fact that most recent dinosaur fossil is a perfect and very ancient one again poses a huge challenge to Darwinism. The artificially manufactured feathered dinosaur tales are a manifestation of this Darwinist rout and the dead-end in which Darwinists find themselves.
Moreover, the number of fossils that all pose such an insuperable quandary for Darwinists is approximately 300 million. But NOT ONE OF THESE 300 MILLION IS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL.
 
The existence of a single protein is sufficient to inflict a total defeat on Darwinism
The thing that really demolishes Darwinism is A SINGLE PROTEIN, on which Darwinists expend many pages of fanciful tales and which both dinosaurs and all other living things possess. It is utterly astonishing how Darwinists can engage in evolutionary propaganda about perfect life forms when they are unable to account for the emergence of a single protein. Just one of the hundreds of proteins in the 100 trillion cells possessed by Darwinists demolishes and eradicates Darwinism. The way that Darwinists try to pull the wool over people’s eyes, as if there were no such reality, and imagine that they can still deceive us is the most unbelievable blindness.
Darwinists must take this call of ours on board: Before making illogical statements regarding the fictitious theory of evolution, and before resorting to falsehoods, THEY MUST FIRST EXPLAIN HOW A SINGLE PROTEIN CAME INTO BEING. They must not waste time on frauds regarding fossils without doing this first. Darwinists must also not forget this: that their inability to account for a single protein has been announced to the whole world it is no longer possible for them to fool people with false reports about dino-birds. A great many people now laugh at the theory of evolution. Fraud no longer serves any purpose. Belief in our Almighty Lord is increasing all the time and, by Allah’s leave, will continue to do so. This century will be one of belief in Allah. The victory achieved by Darwinists in the 19th century will totally disappear in the 21st. This is Allah’s promise. And no power can change that, unless Allah Himself wills otherwise.

A 165-MILLION-YEAR-OLD FOSSIL SPIDER FOUND IN CHINA

5:19 PM mindo , Posted in , , , , , , , , 0 Comments


A 165-million-year-old fossil spider discovered in the Daohugou region of Northern China is one of the oldest fossil spider specimens found to date. Another noteworthy characteristic of this fossil is that, as can be seen in the picture, it is perfectly preserved. Paul Selden, a paleontologist from the University of Kansas, says, “The level of detail preserved in the fossils is amazing.” (Archeology Daily News)
As shown in the picture, this spider that lived 165 million years ago possessed all the features of those living today. Having remained unchanged for millions of years, spiders represent a huge dead-end for the theory of evolution. Spiders always appear with the same characteristics in the fossil record, and are one of the proofs that living things never evolved. The spider in the picture below is 165 million years old, and there is no difference between it and present-day spiders.

A 165-million-year-old spider

A spider living today is identical to a fossil spider that lived 165 million years ago, and has never changed at all; in other words, it never evolved.

Statis in the Fossil Records

4:34 PM mindo , Posted in , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

When we investigate natural history, we find not living things "evolving into different anatomical structures," but ones that have remained unchanged, even over the course of hundreds of millions of years. This lack of change is referred to by scientists as "stasis." Living fossils and organisms that have not survived down to the present day, but which have left their fossils behind in various strata of the Earth's history are concrete proof of stasis in the fossil record. And this stasis shows that no gradual process of evolution ever occurred. In an article in the magazine Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould describes this inconsistency between the fossil record and the theory of evolution:

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. 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.'13 
If a living thing survives in a flawless form down to the present day with all the features it displayed millions of years ago and having undergone no change whatsoever, then this evidence is powerful enough to entirely dismiss the gradual evolution model anticipated by Darwin. Moreover, far from there being just one example to demonstrate this, there are in fact millions. Countless organisms exhibit no differences from their original states, which first appeared millions or even hundreds of millions of years ago. As openly stated by Niles Eldredge, this state of affairs is causing paleontologists to avoid the idea of evolution, which is still supported today:
No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history.14
The stasis in the fossil record really does represent the greatest problem facing the proponents of evolution. That's because evolutionists look in the fossil record for the evidence they need to prove their fictitious process of evolution. However, fossils provide none of the intermediate forms they seek, but furthermore, reveal that living things alleged to have undergone a process of change over time never underwent any evolution at all, even after hundreds of millions of years. Living forms are identical to how they appeared originally, and never underwent the gradual change predicted by Darwin.
If evolution had really taken place then living organisms should have developed by gradual incremental changes and continued to change over time. But the fossil record shows the exact opposite. Different groups of organisms appeared suddenly with no similar ancestors behind them, and remained in their original state for millions of years, undergoing no changes at all.
Ammonites emerged some 350 million years ago, then became extinct 65 million years ago. But during the intervening 300 million years, the structure seen in the fossils never changed.
A starfish dating back some 100 million years.
Horseshoe crab fossil from the Ordovician period. This 450-million-year-old fossil is no different from specimens living today.
Oyster fossils from the Ordovician period, no different from their modern counterparts.
35-million-year-old fossil flies, exhibiting the same bodily structure as flies today.
This 170-million-year-old fossil shrimp from the Jurassic period is no different from living shrimps.
This 140-million-year-old dragonfly fossil found in Bavaria, Germany is identical to living  dragonflies.
Niles Eldredge describes how the stasis for long neglected by evolutionist paleontologists undermines Darwin's claim of gradual evolution:
But stasis was conveniently dropped as a feature of life's history to be reckoned with in evolutionary biology. And stasis had continued to be ignored until Gould and I showed that such stability is a real aspect of life's history which must be confronted—and that, in fact, it posed no fundamental threat to the basic notion of evolution itself. For that was Darwin's problem: to establish the plausibility of the very idea of evolution, Darwin felt that he had to undermine the older ... doctrine of species fixity. Stasis, to Darwin, was an ugly inconvenience.15
Seeing the invalidity of Darwin's claim of gradual evolution, Eldredge advanced forward the idea of "punctuated equilibrium" together with Stephen J. Gould, and his words above were an accurate expression of the difficulty that stasis posed for Darwin. Yet the point that Eldredge ignores and neglects is that the stasis that is so manifest in the fossil record also represents a major dilemma for punctuated equilibrium.

The paleontologists who proposed the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution admitted that the stasis in the fossil record presented a "problem." But since they considered it impossible to abandon the idea of evolution, they suggested that living things came into being not through small changes, but by sudden and very large ones. According to this claim, evolutionary changes took place in very small intervals of time, and in very narrow populations. Until this sudden jump, the population had exhibited little or no change and remained in a kind of equilibrium. Since the hypothetical population concerned was a narrow one, so-called large mutations would very quickly be favored by natural selection, and thus—somehow—the emergence of a new species would be established.
Punctuated equilibrium suggests that the formation of a new species took place within communities containing very small numbers of plants or animals. But this model of evolution has now been refuted, with a great deal of proof, by the sciences of microbiology and genetics. (For detailed information, see Harun Yahya's Darwinism Refuted.) Nor is there any scientific basis for punctuated equilibrium's claim regarding "narrow populations," put forward in order to account for the stasis in the fossil record and therefore, the absence of intermediate forms. Punctuated equilibrium was dealt a severe blow when it was revealed that in genetic terms, a restricted population presents no advantage for the theory of evolution, but rather a disadvantage! Far from developing in such a robust way as to give rise to a new species, narrow populations actually cause genetic defects. The reason is because the individuals in small isolated groups constantly reproduce within a narrow genetic pool. Therefore, normally "heterozygote" individuals—those enjoying a wide gene pool—become "homozygote" or more restricted in their genetic variations. The result is that normally recessive defective genes become dominant, thus producing ever-greater defects and genetic diseases in the population.
Therefore, the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record cannot be a result of evolution taking place in narrow populations. In addition to all these scientific impossibilities, the adherents of punctuated equilibrium can't explain why traces of changes in such small populations are never found in the fossil record.
This clearly demonstrates that both the gradual model of evolution that Darwin proposed, and the punctuated equilibrium model put forward to cover up its deficiencies, are not able to account for the stasis in the fossil record, the sudden appearance of living forms, and the lack of transitional ones. Whatever theory may be proposed, all claims that living organisms underwent evolution will end in failure and are scientifically condemned to collapse, because living things did not evolve. God has created all living things in their perfect states, from nothing. Therefore, all claims that living things evolved are doomed to disappear.
Stephen J. Gould, one of the intellectual fathers of the "punctuated equilibrium" theory, admitted this in all clarity at a conference he gave at Hobart & William Smith College:
Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome ... brings terrible distress. ... They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon RSS Favorites
Powered by Blogger