|
|
|
The story of the peppered moths does nothing to prove the theory of evolution.
|
The
neo-Darwinist model argues that life has evolved through two naturalistic
mechanisms: "natural selection" and "mutation". The basic
assertion of the theory is as follows: Natural selection and mutation are two
complementary mechanisms. The origin of evolutionary modifications is random
mutations that take place in the genetic structure of living things. The traits
brought about by the mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural
selection and therefore living things evolve.
When
we further probe into this theory, we find that there is no such evolutionary
mechanism at all, because neither natural selection nor mutations make any
contribution to the claim that different species have evolved and transformed
into one another.
As
a process of nature, natural selection was familiar to biologists before Darwin,
who defined it as a "mechanism that keeps species unchanging without being
corrupted". Darwin was the first person to put forward the assertion that
this process had evolutionary power and he then erected his entire theory on the
foundation of this assertion. However, since Darwin’s time, there has not been
a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes
living beings to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior palaeontologist of the
Museum of Natural History in England, stresses that natural selection has never
been observed to have the power to cause things to evolve:
“No
one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has
ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this
question1.”
Natural
selection holds that those living things that are more suited to the natural
conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring that will survive,
whereas those that are unfit will disappear. For example, in a deer herd under
the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive.
That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform
those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer.
When
we look at the few incidents the evolutionists have put forth as observed
examples of natural selection, we see that these are nothing but a simple
attempt to hoodwink.
"Industrial
Melanism"
In
1986 Douglas Futuyma published a book, The Biology of Evolution, which is
accepted as one of the sources explaining the theory of evolution by natural
selection in the most explicit way. The most famous of his examples on this
subject is about the colour of the moth population, which appeared to darken
during the Industrial Revolution in England. The story is based on a series of
experiments conducted by the British physicist and biologist Bernard Kettlewell
in the 1950s, and can be summarised as follows:
|
|
|
No useful mutations were ever observed in fruit flies
|
According
to the account, around the outset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the
colour of the tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this,
dark-coloured (melanic) moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by
the birds that fed on them and therefore they had very little chance of
survival. Fifty years later, in woodlands where industrial pollution had killed
the lichens, the barks of the trees had darkened, and this time the
light-coloured moths became the most hunted. As a result, the number of
light-coloured moths decreased whereas that of the dark-coloured ones increased
since the latter were not easily noticed. Evolutionists use this as substantive
evidence to their theory. Evolutionists, on the other hand, take refuge and
solace in window-dressing by showing how light-coloured moths
"evolved" into dark-coloured ones.
This
situation can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, for
natural selection did not give rise to a new form that had not existed before.
Dark coloured moths existed in the moth population before the Industrial
Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties in the
population changed. The moths had not acquired a new trait or an organ, which
would cause a "speciation". In order to have a moth turn into another
living species, new additions would have had to be made to the genes. That is,
an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to
include information about the physical traits of the moth.
As
molecular biologist Jonathan Wells explains in his book Icons of Evolution,
the story of the peppered moths, which is included in every evolutionist biology
book and has therefore, become an “icon” in this sense, does not reflect the
truth. Wells discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell’s experiment, which
is known as the “experimental proof” of the story, is actually a scientific
scandal. The most interesting point he asserted was that, “the moths on tree
trunks” photographed by Kettlewell, were actually dead moths. Kettlewell used
dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks and then photographed them. In
truth, there was little chance of taking such a picture as the moths rested not
on tree trunks but underneath the leaves2.
The
scientific community uncovered this fact only in the late 1990s. The collapse of
the myth of Industrial Melanism, which had been one of the most treasured
subjects in “introduction to evolution” courses for decades, greatly
disappointed evolutionists.
As
a result, “the most famous example of natural selection” was relegated to
the trash-heap of history as a scientific scandal. That was inevitable, because
natural selection is not an “evolutionary mechanism”, contrary to what
evolutionists claim. It does not have the capability to add a new organ to a
living organism, remove it, or transfer the organism into another species.
Can
Natural Selection Explain Complexity?
There
is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution,
because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of
a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a
fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird.
Another
of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural
selection is their effort to present this mechanism as a conscious designer.
However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that
can decide what is good and what is bad for living beings. As a result, natural
selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that have the feature of
"irreducible complexity". These systems and organs are composed of the
co-operation of a great number of parts and they are of no use if even one of
these parts is missing or defective. Therefore, the will that brings all these
parts together should be able to figure the future in advance and aim directly
for the benefit that is to be acquired at the last stage. Since natural
mechanism has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact which
also demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could
not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my
theory would absolutely break down3."
Natural
selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a
species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs.
That is, it cannot make anything evolve. Darwin accepted this reality by saying:
"Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to
occur4". This is why neo-Darwinism has
had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as the "cause of
beneficial changes".
Mutations
|
|
|
Mutations in a Chernobyl victim.
|
Mutations
are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is
found in the nucleus of the cell of a living organism and which holds all the
genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external
effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an
"accident" and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or
changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and
modification that the cell cannot repair them.
The
reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure and random
effects can only cause harm to this structure. B.G. Ranganathan states:
“Mutations
are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is
that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply
that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a
highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in
a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be
ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction5.”
Not
surprisingly, no useful mutation has been observed so far. Every effort put into
"generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades,
evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies
as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly.
Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation
was ever observed6.
The
same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings
have deleterious results and take place in humans resulting in physical
deformities and infirmities such as mongolism, Down’s syndrome, albinism,
dwarfism or cancer. These mutations are presented in evolutionist textbooks as
examples of "the evolutionary mechanism at work". Needless to say, a
process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary
mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce better forms that are more fit
to survive.
Consequently,
it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no
mechanism in nature that can cause them to evolve. This agrees with the evidence
of the fossil record, which demonstrates that this scenario is far removed from
reality.
Adnan Oktar
is a respected author who authored more than 150 books with the
pen name Harun Yahya on faith-related topics, on the signs of
Allah in the universe, on political issues concerning ummah, and
research-based books on Freemasons. His articles are already
regularly being published in many Turkish magazines/newspapers and
foreign Islamic magazines/ papers in all the corners of the world.
Many of his books, among which we can mention "The Evolution
Deceit", "Perished Nations" and "For Men of
Understanding", have been published in England in English and
gained tremendous success.You
may obtain information about Harun Yahya books at: www.hyahya.org
References:
1-
Colin Patterson, "Cladistics", Interview with Brian Leek, Peter Franz,
March 4, 1982, BBC.
2-
Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach
About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 141-151.
3-
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard
University Press, 1964, p. 189.
4-
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard
University Press, 1964, p. 177.
5-
B. G. Ranganathan, Origins? Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988.
6-
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983,
p. 48.
Read
Also:
