The Death Throes Of Molecular Evolution Scenarios

An article in the 7 April 2006, edition of Science magazine has recently inspired the publication of numerous reports in the media. It is striking that these reports claim that molecular evolution has been proven. However, when examined, the article that inspired these reports consists of an evolutionist scenario concerning the emergence of a hormone-receptor relationship.

An article in the 7 April 2006, edition of Science magazine has recently inspired the publication of numerous reports in the media. It is striking that these reports claim that molecular evolution has been proven. However, when examined, the article that inspired these reports consists of an evolutionist scenario concerning the emergence of a hormone-receptor relationship. The article proclaims that if the hormone-receptor relationship can emerge through gradual evolution, then all the complex systems in living things can emerge similarly through gradual evolution. In order to give a scientific appearance to a dreamed-up scenario based on evolutionist assumptions, conjecture and preconceptions, the article is liberally sprinkled with showy results, colorful diagrams, tables and graphics. Because this scenario is entirely unrealistic, the conclusion based on it is equally irrational and illogical.

The reason underlying evolutionists" efforts to produce such unrealistic scenarios is an unwillingness to remain silent in the face of the fact of the "irreducible complexity" in living things. As we know, living things possess exceedingly complex systems made up of interconnected components specific to them alone. These systems would be unable to function if even a single component were either missing or flawed. This concept is known as irreducible complexity.
Irreducible complexity is an indisputable fact revealed by 20th century microbiology, and one that totally undermines the theses of evolution. That is because it is impossible for an irreducibly complex structure to emerge through a process of gradual evolution from the simple to the more developed, as foreseen by the theory of evolution. Since components will disappear during these random stages, the system will serve no purpose and vanish without waiting for the other components to emerge. Evolutionists desire to provide some evolutionist response to the fact of irreducible complexity, even a fictitious and specious one.

Darwin himself expressed concern on this subject a century or so before modern science demonstrated that irreducible complexity is a fact:
"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 down." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189)
Irreducible complexity, which confirms Darwin"s concerns and deals a lethal blow to his theory, remained evolutionists" worst nightmare and led them to cover it up for many years. 
This latest article in Science magazine is a new attempt to distort and cover up this truth.
Let us now examine the claims made in the article and the inconsistencies and invalidity of the article"s conclusion under some main headings:
The Ancestral Genes Deception

As we know, hormones help regulate many vital functions within the body. Both the presence of hormones and the levels of secretions released are of vital importance to living things.

Even variations at the molecular level in the body can give rise to fatal consequences. For that reason, the hormonal mechanisms in living things operate within a very fine equilibrium. In order for hormones to have the necessary effects, they need to bind to receptors specially created for the particular hormone in question. For example, the hormone insulin, which is secreted by the pancreas and regulates blood sugar levels, needs to bind to special insulin receptors to serve its purpose. In short, the hormone and receptor resemble a lock and key system that initiates a specific physiological process in the body. In the same way that a lock can only be opened by a key specially designed to open it, a hormone can only perform its specific function by binding to a receptor that is sensitive to it. It is impossible for a key or lock to come into existence by chance and it is even less likely for this key and lock to be compatible with one another by chance. To claim that the infinitely more complex hormone-receptor system could come into being by coincidence, with both the complex individual structures and mutual compatibility of both elements, is even more irrational than maintaining that a lock and key could emerge in the absence of a locksmith. However, this is exactly the irrational claim the article seeks to prove.

The article deals with the hormone aldosterone, which establishes the sodium and potassium ion balance in the body and binds with the receptor mineralocorticoid (MR). The article suggests that both components of the complex hormone-receptor system in question emerged by way of "gradual evolution" in a manner compatible with Darwin"s theory.

First, there is no scientific basis for claims that the receptors mentioned above evolved from one another hundreds of millions of years ago or that there is a line of descent among them. This is merely an evolutionist assumption. One has been declared to descend from the other solely based on the two hormones having a similar amino acid sequence.

The fact is, that mutation, the only "transforming and developing agent" that evolutionists point to in their claims, cannot transform the AncCR receptor into the MR receptor by adding on new amino acids. On the contrary, mutation would damage the AncCR receptor and make it functionless, because mutations have a 99% chance of being destructive and only a 1% chance of being neutral. To believe that any random mutation in an organic structure can turn it into a different, more complex structure with additional characteristics is to believe in the impossible.

Many species in existence today have many kinds of hormones, proteins and receptors in common. Although these molecular structures generally control similar functions, there are structural differences between them that vary from one life form to another. 
For example, the amino acid sequence of the enzyme cytochrome-C, which is present in many living things, varies from one life form to another. However, this does not mean that these life forms are related, or one another"s forebears or descendants. It merely shows that they have all been equipped with special molecules fitted to their own individual physical structures and systems. It has been proven many times that the production of evolutionist inferences from chemical structure similarities or differences between various common molecular structures is of no scientific value. Nonetheless, evolutionists continue to ignore this proof and produce imaginary interpretations, as if these similarities and differences somehow served their own purposes. 
The Myth of Components That Waited Millions of Years

The article makes the ridiculous claim that "since molecules in living organisms can take part in more than one function, the components of complex systems were previously involved in different functions in different structures and were thus able to maintain their existence until the emergence of the complex systems they would join in the future." The evolutionary scenario regarding the MR -aldosterone hormone-receptor relationship, which the article suggests as having been proven, is portrayed as evidence for this ridiculous claim.

An attempt is being made here to conceal one very important point and to give the misleading impression that everything is settled and squared away. That point is this:

Most of the components of complex systems consist not of individual molecules, as in this hormone-receptor relationship, but of far more complex structures consisting of large numbers of molecules. For example, the exceedingly complex retina, one of the 40 basic parts of the eye, consists not of one molecule or molecule group, but of trillions of retinal cells, each consisting of billions of varieties of molecules that combine in an orderly measured system.

That being the case, those who make the claims carried in the article have to explain how the retinal layer, specialized solely for the purpose of sight, initially emerged as the result of chance and also what unrelated tasks it served in while waiting for the emergence of the eye. Alternatively, they could explain what the feathers on birds" wings did before wings emerged, or how the Bowman capsules, which filter the blood in the kidneys more meticulously than any dialysis machine, came into being by chance before the kidney itself and what different roles these played in previous organisms. In the same way, they need to account for each of all the countless complex organs, systems and structural components in all of the millions of species that have ever existed. In addition, they need to know that each of these countless components has to have its own unique explanation; an explanation for one is irrelevant to another. Sleight of hand such as inventing a made-up scenario for the emergence of a two-part molecular system, as in the Science article, and then applying this generalization to millions of complex systems is not acceptable.
The Existence of Complex Systems Cannot Be Explained in Terms of Molecular Interactions

As we have seen so far, all complex systems have very different structures, mechanisms and functions, and have sub-components with very different structures, numbers and features. Moreover, they all have very different degrees of complexity. The eye, cell organelles, the brain, the ear, wings, the bacterial engine, the cell membrane, the sperm cell, the egg cell, DNA, the cell nucleus and the compound eye structure are some of the best known of these complex systems.

Mitochondria, for example, one of the countless components that make up the living cell, are not only part of a cell with an exceedingly complex structure, but also have their own separate complex structure. The Mitochondrion is not a mere molecule or a chemical substance. This organelle, which makes the cell"s energy production possible, contains a factory design of the most extraordinary complexity.

There can be no question of such a complex system emerging through simple chemical reactions, molecular interactions and slow, gradual increments. Chemical reactions and molecular interactions have specific limitations; these can only produce more chemical substances and molecules, whereas most of the components of complex systems are complex structures created within a flawless order and plan. To draw a comparison, the difference between a molecule and mitochondria is like the difference between a brick and a skyscraper. What evolutionists are attempting to do in the article in question is, to use the same analogy, nothing more than to claim that they have accounted for the presence of the skyscraper by writing a scenario concerning the brick.

In short, inventing an evolutionist tale regarding the coming into being of a molecule-receptor relationship and then saying, "Look, we have now accounted for the existence of the eye, ear, arm, leg, cell, nervous system and kidney — in short for the coming into being of all the structures in living things — and have also proved evolution." is a deception only blind and ignorant supporters of Darwinism could possible believe in. The way that some of the local media make headline news out of the molecular evolution story in Science magazine, under captions such as "molecular evolution has been proven," is one striking example of this dogmatic ignorance.
What Evolutionists Really Have to Explain

Since they are unable to resolve the fundamental dilemmas facing their theories, evolutionists choose the way of sophistry and deception and attempt to build forced evolutionary connections between very different complex biological processes. Yet, these endeavors are of no value in confirming the theory of evolution because, as everyone knows, the theory of evolution claims that living cells emerged by chance from inanimate substances. That being the case, in order for someone to be able to say evolution has been proven, he or she would first have to explain how that first cell emerged, spontaneously in a non-living environment. At the very least, one would need to explain how any one of that cell"s organelles, or at least a single protein molecule in that organelle emerged as the result of chance, in a lifeless environment, with the correct amino acids arranged in the correct number and sequence, and in the correct three-dimensional form. However, evolutionists have no coherent and logical explanation, because it is impossible for such a thing ever to have happened.

In mathematical terms, the chances of one protein molecule consisting of 500 amino acids in a living cell coming into being by coincidence is 1 in 10950. Again mathematically speaking, that means a probability of zero. In other words, it is impossible for even one single protein molecule in one single cell to form coincidently in a lifeless environment.

This evolutionist attempt to prove molecular evolution must explain these dilemmas. Writing attention-grabbing headlines about evolution does not prove evolution at all. Rather it is an attempt to keep evolution, which is devoid of any proof or evidence, alive by means of the usual propaganda and psychological manipulation.
Evolutionists" Attempts to Maintain Darwin"s Prestige Merely Belittle Themselves

Since the theory of evolution is intrinsically tied to Darwin himself, the proponents of evolution are careful to keep repeating certain clichés in order to keep the concepts of Darwin and Darwinism on the boil. Through constant reference to Darwin"s theses, they are continually replaying a slogan stating that new discoveries confirm his work. Thus, they renew their loyalty to evolution and Darwin.

The same thing applies to the article in question, which frequently asserts that the complex structure of life has emerged in a manner compatible with Darwin"s theses.

The theory of evolution is built upon Darwin"s name and claims. For this reason, Darwin"s image needs to be kept alive, even if by artificial respiration.

However, it is obvious that Darwin, whose every thesis is a separate source of shame for the world of science, cannot enjoy prestige on any subject.

Darwin was an amateur naturalist whose level of science and culture was much lower than that of today"s primary school students. —He was completely unaware of genetics, molecular biology and cell biology; he imagined the cell to be a bubble filled with water. He lived in a time of complete ignorance in which it was believed that antelopes turned into giraffes by stretching their necks to reach leaves on high branches and that rotten meat produced flies.

It was in that atmosphere of ignorance and lack of scientific knowledge that he came up with unscientific evolutionist scenarios such as the transmission of acquired characteristics to subsequent generations and new species emerging in that manner.

Certain Darwinist scientists and publishing organizations that still attempt to defend these fantasies of Darwin"s in the 21st century should scrupulously avoid falling into the same situation as Darwin, who represents a primitive, 19th century level of science, ignorance and bigotry. They must accept the fact that Allah has created all living things together with their perfect structures.
""This is Allah"s creation. Show me then what those besides Him have created! The wrongdoers are clearly misguided."" (Surah Luqman, 11)
2006-04-07 00:00:00

Harun Yahya's Influences | Presentations | Audio Books | Interactive CDs | Conferences| About this site | Make your homepage | Add to favorites | RSS Feed
All materials can be copied, printed and distributed by referring to author “Mr. Adnan Oktar”.
(c) All publication rights of the personal photos of Mr. Adnan Oktar that are present in our website and in all other Harun Yahya works belong to Global Publication Ltd. Co. They cannot be used or published without prior consent even if used partially.
© 1994 Harun Yahya. -