Back to main page

Part 2 of this article is released with stronger proofs

Evolution is a scientific joke

-Introduction-
-Some history-
-Debunking the building blocks of Darwinism-
-Haeckel's lie-
-The explosion of transitional fossil-
-Archeopteryx and Archaeoraptor transitional fossil (from dinosaur to bird)-
-Humans in evolution theory-
-The evolution bush of humans-
-Debunking human relatives-
-Even if we had fossils that are between apes and humans-
-Human Genes has nothing to do with evolution-
-Human/apes shared gene LIE (98.77% simularity)-
-Back to fossils (evolutionist's jokes)-
-Coelacanth seem tasty-
-Piltdown Man fossil-
-Hesperopithecus kickstarting the war-
-Ramapithecus-
-Reiner Protsch von Zieten has bad humor-
-Darwinius the million dollars-
-Orce man-
-Karl Giberson nasty tail-
-Humans don't have tails-
-Nothing useless about whales-
-Debunking Medlife Crisis and Richard Dawkins long nerve mistake-
-What does it really take for a change to happen?-
-Lets finish up transitional fossils-
-Attacking scientific theories-
-Evolutionists-
-Closing words-

Introduction

So many people today believe in what's called "Evolution theory", claiming it is the ultimate proof that religions are wrong and science says so, in this article I will prove that it is nothing but a joke that people blindly follow.


Some history

In the 19th century, a naturalist named Charles Darwin made a claim that every living organisms came from one common origin, based on his research and view of differnet kinds of species similar look and anatomical features and its geographical distribution, the common origin will go through "processes of evolution" and diversification, in which it undergoes slight changes, then nature through natural selection will go and filter those changes by killing those who don't fit (has useless or harmful changes) and leave the rest.

In the topic of natural selection Darwin hypothesized that nature contributes to the development of new traits in organisms, that get to its offspring.

Darwin also assumed that these changes happened coincidentally, and deny a creator in many parts of his book Origin of Species:

On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation. [Origin of Species chapter 14]

It is also worth noting that Darwin published his hypothesis "Pangenesis" on how acquired traits are inherited, which was proven wrong.

Finally on the topic of the common origin, he didn't states where that common origin came from in his book, but in his correspondence with the botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker I quote:

It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.— But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.—

Today evolution is differnet from evolution at the time of Darwin, which is called Darwinism

And that's how Abiogenesis started, this mean that Darwin believed in a common idea in his time called Spontaneous generation, which states that living organism could develop out of non living objects.

Debunking the building blocks of Darwinism

From what we said above we can generate 4 building blocks of Darwin's theory of evolution and they are:

So lets debunk them one by one, let's start with spontaneous generation, it was debunked by the Francesco Redi's experiment (around 200 years before Darwin) and Louis Pasteur's experiment around 5 years after Darwin published his book, and this experiment proved that the organisms don't appear on (let's say food) but come from the air that has these organisms in it, the idea of living organisms that comes from non living objects is logically false, but they tested it anyway and it was proven wrong.

Nature giving new traits to organisms over time, was also debunked by Gregor Mendel's discovery that genetic traits of offspring will not include anything outside the genetic pool of ancestors, it was also debunked by the discovery of epigenetics which states that external and environmental factors can alter how genetic material is read in an organism to activate certain traits or disable others (that exist with in the same genetic pool), but doesn't add new genetic material.

Next we have acquired traits are inherited, it could be debunked only by viewing, for example a body builder with strong muscules doesn't inherited it to their offspring, but Darwin's followers experimented with this hypothesis anyway, so what August Weismann did is cutting the tails of 19 generations of mice and their offspring only to find that he wasted time and the mice still born and grow with tails, so the environment forcing the tail to not exist didn't acquired it to the organism.

Last but not least the natural selection, this one can be debunked so many ways, but let's get clear here, It is logical that weak species in a hard environment will have diffculty to live, but Darwin got far from that, so you must focus to understand.

Natural selection from Darwin's view is that nature over time "through use and disuse" gave simple functionality that may have provided some benefit to the specie, and so natural selection kept it, and over time it developes into an fully intergrated organ like animal's eye, I hope you could see the problem here, so for example bird wings used to be something else that wasn't for the purpose of flying, or the eye since nature didn't give that functionality to an organism to see.

But I havn't start to debunk it yet, what debunks this is the fact of irreducible complexity which states that these functionalitys that were "given by nature" could not possibly work without having all of its components at the same time, which mean it can not be a cause of slow evolution, even in the cell level.

So these are the 4 blocks of Darwin's evolution debunked, and without it there is no Darwinism, and with these blocks, Darwin created the most stupid idea that lead people to believe that every complex well made organisms that work very perfuctly was not done by a creator, but was accidental and random.

In North America the black bear was seen by [the explorer Samuel] Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.[Origin of species 1859 facsimile Page 198]

So because the bear was chilling with his mouth open, therefore the whale has to do something with it, mind blowing.

We will leave Darwin for now, lets continue:

Haeckel's lie

A naturalist named Ernst Haeckel did a Embryological drawing that you see above, this drawing shows embryos of different species, and what makes this one special is that these embryo looks very similar, evolutionist used this as an argument that they are all from a common origin and start spreading it everywhere.

But Haeckel forgot a little thing, He isn't the only with microscope, and so other scientists start searching and questioning his drawings, until 1909 he admitted in a message to Munchener Allegemeine Zeitung that he altered it.

a small portion of my embryo-pictures (possibly 6 or 8 in a hundred) are really (in Dr Brass;s [one of his critics] sense of the word) "falsified"--all those, namely, in which the disclosed material for inspection is so incomplete or insufficient that one is compelled in a restoration of a connected development series to fill up the gaps through hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing members through comparative syntheses. What difficulties this task encounters, and how the draughts-man may blunder in it, the embryologist alone can judge.

And still he was lying, here is a real picture, you compare the two and see the differences.

This lie was also debunked in high detail in this paper, which states:

Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel’s drawings

The true problem of Haeckel's lie is that It keep appearing over and over, It has been 100 year since it is debunked but you can still found It in university textbooks like:

And that's just some of it, I will end this by a quote from Stephen Gould, in his book Natural History (link):

But 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 modrern textbooks.

The explosion of transitional fossil

You need to have little background about Geology, what Geologic time scale is, and what has this to do with fossils.

In short older fossils will exist lower then newer fossils, and that determine the period in which the fossil existed at.

Now we understand that since organisms got developed slowly over time (based on evolution), because of that we should found a transitional fossil, which is a fossil that has traits of its ancestor and a new traits, and since these fossils are old they must exist way deep underground, and we should found so many of them because there are so many kinds of species, that's how Darwin imagined it, but the surprise is, we didn't found any, we only found complex full organism from old periods, that was suppose to be undeveloped, or have simpler organisms that existed before it.

The complexity of these organisms in a period known as Cambrian period shows us a clear proof of irreducible complexity that was mentioned before.

As an example of what I am saying Trilobite that exited during the Cambrian explosion (in which so many forms of complex species fossils where found Without transitional fossil nor old uncomplex organism) had eyes like of today's bees, and this complexity could not appear suddenly from evolution view.

The problem of not founding transitional fossils during the cambrian period (or at all) was indeed a problem for Dariwn, as he wrote in his book The Origin of Species Chapter 6 :Difficulties on Theory:

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?

Remember that we should found "countless numbers".

But evolutionist didn't surrender, they started searching for any transitional fossil, everywhere, and each time they think like they found one, a research cames and debunk it, and just like that evolutionist still exist today and never lost hope to their theory, and works to make it the truth even if they had to lie, as we will see.

So did they found any transitional fossil? Let's see what evolutionist got:

Archeopteryx and Archaeoraptor transitional fossil (from dinosaur to bird)

The image above, is a fossil called Archaeopteryx, a "bird-like dinosaurs" that suppose to be the first bird, notice the fethers in the red circles, and teeth in the green one.

But is it really the first bird? in 2011 nature journal released an article that stated the Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all, and there is no relation between bird and teeth, and the Archeopteryx isn't the first bird, because we found a bird that lived 75 million years before him, that mean the birds appeared suddenly.

And the wings were not features according to this paper.

A quote from this paper:

At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the "official" position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates be-tween Bauplane are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).

For the Archaeoraptor nature journal says its a forgery, and it was sold for 80,000$.

OK THERE MUST BE A DINOSAUR THAT TURNED INTO A BIRD!!!

There is no dinosaur that turned into a bird, evolutionist John Alan Feduccia quote:

Instead of regarding birds as deriving from dinosaurs, Scansoriopteryx reinstates the validity of regarding them as a separate class uniquely avian and non-dinosaurian

We will come back to transitional fossil shorty, but for now lets see another important topic.

Humans in evolution theory

In evolution theory humans envolved from a common origin with animals, slowly developing over periods of time until get get modern humans which they call "homo sapiens", which the first one appeared in Ethiopia around 195 ± 5 kyr.

And fossils development match the existence time of the fossils (meaning older fossils are less developed then newer fossils), and each time you hear about evolution, something like this image appear in mind:

By the end of this section, you will understand that even with evolution in mind that image makes no sense when it cames to relality.

First lets update out information and debunk the 195 ± 5 kyr with this article from phys.org which states:

Two studies published in the journal Nature on Wednesday, extended our species' recorded existence by a third, from 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, and torpedoed the long-held theory that we emerged from an East African "cradle of humankind."
"We are moving further and further away from this linear vision of human evolution with a succession of species, one replacing the other," he said [Jean-Jacques Hublin].

We already started to destroy the "linear vision of human evolution" (which is what that image above means).

So modern humans appeard 300,000 years ago? newscientist magazine has another number for that, and I quote:

ANCIENT humans were in Europe at least 300 000 years earlier than previously thought, according to a large team of researchers in Spain. They have discovered human fossils and simple stone tools dating back more than 780 000 years.

Ok I guess modern humans appaerd 780,000 years ago? maybe lets add another 20,000 year with this article from Discover magazine and I quote:

the face that has emerged from the clay at Gran Dolina is the most surprising thing of all. It is so surprising, we must rethink human evolution to fit that face, says Arsuaga. The Gran Dolina face is 800,000 years old and yet distinctively ours. It is almost that of a modern human.

It is worth noting that they didn't accept the idea that he was modern human, so they called him "homo antecessor", and I quote:

The Spanish researchers believe it belonged to a previously unknown species of human, one that is close to our last common ancestor with the Neanderthals. They call the species Homo antecessor...

Should we start make a list of evolutionist lies already? nah, lets finish this topic first, also they have admitted that he was just like us in this article by nature which stated:

We provide evidence that H. antecessor is a close sister lineage to subsequent Middle and Late Pleistocene hominins, including modern humans

another source says:

The physical features of H. antecessor have left anthropologists puzzling over its relationships with other early humans. It has big teeth, as do more primitive members of our genus such as H. erectus, but its face shape is remarkably similar to that of modern humans

So they had a problem putting it in the family tree? and what about 3,500,000 year human fossile, the flat-faced man of kenya, from nature article I quote:

The evolutionary history of humans is complex and unresolved. It now looks set to be thrown into further confusion by the discovery of another species and genus, dated to 3.5 million years ago.

Science Magazine isn't happy either, here is a quote from their article:

The discovery of a 3.5-million-year-old hominid skull and other fossil remains in northern Kenya is shaking the human family tree at its very roots

That's not the limite, nature journal jumped to 6-7 million years old fossil with their article the founder named the fossil Toumaï, some quotes:

Toumaï is the tip of that iceberg - one that could sink our current ideas about human evolution. "Anybody who thinks this isn't going to get more complex isn't learning from history," says Wood.
"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder," he says
Now human evolution looks like a bush.
How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.

So if somebody showed you these cartoons:

He haven't updated his knowledge about the theory since 1963, back to this article I quote:

Until a few years ago, the evolutionary history of our species was thought to be reasonably straightforward ... But lately, confusion has been sown in the human evolutionary tree

And just like that human fossils debunks Evolution and not support it, as Evolutionists claim.

Confirming that humans existed before 800,000 years, addtional sources include: full article talking about a hand found modern human like hand that dates 1.8 million year old site in Tanzania Link.

At the same year 2015 another fossil discovery that doesn't fit the linear evolution view that we just debunked, a quote from this article about this discovery:

so we just don't know how many species there were, which belong to which," Professor Groves said.
Professor Colin Groves, who works in biological anthropology at the Australian National University, said the work by Professor Spoor and colleagues "really upsets the apple cart" in terms of the understanding of how all the Homo species fit together.

A quote from this article:

We once thought of human evolution as a linear progression, with modern humans emerging at the end as the pinnacle of evolutionary development. But everywhere we look, it's increasingly clear the real picture was much messier.

We said at first that the first modern human appeared in Ethiopia, but the different locations this fossils where found state that he appeared in different places in Africa (and Spain if you will).

Fossil location is another problem, some fossils were found in China, an article from new scientist that stated:

Bizarre fossils from China are revealing our species' Asian origins and rewriting the story of human evolution

From science alert article, I quote:

Taken together, these breakthroughs suggest that many of our previous ideas about the human origin story – who we are and where we came from – were wrong.

So evolutionist themselves know the problems they got, and they are a lot of problems, and many blindly follow the theory without knowing any of them.

The evolution bush of humans

Since we debunked the linear view of evolution using nothing but evolutionist articles themselves, it is time to talk about the new view, the evolution bush.

The new view simply states that, whenever we found a new skull that doesn't fit the evolution timeline that we made, we throw it into that bush and say its a branch, and that's it, without linking the skull to any existing branches or any skulls.

And so blind people will look at the bush and see so many names and so many skulls/faces, and they will blindly believe it's science, without questioning the validity of it.

So lets study this article and it's graph by Nature Journal:

if we could travel back far enough in time, we would find common ancestors between ourselves and every other living organism

Now the reader here will think they got a proof that this common ancestor existed, and that's wrong, they don't have any proof of what I just quoted, lets keep reading:

Last Common Ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (marked "A" in Figure 1). The Human-Chimpanzee Last Common Ancestor (HC-LCA)

Impressive name, but where is this "Human-Chimpanzee Last Common Ancestor"? do you fossile of it? the answer is NO, it is just imagination for evolution to make sense, here is a quote right at the opening of this article by Advances Science:

Human brains are three times larger, are organized differently, and mature for a longer period of time than those of our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees. Together, these characteristics are important for human cognition and social behavior, but their evolutionary origins remain unclear.

So the difference between human brain and chimpanzee brain is very large, and evolutionist don't have any information on how human brain managed to develop like this, yet they throw names like (HC-LCA) for people that don't read to be impressed.

Now to move to another topic I just want you to notice that evolutionist changed the term "human ancestors" to "human relatives", without any proof for that.

Debunking human relatives

Keep in mind that humans have differnce in look and structor, like Asians look different then African, and a European look different then Asians, and even in your family, you and your brother (if you have one) don't look the same (unless you two are twins), and this applies to old fossiles, so these people that lives ages ago had their own look which could change the bones shape (and lets not forget environmental effects on the fossil over time), but specialists know this and know how to know if these bouns are human one or something else (unless they are evolutionists).

So it is time to start debunking the branches of the bush, here is an image that shows "Human Lineage" from Britannica:

Lets start with Austrolopithecus afarensis the most famous fossil of this kind is Lucy which is just bones that were found speard apart in Awash_River, and it is rainy place, It was assembled within three weeks (bone from here and there until and a bone from other site, and you got it), and so they had to assume that all these bones are from the same specie, and then assume that she had a transitional traits between humans and apes, and so they started dreaming about this discovery, and started painting, sculpting, and imagining how lucy looked like, but just for people who hanv't pressed the wikipedia link here is how lucy bones trully looked like:

Now go and type lucy evolution in your search engine, you will found photo realistic images of it, articles and stories, there is even a story of how lucy died.

And so anyone seeing this will think that they found lucy embalmed (with a video tap of her life), and that its existence is not questionable, ok enough said, lets debunk it.

First, there where studies that question early hypotheses about lucy like these two paper from ScienceDirect : Paper 1 Paper 2, the famous French magazine "Science et vie" released a version titled "Adieu, Lucy" which tranlsate to "Goodbye, Lucy", I quote:

A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race. . . . The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors This destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree. . . . Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered [source]

The reason why Lucy can not possibly be a "relative or ancestor" of humans is shown in this paper by famous PNAS, and I quote:

...cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor...

and this paper from Science Advances, I quote:

Contrary to previous claims, sulcal imprints reveal an ape-like brain organization and no features derived toward humans.

And just like that Lucy turned from "ancestor" to "relative", yet dispite this, evolutionist still use it as a proof for evolution.


Homo habilis known to be human-like transitional ape, and again, what they found wasn't bones form him, but they still did the same thing they did with Lucy.

From this paper, the bones that were found are just bones of apes without any differnce (Note: I didn't had access to the paper, I quote:

for Homo and conclude that two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, do not belong in the genus
genus. Thus, H.habilis and H. redolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu lato from those who do not subscribe to the taxonomic subdivision of "early Homo") should be removed from Homo. The obvious taxonomic alternative which is to transfer one or both of the taxa to one of the existing early hominin genera, is not without problem, but we recommend that, for the time being, both H. habilis and H. rudolfensis should be transferred to the genus Austrolopithecus.

Another paper from Oxford University states that the link between homo (human-like apes) and humans should be stopped, and I quote:

This may seem to be an unexpected statement, because for 3 decades habiline species have been interpreted as being just such transitional taxa, linking Australopithecus through the habilines to later Homo species. But with a few exceptions, the known habiline specimens are now recognized to be less than 2 Myr old (Feibel, Brown, and McDougall 1989 ) and therefore are too recent to be transitional forms leading to H. sapiens.

Another paper from Science Magazine titled "Who Was Homo habilis—And Was It Really Homo?", From the start I quote:

In the past decade, Homo habilis's status as the first member of our genus has been undermined.

The paper talks about how simular the Homos are to apes (or monkeys, no differnce for me), That debunks Homo habilis.

Homo erectus, this is a very important figure in evolution, some evolutionists link it with other homos like "Homo redolfensis" and "Homo ergaster", like this paper from Science Magazine.

And just to give it taste of complexity here is a paper from LiveScience, I quote:

The lineage and evolutionary history of H. erectus and other Homo species is unclear, and has been muddied further by recent finds.
However, there's much disagreement about whether these populations are actually all H. erectus...
Confusing matters more...
various contemporary Homo species, including Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis and possibly Homo ergaster, were actually Homo erectus.

This paper from University of Michigan titled "The case for sinking Homo erectus. 100 years of Pithecanthropus is enough!", those scientists from different places around the world state in their paper:

There is no distinct boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens in time or space
We interpret this to mean that there is no speciation involved in the emergence of Homo sapiens from Homo erectus. These reasons combine to require that the lineage be regarded as a single evolutionary species.

This paper from nature journal states:

we still cannot decide whether the Neanderthals were one of several related species in an extinct radiation, a single species close to our own, or a ‘race’ of H. sapiens (with that species redefined to include 2-Myr-old H. erectus).

I think that's enough.

Homo neanderthalensis, those are modern humans (just like us) that are said by evolutionist to be less developed humans, now lets see this paper by PLOS ONE, I quote:

but whose archeological record was not different enough to support the purported cognitive “gap” between them and their contemporary modern humans.

And the paper states they arn't differnet from us, and not "less developed" or anything, Another two papers paper 1 and paper 2 (Titled "Humans and Neanderthals: less different than polar and brown bears") states that there is no genatic differnce between humans and neanderthals.


And now after we understood that evolutionist do nothing but throw lies that people take it as real science, draw useless bushes and branches, and never accept the fact that their ideas make no sense, they could lie and not tell that their theory is wrong, evolutionist Ernst_Mayr in his book "What Makes Biology Unique", I quote:

The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap, How can we explain tis seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.

"historical narrative", that's what Evolution theory is all about, another quote:

Indeed evolutionary biology, as science, in many respects is more similar to the Geisteswissenschaften than to the exact sciences

Even if we had fossils that are between apes and humans

I will have to say it for you to think about it, even if what i just said is wrong, and these fossils indeed are for species that are between apes and humans, that still doesn't make evolution theory right, we must stay focused, as evolution says that something developed out of something, and simply two things existing that has close matches still doesn't show the point of the theory.

And now lets give it to evolutionists and say that somehow new genes can appear in species gene pool causing it to change, how is the different between apes gene and human gene?

Remember this paper? It states that differences between apes and humans are hugh, which will not work with slowly developing changes, and that's why they created "A Genetic Revolution", in which so many random changes happened in a perfect way without doing any harm to genes resulted in jump from apes to humans, and best of all it happened coincidently, also this is the same argument used against cambrian explosion that we talked about before.

Now maybe you ask, how did these evolutionist came to know the time in which the fossil existed at? ok lets be clear I won't be teaching you how they did it (like step per step), but just the way they seem to know.

Here is a story that will explain how these numbers are less accurate then you may think, in 1992 scientists found a fossil called "Ardipithecus ramidus" in Ethiopia.

And just like Lucy they made up stuff, with their "4.387±0.031" million years old fossil (Rememeber the number).

And just like the other fossils, new founding like: Paper 1 Article 1 Article 2.

Now to answer the question, how did they get that number? lets see their paper, I quote:

Most of the feldspar grains separated for these analyses are contaminated by a dominant population of sanidine grains yielding an early Miocene age (~23.5 Myr).
One sample of the GATC (MA92-37), although showing this early Miocene contamination, yielded a dominant feldspar population providing a mean age of 4.387±0.031 Myr
This age is viewed as the best estimate for the age of the GATC, and thus provides a maximum age of the hominid remains, The remaining nine grains from this sample represent contaminants, primarily of a Miocene population dated to 23.6±0.001 Myr.

Researchers found differnet ages of differnet pieces of the fossil, in which they closed their eyes and played with numbers, "Maybe the 4.4 Myr is good right?" "Nah we found two samples dating 6 times that number, lets go with these." "this will destroy the theory, lets go with 4.4 and say It was the right number, OK?"

We are done with the topic of human fossils for now, lets go to another topic.

Human Genes has nothing to do with evolution

Note: Before you read this you must already know what Genetic code is, and how Protein works, and also what's insertion operation is, and also Deletion, It is also recommended to check Nucleic acid sequence page and finally what Base_pair is, just to make sure you understand.

Lets start with:

Human/apes shared gene LIE (98.77% similarity)

This is one of the biggest lie evolutionist did, and believed by ignorant people.

Lets start with a quote from BIONFORMATICS AND FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS (third edition chapter 3):

Two genes (or proteins) are homologous if they have evolved from a common ancestor.

Now save that "if" in your brain and lets see what does it mean, that "if" defines a rule, a rule that from it all gene detection softwares were desgined with, I quote from the same book:

Margaret Dayhoff (1966, 1978) provided a model of the rules by which evolutionary change occurs in proteins. We now examine the Dayhoff model in seven steps (following the article from Dayhoff, 1978). This provides the basis of a quantitative scoring system of pairwise alignment between any proteins, whether they are closely or distantly related. We then describe the BLOSUM matrices of Steven Henikoof and Jorja G. Henikoff. Most database searching methods such as BLAST and HMMER (Chapters 4 and 5) depend in some from upon the evolutionary insights of the Dayhoff model.

So software like HMMER and BLAST uses in their algorithms a set of rules that are defined by the correctness of the theory, you may not understand what this mean for now, but simply put in mind that these softwares were desgined for the advantage of the theory.

Also before we miss the "if", remember that the media always replaces it with "therefore", so the sentence become:

Two genes (or proteins) are homologous therefore they have evolved from a common ancestor.

Lets start debunking one of their most famous study from 2002, I quote:

Genomic DNA isolated from the blood of a male chimpanzee ... The total amount of DNA sequence analyzed was 3,000,286 bp

See the problem? they toke 3,000,286 bp out of 3,000,000,000 bp ( See Table 1), thats only 0.1%, so here is a simple explanation of what that mean:

Here is a two line of numbers

Now tell me how much the similarity (in percentage) between the two, if you said 16.6% then well done, now do the same thing with this list:

If you said 50% then you are right, now could you see the problem here? by masking so many bps we can get a bigger percentage of how similar the human gene is compare to apes, and that's just one of the tricks, they still mask more, I quote:

To better understand how DNA sequences have changed during recent human evolution, we have determined ∼3 Mb from >10,000 regions in the chimpanzee genome. About two thirds could be unambiguously aligned to DNA sequences in humans.
Twenty-eight percent of the total amount of sequence was excluded from the analysis.
For 7% of the chimpanzee sequences, no region with similarity could be detected in the human genome.

Could you see the amount of data that was "excluded" from this study, to make sure the percentage is large to scare ignorant people?

Now into comparing the data that we go, you have to keep in mind that when it come to gene comparison we don't simply compare gene per gene until we done all of it, in short what they do is digest the DNA into oligonucleotides fragements and use math (matrices) to compare DNA sequences.

The study that we are debunking now used BLAT which is similar to BLAST in terms of using the theory as a base (Consider learning some bioinformatics if you want know more).

Now they don't simply use the theory in their softwares, they also use it to explain the results, and again I will explain with a list:

Now this two DNA sequences, has no relation with each other at all, but in the view of evolutionist it all makes sense, because what they will tell you is that apes and humans came from a common origin therefore we should study it from there, which will look like this:

So comparing the human with the comoon origin we can see an "AT" in the middel, what evolutionist will say is that with random mutation added "AT" there, how about the "T" turning "C" and the "G" turning "A"? evolutionist will say that two substitutions happened which resulted in such change, and just like that with every DNA sequence.

Now who gave rights for them to compare it this way? Also what this mean (if we take into account that their "Junk DNA" thing as false) changes like these mean that the DNA sequence has broke out (mutation if you will), and if we say these are two differnet genes that make two differnet working proteins that mean the gene didn't broke, how could that happen? well evolutionist will say it is a coincidence, really? and just like that they explained every single differnce in the DNA sequences between apes and humans, keeping in mind that common origin and the truthness of evolution, and so when a bp is missing, they will say a bp deletion happened, and if a sequence is found twice between the two they will say a duplication happened.

It is worth noting that insertion and deletion happens at a range of, and I quote:

In total, 2,407 insertions/delections randging in size from 1 bp to 65 bp were detected...

Now you tell me, how can a 65 insertion or deletion happen accidentally in which it still result in a fully functioned protein?

The question doesn't seem to be "Is evolution right?" but "How did evolution happened?", that's how the propaganda will come to show it, as without taking into account any of what I just said above they trowed the famous number that came from, and I quote:

In total, 24,165 subsitutional differences were seen, resulting in a genomewide average DNA sequence difference between humans and chimpanzees of 1.24%...

And throwing everything else, we got 100% - 1.2% = 98.8%

Throw that number to ignorant people and they will be like blindly believe it.

And then they throw another paper that has done the same thing I explained above, let's see another example:

Human genome has around 3 Gbp (Note: there where this site that used to say it is 3.6 Gbp back in 2019) so how many bp did the paper toke? I quote:

Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes cover ∼2.4 gigabases (Gb) of high-quality sequence...

So 2.4 Gbp out of 3 Gbp which are "Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments", and just like the other one, they used BLASTZ and BLAT, which both are built keeping in mind the truthness of the theory, and the changes that were found, were explained the same way as the other paper, but lets check something here, I quote:

Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23%...
indel differences between the genomes thus total ∼90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ∼3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% differnce resulting from nucleotide substitutions
Of course, the number of indel events is far fewer than the number of substitution events (∼5 million compared with ∼35 million, respectively).

So, all these changes (mutation) happened and still result in a fully function protein without any harm to humans like changing an important part of the gene? (giving the fact that harmful mutations could destroy the whole organ), coincidence?

And using propaganda we can remove that 3% and use our 1.2% to get our 98.8% again, and without taking into account the other factors we talked about, and ignorant people again can relax knowing it is 98.8% no doubt.

You may think I am the only one saying it, Here is a short clip of a video from Youtube channel "MinuteEarth" that supportes the theory.

Thankfully there is papers that debunk all of this, like this Paper that says the difference is 4%, I quote:

The difference between the two genomes is actually not ∼1%, but ∼4%—comprising

But propaganda always hides such studies that shows the truth, another Paper states it should be 5%, I quote:

The conclusion is the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA.

Again thrown away, and then this Paper, saying it is 23% difference, I quote:

For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, ...

Now with a Study without any change in number of bps used, we found 70% similarity only, I quote:

only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions.

Now you see how they lie? and their number doesn't prove evolution, because if it did, then why they don't put the 99% similarity between humans and mouse found in this Paper? I quote:

The 2.5-Gb mouse genome sequence reported on page 520, from the C57BL/6J strain, reveals about 30,000 genes, with 99% having direct counterparts in humans.

Making people believe that 98.8% genome simularity with apes support the evolution is easier then 99% with mouse, but do we share 99% of our genes with mouse? No we don't, according to this Paper.

And so if you have understood all of this, and if you had eyes to see how they LIED to you, you could smile when you see that you share 99% of your genes with gorillas.

Back to fossils (evolutionist's jokes)

I am going to show more fossils debunks without doing much to explaining, lets start with:

Coelacanth seem tasty

Coelacanth used to be an argument for evolution saying it was extincted 66 million years ago and it is a transitional fossil, here is why:

Don't you see the lung in the red square, why lung? so it gets ready to leave water and walk using its thick fins (green square), but later, we have discovered that this fish still exist today and haven't been extincted, and they don't have lungs and they don't even live near the seas, but deep in the ocean.

And just like every evolutionist argument there is a Paper, I quote:

Half a century of research shows it is not the hoped for missing link between fish and land vertebrates...

Despite the debunking of this fish fossil and its link with land vertebrates, It is still count as evolution proof by evolutionist, It is considered a "living fossil", so if this fish was extincted it is a proof for evolution, if it isn't then it is a proof for evolution, if It lives near the sea It is a proof for evolution, if it lives deep in the ocean it is still a proof for evolution, see the logic?

Piltdown Man fossil

Piltdown man fossil hoax started at 1912 and ended in 1953 and this Paper shows it, now why am I wasting time on it? well to show you the number of studies done using this forged fossil, based on nature jouurnal, I quote:

More then five hundred articles and memories are said to have been writeen about Piltdown man.

Here is a link that may give you an idea of these articles and memories, in general they were truly playing a game with people that don't read.

Hesperopithecus kickstarting the war

Hesperopithecus was an imagination that started because of this tooth:

After drawing how the nebraska man looked like and day dreaming about him, the tooth turned out to be a pig's tooth, the problem isn't here, the problem is that because of this joke evolution started to be taught in schools, I quote from this site:

This Nebraska man tooth was the reason that evolution started to be taught in schools.

Read more here, so after the debunk of this fossil, did they remove evolution from schools?

Ramapithecus

Sivapithecus or Ramapithecus (britannica link) found in 1932 is just a fossil of a jaw that lead them to draw a whole animal for it, I quote from the Britannica link:

He soon repudiated his belief in Ramapithecus as a human ancestor, and the theory was largely abandoned by the early 1980s.

Reiner Protsch von Zieten has bad humor

Reiner Protsch is anthropologist that for over 30 years forged and manipulated scientific facts, these "scientific facts" used to be proofs for evolution, now Its not, he also didn't forgot the money part of this, as this article shows, I quote:

At the same time, German police began investigating the professor for fraud, following allegations that he had tried to sell the university's 278 chimpanzee skulls for $70,000 to a US dealer.

Indulgence of modern world.

Darwinius the million dollar

Darwinius masillae a "transitional fossil" fossil that was sold to Jorn Hurum for a 750,000$ (and saying that it happen in 2009 and using this Site to calculate the value of it today, we can see that he paid almost 1 million dollar for it) who was awarded with "Formidlingspris" at 2009 for publicizing his fossil.

Back then this fossil was talked about everywhere, even Google changed its image to this:

The BBC and History Channel released documentary film titled "THE LINK", and then an Article by nature shows, I quote:

Teeth and ankle bones of the new Egyptian specimen show that the 47-million-year-old Ida, formally called Darwinius masillae, is not in the lineage of early apes and monkeys (haplorhines), but instead belongs to ancestors (adapiforms) of today's lemurs and lorises.
"Ida is as far away from the human lineage as you can get and still be considered a primate," says Christopher Beard, a palaeoanthropologist at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who was not involved in either research team.

This is a picture of lemur for people who can't press the links:

And just like any fraud, Jorn Hurum did all of this to Get his cash back.

Orce man

Orce man fossil is a peace of a skull that was found in 1984 and dead in 1997 by this Paper, a quote from talkorigins.org:

whatever the status of the fossils, they do not affect the validity of the rest of the evidence for human evolution.

Because they arn't valid.

Karl Giberson nasty tail

Karl W. Giberson an evolutionist specializing in the creation-evolution debate, in one of his presentations (Youtube link here) showed a picture of a baby with a tail, and said that we have genes to build tails and that come born with one, he got a lot of attacks about that image:

The image he used is fake, It came from a cartoon site called cracked.com, Giberson replied to these calmes in a facebook post saying:

However, no point was implied by the image beyond what is well established by other legitimate images.

So where are these legitimate images? there is none, but the tail story doesn't end here.

Humans don't have tails

First lets side skip Atavism, as It has nothing to do with any of this, and now lets talk about evolutionist argument about acrochordon.

These skin tags or acrochordon can sometime be so large that It seems like something is being made, evolutionist focus at the one that appear in the back, and just like that, it became a proof for human tails, well the famous Journal Of Neurosurgery states in its Paper (another link), I quote:

even such so-called “tails” aren’t anything like those found in tailed mammals. That is for the simple reason that “true tails” in humans entirely lack vertebrae — or any kind of bone, cartilage, notochord, or spinal cord.

Quote form this Paper, (another link):

there is no zoological precedent for a vertebral tail without caudal vertebrae

So there is no relation between the two in the first place, lets now debunk the gene part, this Article already done the work, so I can skip that.

Nothing useless about whales

This argument not only debunks itself, but also debunks evolution with it, as we will see.

In the book Biology by Curtis and Barnes, 1989, page 969 I quote:

Many organisms retain traces of their evolutionary history. For example, the whale retains pelvic and leg bones as useless vestiges.

And just like that, every signle book after it gave the same statement, books like:

When the dumbest evolutionist Richard Dawkins uses this as an argument for evolution, you know its a very bad one.

Well this Paper, resulted in Panic amoung evolutionists, stating that it isn't useless as they thought, but it is important! I quote:

New study turns a long-accepted evolutionary assumption on its head, finding that whale pelvic bones play a key role in mating

And when you see sties like "Smithsonian.com" make an Article about that, you know its really a bad problem, I quote:

Hips don’t lie: Whale pelvic bones are not vestigial but instead evolved to help the marine mammals maneuver better during sex

Is this really a new information that they have been missing? I quote from the paper above:

Due to their highly reduced state, cetacean pelvic bones are sometimes thought of as “useless vestiges” of their land-dwelling ancestry (Curtis and Barnes 1989). However, all 92 extant cetacean species except two (Kogia sima and K. breviceps,which appear to have replaced their pelvic bones with functional carti- laginous sheets, Benham 1901) have retained their pelvic bones. Furthermore, the anatomy of cetacean pelvic bones reveals impor- tant roles in male reproductive function. The paired pelvic bones anchor the genitalia and the paired ischiocavernosus muscles that control the penis (Struthers 1881; Delage 1885; Abel 1907; Meek 1918; Anthony 1922; Ommanney 1932; Slijper 1966; Pabst et al. 1998; Tajima et al. 2004; Rommel et al. 2007; Thewissen et al. 2009; Fig. 1B).

So this paper wasn't really about debunking the argument, but rather comparing the different sizes and shapes of pelvic bones.

So since 1881, the perpose of this bones was known, that's before Darwin's death, now lets be fair John Struthers did the 1881 paper and at the end he stated that, it evolved to become what it is today.

So side skipping Struthers claim, we could clearly see this isn't an argument or anything, and before I close this topic, a quote from the same paper:

our study rejects a common assumption (mostly among noncetacean biologists) that cetacean pelvic bones are “useless vestiges” (Curtis and Barnes 1989), and instead suggest they are a critical component of male, and possibly female, reproduc- tive fitness.

"noncetacean biologists"

Richard Dawkins long nerve mistake

A nerve called Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve goes from the brain to the intrinsic muscles but taking a longer path by going through aortic arch, the same nerve exist in giraffe whom they got a longer neck, therefore longer nerve.

Now is this a really proof of a mistake in humans? answer is: if this nerve was shorter, then it is going to be a problem (and Allah (God) doesn't make mistakes!!).

Some people have a phenomenon called "Non-Recurrent’ Laryngeal Nerve" in which this nerve doesn't go through aortic arch but straight up to the target:

A quote from Wolf-Ekkehard:

All these ‘short-cut mutations’ were regularly counter-selected due to at least some disadvantageous and unfavourable effects on the phenotype of the so affected individuals

a quote from this Article:

The non-recurrent inferior laryngeal nerve (NIRLN) is a rare anomaly (0.5–0.6% on the right side, extremely rare on the left side (0.004%)), which increases the risk of damage to the nerve during surgery. The right NRILN is ASSOCIATED with a right subclavian artery arising directly from the aortic arch. The left NRILN is associated with situs inversus.1–3

A quote from Gray’s Anatomy, 39th edition 2005 page 30 :

However, just to refer to one possible substantial function of the Nervus laryngeus recurrens sinister during embryogenesis: “The vagus nerve in the stage 16 embryo is very large in relation to the aortic arch system. The recurrent laryngeal nerve has a greater proportion of connective tissue than other nerves, making it more resistant to stretch. It has been suggested that tension applied by the left recurrent laryngeal nerve as it wraps around the ductus arteriosus could provide a means of support that would permit the ductus to develop as a muscular artery, rather than an elastic artery”

Now if you still believe in evolution, you can leave this article by now, as the rest is for only people who want to confirm the dumbness of this theory.

What does it really take for a change to happen?

So lets just say evolution is correct, and that somehow gene can change that easily, what does it take for a change to happen? we won't talk about changing from kind to kind, we will just talk about a change in the same kind, lets say:

Since we already talked about long necks lets talk little about giraffe, in the original theory, Darwin and Lamarck thought that giraffes used to have a small neck, and by stretching it over long period of time, it got to the length we have today, but Darwin followers knew it was a crazy idea, so they said it happened because of Random Mutations.

So lets talk about what it takes for a neck to get longer, lets start with the heart, we all know that the heart need to pump the blood to every organ in the body, and since that giraffes have long neck (around 3m), that makes it hard for the blood to reach the brain as it need to conter gravity, so how do we deal with that?

Simply making the heart stronger, right? and that's indeed what giraffes have, a very strong heart with mass that can pass 11kg with length of 60cm and the thickness of its wall is 7.5 cm, so the blood gets pumped so strongly to reach the brain, but wait? what happens in the giraffe moved the head down to drink some water, now gravity is working with the heart!!

So why the brain didn't expload? because of many valves along the path, like in the image above, reduce the speed of the blood, BUT! even a single pop of blood could destroy the small vessels in the brain, that's why we got another complex mechanism to protect the brain called "rete mirabile" or "the wonderful network" and it is infact wonderful, another protection mechanism is the valves in the return path between the brain and the heart, as you may think that the blood going up may come down due to gravity, but giraffes got a set of valves that stops the blood from returning to the brain.

And when giraffes got back to normal the wonderful network shrink, giving blood to the brain and the valves opens up to allow the blood to flow easily to it.

But you may say, what about the legs? the heart is with gravity yet nothing happen? well giraffes got tight skin that works just like compression socks that used by people with high blood pressure.

Fun fact: even NASA studies giraffes mechanisms.

And so this is just the heart, don't let me get with other organs because you will be impressed, rememeber irreducible complexity? this is a clear proof for it.

If all of this was just random mutations It will mean that these mutations must target specific places which will create so many different proteins without causing any existing key protein to get damaged which make result in some unwanted stuff, you may say natural selection will remove those, but that will require infinite number of failed attempets and still won't work.

But lets simply give it all, lets say that somehow so many mutations happened in many places without doing any harm to key places and then we got our first giraffe with little longer neck after an ocean of wrong mutations, and so he comes and says "Ok where is my wife?", we need another giraffe with same genes for mutations to be saved right? but anyway with more time and mutations we will finally get a giraffe with long neck, strong heart, tight skin in the legs, valves and the wonderful network.

Anyone who studied biology will know that this is harder and much more complex then what I said, and will know that if we filled a cell with everykind of amino acids and did all the mutations you could imagine, the cell wont possible change to another type of cell, and if we just used our example, we must see million of failed mutations fossils, so? where are they?

Now lets not forget that this is just to make a neck longer, lets not forget about turning a fish into something that walks, or dinosaur into birds, as that will be just too much for a headache to handle.

Now you see that evolutionist treat their followers like kids.

Lets finish up transitional fossils

Rememeber that the theory states that we must found countless number of transitional fossils, yet since we didn't found any, lets simply talk more about it so we can close this topic once and for all.

If the theory is right, then an animal will go through a slow set of changes one by one, lets say a mouse to a monkey, he will get longer legs and smaller hear little by little over millions of years to finally become a monkey, therefore we must see so many different animals that are between the money and the mouse, but we don't, if they were cleaned by natural selection, then we should found them all as fossils, but we don't.

We only found fossils of animals that still exist today, that haven't gone any changes at all, an Article by The New York Times states: I quote:

with more than 100,000 species represented in fossils, the lack of intermediate forms is even greater than it was in Darwin's day.

Now we now see that every time we want to study a change between two kinds, we simply put the two as if it was meant for one to become the other, see, it was "meant"! but in reality evolutionist don't believe in anything guiding their evolution, so is it true based on their theory that something can become something else and have a link between them?

The answer is no, which mean, just like we expect the mouse to turn into a monkey, we could expect it to turn into a bird or a fish or any other kind, as nothing can guide the mutation part, which will mean that even with transitional fossils the theory still wrong.

Based on this Paper titled "Number of species on Earth tagged at 8.7 million", so you do the calculation needed.

Scientific theories

70% of scientific theories after being replicated are proven wrong, in what's known as Replication crisis, this Paper from nature explain it, I quote:

More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research.

So the number could be bigger, and it doesn't stop here this Paper, I quote:

about 2% of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once

Those are just the one who had the heart to admit, what about who didn't?

So next time you hear about a theory, always have in mind that it can be wrong, and if it was against Islam, then it is wrong, save yourself some time.

Keep in mind that science isn't the only way of knowledge, infact sometimes it can be the wrong way for knowladge, that's for another article.

Evolutionists

Evolution is a theory, but now It almost like a fact now, and even became a subfield in biology like:

Those studying such fields will use evolution as their job, there expertise, time and money, which will make this theory seem like a reality while indeed it is just an imagination, so imagine going to these people and telling them that we proved evolution wrong, they won't accept that because they (may) have Ph.D in it.

But in short money does play a big role here, those liars got millions of copies of their books sold, and thus motivate them for more lies to come.

Closing words

Evolution isn't just a scientific theory, it is an ideology by itself, and we will stand against it.