Back to main page

Evolution is a scientific joke PART 3

-Introduction-
-The fall of the random mutation (Neo-Darwinism)-
-Mutations are not random: Natural genetic engineering-
-Mobile genetic elements-
-Escherichia coli that observes citrate-
-Horizontal Gene Transfter-
-Tardigrade, a proof against evolution-
-Gradual accumulation of mutations-
-Another fossil-
-Alot of evolutions-
-Convergent evolution and Parallel evolution and Co-Evolution-
-Quantum evolution and Punctuated Evolution-
-Protocals of Evolution jokes-
-Framing-
-why evolution event exist? what was the goal of darwin?-
-New: 2022 Scientific Paper Ends Evolution-
-Closing words-

Introduction

In my Part 1 and part 2 of this evolution debunk article I managed to turn so many mouths close and no one dared to debunk my article, after Part 2 I found many other proofs (jokes) to debunk, I didn't feel motivated to write an article about them, but now I do, so lets start with:

The fall of the random mutation (Neo-Darwinism)

Evolution and since its beginning always composed of two parts: Random unguided mutations filtered by Natural unguided selection, thus making no place for a creator, due to the ignorant and lake of knowledge of that time, this parts were a thing for stupid people, today we know this is impossible, and evolutionist know this, I quote from different papers:

Do limitations to the ways in which mutations can alter developmental processes help to determine the direction of phenotypic evolution? In the early days of neo-Darwinism, the answer given to this question was an emphatic ’no’. However, recent work, both theoretical and empirical, argues that the answer should at least be ’sometimes’, and possibly even a straightforward ’yes’. Here, I examine the key concept of developmental bias, which encompasses both developmental constraint and developmental drive. [Source]
The above insights derive from different fields, but fit together with surprising coherence. They show that variation is not random [Source]
Conventional neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is firmly based on the natural selection of random mutations plus the central dogma assumption that environmental influences cannot change nucleic acids or become inherited. The central dogma has been invalidated at least since the early 1980s concomitantly with the emergence of the new genetics of the fluid genome. Similarly, the randomness of mutations has been called into question since the 1970s in experiments demonstrating that cells subject to non-lethal selection come up repeatedly with just the right adaptive or directed mutations in specific genes that enable the cells to grow and multiply ... Mutations are highly non-random and directed[Source]

So for anyone who believed in evolution before 1980, you are sheep.

I quote from the word of biologist Denis Noble:

the modern synthesis it's sometimes called neo-darwinism and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" in 1976 his main assumptions are first of all that is a gene-centered view of natural selection the process of evolution therefore can be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome it will be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations followed by selection, now important point to make here is genuinely random then there is nothing that physiology there is nothing that people like you and me can say about that process that's a very important point.
The second aspect of neo-darwinism was the impossibility of the inheritance of acquired characteristics it was miss called Lamarckism as I said earlier ... and there is a very important distinction particularly in Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene" the replicator that is the genes and the vehicle that carries the replicator that is the organism or phenotype and of course was ...
All these rules have been broken ! and that's the subject of my lecture.
first of all, are mutations random? very important book to catch up with what is happening very rapidly in the field of evolutionary biology is the book by Chicago biochemist James Shapiro "evolution a view from the 21st century" he writes and he gives detailed evidence he has thousands of references on this in his website:
"It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works" [Evolution: A view from the 21st Century]
In other words there are hotspots in the genome moreover as we will see later on the frequency with which those changes can occur can repond to what the organism is doing and what its enviroment is doing ... the domains that have shifted around as whole domains not gradual mutation one amino acid after another ...
So my first conclusion is this: not only mutation not random, that was one of the essential assumptions of the neo-darwinian synthesis but proteins at least some of them did not evolve via gradual accumulation of mutations. [Source: British Biologist Denis Noble Debunks Neo Darwinism]
the nature report of that sequencing showed that two major groups of proteins the transcription factors and chromatin binding proteins gradual change between species of the sequence of the proteins but major domain switching into one protein after another ...
... proteins at least some of them did not evolve via gradual accumulation of mutations.
so coming back to the question of randomness of mutations we've seen that they're not random and gradual accumulation of mutations we've seen that they are not at least in the case of certain important proteins another thing to add to this is that so far it has it has not been shown that that process could in any case give rise to a new species notice that thousands of years of domestic produce new varieties of dogs and fish and whatever but not of new species.
... people thought that the experiments weren't worth doing if you become so convinced that a particular theory is right then you don't do the experiments to to prove that it might be wrong.

The Darwin theory was clearly debunked, so they had to update it again in order to extend its lifespan for the sheep who may not even know what gene is.

So mutations were not random after all this years of creationists pointing that out, so they are guided mutations, fine, so who guide them? a creator? evolutionist will do everything to deny that, I quote from this paper:

Our observations suggest that the mutation rate has been evolutionarily optimized to reduce the risk of deleterious mutations.

So, it used to be random mutations and later it became not random, got it.

Sorry guys you have to do better job then that.

Another paper, I quote:

some experiments suggesting that cells may have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur.
this process of change (mutation) generates the variability that allows evolution.

So, the cells used to randomly pick up mutations, then it picked up a mutation that allowed the cell to "chose" which mutations to pick up..., I have explain in Part 2 a list of articles to show what they say about bacteria, and how intelligent they are, not only that, they said the same for matter I quote:

Indeed we are talking of intelligence at the atomic or molecular level. [Source]
The existence of internal intelligence as explained above leads to the confirmation of the absence of an external intelligence or God.

Their ultimate goal, to deny Allah, I quote:

This updated, integral model of evolution , based on recombiination, solves Darwin’s Dilemma without the need for an Intelligent Designer.[Source]

Lets stay objective, so Denis Noble called for Extended evolutionary synthesis, rendering everything that was made and believed by the sheep wrong, as I quoted above, he pointed three important ideas: Mutations are not random, gradual accumulation of mutations is wrong and DNA is not the sole transmitter of inheritance, we will focus on the first two (as the third one is a joke by itself), so lets start with:

Mutations are not random: Natural genetic engineering

Natural genetic engineering is :

is a class of process proposed by molecular biologist James A. Shapiro to account for novelty created in the course of biological evolution. Shapiro developed this work in several peer-reviewed publications from 1992 onwards, and later in his 2011 book Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. He uses NGE to account for several proposed counterexamples to the central dogma of molecular biology (Francis Crick's proposal of 1957 that the direction of the flow of sequence information is only from nucleic acid to proteins, and never the reverse). Shapiro drew from work as diverse as the adaptivity of the mammalian immune system, ciliate macronuclei and epigenetics. The work gained some measure of notoriety after being championed by proponents of Intelligent Design, despite Shapiro's explicit repudiation of that movement.
In part due to its discussion of the Intelligent Design movement, the book was widely and critically reviewed.

Of course you gain notoriety when you simply say "intelligent design", Read more, now I will skip all the criticisms made by those (they are evolutionists after all, and there critics doesn't add anything useful as far as I can read), however you could check them out yourself:

Mobile genetic elements

The book "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century" will be my main source for this discussion (along with this page), first lets go back to this quote:

It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant nonrandom patterns of change, and genome sequence studies confirm distinct biases in location of different mobile genetic elements.

The key word here is Mobile genetic elements (jumping gene), in other words, Transposable elements (a type of), you must understand how this work in order to understand my point, so here is this Simple video to explain it.

In short they are elements (part of genes) that can be placed in different places in the genome, causing "mutation", now the question is: what has this to do with evolution? the answer is: nothing at all here is why:

First lets define mutation, base on Wikipedia, I quote:

In biology, a mutation is an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA.
Mutations result from errors during DNA or viral replication, mitosis, or meiosis or other types of damage to DNA (such as pyrimidine dimers caused by exposure to ultraviolet radiation), which then may undergo error-prone repair (especially microhomology-mediated end joining[2]), cause an error during other forms of repair,[3][4] or cause an error during replication (translesion synthesis). Mutations may also result from insertion or deletion of segments of DNA due to mobile genetic elements.[5][6][7]
Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer,
Mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation
Mutations can involve the duplication of large sections of DNA, usually through genetic recombination.
Neutral mutations are defined as mutations whose effects do not influence the fitness of an individual. These can increase in frequency over time due to genetic drift. It is believed that the overwhelming majority of mutations have no significant effect on an organism's fitness.

As we can see, Mutations has many definition, but they all fall into "alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism", if that's the case then mutations happen all the time, and this explains how they managed to notice "mutations" in short time of the experiment, as evolution say that the mutations happen due to a mistake caused by UV rays or error etc, and it happens through billions of years in order for a new kind to emerge, and it is not hard to notice that non of the mutations that was documented ever made a new kind of species.

Now back to transposable elements, this mechanism of insertion or cut won't work unless the gene that the organism want to replace (in "their" view) already exists, meaning nothing new is created it already existed in the genome, much like adaptation that I explained in Part 2, to give an example, lets debunk one of the most famous experiment about this topic:

Escherichia coli that observes citrate

Escherichia coli is a type of bacteria, and just like any living organism, it needs energy to live and reproduce, and so its main energy source is Glucose (simple sugar), Richard Lenski conducted a E. coli long-term evolution experiment, which in short, he putted the bacteria in some pipes filled it with Glucose and Citrate and monitored the changes that happen, after many generations (and long years) he noticed that some of the bacteria in one of the pipes reproduce faster, after checking it, he found that the bacteria in that pipe managed to use the Citrate as a source of energy.

This was a "proof" of evolution, as after many generations the bacteria developed a new trail that didn't exist (and "changed its gene" and "mutated") to deal with the lake of energy resources, and articles started writing about this new scientific break through and evolution was correct...

Now lets explain this, do you know what it means to recreate citrate carrier through mutations? this citrate carrier is composed, and I quote:

Analysis of the primary sequence showed that CitT (487 amino acids, 53.1 kDa) [Source]

487 amino acids, meaning its genetic code is found in 1461 (or more) nucleotide, these nucleotides must come in the right order through mutations (either random or guided) without any bases or knowledge and also not in gradual way and without any mistakes, and all of this must be done many times, logically, this is impossible, but we got an experiment that prove it right? lets continue the story:

After evolutionist celebration they were surprised to hit a wall, in 2012, Lenski released his foundings as a paper, I quote:

The Cit+ trait originated in one clade by a tandem duplication that captured an aerobically expressed promoter for the expression of a previously silent citrate transporter.

And in his paper, he showed this important figure:

Here is a little animation I made to explain it:

Lets explain it, Escherichia coli when being in a place full of O2 it take Glucose as main source of energy (because its a good energy source), in its genome there is what's call Promoter (in short: it is the starting point in which RNA Polymerase start reading the gene, and it reads it from left to right), the O2 enables promoter B (see the figure) and disable promoter A, meaning that RNA Polymerase can not read the gene that generate citrate carrier, in the experiment, some of the bacteria managed to copy this gene and place it in exactly the right place between two genes (if it was in other place, say inside one of the genes then it will be harmful and the bacteria dies), OK what's after getting this citrate carrier? the rest is easy, the bacteria already have what's needed to use the citrate as energy source, what I just explained is way too simple then reality, but it is just enough to explain that this is nothing but adaptation and has nothing to do with evolution.

Lenski in his paper, called it "Exaptation" which is alternative term to "pre-adaptation", because, I quote:

as a replacement for 'pre-adaptation', which they considered to be a teleologically loaded term. [Wikipedia]

So with this experiment we proved that Mobile genetic elements are not a cause for evolution, but rather adaptation which also explain bacterial resistance to antibiotics adding another debunk for those who say "it is proof for evolution".

Now the other type of Mobile genetic elements is Plasmid, and we will discuses it along with:

Horizontal Gene Transfer

Horizontal gene transfer is another way of transferring genes, you could watch this video to know more.

Now saying that because of organisms getting genes from other organisms could lead to evolution is wrong, as this doesn't answer how did these genes evolve, but most importantly, there is organisms that have genes that doesn't exist in any other organisms, so I introduce to you:

Tardigrade, a proof against evolution

Tardigrade is a creature that overthrow evolution with all its kinds, because this organism can tolerate enviroments that don't (and didn't) exist on Earth, it can live in extreme cold and heat:

It can handle pressure nearly six times the pressure of water in the deepest ocean trench, median lethal doses of 5,000 Gy (of gamma rays) and 6,200 Gy (of heavy ions) in hydrated animals (5 to 10 Gy could be fatal to a human), and can handle alot of toxic, extreme environment and more.. (Read Physiology part of the Wikipedia page)

So what evolution or adaptation does this organism need in order to get there? but this doesn't end here, its genome, and I quote:

Researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have sequenced the genome of the nearly indestructible tardigrade, the only animal known to survive the extreme environment of outer space, and found something they never expected: that they get a huge chunk of their genome – nearly one-sixth or 17.5 percent – from foreign DNA.
“We had no idea that an animal genome could be composed of so much foreign DNA,” said co-author Bob Goldstein, faculty member in the biology department in UNC’s College of Arts and Sciences. “We knew many animals acquire foreign genes, but we had no idea that it happens to this degree.”
“We think of the tree of life, with genetic material passing vertically from mom and dad,” said Boothby. “But with horizontal gene transfer becoming more widely accepted and more well known, at least in certain organisms, it is beginning to change the way we think about evolution and inheritance of genetic material and the stability of genomes. So instead of thinking of the tree of life, we can think about the web of life and genetic material crossing from branch to branch. So it’s exciting. We are beginning to adjust our understanding of how evolution works.” [Source]

Well, Tardigrade isn't the only creature that have genes that doesn't exist in any other creature, there are many, as another example the Rotifer, I quote:

Horizontal gene transfer occurs in humans and other animals occasionally, usually as a result of gene swapping with viruses, but to put it into perspective, most animals have less than 1 percent of their genome made up of foreign DNA. Before this, the rotifer – another microscopic water creature – was believed to have the most foreign genes of any animal, with 8 or 9 percent. [Source]

So saying that Horizontal gene transfer was a cause for evolution is just another word salad to impress those who don't bother read.

Gradual accumulation of mutations

In Part 1 I used the concept of Irreducible complexity as a proof against evolution, that was the case with many "creationists", some evolutionists finally used their brains to understand that this makes sense, but rather then accepting the fact that the theory is a joke, they simply stated that there is a problem, and that's it, they didn't even try to give a solution, as they know this problem can't be fixed with logic.

However, this problem isn't new, it was once called Saltation, and it was a joke for years, I quote:

Saltation was originally denied by the "modern synthesis" school of neo-Darwinism which favoured gradual evolution but has since been accepted due to recent evidence in evolutionary biology.

It was called "evolution by jerks" by neo-drawinism supporters, I quote:

Diversity is generated non-adaptively by the comparatively sudden origin of new species in some kind of evolutionary "jerk"... [Source]

And Saltation supporters replied calling "Evolution by creeps", Read more about the stupid war, as a result we get evolutionists never agree on almost anything but the denial of a Creator, I quote:

Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous [Source]

As some of them even went to make his own evolution religion, something like The Third Way, I quote:

Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis [a theory to explain a theory, not to mention it can't be applied during the whole evolution concept], horizontal DNA transfer [has nothing to do with evolution], action of mobile DNA [Debunked above] and epigenetic modifications [Doesn't change the DNA, it activate or deactivate a trail, nothing new is added nor deleted.].

Now back to the point of Gradual mutations, this idea adds more problems then it removes, as now they must found a way to explain where the organism is going to found the full needed genes to make a new trail, unless they do that, I mark this as debunked.

It is now clear to me that this page, is nothing but Word salad, a logical falLacy called Red Herring.

Another fossil

There is a fossil that was labeled "Ardipithecus ramidus" named Ardi, without going to details, here are list of articles that debunks it:

To the next topic:

Alot of evolutions

Next time you debate an evolutionist please ask him "what kind of evolution do you follow", as there are many, here is a short list:

OK, lets see what we get here:

Convergent evolution and Parallel evolution and Co-Evolution

If you asked ignorent atheist about a proof for evolution, there is a chance he will bring the simularities in shape and structers as an evidence, this argument isn't new:

If you opened the book "Biology" by Raven and Johnson, 2017 edtion at page 432, you will see this figure titled "Homologues structures suggest common dervation":

Same figure can be found in many biology books, like Essentials of Biology 2017 by Sylvia Mader, Michael Windelspecht:

I quote:

Although the specific details of vertebrate forelimbs are diferent, the same basic bone stucture and position are present (color-coded here). This unity of anatomy is evidence of a common ancestor.

But there is a book that debunks what Biology by Raven and Johnson claim, using this figure:

I quote:

Convergent evolution. Many marsupial species in Australia resemble placental mammals occupying similar ecological niches elsewhere in the rest of the world. Marsupials evolved in isolation after separated from other continents.

So this figure shows how simular Mammals and Placentalia are, but wait, didn't you guys state that, and I quote:

...new eutherian of 160 Myr from the Jurassic of China, which extends the first appearance of the eutherian–placental clade by about 35 Myr from the previous record... [Source Paper]

So their common ancestor have split very long ago, and their structure either visible or genomic must be so different, but that figure (and many others) simply show how simular they are, so the question is: is simularities a proof for evolution or not? if yes then please remove the common ancestor part because it debunks your claim, if no then never use this argument again.

Now I want to thank the book that debunked Biology by Raven and Johnson, which is Biology by Raven and Johnson, yes, simularities is a proof for evolution, but strong simularities doesn't isn't, and everything leads to evolution being true.

Quantum evolution and Punctuated Evolution

You may be asking, if evolution is true, why don't we see it happening right now? the answer based on evolutionist is that evolution takes so many millions of years in order to happen, right, so how about the creatures that we observed to not have evolved for millions of years? (Another Example) their answer is that evolution doesn't happen in fixed tempo, and we call the other tempos : bradytelic (slow tempo), horotelic (medium tempo), and tachytelic (rapid tempo).

Now lets be clear here, our question is simply, is evolution fast or slow, or to say is they are creatures that don't evolve? like Claytosmunda, I quote:

Morphometric parameters of interphase nuclei match those of extant Osmundaceae, indicating that the genome size of these reputed “living fossils” has remained unchanged over at least 180 million years—a paramount example of evolutionary stasis.[Source]

180 million years and no change? Can't wait to see them explain it.

Protocals of Evolution jokes

Please take a min and read the following name: "Hesperropithecus haroldcookii", you failed didn't you? you can't even spell the name right and you came to debunk evolution!! (By the way we debunked that fossil in PART 1)

OK maybe you did a mistake, here is another name "Archaeoraptor liaoningensis", failed again? well let me explain to you, these names where not made based on anything but to impress ignorent people who don't bother reading what they mean or what they are, this idea of impressive names for jokes came with darwin, when he made his useless debunked theory Pangenesis, darwin followers didn't bother making jokes for it, but that "PAN" as a "PANcake" sounded good to them that they created their theory Directed panspermia which is worst then darwin theory, it states that since genes can not possible be a result of random mutation, therefore, and I quote:

Directed panspermia concerns the deliberate transport of microorganisms in space, sent to Earth to start life here, or sent from Earth to seed new planetary systems with life by introduced species of microorganisms on lifeless planets. The Nobel prize winner Francis Crick, along with Leslie Orgel proposed that life may have been purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization... [Source]

That's science, everything but a creator, these cool naming is old:

They are but names, named by you and your fathers. Allah has not sent down any authority for them. They follow conjecture and their soul's desire, even though the guidance of their Lord has come to them. [Quran 53:23]

Another important protocal is:

Framing

Framing, is when you give a name (a frame) to a group or individual which is presented as negative connotation, framing like "Creationist", this will lead people away from such negative connotations to a better one like "a scientist", as for them a scientist can not be a creationist, why? because:

We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity (16); but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. [The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms, and the Order of Life p.205]

That quote if by Franklin M. Harold who also stated in the same book:

Cell components as we know them are so thoroughly integrated that one can scarcely imagine how any one function could have arisen in the absence of the others. Genetic information can only be replicated and read out with the aid of enzyme proteins, which are themselves specified by those same genes. Energy is harnessed by means of enzymes, whose production requires energy input.[p.245]
Let me, therefore, state unambiguously that I, like the vast majority of contemporary scientists, see the living world as wholly the product of natural causes [p.190]

That's funny, and he ended his book with:

It would be agreeable to conclude this book with a cheery fanfare about science closing in, slowly but surely, on the ultimate mystery; but the time for rosy rhetoric is not yet at hand. The origin of life appears to me as incomprehensible as ever, a matter for wonder but not for explication. [p.251]

With that same mental problem, "Scientists" fall into the logical fallacy of False dilemma, and from them we get "The most accurate theory", or should I say "The theory that puts the right answer false first", want proof? here you go:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[Richard C. Lewontin, an evolutionary biologist, 1997 article, Source 2]
Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably). Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism. [Source]

Let that sink in

Why evolution event exist? what was the goal of darwin?

Notice that in all evolution supporting paper, in all evolution supporting articles, or the theory of evolution as a whole, evolution is literally translated as "No creation", don't take it from me, lets see how Darwin deceived everyone into this:

Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed. [On the Origin of Species (1859)/Chapter XIV Page 484]

"life was first breathed"? by who Drawin? a creator? why don't you state that? fair enough:

The following additions and alterations, prepared by the author expressly for this edition, were received too late to be incorporated in their proper places.
[page] 432 ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator. [Source]

And Darwin kept this sentence in his later editions 1861 and 1872, ok is that everything the creator did? did he plan on how evolution is going to guide organism like in directed evolution? based on Darwin, No:

community of descent is the hidden bond which naturalists have been unconsciously seeking, and no some unknown plan of creation, or the enunciation of general propositions [Source 1, Source 2]

Wait Darwin really? No:

Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration... [1860 Edition, 1859 Edition]

Are you deceiving us? Darwin? No:

Further we must suppose that there is a power (natural selection) always intently watching each slight accidental alteration... [1861 Edition]
Further we must suppose that there is a power, represented by natural selection or the survival of the fittest, always intently watching each slight alteration [1869 Edition]

So, there is no part for the creator in your theory? Darwin:

But many naturalists think that something more is meant by the Natural System; they believe that it reveals the plan of the Creator; but unless it be specified whether order in time or space, or both, or what else is meant by the plan of the Creator, it seems to me that nothing is thus added to our knowledge. [1869 Edition]

OK, lets prove that Darwin target is to take away the role of the creator with any cost, Alfred Russel Wallace was a British naturalist, Darwin thought he and him are working on making this theory, Wallace wrote in one of his articles, and I quote:

Wallace believed that a solution to this gap, between observed characters and their utility in life, required the intervention of some additional mechanism: "While admitting to the full extent the agency of the same great laws of organic development in the origin of the human race as in the origin of all organized beings, yet there seems to be a Power which has guided the action of those laws (of organic development) in defnite directions and for special ends." Later in the article he refers to a "Higher Intelligence" that has guided the laws of development for nobler ends. [Source]

Darwin replied with, I quote:

Darwin writes a large "No" in the upper left margin and inserts four exclamation points in the right margin next to the frst passage.
Darwin himself wrote hoping "that Wallace had not too completely murdered" their joint child. [Refering to evolution theory]

Its like him saying "That's what my theory is about Wallace, remember that!", ok Darwin, can you explain how the brain evolved?, No:

But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. [Source]

So the creator role was only to create the first cell? Drawin? No:

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.[Source]

So Darwin played with words in order to calm the "creationists" feeling, deceiving them into beliving he is one of them, slowly putting the poison? or isn't he? I quote:

It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? [1861,1859 Edition]

So you were doing it to defened the creator? like if human create this with a plan in mind then the creator create using random non sense and filter it? that's what you have to believe in order to not be "Presumptuous" based on Darwin.

And that's it Darwin, your theory gave a reason for creator deniers to deny him, but only for a short amount of time.


New: 2022 Scientific Paper Ends Evolution

In 12 January 2022, the famous scientific journal nature, has released a new study that shoke the entire evolution community, as by now Jan 25 2022, it had 72k Accesses, and was talked about everywhere.

Now before we also talk about it, let's simply recall what evolution is all about: evolution is a theory said to explain how complex creatures came to exist, and it's two main blocks are random mutations and blind natural selection, and even tho the random mutations part was debunked above, but evolutionists do not want to leave this idea, because if mutations weren't random, then who guided them to be perfect and to create such complex oragnisims and beautiful living creatures?

Does that look random to you? isn't that a clear proof for a creator who created everything in measure?

Verily, all things have We created in proportion and measure. [Quran 54:49]

So we know that evolutionists can't leave the random mutations idea even after many studies going against that idea, now what do we have now?

The Paper I am talking about titled "Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana" and it is about a study where researchs kept looking carefully in the mutations that happened in a plant called Arabidopsis thaliana over many generations, and they found out that all those mutations, Where not random!, these foundings shakes the idea of random mutations, as mutations that are happening now are random, and mutations that happened ages before were also random and they caused the evolution of creatures, and so if today mutations aren't random, so do the mutations of previous ages, so lets see what the paper say:

Since the first half of the twentieth century, evolutionary theory has been dominated by the idea that mutations occur randomly with respect to their consequences.
challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.
challenging a long-standing paradigm regarding the randomness of mutation ...

Now lets get a bit more deeper into that study:

While it will be important to test the degree and extent of mutation bias beyond Arabidopsis, the adaptive mutation bias described here provides an alternative explanation for many previous observations in eukaryotes, including reduced genetic variation in constrained loci.

What they mean by that is: their results could be applied to other creatures/organisms, now to explain that, the Genome of any creature has what's called an Essential genes which are very important, and if many mutations happened in those genes it will be harmful to the organism [read Fewer mutations in essential genes] what the study found is that those regions are protected against mutations, and even if mutations happened, there is a mechanism to repair it, while other genes are also has protection but its less then the essential genes, what's the result of this? it result in variants in the plant while keeping its offsprings from being correpted because of the protection of the essential genes, and this goes against what random mutations idea say, since it tells us that mutations happen randomly over the whole genome and plants that got harmful mutations are going to be filtered with natural selection, but this study simply refuses that and says that a plant can't get hamful mutations because their essential genes are protected.


Fig. 3: Lower mutation probability in essential genes.

Now lets see what this paper caused:

  • So did evolutionists admitted that their theory is false? well I guess we know the answer, I quote from the paper:

    Evolution of mutation bias
    The adaptive value of this bias can be conceptualized by the analogy of loaded dice with a reduced probability of rolling low numbers (that is, deleterious mutations), and thus a greater probability of rolling high numbers (that is, beneficial mutations)

    for those who don't know, the loaded dice is simply a dice that has one of its faces heavier in a way that makes some faces appear more often, and what they mean is, evolution simply throw this dice and gets few harmful mutations and more useful mutations, and that's what they call "science", and those who are called "scientists" while in fact they are simply Retards.

    Now to conclude, the paper was titled "Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana" even tho this title has nothing to do with the paper, they placed "natural selection" in it to showcase that the second block of evolution is still there, even tho they downplay the role of NS in many parts of the paper, I quote:

    ..., mutation bias in genic regions could affect sequence evolution around genes more than selection.
    In conclusion, evolution around genes in Arabidopsis appears to be explained by mutation bias to a greater extent than by selection.
    confirming that these results are not due to selection on coding sequences biasing our mutation datasets

    If you have read the Athesim article you would of know that simply using the word "creator" can cause your paper to be taken down and that's the least worst thing to happen, and so to avoid that, this paper used the word "Evolution" and its derivatives 52 times in pathetic way, like this one:

    Since mutational biases are a product of evolution

    And at the end, you found no trace of evolution anywhere, it is just a dream that retards don't want weak up from, so sleep well today, and be ready to face the consequences tomorrow.

    Closing words

    And just like that, my 3 PART articles of evolution is done, I won't make more evolution articles, however If I found something that needs to be debunked, I would add it here.

    Evolution is not a theory to justify being atheist, it is a theory that was made for the sake of fighting religous people and to force an agenda, but we will always oppose it, Thank you for reading.


    Have you not seen those that dispute concerning the Signs of Allah. How are they turned away (from Reality)? [Quran 40:69]

    You have now.