The Koran And Evolution

The Koran And Evolution

by Muhammed A Asadi

This paper DOES NOT present in any way the Christian Creationists position on humankind's origin.

"INDEED, WE CREATED HUMANKIND ACCORDING TO THE BEST ORGANIZATION (Koran 95:4)."

Charles Darwin was a graduate of Christ college in Cambridge. He was a clergyman with no previous background in biology or medicine. On December 21, 1831 [1200 years after the Koran's revelation] Darwin sailed from Plymouth, England on the Beagle. His traveling in the earth to discover the origin of species was originally planned for two years but lasted five.

This voyage transformed the cleric into an independent and adventurous scientist who then proposed and embraced the myth of transmutation of species. Darwin's approach to discover the origin of species was Koranic in nature but the fairy tale that he constructed based on it is not supported by the Koran.

"Say: TRAVEL IN THE EARTH and see how God [Allah] originated creation..." Koran 29:20

To date:

i) No unequivocal scientific evidence exists in favor of evolution by natural selection changing species.

ii) Darwin himself in his letters confessed that his theory cannot be demonstrated scientifically in any case [i.e. one species evolving into another] but it helps explain a lot of things [even the explanations he sought in the light of modern discovery are faulty especially concerning rudimentary organs etc.].

Evolution is a pseudo-scientific and not a scientific theory according to the very definition of a scientific theory. According to the Oxford Dictionary, for a theory to be classified as scientific, it must embody in itself facts within a framework of general laws.

Evolution by Natural Selection happens in slow steps?

A slow mechanism of evolution as envisioned by the theory of Evolution by natural selection necessitates innumerable transitional forms. This was acknowledged by Darwin.

"That natural selection generally acts with extreme slowness, I duly admit.... As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps. Darwin 468.

When objections arose as to why we don't find the intermediary forms in fossil records, the only answer Darwin and his supporters could give was that they are present but haven't been dug up yet. While it might have carried some weight in his day but today with so much paleontological excavations, whenever a new find is unearthed it belongs to a well developed isolated class or a class we are already well aware of, and can in not even one instance be classified as an intermediary that the theory of evolution would predict.

The isolation of classes in all of paleontology and in the observable natural world are absolute and transitions to particular characteristic traits are abrupt and the phenomena of discontinuity is universal throughout the living kingdom. Darwin's theory of Evolution failed in its attempt to predict reality.

Darwin's theory can never be termed as a scientific fact. It deals with unique events, i.e. the origin of life, the origin of intelligence, the origin of higher species etc. Unique events like the ones evolutionary theory deals are un-repeatable and therefore can never be subject to scientific experimentation.

However when pseudo-scientific theories like evolution become the "in-thing" in society they are given a very high "status" and it is expected that people accept them just at "face-value" even though empirical proof has never been presented or substantiated. The theory as such becomes a metaphysical dogma. Questioning such a theory becomes akin to apostasy and is met with hate and emotion rather than scientific evidence. Consider for example the faith that Dawkins, the author of The Blind Watchmaker, has in Darwin's metaphysics: "The theory (of evolution) is about as much in doubt as the earth goes around the sun (The Selfish Gene, page1, 1976)." This is an atrocious claim. It was acknowledged by Darwin that empirical evidence does not exist in support of his theory whereas empirical evidence exists in support of the earth going around the sun.

Richard Dawkins, the author of The Blind Watch maker thinks that by playing on his Commodore 64 (he said its a 64 Kb computer )he can prove evolution. I was amazed at his infantile ideas with biomorphs producing figures which to his mind resembled insects and bats (out of a million zillion garbage figures). I can find a bat or an insect in a blotch of ink Mr. Dawkins, don't you know about the Rosach Ink blot test? I can even see a man in there. Wow, evolution is proven. Dawkins also overlooked rather conveniently, the fact that any program involves the existence of a programming intellect which provides the information necessary to operate the system. The laws of evolution could not have originated the laws of evolution since even according to the theory they require a specific order and entities governed by that order.

Evolutionists and Neo-Darwinians classify cells as primitive or evolved. This is not true. 99% of cellular structures all across the species are identical. This figure is 100% for DNA. The only difference between cells is the "program" which instructs them on how to function. Therefore, evolutionary theory fails at the very basic cell level.

Every cell is programmed to function in a specific way. Even the ordinary computer user knows that a computer, with all its complex structures, will only function if it has been programmed. A fact that implies the existence of a programming intellect that provides the information required to operate the system. This should surely lead one to consider the role of the Creator in life's existence.


"He [Moses] said [to Pharaoh]: `Our Cherisher (God) is He who gave to everything its creation then DIRECTED it." Koran 20:5

There's a genuine enigma, an ignorance faced by the medical and biological community throughout the world: THE ORIGIN OF THE GENETIC CODE . NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE HOW THE INCREASE IN THE DATA CONTAINED IN THE GENES LEADS TO MORE AND MORE COMPLEX STRUCTURES.

The One who originated the genetic code has the power to reproduce it, to add to it or take away from it. For a person having knowledge of the Koran, there's no enigma at all [see my writing, "God, the Genetic Code & the Koran" at the end].

" Say: `Is there any of your associates [whom you hold equal to God], one who produces creation then reproduces it?' Say: `Allah (God) produces creation then reproduces it. How, then are you mislead." Koran 10:34

Whereas "Micro-evolution" is seen to operate in nature and which was documented by Darwin in his voyage on the Beagle, it operates within the same species. For example the variation in Finches that Darwin documented as well as the darkening of the color of the wing of the moth after the industrial revolution (i.e. pollution) so that it can better escape predators. However this small scale cannot be applied to the whole class of living organisms with the conclusion that everything in nature has a common ancestor, i.e. primitive soup cell which was created by chance with no intelligence involved. There is complete lack of empirical evidence to support the notion that Macro-evolution works in nature based solely on natural selection. There is no evidence whatsoever which can prove that Natural Selection has transformed one species into another on the grand scale of the natural world.

The error in Darwin's reasoning was that he translated evolution working within species without one iota of evidence, into the concept of his General Theory of evolution by which he sought to explain the origin of life on this planet. The mechanism operating within birds (to change their beak sizes for example) or the color of the wing of the moth are minute and microscopic compared to a change say in cell to form a human brain. Natural Selection could never have achieved that even by a wild swing of the imagination. And Darwin did use a lot of imagination. In a letter to Asa Grey which he wrote on September 5, 1857 he says, " Ones imagination must FILL UP the very wide blanks."

Another thing which he overlooked, being really impressed with the new theory in Geology, of gradual change in the surface of the earth, was that Micro changes don't always translate into Macro changes. For example the day to day weather changes that we experience are caused by different reasons to the Macro changes in climate, caused by the earth's journey around the sun. Also consider Geology, the Micro changes caused by weathering, sedimentary deposition, volcanic activity are different to the Macro changes caused by Plate Tectonics ( something which Darwin knew nothing about).

Consider an argument from language, while we let Dawkins play with his Commodore 64: In order to change this simple word "SAT" into a fairly complex sentence, "HE **SAT** ON THE MAT," we need an addition to information which is not contained in the word SAT. Natural selection cannot explain the origin of the new information. The origin of the genetic code and how it increases in information is an enigma to all biologists, Darwinian or non-Darwinian ( and there are many modern biologists who don't buy Darwin's ideas but there are NO modern physicists who don't but the fact of the earth going around the sun).

Explaining the addition to the information needed to transform a simple word to a very simple sentence cannot be explained by Natural Selection. Even to change the sentence: "He sat on the mat," to "He stood on the mat," we would need not a step by step change but a simultaneous change to keep the sentence stable given the criteria of English.

Step by Step Change:
He **SAT** on the mat
He **ST** on the mat
He **STO**on the mat
He *STOO**on the mat

He *STOOD**on the mat

Now count the transitory unstable "species" in the transformation. They come to a minimum of 3. Note also that sentence 2-4 are non functional compared to sentence 1 and 5. According to the very definition of Natural Selection which is supposed to produce beneficial changes, the transitory forms don't work. Further in all the excavations of paleontology there is no shred of evidence of any intermediary forms, the number of which should be millions of times more than stable species according to the theory.

The facts support a simultaneous and coordinated change, the addition in information coming from an "intelligent" source, the originator of the Genetic code. As an example consider the evolution of the horse which took place on different continents under different conditions which would have yielded different results according to Natural Selection and not the uniform result we see.

Consider what the natural world shows: He **SAT** on the mat. To change it simultaneously and in an organized, coordinated manner. Drop the A and add two Os and a D to the information repertoire. Bingo.

Biologists today know that every organized being forms as a whole, by itself a unique and perfect system the parts of which correspond and function mutually. None of the parts can change one at a time as Natural Selection predicts without the whole changing or there is no harmony, the kind of harmony we see in nature. The isolation and distinctiveness of species and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature are self evident. Paleontology doesn't find any evidence of innumerable intermediaries between species leading up to the perfectly adapted final. All they find is thousands of identical individuals that are distinct and isolated and perfectly adapted by themselves and cannot be termed as intermediaries. Natural data supports the notion of gaps and jumps in the organization and complexity of species.

Neo-Darwinians sometimes site one (not zillions as Darwin predicted) example of the Lung Fish which has the gill structure of the fish but a heart of an amphibian as an intermediary. This however is deception because of two reasons: i)Their theory doesn't point to just one but a million intermediaries to one perfectly adapted final. So there is not only one missing link but zillions of missing links ii)The lung fish cannot be termed as an intermediary because it is a perfect system: the gills/respiration works like a perfect fish and the heart like a perfect amphibian. There is no unstable intermediary "thing" in the lung fish which natural selection will correct via its zillions more intermediary stages. Neither do the gills show anything which is a transition between the fish and an amphibian.

Consider the fact that nature's distinctions are clear. The group-type mammals for example, the Kangaroo, the mouse and the man all have the basic mammalian characteristics of hair and mammary glands and due to these and other common features stand distinct from other vertebrate (backboners) species. If Macro-evolution were the case and a fact like Dawkins states then nature's divisions would not be so distinct but blurred just as evolutionary theory predicts. This is exactly what we don't find in nature.

How do you explain 'Panchronic' species:

If Natural Selection was a fact, just like the earth going around the sun, as Dawkins states, then how can you explain certain species which have failed to evolve at all even though they undergo mutations like all other species? The Panchronic species stand as a challenge to Neo-Darwinism.

As examples:

1. Bees from the tertiary period are the same as today's bees. Consider the bee's sting which ensures its death (not survival). If Natural Selection was the law, why did not the bee sting evolve into something which did ensure survival and not death?

2.The coelacanth, caused great excitement when it was first discovered. It dates from the Cretaceous period, 130 million years back. They were thought to be extinct but one live specimen was discovered in 1952, which is the same as its ancestors.

3. In plants, there is a living plant fossil known as gingko which has leaves unlike that of any modern tree.

4. The Lampreys, jaw-less fish. If developing jaws was such a big advantage according to evolutionary theory, how come these jaw-less, lower stage fishes do so well? How come the intermediary stage between jaw-less and jawed fish died out (with no fossil evidence) but the original primitive jaw-less fish survived?

5.Bacteria, even though they reproduce and hence mutate faster should have evolved more if Natural Selection was the case. However fossil bacteria going back to 3.5 billion years are identical with today's modern forms.

6.Blue Algae, have been in existence for over one billion years, are the same as today's algae. Also the opossom, which has been around for millions of years without evolving, sponges and cockroaches, are good examples.

7.Fish lacking vision and also fish possessing sonar [sonic radar] systems and fish that "see" by electric fields live side by side at the bottom of the ocean. If evolutionist were correct then the blind fish should have been replaced long time ago by the other two yet they have survived side by side for millions of years.

"And how many an animal there is that bears not its own provision! Allah [God] provides for it and for you. He is the Hearer the KNOWER." Koran 29:60

Biologists state that evolution in fishes and humans has come to a stand still. If we seek an answer from Darwin's theory we fail to find one. Natural Selection is supposed to be blind with no goal in mind and it carries on indefinitely.

If Natural Selection was a fact, then how come certain animals show excessive "evolutionary" development if you accept the premises of evolutionary theory. For example consider the Irish Elk with its excessive antlers which causes a hindrance rather than an advantage to the animal in question. Evolutionists say that the development of antlers was an "chance" benefit of Natural Selection. Why didn't Natural Selection correct it and prevent it from being excessive in the case of the Irish Elk?

There are Mollusces living on coral reefs the shells of which have become so over- thickened that they can hardly open them to feed. It seems like in their case as in the many other cases that Natural Selection died as a natural law. However, the law that makes the earth go around the sun is uniform in all regions of the universe as regards bodies which move relative to each other. So much for Dawkins' physics.

Whereas the evolutionists are fast to explain why certain features appear in species, they never explain the lack of those features or why they don't appear in some. As examples, consider the cilia (motile hairs) which are absent in spiders and eel worms while they occur in a wide range of other creatures ranging from protozoan to man. Why are pigmented cells which affect color changes to protect certain animals absent from all warm blooded animals. They would indeed be of as much advantage to them as to cold blooded animals?

If Natural Selection were the blind case then everything would have developed in one direction only. Just look at even the sizes of everything: Lizards- big like crocodiles and small; cats small and big like the lion; pigs, the guinea pig and the wild boar. Indeed the variety within species that doesn't serve any adaptive advantage has always proved challenging for evolutionists to explain away.

"And of His [God's] signs is the creation of the skies and the earth and all the beasts that he has dispersed in them. And He is able to gather them whenever He wills." Koran 42:29

Mathematically: evolution via blind Natural Selection is an impossibility. For a worm to be formed from an amoeba, the alterations needed in its genetic code, would take 10 Trillion years to produce at the of 1 change per second (this is 500 times the age of the observable universe). The number of alterations in genetic code needed for an ape to evolve into a man amount to changes. This is such a big impossibility that for example consider the volume of the entire universe in terms of the diameter of ONE ELECTRON- one tiny electron much smaller than an atom is . [See Paul S Moorhead and Martin M Kaplan, "Mathematical challenges to the Neo-Darwinian interpretations of evolution." Philadelphia Wilstar Institute Press]

The Galapagos where Darwin conducted his study on Finches, and where his theory took shape, raise many other questions. All during the time to date, there has never been a shortage of either insects or fruit on the Islands, so why did the beaks of the Finches change? Darwin himself via his theory cannot answer that. Some may argue that in the very past, there might have been a shortage of fruits or insects which led to the beak size change corresponding to the change in diet. But then the other question arises. Why did not all the finches change their diet if there was a real shortage of fruit or insects?

Darwin's theory suggests that the beaks changed because the Finches chose to alter their diet and eat different in order to survive and so the beaks adapted via Natural Selection as time progressed. The above two very valid questions make is very suspicious of this explanation which was the very basis of the entire theory of evolution. In fact empirical evidence shows that the CHANGE (i.e. beak size in this case) come FIRST and the behavior modifications (i..e diet change in this case) LATER. This completely kills Darwinism. Neo-Darwinians fail to realize that even the notion of "survival of the fittest" cannot work without putting God in the picture. Any automatic system which alters itself based on any stimuli, exists ONLY if a need was previously recognized by a "recognizer" and apparatus to deal with it were provided. The ability to adapt is ingrained in the species by an intelligence that pre-recognized that such conditions could be faced by that species.

Go around a garden in the spring time and see all the flowers growing and occupying the same niche. Some of them would have four or five or six petals. How can you prove the advantages of having four instead of five petals and so on? Why do they all flourish if natural selection ensures the survival of the fittest?

On one of the Hawaiian Islands, there are 300 species of Drosphilia, compared with only a half a dozen species in the neighboring Island. What this suggests is not slow sluggish natural selection but an "abrupt" genetic change quite different to the accumulation of minute changes as proposed by Darwin and his modern worshipper Dawkins.

The picture in nature of competition that Darwin envisioned is faulty also. His example of competitionwas that of a wolf. The wolf he said, that ran faster would kill more effectively and get the meat ascompared to other wolves. Coming from a naturalist this conclusion is completely deceptive. Wolves it has been observed, hunt in packs and SHARE the meat. It is also a well known fact to naturalists that competition in the natural world is rare and animals have mechanisms like specialization of diet and defining of territories to avoid competition. Examples exist of fishes of various different species, recorded and video taped, which feed on the same coral reef in close proximity to each other without any conflict whatsoever. P.P Grasse, the French biologist studied butterflies and found no competition among them.

Evolutionists suggest that "wings" got developed as an advantage. If flight was such an advantage why do we see penguins trying to give up that advantage and return to its ancestral marine life, from which they emerged according to evolutionary theory?

Further, we ask the evolutionists: Who evolved from whom? In terms of color and art, the butterfly is much superior to the human. In terms of memory retention as a function of brain weight, the Dolphin exceeds all. The termite, smaller than an ant , in terms of warfare and the poison that it produces is much more effective than bigger-so called higher stage in evolution- animals. In terms of radar vision, the bat is unsurpassed.


"O humankind, an example is struck so pay attention to it: `Those on whom you call besides God will never be able to create a fly even though they combine together for the purpose..... So WEAK are the seeker and the sought." Koran 22:73

It is a well known fact that certain conifer plants produce chemical compounds that irresistibly attract coleoptera which then devour them. The production of these chemical compounds is therefore responsible for the death of this plant. This process has been going on for millions of years. Where has natural selection vanished in the case of this poor plant. There are species of the antelope whose hoofs contain glands which secrete a particular odor, which as the antelope runs is left on the ground and makes the attacking carnivore track it. Thus here is another case of Natural Selection not explaining reality.

Homology as Proof of Macro-evolution: Not.

Darwin in his flimsly logic concluded that since similarities exist organisms belonging to different species regardless of their habits of life, therefore all species MUST have a common ancestor. Indeed, homology, as he defined it, was what he took most comfort in in defending his theory.

What he might not have realized is that the above is "his" interpretation of homology and not a strong scientific conclusion. If I see the Mercedes insignia on all different "species" of Mercedes, would I conclude that they all have a common ancestor? No, I would conclude that they have the same Manufacturer. Darwin's conclusion was at best subjective. I could say that the Creator has a pattern or method of creation, his signature which proves one as against many creators. Why would my conclusion be wrong? At least I present a valid analogy, whereas Darwin's interpretation was far fetched.

The homology that Darwin pointed out was based on the pentadectyl (5 fingers ) pattern of the hind limb, showing similarities in the early embryo of the Kangaroo, who uses these for jumping, in the Koala who uses them for leaf eating and others. Darwin had no idea of genetics, advances in which were made much after his passing away. If it was shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes and if embryological research showed that homologous structures followed similar development patters then he might have had a case. However, it has been clearly shown today that homologous structures are inspired by non-homologous genetic systems. The origin of homologous structures is not homologous at all. In embryology the difference between the division of egg to the blastula and the blastula itself is very different when compared between amphibian, reptile and mammal. Also the way in which the gastrula gets formed. If classification was done solely on embryology then these structures could never have been termed homologous since they are arrived at by different routes.

Consider another example from botany: Conifers and Angiosperms are considered as homologous but they differ markedly in the way the ovule and the endosperm forms. Darwin was completely wrong when he suggested in his definition of homology as, "relationship between parts which result from their development from corresponding embryonic parts (The Origin of Species, 492)."

De Beer, British embryologist and the Director of the British Natural History Museum, in his article, Homology the Unresolved Problem (1971) writes on page 15 :"Homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes and homology of phenotype doesn't imply similarity of genotype."

Almost every gene that has been studied in animals has been found to affect more than one organ system. A multiple effect known as PLEIOTROPY. What really kills Darwinism and his homology argument (which was subjective to start with) is that PLEIOTROPHIC effects are invariably SPECIES SPECIFIC. Also according to basic biochemical design no species can be thought of as being primitive and ancestral with respect to any other species.

Darwin's subjective argument concerning homology (which he considered was his strongest case for evolution by natural selection) is further disproved by the existence of homologous phenotypes which can by no stretch of the imagination be attributed to a common ancestor. Consider the fore limb which in the early development is also based on the pentadectyl patter and cannot be distinguished from the hind limb. Yet it cannot be said that the hind limb evolved from the fore or vice versa, since according to evolutionary theory, the fore limb arose from the pectoral fin of the fish and the hind from the pelvic fin, and also the final structure in adults of the fore and the hind are markedly different. They never had a common ancestor.

Evolutionists tend to judge overall similarity on terms of skeletal anatomy. This however is faulty. There is for example an almost identical convergence between the marsupial and the placental dogs of Australia. They are incredibly similar in gross appearance and skeletal structure, teeth, skull etc. So similar infact that only a skilled zoologist can distinguish between them. Yet in terms of their soft anatomy, there is an enormous difference between the two. Also consider the case of the whales, fish and ichthyosaurs, the similarity of forelimb of mole and the insect mole cricket, the design of the eye of the invertebrates and cephalopods and the cochlea in birds and mammals. However these small similarities do not imply any close biological relationship at all!

There is not one iota of evidence to suggest that one species of hominid evolved into another. Their existence (of some) has been determined, one species disappears and the other SUCCEEDS it. There is however no scientific evidence to defend the theory that man [Homo Sapiens] are descended from the lineage of the great apes.

"If (God) wills, He destroys you and in your place appoints whom He wills as SUCCESSORS just as He brought you forth from the descendants of other peoples." Koran 6:133

"Indeed, We created them and strengthened them. And when We willed, We replaced them completely by people of the same kind." Koran 76:28

The waves of hominids appear as SUCCESSORS one of the other just as the Koran mentioned centuries before some of the authentic fossils were under covered. They represent stages [or phases] in succession each one showing a progression in intelligence and psychical powers- an increasingly sophisticated organization of the brain. After knowing this consider the following Koranic verse:

"And He[God] created you in stages [or phases]." Koran 71:14

Neo- Darwinians claim that birds evolved from reptiles. However the facts point out that whenever we have ever uncovered the first representatives of a group for example the bird, the fossil records show a construction which is highly specialized and completely characteristic of the whole group. The fact is that every single flying bird from the Archaeopteryx on has possessed highly developed aerofoil (flight wings) containing fully developed flight feathers. It shows that the one who designed these has a full awareness of the laws of aerodynamics. Blind, natural selection based on survival of the fittest could never achieve this. The sudden origin of the angiosperm for example and the first animals in Cambrian rocks has baffled biologists.

So big is the gap between species, that not only is there no empirical evidence linking the species but transitional hypothetical intermediary groups cannot even be constructed by Neo-Darwinians. Considering these facts it is a surprise that the scientific community even listens to them. But it has become a faith matter to them so they have to listen.

Evolutionists say that the purpose of evolution is to attain survival adaptation. Adaptation, without any intelligence involved, based on random chance doesn't make any sense at all. The concept of what is "functional" has to be defined [using intelligence] and then strides towards reaching that goal made. Without putting God in the picture, this journey to perfection makes no sense at all and is
outright foolishness.

" What's wrong with you that you hope not towards God [Allah in Semitic languages including Hebrew-Elah or Alah] for dignity. WHEN IT IS HE WHO CREATED YOU BYSTAGES [OR PHASES- ATWAAR IN ARABIC]." Koran 71:14

The above verse has been in the Koran for 1400 years. It is only now though that we can best appreciate its message. Indeed it provides evidence concerning the Koran's claim of originating with the Originator.

As an example take the claim that birds evolved from reptiles and the reptile scale led to the development of the highly specialized wing of the bird. Some Darwinians suggest that the wing developed out of an intermediary structure of "gliding" device. They don't realize however that according to their theory a need must be met for "further" improvement by natural selection to ensure survival. It was a gliding device, then to be a good gliding device it had to have as a principle air trapping by making the surface area big. Any fraying of the reptile scales in a move towards wings would make them pervious to the air and much less useful as gliding devices. Being aware of this problem some Darwinians have suggested that the wing developed out of insect eating reptiles having a need to "net" the insects with their scales, which led to the formation of wings. Any net however has to be pervious to air for it to be useful. Any wings pervious to air would be useless for flight. You cannot have it both ways.

Evolutionists pointed to organs which they termed as useless in the human body as evidence of remains from a lower evolutionary form. However those same organs that they pointed to as being useless [Thymus, pineal gland, Tonsils, the appendix] have all been shown to be very useful in the human body according to modern research, playing a big role even in the human body's fight against cancer. Another fatal blow to evolutionary theory. [For further information see Asadi 73-74].

Darwin Falsified:

On Page 182 of the Origin of Species, Darwin writes: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, MY THEORY WOULD ABSOLUTELY BREAK DOWN."

Consider a modern day worshipper of Darwin, Dawkins, on page 91 of his book, "The Blind Watchmaker," writes,"...I do not believe that such a case (of a complex organ that can't be produced by slight modification) will ever be found. If it is.......I SHALL CEASE TO BELIEVE IN DARWINISM."

Now consider just these three examples among the thousands that exist:

The flight feather of the Bird:

"Have you not seen the Birds that are subjected (to God's command) in the air of the sky? ....Surely in this are signs for a people who confirm." (Koran16:79)


Each wing of every species of bird consists of a central shaft carrying a series of barbs which are positioned at right angles to the shaft to form a vane. The wing is designed by someone who is well aware of the laws of aerodynamics and the problems that might arise during flight. One of the problems of all aerofoils is turbulence which reduces lift and causes stalling. Turbulence is cut down by providing slots in the aerofoil to let through part of the air stream and smooth the flow. Aero-engineers use this same principle in designing airplanes. Surprisingly enough, the wings of the birds have this already built in. Consider the flight of the hummingbird to appreciate how complex the properties of the feathered aerofoil really is.

Just how the scales of reptiles led to the development via blind natural selection, to such a complex structure as the wing remains an enigma to biologists. No one has come close even to describing the stages (intermediary) and what functionality they would serve and how they would arise. In the absence of even a theoretic basis for such a preposterous idea we need not pay any attention to the fairy tales of Neo--Darwinians.

Bird Respiration

Not only is the wing that is unique and uniform throughout all species of birds, they have another unique feature and that is their respiratory system. In all vertebrates (backboners) air is drawn into the lungs via branching tubes which end in airsacs. Therefore air flows in and out through the same passage. In birds however, the flow of air is uni-directional. The bronchi break down into para-bronchi which permeate the whole lung and reconnect again to form a complete circulatory system. How such a system could have evolved via natural selection is simply impossible. The slightest alteration in functioning of respiration leads to immediate death. The system appears uniform in all birds in a fully functional form. We have yet to see any Darwinian set up a theory even of how this modification took place from the reptile. In the absence of even a theory on how it happened and absolutely no empirical evidence, we are justified to state that Darwin and Dawkins have been falsified beyond the shadow of a doubt.

The Bones:

Consider the construction of bones. Without them many terrestrial creatures couldn't support themselves against the drag of gravity. Their construction shows a unique design of spaces left for blood vessels and bone making cells. The major bones contain a cavity lined with a sheeth which generates blood cells. Without newer cells being made all the time we would die, as human blood cells have a life of only 120 days. The joints are another wonder with a lubricant, the synovial fluid. Nothing as complex as this structure can arise due to accumulation of chance mutations. It would require a burst of DIRECTED mutations, all integrated to a single end. Natural Selection cannot explain this or any other similar complex structure.

IMMUNE AND BLOOD CLOTTING SYSTEMS:

The immune and blood clotting mechanisms in organisms whereby foreign intruders are detected and the organism is saved from bleeding to death respectively, can truly be defined as "Irreducibly complex" systems. Just like a mouse trap wont work if anyone of its parts is missing or is improperly placed, the system of chain reactions in blod clotting for example wont work if any part of the mechanism is crude.

Blood clotting works by turning on and off of proteins at precisely the correct spot at the correct time. If anything goes wrong in the process if the proteins were crudely made or improper inhibitors, the organism would either bleed to death or his whole blood would clot and kill him or the clot would form at the wrong spot and block circulation and cause heart failure. How such a system could have arisen out of blind natural selection remains an enigma to this date to biochemists.

Transcription System:

The protein manufacturing system of all cells requires the integrated activity of nearly 100 different proteins, all carrying out different but specific steps in the assembly of a new protein molecule. If only a small proportion of these were "crudely made" as evolutionists would suggests in the earlier stages of the cell, it is practically impossible for any protein to ever be manufactured let alone with a specific configuration of molecules capable of performing specific functions.

The translation system in a cell is completely dependent on accurately made proteins and an imperfect protein synthetic system is hard even to theorize. It would sound like an unintelligent and absurd hypothesis to a geneticist. Just how efficient enzymes could have been manufactured before an efficient translation system (as evolutionists claim) remains an enigma to them to this day and sounds like gibberish to the objective geneticist.

The bigger problem, even bigger than the one above is that the protein synthetic system cannot work in isolation but only in conjuction with other complex subsystems of the cell. Thus the origin of the replication mechanism cannot be envisioned via natural selection.

THE ORIGINATOR OF THE GENETIC CODE MAKES THE CHANGE:

"...There's no changing what Allah [God] has created. That is the established standard religion, but most among humankind know not." (Koran 30:30)

Nilson Heribert of the University of Lund, Sweden states: "Species are types that do not change and cannot change."

Genetic engineering distorts God's creation or repairs what has been distorted of it. It cannot change species. It operates within the possibilities God has created. The above verse of the Koran and the quote by Nilson Heribert state the same thing.

It is time we buried this myth of evolution. It's unfortunate that based on blind materialism we base our entire knowledge of the origin of species, biology and medicine on this "fairy tale".

"The most of them follow nothing but conjecture. And surely, conjecture can never take the place of truth. Indeed, Allah [God] is aware of what they do." Koran 10:36

"...Those who follow ought instead of Allah [God] follow not His partners. The follow only a conjecture, and they do but guess."
Koran 10:66

Let us give credit to the One who deserves the credit of originating us all. Indeed there can be no greater ungratefulness, no greater tyranny than to deny the truth of God as the creator and the evolve.

"O Humankind what has deceived you concerning your Cherisher (God), Most Bountiful, Who created you, then fashioned, then proportioned you. Into whatever form He wills He makes you.." Koran 82:6-8

"He is Allah (God), the Creator, the EVOLVER.." Koran

With the truth, let us all therefore be liberated and content.

"Blessed is He in whose control is the Dominion, and who has power over all things. Who has created life & death that He may try you, which of you is best in conduct; and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving. " Koran 67:1-2

The "mitochondrial eve" theory of the origin of mankind (i,.e homosapiens like us) is based on genetics and a statistical analysis of mitochondria that is passed only thru the mother. They trace the origin of modern man to one woman among a small group in the middle east where paleontologists are agreed that homosapiens originated.

It is the most scientific of all theories presented so far and has striking similarities with the concept in the Koran of mankind originating from a NAFS e waahid, one NAFS, the aya in the Koran 4:1. The zawj or pair of the woman would then be the first male child she gave birth to. Adam might refer to the first group of isolated and independant homosapiens since the plural and not the dual is used for them in the Koran. Consider the comparison of Jesus with Adam if the woman was the first then the resemblance becomes even more stronger since Jesus had a mom only too, and Adam's origination (the first human groups origination) started from the woman.

This doesn't face the incest and other problems posed by the one adam and one eve theory. It struck me almost like revelation when I was reading this book by Leaky on the origin of humankind and the various theories presented.

Further evidence on this is that Neanderthals and homosapiens lived side by side for around 60,000 years and then the adam (i would say the first group of independant and isolated homosapiens) became successors over them, just like God says, I'm going to create on earth a successor. Another point, language has been termed as the one factor which led to the isolation and development of the homosapiens, a point that God demonstrates to the angels as narrated by the Koran.(chapter 2)

One more point. The angels objection makes sense only if they had witnessed previous "successors" like the Neanderthals shedding blood and doing mischief on earth.

Another point for the multiple fathers and not one adam and eve is the term in the Koran with which God reminds us of the people who are our FIRST FATHERS (aabaakum ul awwalieen). It is the FATHERS the plural and not father the singular.

CLAY: THE BEGINNING OF HUMANKIND

".....Indeed we created them (humankind) of BINDING (laazib-arabic)CLAY." Koran 37:11

"...We BEGAN (emphasis-mine) the creation of humankind from clay (Koran 32:7).

"...We created humankind of dry clay of altered black mud (Koran 15:26)

Only in the presence of clay which is alternately dried and then becomes moist again (Koran 15:26) do long chains of organic molecules combine with each other to formnucliec acids.

Clay also acts like a binding magnet (Koran 37:11); clay ions attract matter and incite it to react. The trace elements we see today are the result of the evolution of just such ions. In clay and binding sticky mud, carbon and nitrogen atoms have negative valences C-4 and N-3. Oxygen, phosphorous and hydrogen occuring naturally in the soil can only combine with negatively charged carbon and nitrogen to form the basic constituents of the human body.

Clay also acts as a desiccator, removing water so that large organic molecules can be formed. Via God's will intelligent life evolved out of clay (Koran 32:7)

Acknowledgements:

1.Hubert Reeves. Professor at University of Montreal.
2.Joel De Rosnay. Ex-Director of Pasteur Institute in France.
3.Yves Coppens. Professor, College de France (co-discoverer of Lucy)
4.Dr. Haluk Nurbaki. Oncologist. 5.Dr. Maurice Bucaille. Surgeon, French Academy of Medicine.

JANUARY 1998

GOD, THE GENETIC CODE & THE KORAN

"..By the Glorious Koran. Nay, but they are amazed that a warner of there own has come unto them. And the rejecters say: `This is a strange thing: when we are dead and have become dust (shall we be made alive again)? That would be a return most distant.' We know that which the earth takes of them, and with Us is a protected transcription [or writing- Kitaab in Arabic]. Nay, but they have denied the truth when it came to them, therefore now, they are in a troubled case..." Koran 50:2-5

WHAT IS THE PROTECTED TRANSCRIPTION?

The protected transcription from which the human being can again be recreated [the context of the verse] after his/her death is the genetic code. Soviet scientists recently discussed reproducing an extinct species of elephant by the use of a microscopic unit of a long dead gene material. No one said that such an attempt was unreasonable. It is perfectly logical, yet they haven't been able to do it. However, when it comes to the Koran, and when the same terminology is used, centuries ago, the rejecters say it's unreasonable! It may be unusual but it certainly isn't unreasonable. Indeed, such evidence in the Koran, considering the time of its revelation proves it, in accordance with its claims, of originating with the One who originated everything.

From Encyclopedia Americana, volume 7, 1993 edition:

Clone: a group of genetically identical cells or whole organisms derived from a single cell or organism. Clones arise naturally in a number of ways. The body of an adult animal or plant is typically a clone of cells having arisen by mitosis from a single cell, the fertilized egg....The cloning of mammals, including man is theoretically possible, but it is more difficult to achieve because of the smaller size of mammalian egg and the more complex conditions required for normal embryonic development.[Page 97] The Koran, over 1400 years before the above article was written compared the stages of human embryology [before the discovery of the microscope] to the resurrection of the long dead on the last day for judgement [a concept involving cloning]:

"What, does humankind think that they will be left aimless? Was he[she] not a drop ejaculated? Then he was a leech like structure. And He [God] created and formed. And made of him a pair, the male and the female. What, is He not then able to quicken the dead?" Koran 75:36-40

The above verse questions those who reject the notion of the resurrection of the dead. Which is the more difficult task: That you were created from an insignificant drop, which was so small that it couldn't be seen without a microscope, or that some day you will be formed again from your remnants? A comparison between human embryology and cloning is also made just as the above article from Encyclopedia Americana.

"Your creation and your resurrection [on the last day] is as a single unit [nafs- one substance or essence]." Koran 31:28

Cloning involves the derivation of a group of genetically identical cells or whole organism from a single [Waahid- in the verse above] original cell or organism.

"Say: If the sea were to become ink for the words of my Cherisher (God), indeed the sea would be used up before the words of my Cherisher (God) were exhausted, even though we brought the like of it [i.e another sea] to its aid." Koran 18:109