One of the most important facts that evolutionist Muslims ignore is, as has already been emphasized, that even the most fundamental claims of the theory of evolution have lost all validity in the face of science. In addition, the insoluble dilemmas facing the theory of evolution right from the first appearance of life.
Muslim evolutionists who ignore the fact that science has disproved evolution face another dilemma as well: the claim that approximately 1.5 million living species in nature came about as the result of unconscious natural events.
According to evolutionists, the first living cell emerged due to chemical reactions in inanimate matter. (Let's recall here that a considerable amount of scientific evidence shows that this is impossible. In addition, researchers who carried out experiments by bringing together the gases that made up Earth's initial atmosphere, as well as the appropriate atmospheric conditions, have been unable to "produce" even the smallest building block of life, the protein.12) Since they have failed to bring about a living organism despite all of the technology and scientific knowledge available to them, it is naturally irrational and illogical to claim that blind chance could have succeeded.
According to evolutionist deceptions, life began with that first cell, grew ever-more complex, and assumed an ever-greater variety until human beings were produced. In brief, the theory goes, unconscious mechanisms in nature must have continuously developed living things. For this illogical claim for example, one bacterium contains the genetic code for some 2,000 proteins whereas a human being contains the genetic code for some 30,000 proteins. In other words, an unconscious mechanism "produced" the genetic data for thousands of new proteins over time.
Evolution also claims that life began with that first cell, grew ever-more complex, and assumed an ever-greater variety until human beings were produced. In brief, the theory goes, unconscious mechanisms in nature must have continuously developed living things. For example, one bacterium contains the genetic code for some 2,000 proteins whereas a human being contains the genetic code for some 200,000 proteins. In other words, an unconscious mechanism "produced" the genetic data for 198,000 new proteins over time.
That is what evolution claims. Yet does nature really contain a mechanism that can develop a living thing's genetic data?
The modern theory of evolution – also known as neo-Darwinism, the updated version of Darwin's original theory that takes into account recent discoveries in genetics – proposes two such fictitious mechanisms: natural selection and mutation.
Natural selection means that the strong and those who can adapt to changing natural conditions survive the fight for life, while the rest are eliminated and disappear. For instance, a continual fall in a region's temperature means that certain animal populations that are not resistant to low temperatures are weeded out. Over the long term, only those animals that are resistant to cold temperatures survive and eventually make up the whole population.
Alternatively, in the case of rabbits who live with the constant threat of predators, only those who best adapt to the prevailing conditions (e.g., those who can run the fastest), survive and thus pass their features on to subsequent generations. However, careful examination reveals that no new feature actually emerges here, for these rabbits are not turning into a new species or acquiring a new characteristic. Thus one cannot say that natural selection causes evolution.
This being the case, evolutionists are left with mutation. In order for evolution's claim to be acceptable, mutations must be able to develop a living thing's genetic data.
Mutations are defined as errors in a living thing's genes that arise either as the result of external influences (e.g., radiation) or copying faults in DNA. Of course mutations may give rise to change, yet such changes are always destructive. To put it another way, mutations cannot develop living things; rather, they always harm living things.
No mutation beneficial to any organism has ever been identified. Furthermore, according to what Darwinists maintain, mutation has to cause changes that are proportionate and compatible with one another everywhere in the body. For example, if a right ear formed through random mutations in the right ear, as evolutionists claim, then random mutations must have given rise to a second ear with the same symmetry, capable of hearing in the same way and with the same characteristics on the left. The anvil, hammer and stirrup must have come into being equally in the same perfect manner. The same applies to the heart. Darwinists claim that mutation must give rise to all the valves, the equilibrium between them, in a flawless manner, at exactly the right place and all at the same time. Every organ in the body must have come about in this way. But huge inconsistencies should crop up. Strange entities with one ear upside down, one tooth different and a single eye in the middle of the forehad would have come into being. Since there is no such imbalance in life, Darwinists are claiming that everything must have come into being with perfect symmetry and harmony. But it is impossible for mutations, 99% of which are detrimental and the other 1% have no effect at all, to be beneficial and be able to give rise to logical, harmonious and symmetrical organs. In short, mutations are like firing at a regular structure with a machine gun. Opening fire on a healthy structure will destroy it. The fact that a single mutation may have no impact or have a healing effect by destroying an infection in the body changes nothing. The organism will still be destroyed by the other 99 bullets fired at it.
Genetics made major advances during the twentieth century. By examining genetic diseases in living things in the light of rapidly developing science, scientists showed that mutations were not biological changes that could contribute something to evolution. This contradicts the evolutionists' claim. Advances in genetics, in particular, resulted in the acknowledgement that some 4,500 supposedly hereditary genetic diseases actually were caused by mutation.
In order for mutations to become hereditary, they must occur in the reproductive organs (sperm cells in men, ovaries in women). Only this type of genetic change can be transmitted to later generations. Many genetic diseases are caused by such changes in just those very cells. Mutations, on the other hand, form in other bodily organs (e.g., the liver or the brain), and so cannot be transmitted to subsequent generations. Such mutations, called "somatic," cause many cancers through degeneration in the cells' DNA.
Cancer is one of the best examples of the damage caused by mutations. Many carcinogenic factors, such as chemical substances and ultraviolet rays, actually produce mutations. Following the recent discovery of oncogenic and tumor-preventing genes that, when they malfunction, particularly effective in causing cancer, researchers realized how mutations lead to cancer. These two types of genes are necessary in order for cells to multiply and for the body to renew itself. If one of them is damaged by mutation, cells begin to grow in an uncontrolled manner and cancer begins to form. We can compare this situation to a stuck gas pedal or a non-working brake in a car. In both cases, the car will crash. In the same way, the cells' uncontrolled growth rate leads first to cancer and then to death. When mutations damage these genes at birth, as in the case of retinoblastoma, the affected babies soon die.
The damage done to living things by mutations is not limited to these examples. Almost all mutations observed so far are harmful; only a few are neutral. Despite this, however, evolutionists as well as Muslim evolutionists still try to maintain that mutation is a valid evolutionary mechanism. If species had evolved into one another, as evolutionists claim, millions of advantageous mutations would have had to occur and be present in all reproductive cells.
Science, as it continues to advance, has discovered millions of harmful mutations and has identified the resulting diseases. However, evolution faces a terrible quandary: Evolutionist scientists can cite no mutations that actually increase genetic data. Evolutionist Pierre Paul Grassé, editor of the 35-volume Traite de Zoologie, and former president of the French Academy of Sciences, has compared mutations to "the incorrect letters made while copying a written text." And just like incorrect letters, mutations do not increase information; rather, they damage the already existing data. Grassé states this fact in the following manner:
Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complimentary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what persists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how... As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follows. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy (disorder). 13
Given this fact, mutations, as Grassé puts it, "no matter how numerous they may be,they do not produce any kind of evolution." We can compare the effects of mutations to an earthquake. Just as an earthquake does not help develop or improve a city but actually tears it down, mutations always have negative effects in exactly the same way. From this point of view, the evolutionists' claims regarding mutations are completely unfounded. (For further details, see The Evolution Deceit by Harun Yahya, Taha Publishers, London, 1999).
"These people of ours have taken gods apart from Him. Why do they not produce a clear authority concerning them? Who could do greater wrong than someone who invents a lie against Allah?" (Surat al-Kahf, 15)