Posts Tagged 'evolution'

Science of the gaps – Richard Dawkins debating John Lennox

a) Personal prologue
b) Main post


Personal prologue

I believe in God. I never used to. Being raised in ‘a kind of’ Christian environment, there was usually a latent background of God, e.g. walking home I’d pass a few churches or the Christmas TV programs etc. Somhow, probably because of the story of Adam, who in my mind, was a declaration that a ‘modern man’ was the first man – very much like we are today, hence, if man came from ape-like ancestors, then that would disqualify the notion of God.

Looking back, all things considered, I’m ashamed that I came to such an ultimate conclusion so hastily, on something which has the most enormous implications for us as a species, and deserves deep study in many fields. Really, I was armed with only a minuscule level of knowledge, and sadly I was far too accepting of the information that was coming my way; I didn’t scrutinise it, I didn’t look for alternative explanations. Because of that I must have been a simple level “darwinian atheist” from the ages of about 14 to 21.

Perhaps my personal shame is a bit harsh given my youthful years, but I was “convinced” it was true and naturally I would promote such a stance when in discussion/debate about it.

Since then, I came across the Qur’an, which tells of how Isa (Jesus) a.s. was raised up from the eyes of man. The utter confidence of that statement {please read it for yourself in the Qur’an – or if you can’t read Arabic, even an English translation retains much of its power} rocked me and it just seemed that what I was reading was the truth,
so how could I deny it?

Atheists may say I was simply swapping my simple level “Darwinian atheist” mindset for a similarly simple level “God exists” mindset instead, and other atheists may also say my personally amazing experience and feelings on reading the Qur’an are   laughable. I would appeal to those who may be rofl right now to try and recall something from their own lives that fundamentally changed their perspectives. I’m sure many could recall such a thing and hence I’m sure you will better appreciate my experience on
reading the Qur’an.

I have since invested much time in gaining a much greater understanding of the God question and
try to familiarise myself on the near endless debate about whether God exists or not. Yes, I have a bias
towards God, but atheists has a bias against God, so I guess that’s fair and square.

All this means I have come across the works of Richard Dawkins.

Main post

I’m referring to this: Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate – Has Science Buried God

21:03 – 31:29

[P.S. Dawkins made an error in the debate saying no to ‘things going from simple to complex’, it’s obvious he wanted to to say no to things starting from complex (i.e. God)]
In my pursuit of the Gods existence debate, I was watching Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate – Has Science Buried God.

I’m quite familiar with Dawkins’s arguments now. Dawkins puts scorn on religious people who, Dawkins says(!), say ‘we don’t know what that phenomenon is’ therefore God did it, i.e. God fills the gaps of our ignorance. Like much of what Dawkins says, it’s very sweeping and unfair in that it doesn’t acknowledge the great number of God believing scientists who do undertake the challenge at revealing aspects of what we don’t understand. Such as the Mathematician Lennox. I am what they would call a ‘scientist’ so I know this – I see it. But Lennox did a very interesting thing. He took Dawkins up on this issue (and Lennox knows perfectly well that Dawkins is very experienced in discussing) but he turned it around.
Dawkins was saying things have to go from simple to complex and that simplicity, in his eyes, negates the need for a complex God. Dawkins protests a complex God needs explanation, and an explanation as to where that God came from.

Typical Dawkins. He attaches onto God the very thing that would nullify God. A good definition of God is ‘that which has not been created’. It’s probably his greatest trick and is self-negating. The trouble is the closer you get to the ‘instant’ of the bog bang, which I think it’s fair to say almost everyone is (currently) at ease with about being how the physical Universe came into being, then it actually gets more and more complex.

Dawkins’ second trick is to simply call it simple. Well I’m sorry, I don’t buy that. I think Dawkins is actually saying the SIMPLIFIED COMPUTER MODELS used to try and simulate the EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE at some time when the universal physical constants stabilised may be regarded as simple, but even then, they surely cannot be simple in physical actuality due to anti matter and dark matter, the latter of which is said by many scientists that Dawkins would be happy to stand along side himself to account for most of the mass and therefore energy of the universe, and these are very poorly understood indeed, hence any simple model is surely wholly inaccurate, causing another major stumbling block to Dawkins on this issue.

Anyway, He says natural, blind unthinking natural selection caused the biological complexity we have today, so things went from simple (Dawkins’s ‘simple’ remember!) to complex, hence God doesn’t need explaining. But Lennox correctly drew reference to two utterly complex issues, the “pre-Dawkinist simple” beginning of the universe [my words not Lennox’s] and the origin of biological life.

It is at this point when Dawkins impales himself completely on his own sword. He says We don’t know these things yet, but we know there will be a Darwinian explanation to it. What Dawkins has done is to use a ‘Science of the gaps’ approach to it. He has blind faith that there will be a simple [it HAS to be simple – that’s a main theme for Dawkins] explanation. But any fair minded person will surely agree, from primordial soup to life today or from a ‘rugby ball’ sized ‘thing’ (from which the Universe too shape) is of course utterly complicated.

Sadly Lennox doesn’t quite navigate as well to expose this as I have tried to do above, but of course, a face to face debate is completely different from a prose based composition like this.

I also liked Lennox’s previous point about consciousness, which Dawkins took up to talk about avoiding a rock or not jumping off a cliff. Lennox is saying reductionism cannot explain consciousness (at least as far as best we know today). there is no rational way in which the reduced set of atoms and molecules can have consciousness. There has to be a way in which the structure of those atoms and molecules can store information and be able to interpret that information.
This is what separates the living (in a bio-physological sense) from the non-living*. That requires a consciousness which surely cannot be explained by step-wise selection or even by the instantaneous crossing of a hugely significant feature (which would in any case require quite a lot of genetic information to encode and endow inheritance).
Lennox called this a ‘language‘ which indicates the pre-existence of a ‘mind‘. Dawkins quickly went away from this point.

It is interesting that when Lennox rather traps himself and puts himself on the back-foot having to explain the mind of God. Dawkins rightly gets a stronger line of argument, but this is an unfair advantage to Dawkins because if there was a God, it’ is inescapably impossible to explain the word of God. Even on a human level success at explaining the means and motives of other humans often fails. How can we with a lifespan of about 80 years, a mind the size of a honeydew melon and primarily only input/output/process information one ‘channel’ at any one instance ultimately explain anything?

* non-living – actually Islam mentions rocks, which are considered non-living, as talking in some future event. This I would say, should encourage you to think there is a very different kind of ‘living’which the ‘non-living’ have access. If that’s a struggle for you, just remember djinn and Angels. Of course, the realm of God is beyond us. Dawkins protests he would/could not do science if this ‘magic’ as he pejoratively calls it interfered with science, as if God is likely to say intermittently hide then re-reveal a chromosome for example – He’s trying to cast God in a dark light. And if Dawkins was to ‘give up’ what happened to his accusations of ‘cop out’ and ‘mental lazyness’ etc

The mind consciousness/meaning part resurfaces at 49:57

At the end, I find it interesting, perhaps telling, that Lennox thanks Dawkins; “Thanks Richard” says Lennox, yet all Dawkins does is acknowledge it with a ‘mouth open and close to smile’ kind of thing. Interesting having just heard what the human moral behavioural aspect of the debate.

I believe I’m so familiar with Dawkins’s stuff that I see many many holes in it.

It’s interesting that I can’t find Dawkins debating an intelligent Muslim scholar experienced/familiar with the ‘Western’ style of this debate.
Next up (additions to this post outstanding) is this: (which I notive Atkins also attributes a derogatory term of lazyness to the ‘design’ issue)


Evolution – as seen on TV and from the mouths of fraudsters.

NB: error at end corrected

Evolution – from ape man to neanderthal – BBC science

2:12 to 3:51 is UTTER ‘Hollywood’ RUBBISH! Now it seems, a special effects / make-up dept is all the science proof you need. (Well it is the BBC!)

The accompanying ‘info’ on youtube for this flight of fancy says:

“This amazing video clip shows the evolution of our species from ape man to neanderthal.” – {empahsis added} HAHAHAHAHAHA! It SHOWS it huh… Dear oh dear oh dear!


Anyway, here’s a comment I wrote to a very smart ‘Medic student in preparation’ on evolution:


Species obviously do change (From Adam we have Africans, Europeans, Chinese, Amazons, Aborigines, Inuit…). This has been common knowledge for thousands upon thousands of years. How dare people put accolades upon Darwin for noticing this. Darwin observed variations in a species, the beaks of Great Finch (a bird) and giant tortoises. So what? He was well over 4000 years late.

The crucial thing he did then was to expanded upon that idea of species variation to PROPOSE a link between DIFFERENT species. He wasn’t a religious man, and had no religious signpost to guide his thoughts. Fair enough then to propose that species link.

Thing is, Darwin’s culture was of the Christian West which had persecuted people like Galileo in the past who observed the physical universe was different from the flawed teaching/understandings of the Christian church at the time. The WEST then began to develop a strained relationship with Science.

But with Islam it was different. Muslims in Cordoba/Andalucía the Maghreb embraced science – quite naturally. If man hadn’t yet corrupted Divine Revelation then how could science contradict religion? It couldn’t because there would be no contradiction. It was the Muslims who translated the Greek works which eventually seeded the European Renaissance which the West tried to hijack/portray as being independent of the Muslims. Europe was in the dark ages while Islam was embraced and lifted the people from Jahilliah whereupon science blossomed into success from what’s now known as Spain to parts of China. 

So Islam NEVER had a problem with Science. But the Europeans, already tense with science, then hijacked science (as they had done about their emergence from the dark ages via Thomas Aquinas and so on, and then later with the renaissance)  as it’s own and in effect ‘exported’ this tension to Islam. Arrogant Europeans talked about science as if it was something that rested solely in their hands and they still do today!

Eventually, Europeans used science for horrific means: ways to kill and injure people which in the modern day is seen in biological weapons, poison gas and nuclear weapons with an eye to plundering the resources from other countries (like Malaysian tin) without thought for the environment or without much thought for the indigenous people. The Muslims had already largely reached a good level of development that was satisfactory and more in tune with the earth, but as mentioned, scientific doors opened for Europeans which was more than intertwined with the consequence of empire.  Relative to that, it would appear the content Muslims might have stalled in science.

Getting back to Darwin, from my understanding, it was others who latched onto Darwins proposal of interconnecting species and promoted it as fact (Neo-Darwinism I call it). But there is no evidence supporting that theory. I believe Darwin himself said evidence must be found before the theory could advance.
Wikipedia says of Darwin that he provided “compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors” But there is NO evidence at all. The quote cites two references each relating to fossils. But there is no fossil evidence showing species changing from one form into the other (other than fakes, e.g. Archaeoraptor – they like to stay quiet about that one). But before its fake nature was exposed, it was believed without question and backed up with the old scam of ‘proof by artists impression’ See it at:

 man from ape
Classic proof by artists impression. Complete with gradient colour fills and more!

Their latest ‘proof’ which it seems to me is deliberately not subject to an honest analysis as to its authenticity, is Archaeopteryx, and there are many questions about this. It comes from China. China is notorious for what are called “fake fossils” {,8599,1888548,00.html}, indeed Archaeoraptor was one such Chinese fake. It is remarkable that it is the ONLY type of fossil (connecting birds to reptiles) that supposedly shows speciation and even more strangely is exactly what Huxley proposed when he preached his neo-Darwinism. Isn’t that strange? What a truely amazing coincidence. And even more strange was that Archaeoraptor – the fake before Archaeopteryx, was also exactly what Huxley mentioned. How utterly amazing is that. Totally astounding! 

“Scientists” – yeah right!

Fossil records are reported to show species ‘suddenly’ dying out, and new species ‘suddenly’ appearing. If you don’t count the very very suspicious Archaeopteryx, then there are NO interspecies links for anyother species. Imagine if Huxley had said “fish come from spiders’ – what’s the chance that the only fossil ever found supposed to fill in the missing link would by pure coincidence happen to ‘show’ a spider/fish intermediate. Ho ho!

“compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors” – Hahahah!

But Allah(SWT) in the Qur’an mentions all things were made from the sea. It could be taken to mean creature evoltuion did happen, in which case I would see no shame in accepting evolution IF there was scientific evidence to support that interpretation. But what do we actually find…?

It is reported that Dirk Fuchs of the Freie University Berlin said about the (non-)evolution {my modification and emphasis} of the Octopus: “These are sensational fossils, extraordinarily well preserved,” But what surprised the scientists most was how similar the specimens are to modern octopus: “these things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species.” similar stories can be said of Horse-shoe crabs, Woodlice, Crocodiles, Sharks, Coelacanth.

How come evolution was suspended in these creatures? How come, with their long fossil record, NO speciation is found in them? Why does the ‘continual genetic mutation’ not lead to these species evolving? I think I know why… ‘cos there probably isn’t any evolution by speciation!

Ask a biology teacher who believes in evolution to use evolution logic to explain why (backed by actual evidence of course – this isn’t an exercise in story telling remember!) these species are immune from mutating. Then, ask them how did animals turn from cold blooded to warm blooded? How did random genetic mutation lead to eyeballs forming – the cistrans retinol transformation and the associted protiens/enzymes the neural pathway to the brain the nerves, nerve gaps and the interpretation by the brain which must have developed together or any individual part of it would be utterly useless. Similarly, how did ears form, immune systems, DNA replication mechanisms, protein synthesis, citric acid, ADP/ATP cycles. How could feathers grow and the rest of the body (bone structure, muscle strength etc) change in synchronicity.

 How can one can disprove a soul. How can they discount the internal moral conscience (which admittedly we sometimes switch off) How did the first cell form which contained all the necessary functionality to replicate and absorb ‘food’ – where did that food origianlly come from? How come the ONLY cells we know of display the overwhelming tendency to die if just one part of it isn’t working properly. How could an animal turn into a cold/warm blooded species when all the other animals around it would have been warm/cold blooded respectively?

Allah hu Allam.

To me life is all about your relationship with God. There are many things to pull you away from God, many things to try and trick you, We are flawed people, trapped in this physical time, in a body, with the mind only the size of about a large Fuji apple, with only 5 limited senses, who will only be able to learn maybe 80 years of knowledge. There are many things to trick you into leaving your faith, to cut off your heart and to ignore the miracle of the Qur’an and the most amazing example of the Prophet (saw).

Sex, Drugs, False paper money, Darwinism, Entertainment, devil worship, false religions (e.g. Ahmadiah Muslims, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad the British puppet) etc etc.

Biologists say what their biology books tell them. Lets do what God teaches us, even though, God forbid, we sometimes stumble.

And as you [Med student to be] cleverly indicate, ALL explanations of biology rest entirely upon what is already there. What created all this in the first place is said by biologists “Oh, that’s Physics” yet Physics can’t even trace 96% of the matter it needs to support some Physics version(s) of Archaeoraptor. Where did all the transgenic Uranium come from in a Universe only 13 bln years old? And how can you even measure 13 billion years when as time goes on, time itself is supposed to change. Even Einstein’s special relativity is very limited, and as for quantum processes…. well, just wait and see how if quantum theory is indeed ‘true’ how it will NOT in the slightest bit contradictory of the Qur’an.

Hope this gets your mind buzzing.

Allah (SWT) tells us to seek knowledge. What a brave and superb directive. To me, one tafsir of that is crystal clear; nothing of true knowledge, (as best as we can get true physical knowledge via our observations {all models are flawed – as we aren’t The Creator!}), repeat, true knowledge will never contradict the existance of God. True knowledge will however support, via signs, the existence of God. Allah surrounds everything with knowledge.




The Simpsons – Homer Evolution


Evolution & Theology – Great news?

9th April 2009. Please read these two posts first:

a) Evolution – a look at the mutation waddle (February 7, 2008)

b) Why I can’t accept the evolutionists (8th June 2008)

thank you.

{13-Mar 09: The original publication date of this post was 3-March 2009. I am changing the date of this post to 12 march so that it comes second after my latest post: “Listen, oh ye Christians to thy learned and righteous scholars” which, in my opinion, addresses the fundamental force behind evolutionary thinking, the ‘movement’ and associated propaganda.

False religions such as neoDarwinism need to be exposed for the pile of spin and dreamt-up fantasies, devoid of science, yet projected as science, for lies that they are (lets debte that if you disagree) and they WILL be exposed. In the mean time, one should not let evolution, or Illuminati, Common Purpose, Black Pope, Freemasosny, Truth Vibrations, Druidism etc. distract us from the ULTIMATE, all embracing conspiracy and that is to pull you away from God. That dear readers, the deviations from the ONE way of life, which guarantees success in this life and the next, are the ROOT cause of ALL conflict that has ever been and ever will be. 

That is why this post, is of today, being placed number two on my blog. I welcome and still want to hear in particular, people who support what has become publically known as Darwins theory of evolution to try and convince me otherwise.}

I beleive passionately about debating “things Evolution” such as:

1) The origin of the first life form on earth.
2) Consciousness, morality (amongst orgnaic molecules) and metaphysics.
3) The complete lack of fossils  showing mankind came from apes and absence of missing link for ALL other spcies.
4) Why, with hundreds of thousands of species, do we not recognise instances of speciation today, and why in amongst a sea of mutations, can nobody declare regressive mutations?.
5) The mechanism and mathematics of speciation.
6) Exonuclear DNA and the emergence of viral form of life.
7) Enzymic replication mechanisms whose synthesis dependens entirely fully functional cells designed (in part) for that purpose.
6) The origin, dynamics and mechanics of warm and cold blooded fauna (i.e. the split between warm and cold blooded animals)
7) The microscale development of symbiotic relationships. (e.g. wasps that lay their eggs in one creature only)
8) The divisions between the plant and animal kindgom including slime moulds and fungi.
9) The chemical synthesis and assembly of cells – the only structure known to be support life
10) The physics of the big bang.
11) The age and elemental composition of the Earth in comparison to the known atomic physics of nuclear stability, synthesis and abundance. (e.g. where did the elemets after iron come from? – was there time for a pre-solar system supernovae – inc star formation etc.)
12) The inevitability of death.
13) The scientific components within Monotheism (see leter).
14) Why the branches of ‘Evolutionists’ spend little time, if any!, attacking Satanism but spend large amounts of time attacking Monotheism {I originally had that in reverse! Sorry}.
15) Lets examine the amount of time spent scruitinising religion as apposed to the theories NeoDarwinism.
16) The actual ‘religious’ beliefs (inc Kabalism etc) of those who play a strong role in ‘leading’ our society.
17) What Darwin actually theorised inc. caveats issued, all minus the spin

Yeah, bring on the discussions. But why do I get the feeling there will be little or no discussion on these matters. I suspect it as usuall the focus will be on trying to disprove God and NOT on the scientific claims/validity of neoDarwinism

Vatican hosts Darwin conference – BBC
Page last updated at 02:27 GMT, Tuesday, 3 March 2009


This has been sent to me over the years…

Findings  of Dr. Tariq Al Swaidan 
might  grasp your  attention: 
Dr.Tarig Al Swaidan discovered some  verses in the 
Holy  Qur’an 
That mention one thing is equal to  another, 
i.e. men are equal to  women. 
Although this makes sense  grammatically, 
the astonishing fact is that the number  of 
times the word man appears  in   
the Holy  Qur’an 
is 24 and number of times  the word 
woman appears is also  24, 
therefore not only is this phrase  correct in 
the grammatical sense but also true  mathematically, 
i.e. 24 =  24. 
Upon  further analysis of various  verses,
he discovered that this is consistent  throughout the whole

Holy Qur’an 
where it says one thing  is like another. 
See below for astonishing result  of 
the words mentioned number  of times in  Arabic 
Holy Qur’an 
Dunia (one name for  life) 115 
Aakhirat (one name for the life after this  world) 115 
Malaika  (Angels) 88 .  Shayteen (Satan) 88 
Life 145 Death 145 
Benefit 50 Corrupt 50 
People 50 Messengers 50 
Eblees (king of  devils) 11 .  Seek refuge from Eblees 11 
Museebah  (calamity) 75 .  Thanks ! 75 
Spending  (Sadaqah) 73 .  Satisfaction 73 
People who are  mislead   17 Dead  people 17 
Muslimeen 41 J Jihad 41 
Gold 8 Easy  life 8 
Magic 60 Fitnah (dissuasion,  misleading) ! 60 
Zakat (Taxes Muslims pay to the  poor) 32 
Barakah (Increasing or blessings of  wealth) 32 
Mind 49    Noor 49 
Tongue 25 Sermon 25 
Desite 8 Fear 8 
Speaking  publicly 18 Publicising 18 
Hardship 114 …. Patience 114 
Muhammed Sharee’ah (Muhammed’s teachings) 4 
Man 24 . Woman 24 
And amazingly enough have a look how many  times 
the following words  appear: 
Salat 5,  Month 12 , Day 365, (N.b. Gregorian callendar = 1582)
Sea 32,  Land 13 
Sea + land = 32 + 13 = 45 
Sea = 32/45*100q.=71.11111111% 
Land = 13/45*100 =  28.88888889% 
Sea + land   100.00% 
Modern science has only recently proven that  the water covers 
71.111% of the 
earth, while the land  covers 28.889%. 

Is this all a  coincidence?   Question  is that 
Who taught  Prophet Muhammed(PBUH) all this? 
Reply automatically comes in  mind  
taught him. 

This as  the 
Holy Qur’an 
also tells us  this. 
please pass this on to all your  friends 
Ayat 87 of Suraa  (Chapter) 
Al-Anbia  !para 17 : 


Why I can’t accept the evolutionists

Preamble: I’ve written about this before previous post HERE (  ( and I am catching a plane back to the UK in a few hours. Hence I’m rushing posting this which I typed last night/this morning.

I’m not sure when I’ll be able to get back on line. At worst it will be a month before I’m back online. I just don’t know. I might be too busy back hime.

It may take you all a month to read this anyway.

TTFN. Lwtc247.

– – – – – – – – –  – – – – 

If your into probability, how about this?

The Universe contains about 250,000,000,000 galaxies each one containing approximately 300,000,000,000 stars. Out of all possible planets surrounding these stars (and science reports more and more planets found every year) we know of life on one of them. That isn’t to say there isn’t life, but despite searching we have found no trace.

Again, by chance, as anti-creationists would have us believe, the output and variability of one of these stars, the sun, isn’t so harsh in terms of solar electromagnetic and particle radiation  and variability, that allows for life as we know it to exist.

The earth which just happens to have a disproportionate amount of oxygen on it bonded to metals and non metals making up the physical earth)in the crust, bonded to hydrogen to make water and in a bimolecular form in the air. The oxygen concentration isn’t too high that should a combustion process like a forest fire develops that it would be impossible to put out, nor is too low that it many organisms in the sea would have difficulty is using oxygen to assist life sustaining energy cycles.

Low oxygen conditions can sustain life (e.g. hydrothermal vents) but there is a large difference in those life forms to the sort that sits at the end of the evolutionary chain, and those environments aren’t totally starved of oxygen.

Our planet us theorised to have an iron core again immensely disproportionate with the rest of the local cosmos. All these ultra small possibilities are permutated with the probability that these conditions just happen to support a temperature and pressure in which water, the substance regarded as being vital to any life as we know it, just happens to be a liquid.


Phew that was lucky. Too much or two little pressure and waters liquid range would be even more precariously narrow – and as for the temp, thank the lucky stars that the temperature range is narrow enough to enable molecular vibration be not too slow – preventing reactivity of large structure and making any reaction painfully slow, however just enough vibration there that the active sites of enzymes can be accessed and proteins can maintain a significant quaternary structure so as not to denature.

And in relation to water, we’ve got the pH factor. pH in living organisms can only change over very narrow limits before it beings detrimental effects to the vitality of life sustaining processes . ranges cause havoc with life processes. It’s mighty lucky the pH of the oceans wasn’t too far from

All by chance of course. – P.S. anyone keeping score of the math p(life by accident)=?

And there’s more… and this is where I’ll hand over largely to information in a DVD I bought the other day called “The collapse of Evolution. Subheading The fact of creation. By the Science research Foundation, Istanbul Turkey based on the book “Evolution Deceit” by the Harun Yahya, one of the most greatest scholars today.

Everything living thing is furnished with complex systems that enable it to play its role in the overall system to the best of its ability. Darwin argued all species descended from a common ancestor by means of little cumulative changes over long periods of time. Darwin could advance no sound evidence of that claim.

He was aware of the great many facts that invalidated his theory. He admitted these in his book The Origin of Species (TOS) in Chapter VI – Difficulties on Theory. He hoped in time science would overcome these difficulties. It hasn’t. In fact it has made them more disputable.

Louis Pasteur said about 5 years after Darwins book, TOS: “Can matter organise itself? No. Today there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves.”

It is proposed that Darwinism supports the development of all life via a simple organism. All life as we know is due to cells. The cell is where life take place. So what of cells?

Russian Evolutionist Alexander Oparin “Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question that is actually the murkiest aspect of the whole theory of evolution.

Stanley Miller 1953. Millers organic chemicals are meaningless. Nobody can say the chemicals he synthesised made life or could conceivably bring about life. There is a question about the gases he used as to how accurate his composition was as to that that of the young pre-life earth. Miller eventually admitted to the invalidity of his experiments.

Leading Evolutionist Geochemistry Jeffrey Bada  Feb 1988 in the periodical “Earth” said: “Today as we leave the 20th Century we still face the biggest unsolved problem we had when we entered the 20th century. How did life originate on earth?”

Even single cell organisms are remarkably complex in their composition. How did the Cell first originate. He didn’t address this fundamental point. A cell is an immensely complex system. It cannot function if one of its organelles doesn’t function. All these functions of the cell, The chance that€

A living cell is made of thousands of tiny parts that work in harmony. As a comparison: There are power stations, high tech factories, a complex databank, huge storage systems, advanced refineries and a membrane that controls what enters and leaves the cell.

In order for the cell to survive all of these organelles have to exist at the same time. What is the possibility of that?

Scientists haven’t been able to synthesise a single living cell from non-living matter. Oh how that probability dwindles, yet people are perfectly prepared to take on this immeasurably small probability that life wasn’t designed and created by The Creator himself.

Sir Fred Hoyle, Mathematician and astronomer, Nature 12 Nov 1981, said: “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

Francis Crick confessed A structure like DNA could never have emerged by chance.

A million pages needed to write all the information present in DNA. That’s numerous times the amount of pages in {an older version of} encyclopaedia Britannia. In the cell, all that info is in the nucleus 1 micrometer in size.

No evolutionist has formulated a non-DNA way of sustaining life. All models of life are thus based on DNA. Evolutionists therefore want us to believe that in a maximum of 4.7 billion years (the age of the Sun) atoms just happened to assemble into ribose units, phosphates, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, Thiamine and Uracil (RNA) and that these molecules happened to come into contact with each other. Remember they have to do so within narrow pressure, temperature and pH windows here – meaning a lot of this 4.7 billion years isn’t available for evolution to occur in as the earth had to cool down and stabilize to such limits to allow the biochemical processes we are familiar with today.

A DNA chain with 9 base pairs would be utterly useless in coding for a viable animal. We have to accept the very small probability that DNA chains grew to such length that the complexity of a living thing became possible. Then we have the problem of molecules like the enzme transcriptase, polymerise and all the amino acids just happened to be present and that everything else present in the cell was present to facilitate the replication of DNA. There must also have been significant DNA repair mechanisms too (as DNA has today) all those millions of years, background radiation would have been higher and so caused damage to DNA and hindered its replication (see more about this point later)
Then we have the problem of what fuelled this process? Sunlight powerplants such as Mg2+ centred chlorophyll just also happened to be assembles and present at the same time as did the lipids to make the cell wall. We have yet again the Stanley Miller problem in that many of the molecules necessary for the creation of a cell are only known to be produced by living organisms and not electrical discharges through gas mixtures.

We have another low probability that reproduction spontaneously came about. As if some cell was tired of splitting by being zapped by lightening or forced about by some unusual chemical/physical stimulus so by chance, was able to interact with another cell (or collection of cells – more complex so more difficult) to produce off spring, yet this feature wasn’t present in the generation immediate prior the ‘J’taime’ generation. And what of food consumption. How did a cell change from one that obviously mustn’t have had a method and orifice for the intake of food, by chance develop such a set of devices to consume food, whereas once again the generation before had no way of consuming food. The thought that an organism would by chance develop a system to facilitate external consumption is deeply preposterous, or that over time one happened to be in the process of forming.

Probability check?

I said to Cambridge based Cosmologist Prof who said dark matter was proposed to make up for the fact only 4% of the matter of the universe appears to be present, that if I did an experiment and only got a 4% outcome, I’d be inclined to change the basis of the theory on which that experiment was conducted. I think most people would agree. Yet the recursive near zero chance of all of these things from happening are acceptable to evolutionists.

The problem is no matter what strong scientific reasons are put in front of some people, they cannot submit to the evidence chiefly because they cannot physically perceive God The Creator, they don’t want to embarrassed being seen to do rituals ridiculed by some. They don’t want to devote some of their life to worship the physically discommoded God. However much of the science today concerns physical processes which cannot be physically perceived like space-time or the pico/femeno world of the atom, however these models of approximations are whole heartedly accepted by many who put faith in such things, but not in God.

Life generated from non-living matter by chance.
No mechanism in nature to carry out the process of evolution. There is no mechanism where a cell can be transformed into a more complex living createure and then go on to tbecome the ancestor of millions of other living species.

Natural Selection:
This really is a joke and maybe from the comfort of your own chair backed up with a few seconds of rational thought to might also see its funny side for it is a self defeating mental construct.

Take the common scenario pimped into your mind on nature programs. That of the poor gene slow running deer picked off by a predator leaving behind a strengthened heard.

Wouldn’t that be likely to see the demise of the predator as the strengthened heard would make it too difficult for the predator to make a catch? And if you say the predator evolves also to catch more slightly strengthened deer, then that is where you destroy your own argument. It would render the natural selection / strengthened survivors postulate dead in the water. It would also put significant pressure on all the other species who the predator might go for as he could catch them more easily. The other prey would have to run quicker or strengthen too in order to face extinction. So played out over hundreds of thousands of years, the deer would be ultra strong, capable of huge speeds, so would the predator and all of the other prey. Such a scenario would/could allow for the possibility of some muscle eating organism to flourish what with all those Herculean muscles present, or the modification of existing birds into Rocs or Griffins to catch these deer which hardly any land animal could.

Obviously Darwin never witnessed natural selection in the Galapagos Islands. He simply postulated something that he thought might be able to account for the unique species there. Much is made of the Islands isolation, but I wonder if this is a deliberate deception because the heralded uniqueness is nothing special. In highly connected land masses such as the geophysical Eurasian continent you get numerous specific animals living in specific areas.

Aaaah, but due to mutation of genes, a number of slow deer will be produced. The predator picks off these ones. Well, lets brush aside the totally unsubstantiated nature of such a claim. Lets not demand they supply genetic proof to support their argument. Lets suppose it’s true, then the number of slow-genes by mutation would necessarily be quite high to allow the survival of the predator in which case why has natural selection not produced a heard that is relatively free of suffering from mutation? The evolutionists only apply their pet theory when to the unquestioning gullible and not when ‘their’ theory proves themselves wrong. Plus of course, very significantly, there is NO scientific data to back up that rash defence claims.

If the predators evolution wasn’t as good as the Deer’s, then it would have to eat the young baby deer, jeopardising the existence of the herd AND resulting in the deaths of ‘good gene’ stock too! The same goes for the old deer that the predator may be forced to eat. Would natural selection not also favour leaving behind deer that would live longer and also be stronger during the course of their lifetime? After all, the old deer did come from a strengthened stock!

You see natural selection is nothing but edited spin of human conceived fantasy. That does not mean natural selection of some kind does not occur, it may well do, but certainly not in any of the ways it is portrayed and upheld by the pro-evolution brigade.

But when you hear some charming man charismatic man like Attenborough on the telly spinning out this 2% construct, it is easy to agree because when you watch TV, not many people sit there and critically analyse the info given to them.

And even if I am wrong, crucially, the strengthen hers does not transform into AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SPECIES. Speciation and natural selection are not the same thing. Darwin used both, stitching them together, but to the minds of most they are one in the same. Natural selection would only help with the survival of a species, by virtue of lack of ANY evidence, it does not have to have any evolutionary consequence.

Darwin was also aware of this problem and confessed in his book “Natural Selection can do nothing can do nothing until favourable chance to coccur” 1st Edn p177

Genetics, microbiology and biochemistry did not exist as brfanches disciplines. Laws of inhereticane were not known. Darwin and the man who influenced him Lemar thought it was

Darwin said in his chapter on difficulties of the theory “If I 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.” 1st Ed. P189

The Austrian Botanist, Gregor Mendel (sweet peas) who established the science of genetics (beginning
It was not acquired physical traits, buy only genes that were transmitted to subsequent generations” This made it clear that a scenario suggesting that a trait accumulated from generation to generation and generated different living species was implausible,

There were no inheritable variations for Darwin’s proposed mechanism of natural selection to choose from.

Evolutionist Palaeontologist. Colin Patterson “ No one has ever produced a species by mechanism of natural selection. No one has ever got near it. And most of the current argument in Neo-Darwinism is about this question.” BBC, 4th March 1982
20th Century science shows the irreducibly complexity of life. That is a single component of a living system or organ is lacking, they will not function. Doesn’t this mean they must have been fully formed when their species emerged. How then can minor changes of time lead to these systems and organs?

When man mutates genes, the results are damage to the DNA and only harm the living being. No beneficial mutation have never been observed. It is impossible for a reptile to develop wings or an eyeless creature to develop eyes. Countless experiments on fruit flies show this. Dolly the sheep, the first publicly acknowledged clone sheep developed complications later on. As for Polly the later generation sheep, I haven’t heard any related news.

Here’s a couple of stills of Dawkins pausing and giving no answer to the Question: “Prof D can u give an example of gene mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome”

The video said he hesitated but annoyingly didn’t show him giving ANY answer, meaning that some would go away thinking he had no answer. That was poor form and annoyed me. I don’t believe Dawkins could have given an example, but I wanted to hear what he said none the less.

The complexity and intricacy of a hand made pocket watch points to the existence of an intelligent maker. Why doesn’t the beauty and complexity show the existence of a Creator?

The fossil record.
No fossil remains supporting evolution has ever been found in every corner of the earth. There are NO transient species for ANY species. The intermediary species should be numerous too, not And a lizard mutating into a bird as evolutionists believe, with a half wing is unlikely to

“If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties linking most closely all the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed… Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.” Origin of Species 1st Ed p179

Darwin knew there was no evidence in his time. He wrote a special chapter in his book on this point.  Chapter IX: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduations, do we not see everywhere innumerable transitional forms? But as by this theory unnumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

But something that is missed by most people and that is… Today’s species should also show signs of transition, but they don’t. I have never heard an evolutionist make a single argument saying in effect evolution amongst today’s species has stopped. Why then do we not see clear signs amongst the hundreds of thousands of species today any sign of transition. The more species means the more mutations one should find, indeed that is what evolutionists/mutationists say is responsible for the diversity we see today. The sea gannet, frog, and flying fish are debatables, yet Creationists have the upper hand saying the lack of any Neanderthal frog, gannet or flying fish, that these species have no precursor and so are like every other species which have, like modern man, appeared suddenly in isolation and not through evolution. It is true that absence of proof is not proof of absence, but believe in proof when proof is absent is highly tenuous whereas belief in absence in light of absence of proof is the most logical standpoint.

The honeycomb eye structure of trilobite has survived for 530 million years without a single change. Bees and dragon flis has the same eye structure. There is not complex life form known to have existed before the trilobites and other species of the Cambriem period. The Cambrian species came into existence all of a sudden without any ancestors.

Dawkins says “It is as though the species of the Cambrian were just planted there, without any evolutionary history” the Blind Watchmaker, 9186, p229.

“If numerous beloinging to the same genera or families have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the [Darwinian] theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.” TOS 1st Ed p302

The Cambrian period formes the outset of
Living species always apprar abruptly and fully formed. Fish, birds and mammals. After All the thousands of species withing them after appeared suddenly with distinct structures.

There is NO transitional form.

Palaeontologist Mark Czarnecki: McLeon’s, 18th Jan 1981, p 56: “A major problem in proving theory has been the fossil record. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants. Instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fuelled the creationists argument that each species was created by God.”

There are difference in structure of a between a 400m year old shark and a modern shark, a 100m year old ant and a modern ant, a 135m year old dragon fly and a modern dragon fly, a 55m bat and a modern bat.

Proposed transitional fossils included Coelacanth and Archaeopteryx.  Coelacanth only (the proposed transitional primitive legs and a primitive lung) was found to be the same as a fish discovered in sub 180m waters in the Indian ocean 1938. It didn’t have primitive legs or a primitive lung. 1992 the creature had a sternum – the chest bone essential for flight meaning it was a perfectly formed bird, not a transitional form. Stephen Jay Gould a stalwart of evolution admitted it oculd be taken as evidence of a transitional form.

Warm blooded/Cold blooded.
This aspect occurred to me getting on about a year ago. How did cold blooded reptiles evolve/switch to warm blooded birds. The difference in physiology between them means it is impossible. A single cold blooded reptile one day couldn’t have become slightly warm blooded, and then mate with a cold blooded reptile to have its progeny slightly more warm blooded which in turn mated with more cold blooded reptiles. To increase the blood ‘warmth’ In reading up on these two types of physiology it seems to me that the evolutionists realised this gaffe and have tried to mussy the waters as to what exactly cold blooded and warm blooded means. Nonetheless their you cannot devise a logical scenarios whereby a warm blooded gene sequence would spring forth only to have it spread in a cold blooded population to remain distinct and then over thousands of years produce species that were totally divergent. Any dominant gene would have destroyed one of the populations, either the emergent warm bloods or the cold bloods. The recessive gene would have been destroyed? Even if you say “Aaa ha” that’s why we have zonal habitats, but there are no warn blooded lizards and birds (the proposed result of lizard evolution) occupy the same habitats as lizards.

Then we get the reptile/mammal egg/giving birth problem and lactation amongst mammals. So where are the half lactating organs? The half eggs? The half live births?

Its nonsense.

6500 ape species have existed so far. Most have become extinct. Doing the morph trick where on TV a carrot can be morphed into a person (commonly projected in terms of man) is a mockery of the intellect.

Australopithecus is an extinct species of ape not man.

Richard Leakey Palaeontologist in The Making of Mankind. 1981 p62” “These differences [in ‘man’ skulls] are probably no more pronounced than [what] we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans.”

Indeed the BBC showed a very interesting picture of a collection of Cambodian skulls (victims of the Khmer rouge) on a rack. Those skills were from the same race and showed quite a bit of variation.

PIC ———-

So we move to propaganda. Imaginary drawing that appear in textbooks and computerized depictions in nature programs pushing the idea that man came from monkeys. These artists illustrations are a disgrace to science. Quest for Fire was a work of fiction. Much of the bodily characteristics are missing from the bone fragments. The bones of a modern day ape can be wasily clayed up or fleshed up to produce an image that looks exactly like a man.

S. Nisan in the 1964 Sunday Times, Maurice Wilson and Evlul in the 1960 National Geographic used  exactly the same Zinjanthrophus skull yet reconstructed totally different final images


Remember Piltdown man? The put a Orang-utan jaw to a human skull. Now can you imagine the outrage if say a real transitional skull was sabotaged in order to support the theory of Evolution? A similar hoax – Nebraska man’s tooth was that of a wild pig.

However the deceiving drawing of man walking from apes to humans is pushed into kids minds, depicted as being the origin of man.

Species appeared suddenly.

It’s the sign of creation.

I never had all this information when I decided that I accepted there was a God, although I realised some time after trying to prove to a Muslim how man deviated from apes, that my line of argument was flawed and merely a matter of how I chose to draw the deviation and word it. I realised I could equally well have said that any common ancestor could have been called man and that apes could have come from that. After all, if man and ape were subject to evolution than who is anyone to say the converged lineage can rightfully be called ape of man?

Well that’s it.

Evolution for me has been well put to rest. And after 6 hours of typing this, I feel glad to have written it.

I don’t discount that the physical form of man has changed, in fact, isn’t it indisputable that man has been shaped and changed? The tall Kenyan Massai and the small Indonesians, the Australian Aboriginies and the Chiense, The wuropeans and the numerous Native Americans, the long graves and weapons of historically peoples, clearly suggest we can and have changed. But WE ARE THE SAME SPECIES, the same breed – we can propagate amongst these differences.

I credit Darwin, who seemingly in his early days knew of the serious errors of his hypothesis and had the decency to log them, however I think it went to his head as he was held aloft to much praise by people who had no time for religion.

So speciation, spun-mutation and spun-Darwinism is finished.









Evolution – a look at the mutation twaddle

[ Update: follow-up post here: Why I can’t accept the evolutionists 8th June 08]  

The Madagascar Aye-aye.
Perhaps the worlds most scary looking creature .

 Aye-aye again.

And the aye-aye yet again. It gives me the willies!

This is a bit of a plunder from Shahids Suspect Paki blog. I’m putting it here cos I want to put this bloody scary looking creature here and I want to notch up my protestation of evolutionary fantasy here.

Evolutionists love ‘mutation theory’. They don’t just love it they need it. Another butter sword in their fantasy armoury. 

The thing about ‘useful mutations’ is that its an ‘after the fact’ explanation. It relies upon the idea that a viable organism was capable of mutating in the first place (likely involing DNA various RNA’s and available nucleic acids, amino acids, lipids, etc… well the evolutionists have NEVER indicated a non traditional method of reproducible life so it is only fair to use today’s cellular biology as a guideline). It is the same tired evo stuff that the likes of Dawkins pump out. What made that organism in the first place, what gave it the ability to undergo genetic mutations? Is it feasible to attribute mutation rates to the diversity we have today. I researched a ‘transient’ species fossil evidence a few years back and it was false. National Geographic showed little embarrassment in blowing its evolution horns loudly yet whimpered an apology when it published stories based on fake fossils.

Scene of many lock-ins for Charles Dawson

Not only that but evolutionists try to have their cake and eat it. They say life evolves into niche areas of life e.g. pandas bamboo, dodo’s needing no wings from no predators, flowers needing specific insects to pollinate, the symbiosis of many species, or any animal which possesses acute specialisation such as the Aye-eye (pic above) and so on,  but rationally, doesn’t the mutation theory means that the more complicated the organism, the less likely it can handle mutation? Surely the number of mutations that are not usefulin regards to a specialisation far outweigh those that could be useful. How could a homogeneous unicellular population evolve at the mercy of a single mutant? Wouldn’t the mutant strain be bread out? and what possible mutation would make a unicellular organism have an advantage over the rest of the organisms?

The leap of faith required to believe in evolution is surely far higher than the leap of faith some may require to believe that God created beings.

Even then, if one believes in God, in the religious scriptures, God says “We have the power to shape you and change you” allowing for the possibility that God created whole beings and may have altered their form over time. Funny how in the eyes of an evolutionist, God is never accorded to power to drive evolution. Its amusing to hear scientists allowed to say things “Force of Nature” or “its Natures way” without any qualification of what that force of way is. Well, actually its quite annoying like the rest of atheistic evolution.

Out of respect to the man who sparked this post, please comment HERE on Suspect Paki’s blog. Comments are disabled here on my blog.

Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!


JUST - International Movement for a Just World


Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
August 2022