Australopithecus

The first category, the genus Australopithecus, means "southern ape," as we have said. It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago, and lived until 1 million years ago. There are a number of different species among the australopithecines. Evolutionists assume that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. afarensis. After that comes A. africanus, and then A. robustus, which has relatively bigger bones. As for A. Boisei, some researchers accept it as a different species, and others as a sub-species of A. Robustus.

All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. Many other characteristics—such as the details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms, and their short legs—constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today's ape. However, evolutionists claim that, although australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, unlike apes, they walked upright like humans.

This claim that australopithecines walked upright is a view that has been held by paleoanthropologists such as Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet many scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of australopithecines have proved the invalidity of that argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, showed that these creatures did not walk upright in human manner. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years by means of grants from the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of five specialists reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.187 Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionary anatomist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of australopithecines to that of modern orangutans.188

That Australopithecus cannot be counted an ancestor of man has recently been accepted by evolutionist sources. The famous French popular scientific magazine Science et Vie made the subject the cover of its May 1999 issue. Under the headline "Adieu Lucy"—Lucy being the most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus afarensis—the magazine reported that apes of the species Australopithecus would have to be removed from the human family tree. In this article, based on the discovery of another Australopithecus fossil known simply as St W573, the following sentences appear:

A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree… Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered.189

Australopithecus skulls and skeletons closely resemble those of modern apes. The drawing to the side shows a chimpanzee on the left, and an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton on the right. Adrienne L. Zhilman, the professor of anatomy who did the drawing, stresses that the structures of the two skeletons are very similar.

An Australopithecus robustus skull. It bears a close resemblance to that of modern apes.

Afarensis and Chimpanzees

On top is the AL 444-2 Australopithecus afarensis skull, and on the bottom a skull of a modern chimpanzee. The clear resemblance between them is an evident sign that A. afarensis is an ordinary species of ape, with no human characteristics.

The Imaginary Family Tree of Man

The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from some kind of ape-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started from 5 to 6 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some transitional forms between modern man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, the following four basic categories are listed:

1. Australophithecines (any of the various forms belonging to the genus Australophithecus)

2. Homo habilis

3. Homo erectus

4. Homo sapiens

Evolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of man belonged Australopithecus, which means "southern ape." Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old type of ape that has become extinct, is found in various different forms. Some of them are larger and strongly built ("robust"), while others are smaller and delicate ("gracile").

Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as the genus Homo, that is "man." According to the evolutionist claim, the living things in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very different from modern man. The modern man of our day, that is, the species Homo sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this genus Homo. Fossils like "Java man," "Peking man," and "Lucy," which appear in the media from time to time and are to be found in evolutionist publications and textbooks, are included in one of the four groups listed above. Each of these groupings is also assumed to branch into species and sub-species, as the case may be. Some suggested transitional forms of the past, such as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded from the imaginary human family tree after it was realised that they were ordinary apes.185

By outlining the links in the chain as "australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens," the evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by paleoanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time. Moreover, some of those humans classified as Homo erectus probably lived up until very recent times. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia," it was reported in the journal that Homo erectus fossils found in Java had "mean ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this "raise[s] the possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia."186

Furthermore, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man) and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) also clearly co-existed. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other.

Intrinsically, all the findings and scientific research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists propose. The fossils, which evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of humans, in fact belong either to different human races, or else to species of ape.

Then which fossils are human and which ones are apes? Why is it impossible for any one of them to be considered a transitional form? In order to find the answers, let us have a closer look at each category.

The Origin of Man

There is no scientific evidence for the claim that man evolved. What is put forward as "proof" is nothing but one-sided comment on a few fossils.

Darwin put forward his claim that human beings and apes descended from a common ancestor in his book The Descent of Man, published in 1871. From that time until now, the followers of Darwin's path have tried to support this claim. But despite all the research that has been carried out, the claim of "human evolution" has not been backed up by any concrete scientific discovery, particularly in the fossil field.

The man in the street is for the most part unaware of this fact, and thinks that the claim of human evolution is supported by a great deal of firm evidence. The reason for this incorrect opinion is that the subject is frequently discussed in the media and presented as a proven fact. But real experts on the subject are aware that there is no scientific foundation for the claim of human evolution. David Pilbeam, a Harvard University paleoanthropologist, says:

If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on."182

And William Fix, the author of an important book on the subject of paleoanthropology, makes this comment:

As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence...183

This claim of evolution, which "lacks any evidence," starts the human family tree with a group of apes that have been claimed to constitute a distinct genus, Australopithecus. According to the claim, Australopithecus gradually began to walk upright, his brain grew, and he passed through a series of stages until he arrived at man's present state (Homo sapiens). But the fossil record does not support this scenario. Despite the claim that all kinds of intermediate forms exist, there is an impassable barrier between the fossil remains of man and those of apes. Furthermore, it has been revealed that the species which are portrayed as each other's ancestors are actually contemporary species that lived in the same period. Ernst Mayr, one of the most important proponents of the theory of evolution in the twentieth century, contends in his book One Long Argument that "particularly historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation."184

But what is the so-called basis for the human evolution thesis? It is the existence of plenty of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 species live on the earth. These 6,000 or so species of ape, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists.

On the other hand, there are considerable differences in the anatomic makeup of the various human races. Furthermore, the differences were even greater between prehistoric races, because as time has passed the human races have to some extent mixed with each other and become assimilated. Despite this, important differences are still seen between different population groups living in the world today, such as, for example, Scandinavians, African pygmies, Inuits, native Australians, and many others.

There is no evidence to show that the fossils called hominid by evolutionary paleontologists do not actually belong to different species of ape or to vanished races of humans. To put it another way, no example of a transitional form between mankind and apes has been found.

After these general explanations, let us now examine how the human evolution scenario contradicts the scientific findings.

The Misconception About Restricted Populations

The second concept stressed by the proponents of punctuated equilibrium theory is that of "restricted populations." By this, they mean that the emergence of new species comes about in communities containing very small numbers of plants or animals. According to this claim, large populations of animals show no evolutionary development and maintain their "stasis." But small groups sometimes become separated from these communities, and these "isolated" groups mate only amongst themselves. (It is hypothesized that this usually stems from geographical conditions.) Macromutations are supposed to be most effective within such small, inbreeding groups, and that is how rapid "speciation" can take place.

But why do proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory insist so much on the concept of restricted populations? The reason is clear: Their aim is try to provide an explanation for the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record.

However, scientific experiments and observations carried out in recent years have revealed that being in a restricted population is not an advantage for the theory of evolution from the genetic point of view, but rather a disadvantage. Far from developing in such a way as to give rise to new species, small populations give rise to serious genetic defects. The reason for this is that in restricted populations individuals must continually mate within a narrow genetic pool. For this reason, normally heterozygous individuals become increasingly homozygous. This means that defective genes which are normally recessive become dominant, with the result that genetic defects and sickness increase within the population.179

In order to examine this matter, a 35-year study of a small, inbred population of chickens was carried out. It was found that the individual chickens became progressively weaker from the genetic point of view over time. Their egg production fell from 100 to 80 percent of individuals, and their fertility declined from 93 to 74 percent. But when chickens from other regions were added to the population, this trend toward genetic weakening was halted and even reversed. With the infusion of new genes from outside the restricted group, eventually the indicators of the health of the population returned to normal.180

This and similar discoveries have clearly revealed that the claim by the proponents of punctuated equilibrium theory that small populations are the source of evolution has no scientific validity.

Conclusion

Scientific discoveries do not support the claims of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution. The claim that organisms in small populations can swiftly evolve with macromutations is actually at least as invalid as the model of evolution proposed by the mainstream neo-Darwinists.

So, why has this theory become so popular in recent years? This question can be answered by looking at the debates within the Darwinist community. Almost all the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution are paleontologists. This group, led by such paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, and Steven M. Stanley, clearly see that the fossil record disproves the Darwinist theory. However, they have conditioned themselves to believe in evolution, no matter what. So for this reason they have resorted to the punctuated equilibrium theory as the only way of accounting even in part for the facts of the fossil record.

On the other hand, geneticists, zoologists, and anatomists see that there is no mechanism in nature which can give rise to any "punctuations," and for this reason they insist on defending the gradualistic Darwinist model of evolution. The Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins fiercely criticizes the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution, and accuses them of "destroying the theory of evolution's credibility."

The result of this dialogue of the deaf is the scientific crisis the theory of evolution now faces. We are dealing with an evolution myth which agrees with no experiments or observations, and no paleontological discoveries. Every evolutionist theoretician tries to find support for the theory from his own field of expertise, but then enters into conflict with discoveries from other branches of science. Some people try to gloss over this confusion with superficial comments such as "science progresses by means of academic disputes of this kind." However, the problem is not that the mental gymnastics in these debates are being carried out in order to discover a correct scientific theory; rather, the problem is that speculations are being advanced dogmatically and irrationally in order to stubbornly defend a theory that is demonstrably false.

However, the theoreticians of punctuated equilibrium have made one important, albeit unwitting, contribution to science: They have clearly shown that the fossil record conflicts with the concept of evolution. Phillip Johnson, one of the world's foremost critics of the theory of evolution, has described Stephen Jay Gould, one of the most important punctuated equilibrium theoreticians, as "the Gorbachev of Darwinism."181 Gorbachev thought that there were defects in the Communist state system of the Soviet Union and tried to "reform" that system. However, the problems which he thought were defects were in fact fundamental to the nature of the system itself. That is why Communism melted away in his hands.

The same fate awaits Darwinism and the other models of evolution.

The Misconception About Macromutations

The first hypothesis—that macromutations occur in large numbers, making the emergence of new species possible—conflicts with known facts of genetics.

One rule, put forward by R. A. Fisher, one of the last century's best known geneticists, and based on observations, clearly invalidates this hypothesis. Fisher states in his book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection that the likelihood that a particular mutation will become fixed in a population is inversely proportional to its effect on the phenotype.176 Or, to put it another way, the bigger the mutation, the less possibility it has of becoming a permanent trait within the group.

It is not hard to see the reason for this. Mutations, as we have seen in earlier chapters, consist of chance changes in genetic codes, and never have a beneficial influence on organisms' genetic data. Quite the contrary: individuals affected by mutation undergo serious illnesses and deformities. For this reason, the more an individual is affected by mutation, the less possibility it has of surviving.

Ernst Mayr, a fervent advocate of Darwinism, makes this comment on the subject:

The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation … is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless'. They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection … the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles … The finding of a suitable mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation from the normal members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable difficulties.177

It is obvious that mutations cannot bring about evolutionary development, and this fact places both neo-Darwinism and the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution in a terrible difficulty. Since mutation is a destructive mechanism, the macromutations that proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory talk about must have "macro" destructive effects. Some evolutionists place their hopes in mutations in the regulatory genes in DNA. But the feature of destructiveness which applies to other mutations, applies to these, as well. The problem is that mutation is a random change: any kind of random change in a structure as complex as genetic data will lead to harmful results.

In their book The Natural Limits to Biological Change, the geneticist Lane Lester and the population biologist Raymond Bohlin describe the blind alley represented by the notion of macromutation:

The overall factor that has come up again and again is that mutation remains the ultimate source of all genetic variation in any evolutionary model. Being unsatisfied with the prospects of accumulating small point mutations, many are turning to macromutations to explain the origin of evolutionary novelties. Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters have indeed returned. However, though macromutations of many varieties produce drastic changes, the vast majority will be incapable of survival, let alone show the marks of increasing complexity. If structural gene mutations are inadequate because of their inability to produce significant enough changes, then regulatory and developmental mutations appear even less useful because of the greater likelihood of nonadaptive or even destructive consequences… But one thing seems certain: at present, the thesis that mutations, whether great or small, are capable of producing limitless biological change is more an article of faith than fact.178

Observation and experiment both show that mutations do not enhance genetic data, but rather damage living things. Therefore, it is clearly irrational for proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory to expect greater success from "mutations" than the mainstream neo-Darwinists have found.

The Mechanism of Punctuated Equilibrium

The punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution, in its present state, holds that living populations show no changes over long periods of time, but stay in a kind of equilibrium. According to this viewpoint, evolutionary changes take place in short time frames and in very restricted populations—that is, the equilibrium is divided into separate periods or, in other words, "punctuated." Because the population is very small, large mutations are chosen by means of natural selection and thus enable a new species to emerge.

For instance, according to this theory, a species of reptile survives for millions of years, undergoing no changes. But one small group of reptiles somehow leaves this species and undergoes a series of major mutations, the reason for which is not made clear. Those mutations which are advantageous quickly take root in this restricted group. The group evolves rapidly, and in a short time turns into another species of reptile, or even a mammal. Because this process happens very quickly, and in a small population, there are very few fossils of intermediate forms left behind, or maybe none.

On close examination, this theory was actually proposed to develop an answer to the question, "How can one imagine an evolutionary period so rapid as not to leave any fossils behind it?" Two basic hypotheses are accepted while developing this answer:

1. that macromutations—wide-ranging mutations leading to large changes in living creatures' genetic make-up—bring advantages and produce new genetic information; and

2. that small animal populations have greater potential for genetic change.

However, both of these hypotheses are clearly at odds with scientific knowledge.

Two famous proponents of the punctuated evolution model: Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.

The Invalidity of Punctuated Equilibrium

In an earlier chapter, we examined how the fossil record clearly invalidates the hypotheses of the Darwinist theory. We saw that the different living groups in the fossil record emerged suddenly, and stayed fixed for millions of years without undergoing any changes. This great discovery of paleontology shows that living species exist with no evolutionary processes behind them.

This fact was ignored for many years by paleontologists, who kept hoping that imaginary "intermediate forms" would one day be found. In the 1970s, some paleontologists accepted that this was an unfounded hope and that the "gaps" in the fossil record had to be accepted as a reality. However, because these paleontologists were unable to relinquish the theory of evolution, they tried to explain this reality by modifying the theory. And so was born the "punctuated equilibrium" model of evolution, which differs from neo-Darwinism in a number of respects.

This model began to be vigorously promoted at the start of the 1970s by the paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History. They summarized the evidence presented by the fossil record as revealing two basic characteristics:

1. Stasis

2. Sudden appearance 173

In order to explain these two facts within the theory of evolution, Gould and Eldredge proposed that living species came about not through a series of small changes, as Darwin had maintained, but by sudden, large ones.

This theory was actually a modified form of the "Hopeful Monster" theory put forward by the German paleontologist Otto Schindewolf in the 1930s. Schindewolf suggested that living things evolved not, as neo-Darwinism had proposed, gradually over time through small mutations, but suddenly through giant ones. When giving examples of his theory, Schindewolf claimed that the first bird in history had emerged from a reptile egg by a huge mutation—in other words, through a giant, coincidental change in genetic structure.174 According to this theory, some land animals might have suddenly turned into giant whales through a comprehensive change that they underwent. This fantastic theory of Schindewolf's was taken up and defended by the Berkeley University geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. But the theory was so inconsistent that it was quickly abandoned.

The factor that obliged Gould and Eldredge to embrace this theory again was, as we have already established, that the fossil record is at odds with the Darwinistic notion of step by step evolution through minor changes. The fact of stasis and sudden emergence in the record was so empirically well supported that they had to resort to a more refined version of the "hopeful monster" theory again to explain the situation. Gould's famous article "Return of the Hopeful Monster" was a statement of this obligatory step back.175

Gould and Eldredge did not just repeat Schindewolf's fantastic theory, of course. In order to give the theory a "scientific" appearance, they tried to develop some kind of mechanism for these sudden evolutionary leaps. (The interesting term, "punctuated equilibrium," they chose for this theory is a sign of this struggle to give it a scientific veneer.) In the years that followed, Gould and Eldredge's theory was taken up and expanded by some other paleontologists. However, the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution was full of contradictions and inconsistencies at least as much as the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution did.

Impasses of the Scenario of Evolution among Marine Mammals

We have so far examined the fallacy of the evolutionist scenario that marine mammals evolved from terrestrial ones. Scientific evidence shows no relationship between the two terrestrial mammals (Pakicetus and Ambulocetus), that evolutionists put at the beginning of the story, and the marine mammals. So what about the rest of the scenario?

The theory of evolution is again in a great difficulty here. The theory tries to establish a phylogenetic link between Archaeocetea (archaic whales), sea mammals known to be extinct, and living whales and dolphins. However, evolutionary paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl admits that; "the serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."168

The evolutionist account of the origin of marine mammals faces a huge impasse in the form of discoveries in the field of molecular biology. The classical evolutionist scenario assumes that the two major whale groups, the toothed whales (Odontoceti) and the baleen whales (Mysticeti), evolved from a common ancestor. Yet Michel Milinkovitch of the University of Brussels has opposed this view with a new theory. He stresses that this assumption, based on anatomical similarities, is disproved by molecular discoveries:

Evolutionary relationships among the major groups of cetaceans is more problematic since morphological and molecular analyses reach very different conclusions. Indeed, based on the conventional interpretation of the morphological and behavioral data set, the echolocating toothed whales (about 67 species) and the filter-feeding baleen whales (10 species) are considered as two distinct monophyletic groups... On the other hand, phylogenetic analysis of DNA... and amino acid... sequences contradict this long-accepted taxonomic division. One group of toothed whales, the sperm whales, appear to be more closely related to the morphologically highly divergent baleen whales than to other odontocetes.169

In short, marine mammals defy the imaginary evolutionary scenarios which they are being forced to fit.

Contrary to the claims of evolutionist propaganda on the origin of marine mammals, we are dealing not with an evolutionary process backed up by empirical evidence, but by evidence coerced to fit a presupposed evolutionary family tree, despite the many contradictions between the two.

What emerges, if the evidence is looked at objectively, is that different living groups emerged independently of each other in the past. This is compelling empirical evidence of the fact that all of these creatures were created.

Mammals are regarded as the life forms on the top rungs of the so-called evolutionary ladder. That being the case, it is hard to explain why these animals moved over to a marine environment. Another question is how these creatures adapted to the marine environment even better than fish, since animals such as the killer whale and the dolphin, which are mammals and therefore possess lungs, are even better adapted to the environment they live in than fish that breathe in water.

It is perfectly obvious that the imaginary evolution of marine mammals cannot be explained in terms of mutations and natural selection. One article published in GEO magazine refers to the origin of the blue whale, a marine mammal, and states the despairing position of Darwinism on the subject thus:

Like blue whales, the bodily structures and organs of other mammals living in the sea also resemble those of fish. Their skeletons also bear similarities to those of fish. In whales, the rear limbs that we can refer to as legs exhibited a reverse development and did not reach full growth. Yet there is not the slightest information about these animals' form changes. We have to assume that the return to the sea took place not through a long-term, slow transition as claimed by Darwinism, but in momentary leaps. Paleontologists today lack sufficient information as regards which mammal species whales are evolved from.170

It is indeed very difficult to imagine how a small mammal living on dry land turned into a whale 30 meters in length and weighing some 60 tons. All that Darwinists can do in this regard is to produce figments of the imagination, as with the following extract from an article published in National Geographic:

The Whale's ascendancy to sovereign size apparently began sixty million years ago when hairy, four-legged mammals, in search of food or sanctuary, ventured into water. As eons passed, changes slowly occurred. Hind legs disappeared, front legs changed into flippers, hair gave way to a thick smooth blanket of blubber, nostrils moved to the top of the head, the tail broadened into flukes, and in the buoyant water world the body became enormous.171

The scenarios of gradual evolution described above satisfy nobody, not even their own authors. But let us in any case examine the details of this tale stage by stage in order to see just how unrealistic it actually is.

National Geographic's Lamarckian Tales

Many evolutionists maintain a kind of superstition about the origin of living things. This superstition is the magical "natural force" that allows living things to acquire the organs, biochemical structures, or anatomical features that they need. Let us have a look at a few interesting passages from National Geographic's article "Evolution of Whales":

… I tried to visualize some of the varieties of whale ancestors that had been found here and nearby... As the rear limbs dwindled, so did the hip bones that supported them… The neck shortened, turning the leading end of the body into more of a tubular hull to plow through the water with minimum drag, while arms assumed the shape of rudders. Having little need for outer ears any longer, some whales were receiving waterborne sounds directly through their lower jawbones and transmitting them to the inner ears via special fat pads.166

On close inspection, in this whole account the evolutionist mentality says that living things feel changing needs according to the changing environment they live in, and this need is perceived as an "evolutionary mechanism." According to this logic, less needed organs disappear, and needed organs appear of their own accord!

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of biology will know that our needs do not shape our organs hereditarily. Ever since Lamarck's theory of the transfer of acquired characteristics to subsequent generations was disproved, in other words for a century or so, that has been a known fact. Yet when one looks at evolutionist publications, they still seem to be thinking along Lamarckian lines. If you object, they will say: "No, we do not believe in Lamarck. What we say is that natural conditions put evolutionary pressure on living things, and that as a result of this, appropriate traits are selected, and in this way species evolve." Yet here lies the critical point: What evolutionists call "evolutionary pressure" cannot lead to living things acquiring new characteristics according to their needs. That is because the two so-called evolutionary mechanisms that supposedly respond to this pressure, natural selection and mutation, cannot provide new organs for animals:

• Natural selection can only select characteristics that already exist, it cannot create new ones.

• Mutations cannot add to the genetic information, they can only destroy the existing one. No mutation that adds unequivocally new, meaningful information to the genome (and which thus forms a new organ or new biochemical structure) has ever been observed.

If we look at the myth of National Geographic's awkwardly moving whales one more time in the light of this fact, we see that they are actually engaging in a rather primitive Lamarckism. On close inspection, National Geographic writer Douglas H. Chadwick "visualizes" that "the rear limbs dwindled" in each whale in the sequence. How could a morphological change happen in a species over generations in one particular direction? In order for that to happen, representatives of that species in every "sequence" would have to undergo mutations to shorten their legs, that mutation would have to cause the animals no other harm, those thus mutants would have to enjoy an advantage over normal ones, the next generations, by a great coincidence, would have to undergo the same mutation at the same point in its genes, this would have to carry on unchanged for many generations, and all of the above would have to happen by chance and quite flawlessly.

If the National Geographic writers believe that, then they will also believe someone who says: "My family enjoys flying. My son underwent a mutation and a few structures like bird feathers developed under his arms. My grandson will undergo the same mutation and the feathers will increase. This will go on for generations, and eventually my descendants will have wings and be able to fly." Both stories are equally ridiculous.

As we mentioned at the beginning, evolutionists display the superstition that living things' needs can be met by a magical force in nature. Ascribing consciousness to nature, a belief encountered in animist cultures, is interestingly rising up before our eyes in the 21st century under a "scientific" cloak. However, as the well-known French biologist Paul Pierre Grassé, a foremost critic of Darwinism, has once made it clear, "There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it."167

Another scenario which evolutionists are trying to impose, without too much discussion, concerns the body surface of the animals in question. Like other mammals, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, which are accepted as land mammals, are generally agreed to have had fur-covered bodies. And they are both shown as covered in thick fur in reconstructions. Yet when we move on to later animals (true marine mammals), all the fur disappears. The evolutionist explanation of this is no different from the fantastical Lamarckian-type scenarios we have seen above.

The truth of the matter is that all the animals in question were created in the most appropriate manner for their environments. It is irrational to try to account for them by means of mutation or facile Lamarckian stories. Like all features of life, the perfect systems in these creatures manifest the fact that they were created by Allah.

Evolutionary Tales about Ears and Noses

Any evolutionary scenario between land and sea mammals has to explain the different ear and nose structures between the two groups. Let us first consider the ear structure. Like us, land mammals trap sounds from the outside world in the outer ear, amplify them with the bones in the middle ear, and turn them into signals in the inner ear. Marine mammals have no ear. They hear sounds by means of vibration-sensitive receptors in their lower jaws. The crucial point is that any evolution by stages between one perfect aural system to a completely different one is impossible. The transitional phases would not be advantageous. An animal that slowly loses its ability to hear with its ears, but has still not developed the ability to hear through its jaw, is at a disadvantage.

The question of how such a "development" could come about is an insoluble dilemma for evolutionists. The mechanisms evolutionists put forward are mutations and these have never been seen to add unequivocally new and meaningful information to animals' genetic information. It is unreasonable to suggest that the complex hearing system in sea mammals could have emerged as the result of mutations.

In fact, fossils show that no evolution ever happened. The ear system of Pakicetus and Ambulocetus is the same as that in terrestrial mammals. Basilosaurus, which follows these two land mammals in the supposed "evolutionary tree," on the other hand, possesses a typical whale ear. It was a creature that perceived sounds around it not through an outer ear but by vibrations reaching its jaw. And there is no "transitional form" between Basilosaurus' ear and that of Pakicetus and Ambulocetus.

A similar situation applies to the "sliding nose" tale. Evolutionist sources set out three skulls from Pakicetus, Rodhocetus and a grey whale from our own time above one another and claim that these represent an "evolutionary process." Whereas the three fossils' nasal structures, especially those of Rodhocetus and the grey whale are so different that it is impossible to accept them as transitional forms in the same series.

Furthermore, the movement of the nostrils to the forehead would require a "change" in the anatomy of the animals in question, and believing that this could happen as the result of random mutations is nothing but fantasy.

The Invalidity of the Myth of the Walking Whale

In fact, there is no evidence that Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are ancestors of whales. They are merely described as "possible ancestors," based on some limited similarities, by evolutionists keen to find a terrestrial ancestor for marine mammals in the light of their theory. There is no evidence linking these creatures with the marine mammals that emerge in the fossil record at a very similar geological time.

After Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, the evolutionist plan moves on to the sea mammals and sets out (extinct whale) species such as Procetus, Rodhocetus, and Archaeocetea. The animals in question were mammals that lived in the sea and which are now extinct. (We shall be touching on this matter later.) However, there are considerable anatomical differences between these and Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. When we look at the fossils, it is clear they are not "transitional forms" linking each other:

• The backbone of the quadrupedal mammal Ambulocetus ends at the pelvis, and powerful rear legs then extend from it. This is typical land-mammal anatomy. In whales, however, the backbone goes right down to the tail, and there is no pelvic bone at all. In fact, Basilosaurus, believed to have lived some 10 million years after Ambulocetus, possesses the latter anatomy. In other words, it is a typical whale. There is no transitional form between Ambulocetus, a typical land mammal, and Basilosaurus, a typical whale.

• Under the backbone of Basilosaurus and the sperm whale, there are small bones independent of it. Evolutionists claim these to be vestigial legs. Yet in Basilosaurus, these bones functioned as copulary guides and in sperm whales "[act] as an anchor for the muscles of the genitalia."163 To describe these bones, which actually carry out important functions, as "vestigial organs" is nothing but Darwinistic prejudice.

In conclusion, the fact that there were no transitional forms between land and sea mammals and that they both emerged with their own particular features has not changed. There is no evolutionary link. Robert Carroll accepts this, albeit unwillingly and in evolutionist language: "It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales."164

Although he is an evolutionist, the famous Russian whale expert G. A. Mchedlidze, too, does not support the description of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans, and similar four-legged creatures as "possible ancestors of the whale," and describes them instead as a completely isolated group.165

Ambulocetus natans: A False Whale with "Webbed" Claws

The second fossil creature after Pakicetus in the scenario on whale origins is Ambulocetus natans. It is actually a land creature that evolutionists have insisted on turning into a whale.

The name Ambulocetus natans comes from the Latin words "ambulare" (to walk), "cetus" (whale) and "natans" (swimming), and means "a walking and swimming whale." It is obvious the animal used to walk because it had four legs, like all other land mammals, and even wide claws on its feet and paws on its hind legs. Apart from evolutionists' prejudice, however, there is absolutely no basis for the claim that it swam in water, or that it lived on land and in water (like an amphibian).

National Geographic's Ambulocetus: The animal's rear legs are shown not with feet that would help it to walk, but as fins that would assist it to swim. However, Carroll, who examines the animal's leg bones, says that it possessed the ability to move powerfully on land.

In order to see the border between science and wishful imagination on this subject, let us have a look at National Geographic's reconstruction of Ambulocetus. This is how it is portrayed in the magazine:

If you look at it carefully you can easily see the two little visual manipulations that have been employed to turn the land-dwelling Ambulocetus into a whale:

• The animal's rear legs are shown not with feet that would help it to walk, but as fins that would assist it to swim. However, Carroll, who examined the animal's leg bones, says that it possessed the ability to move powerfully on land.162

• In order to present a flipper-like impression, webbing has been drawn on its front feet. Yet it is impossible to draw any such conclusion from a study of Ambulocetus fossils. In the fossil record it is next to impossible to find soft tissues such as these. So reconstructions based on features beyond those of the skeleton are always speculative. That offers evolutionists a wide-ranging empty space of speculation to use their propaganda tools.

With the same kind of evolutionists touching up that has been applied to the above Ambulocetus drawing, it is possible to make any animal look like any other. You could even take a monkey skeleton, draw fins on its back and webbing between its fingers and present it as the "primate ancestor of whales."

The invalidity of the deception carried out on the basis of the Ambulocetus fossil can be seen from the drawing below, published in the same issue of National Geographic:

In publishing the picture of the animal's skeleton, National Geographic had to take a step back from the retouching it had carried out to the reconstruction picture which made it seem more like a whale. As the skeleton clearly shows, the animal's foot bones were structured to carry it on land. There was no sign of the imaginary webs.

The real Ambulocetus : The legs are real legs, not "fins," and there are no imaginary webs between its toes such as National Geographic had added. (Picture from Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, p. 335)

The Myth of the Walking Whale

Fossil remains of the extinct mammal Pakicetus inachus, to give it its proper name, first came onto the agenda in 1983. P. D. Gingerich and his assistants, who found the fossil, had no hesitation in immediately claiming that it was a "primitive whale," even though they actually only found a skull.

Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale. Its skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises, and crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one.

Pakicetus

Pakicetus reconstruction by National Geographic

Distortions in the Reconstructions of National Geographic

Paleontologists believe that Pakicetus was a quadrupedal mammal. The skeletal structure on the left, published in the Nature magazine  (vol. 412, September 20, 2001) clearly demonstrates this. Thus the reconstruction of Pakicetus (below left) by Carl Buell, which was based on that structure, is realistic.

National Geographic, however, opted to use a picture of a "swimming" Pakicetus (below) in order to portray the animal as a "walking whale" and to impose that image on its readers. The inconsistencies in the picture, intended to make Pakicetus seem "whale-like," are immediately obvious: The animal has been portrayed in a "swimming" position. Its hind legs are shown stretching out backwards, and an impression of "fins" has been given.

So, how was a quadrupedal land dweller announced to be a "primitive whale"?Merely based on some details in its teeth and ear bones! These features, however, are not evidence on which to base a link between Pakicetus and the whale.

Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy. If the platypus, a billed mammal, and the duck had both been extinct for a long time, then there is no doubt that evolutionists would define them as very close relatives, based on the similiarity between their bills. However, since platypus is a mammal and duck is a bird, the theory of evolution cannot establish any link between the two, either.

Pakicetus, which evolutionists declare to be a "walking whale," was a unique species harboring different features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of which Pakicetus should be a member, as "exhibiting an odd combination of characters."160 Even leading evolutionists such as Gould admit that such "mosaic creatures" cannot be regarded as evolutionary intermediate forms.

In his article "The Overselling of Whale Evolution," the creationist writer Ashby L. Camp reveals the total invalidity of the claim that the Mesonychid class, which should include land mammals such as Pakicetus, could have been the ancestors of Archaeocetea, or extinct whales, in these words:

The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales.161

The Origin of Marine Mammals

Whales and dolphins belong to the order of marine mammals known as Cetacea. These creatures are classified as mammals because, just like land-dwelling mammals, they give live birth to their young and nurse them, they have lungs to breathe with, and they regulate their body temperature. For evolutionists, the origin of marine mammals has been one of the most difficult issues to explain. In many evolutionist sources, it is asserted that the ancestors of cetaceans left the land and evolved into marine mammals over a long period of time. Accordingly, marine mammals followed a path contrary to the transition from water to land, and underwent a second evolutionary process, returning to the water. This theory both lacks paleontological evidence and is self-contradictory. Thus, evolutionists have been silenced on this issue for a long time.

However, an evolutionist hype about the origin of marine mammals broke out in the 90's, argued to be based on some new fossil findings of the 80's like Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. These evidently quadrupedal and terrestrial extinct mammals were alleged to be the ancestors of whales and thus many evolutionist sources did not hesitate to call them "walking whales." (In fact the full name, Ambulocetus natans, means "walking and swimming whale.") Popular means of evolutionist indoctrination further vulgarized the story. National Geographic in its November 2001 issue, finally declared the full evolutionist scenario on the "Evolution of Whales."

Nevertheless, the scenario was based on evolutionist prejudice, not scientific evidence.

The Origin of Bats

One of the most interesting creatures in the mammalian class is without doubt the flying mammal, the bat.

Topping the list of the characteristics of bats is the complex "sonar" system they possess. By means of this, bats can fly in the pitch dark, unable to see anything, but performing the most complicated maneuvers. They can even sense and catch a caterpillar on the floor of a dark room.

Bat sonar works in the following way. The animal emits a continuous stream of high-frequency sonic signals, analyses the echoes from these, and as a result forms a detailed image of its surroundings. What is more, it manages to do all of this at an amazing speed, continually and unerringly, while it is flying through the air.

Research into the bat sonar system has produced even more surprising results. The range of frequencies the animal can perceive is very narrow; in other words it can only hear sounds of certain frequencies, which raises a very important point. Since sounds which strike a body in motion change their frequency (the well-known "Doppler effect"), as a bat sends out signals to a fly, say, that is moving away from it, the sound waves reflected from the fly should be at a different frequency that the bat is unable to perceive. For this reason, the bat should have great difficulty in sensing moving bodies.

But this is not the case. The bat continues to catch all kinds of small, fast-moving creatures with no difficulty at all. The reason is that the bat adjusts the frequency of the sound waves it sends out toward the moving bodies in its environment as if it knew all about the Doppler effect. For instance, it emits its highest-frequency signal toward a fly that is moving away from it, so that when the signal comes back, its frequency has not dropped below the threshold of the animal's hearing.

So how does this adjustment take place?

The oldest known fossil bat, found in Wyoming in the United States. 50 million years old, there is no difference between this fossil and bats alive today.

There are two groups of neurons (nerve cells) in the bat's brain which control the sonar system. One of these perceives the echoed ultrasound, and the other gives instructions to the muscles to produce echolocation calls. These regions in the brain work in tandem, in such a way that when the frequency of the echo changes, the first region perceives this, and warns the second one, enabling it to modify the frequency of the sound emitted in accordance with that of the echo. As a result, the pitch of the bat's ultrasound changes according to its surroundings, and sonar system as a whole is used in the most efficient manner.

It is impossible to be blind to the mortal blow that the bat sonar system deals to the theory of gradual evolution through chance mutations. It is an extremely complex structure, and can in no way be accounted for by chance mutations. In order for the system to function at all, all of its components have to work together perfectly as an integrated whole. It is absurd to believe that such a highly integrated system can be explained by chance; on the contrary, it actually demonstrates that the bat is flawlessly created.

In fact, the fossil record also confirms that bats emerged suddenly and with today's complex structures. In their book Bats: A Natural History, the evolutionary paleontologists John E. Hill and James D. Smith reveal this fact in the form of the following admission:

The fossil record of bats extends back to the early Eocene ... and has been documented ... on five continents ... [A]ll fossil bats, even the oldest, are clearly fully developed bats and so they shed little light on the transition from their terrestrial ancestor.157

And the evolutionary paleontologist L. R. Godfrey has this to say on the same subject:

There are some remarkably well preserved early Tertiary fossil bats, such as Icaronycteris index, but Icaronycteris tells us nothing about the evolution of flight in bats because it was a perfectly good flying bat.158

Evolutionist scientist Jeff Hecht confesses the same problem in a 1998 New Scientist article:

[T]he origins of bats have been a puzzle. Even the earliest bat fossils, from about 50 million years ago, have wings that closely resemble those of modern bats.159

In short, bats' complex bodily systems cannot have emerged through evolution, and the fossil record demonstrates that no such thing happened. On the contrary, the first bats to have emerged in the world are exactly the same as those of today. Bats have always existed as bats.