BBC'S EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BRAIN ERROR

This part of the documentary, The Human Body, prepared by BBC dealt with the human brain. In this episode, the information provided about the brain was supplemented with the usual evolutionist propaganda clichés, and the complexity in the human brain was described as a "miracle of evolution."

Saying that Chance Created Millions of Miracles is Absurd in the Highest Degree

A great deal of information has so far been provided about birth and the human body in the BBC documentary, The Human Body. One of the most frequently repeated phrases in the program is "this is a miracle of evolution." BBC speaks of evolution as something conscious, which knows what it is doing, makes plans, and flawlessly organizes inanimate objects and atoms, and the channel is perhaps not aware of the real significance underlying this logic.

"The miracle of evolution" means "the miracle of chance," since according to the theory of evolution inanimate substances organized themselves as the result of coincidences to produce all living things. According to this claim, atoms such as carbon, phosphate, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen gave rise to proteins, cells, bacteria, fish, birds, starfish, dolphins, leopards, elephants, bees, ants, eagles, lions, roses, oranges,the human brain, the human heart, the human hand (which still cannot be replicated with all our present-day technology), the eyes, and man himself, who thinks, takes decisions, reads, understands what he reads, and feels joy, sorrow, and excitement-and all this by chance. Every one of these complex and flawless structures and features is a miracle, and there are an infinite number of miracles in the universe. There is no doubt that to claim that all these came about by chance is "absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, the architect of the theory of evolution, realized this and made the following confession about the eye, just one of these countless complex structures:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. 1

When you press a button with your finger a series of processes occurs in your brain. Firstly, thousands of receivers in your fingertip go into action. 1) The first receivers affected are the nerve endings in the fingertip. Pressure changes their shape and there is an electrical discharge. 2) This electrical current passes to the nerve fibres known as the axon. 3) It moves through the spinal cord at 133 metres per second. 4) After the signal enters the spinal column 5) it moves in the opposite direction to the medulla oblongata in the brain. 6) From here it moves to the thalamus and reaches the sensory cortex, its final destination. All these processes happen in less time than it takes you to blink your eye.

In order to better understand how stupid it is to maintain that all living things and all the structures and organs in them came about by chance, it will be sufficient to recall just a few of the features of the brain, the subject of the BBC documentary.

An adult's brain contains some 10 billion neurons (nerve cells). Neurons have projections called "axons" and "dendrites," and by means of these, the neurons are interconnected. Thanks to these connections, known as synapses, one neuron is able to send messages to another. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, the famous biochemist Michael Denton states that the number of connections between neurons is in the region of 1 quadrillion (1015 or 1,000,000,000,000,000). He then goes on to say:

It is hard to imagine the multitude that 1015 represents. Take half of the United States, which is 1 million square miles, and imagine it being covered by forest, with 10,000 trees per square mile. On each of the 10,000 trees, which are on each of the one million square miles, there are 100,000 leaves. That's how many connections are crammed inside your brain. 2

The human brain possesses features which are far superior to computers equipped with even the most advanced technology. Evolutionists, however, who accept that a computer could never come about by the random coming together of substances such as silicon, wire and glass, nevertheless claim that the human brain, so far superior to any computer, could form by the chance coming together of carbon and nitrogen atoms etc. This is very definitely a major contradiction.

Cars, for instance, which emerge as the product of a conscious design and the collaboration of engineers, are exceedingly functional. If the evolutionist claim is to be accepted, however, then it needs to be accepted that a perfect car could emerge by chance, on its own, with all its technical accessories. That is a most illogical claim. That being the case, it must be understood that it is far more irrational still to maintain that living things, which possess a far more complex and flawless design than that in the car, could be the product of chance.

Every one of these countless and interlinked connections in the brain, an organ so small it fits into the human skull, has been created in exactly the form required and for a specific purpose. Thanks to these connections, the result of the superior design in Allah's creation, we are able to perform various functions at the same time with no confusion arising. For example, you can listen to music at the same time as reading these words, while also sipping a cup of coffee. At the same time, moreover, your brain regulates you heartbeat, allows you to breathe by carefully keeping the oxygen levels in your blood at a fixed rate, regulates your body temperature, calculates which of your muscles in your hand need to contract, and by how much, in order for you to lift your cup to your lips without spilling it, and also performs detailed calculations necessary for your sense of balance to allow you to remain on your feet, and it does all this without your being aware of it. Hundreds of different functions like these are carried out by the brain in the most perfect manner throughout our lives. Yet, we are quite unaware of all these calculations going on in it.

An article called "Computing from the Brain," in New Scientist magazine, drew the following analogy regarding the brain's extraordinary performance capability:

In crude terms, the human brain is a natural computer composed of 10 to 100 billion neurons, each of which connects to about 10,000 others, and all of which function in parallel. ...Neuronal systems take about 100 processing steps to perform a complex task of vision or speech which would take an electronic computer billions of processing steps. 3

As we have seen, the human brain possesses far superior features to computers produced by the most highly advanced technology. Yet, for some reason evolutionists, who accept that computers could never come about by the chance combination of such substances as silicon, wire, and glass, refuse to accept that the human brain, so far superior to any computer, could not have come about by chance combinations of atoms such as nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen. Indeed, they harbor not the slightest doubts, or at least choose to give that impression. The fact is, however, that if designers, engineers, a technical team, materials in the right quantity and of the right quality, and expert knowledge are necessary for the construction of a computer, then the same thing applies to the brain. Yet, none of these things is to be found in nature. In order for the materials in nature to give rise to birds, fish, horses, flowers, and human beings of all races, it is clear that they need the existence of a superior Creator, possessed of infinite knowledge, wisdom, and power, as well as a flawless design capability. That creator is Allah, the Lord of all, Who created all the worlds from nothing.

There is no Mechanism in Nature Which Could Turn the Ape Brain into a Human One

A classical evolutionist claim was repeated on the BBC documentary, in which it was suggested that the brains of our ape-like ancestors turned into the human brain over a period of some 2.5 million years. An analogy was drawn: The brain capacity of our ape-like ancestors was compared to a small Fiat car engine, and that of modern man to a much more developed sports car engine.

In fact, this comparison undermines the evolutionists' own thesis. Everyone knows that no car engine could turn into another, more highly developed one as the result of chance. Not even in trillions of years, let alone 2.5 million. In fact, under the laws of physics, it will age and wear, rot, and eventually fall apart. In order for such an engine to emerge, a designer possessing the knowledge and ability to develop it is essential.

Furthermore, there is an important fact that even evolutionist scientists are forced to admit: The main difference between the ape and human brains is not just a question of capacity and size. Materialists attempt to reduce all human characteristics, and thus the functioning of the brain, to matter. Yet it is today agreed that the features of the human soul cannot be reduced to matter. Man's ability to speak, think, decide, plan, his desires and wishes, his artistic and aesthetic abilities, his ability to possess ideologies, to produce ideas and to dream, and the virtues of love, loyalty, and friendship are not the product of the functioning of the brain. The human soul is something beyond matter, and that on its own is a challenge to materialism.

In his book, The Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain, the evolutionist neurosurgeon Dr. Wilder Penfield is forced many times to admit that the human soul cannot be accounted for in terms of the functioning of the brain. Some of these confessions read:

After years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier to be logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elements [brain and mind (or soul)]. 4

I conclude that there is no good evidence . . . that the brain alone can carry out the work that the mind does. 5

Therefore, comparing the ape brain to that of man avails the evolutionists not at all, since it is clear that no mechanism in nature can give man the characteristics that make him human. It is Allah, the Lord of all the worlds, Who gives man his soul, creates him out of nothing, and makes him different from all other living things by breathing His spirit into him.

Conclusion

1 - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 75.

2- Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 330

3- Michael Recce and Philip Treleavan, "Computing from the Brain," New Scientist, Vol. 118, No. 1614 (May 26, 1988), p. 61.

4- Wilder Penfield, The Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p.80

5- Wilder Penfield, The Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. xiii

MOSAIC EVOLUTION DECEIT

Ida

It claims that every organ in the body evolved at different periods and different stages independently.

-    Using this claim Darwinists say, "we can not see a semi-reptile, semi-bird living being because the evolution takes place on the organs' level."

-    That is why they try to show tiny details on perfect living beings as an evidence for evolution. Despite being an utterly lemur fossil, they showed the Ida as a transitional fossil because of its bendable thumb and claimed that it is the so-called ancestor of man.

This claim is invalid for the following reason:

-    In case of Ida: until that lemur reaches its perfect form, each organ needs to evolve. Where are the fossils in which these transitional organs exist?

-    While some organs evolve and others wait for their return, there needs to exist a stage where this living being needs to be a semi-primate and semi-lemur. Where are these stages in the fossil records?

-    Ida needs to go through billions and even trillions of mutations until it takes its perfect form. All of these mutations need to be beneficial. However, 99 percent of mutations are harmful while 1 percent of them are inefficient. It is impossible for so many mutations to come together and organize themselves together to bring about an absolute benefit. 

-    Until the living being takes its perfect form mutations must have added brand new structures to it. However, mutations are not able to add new information to the genetic information of a living being. 

-    Besides accordingly, it is not explained why a gradually developing organ is not eliminated by natural selection during the time it remains functionless.

THE IDEA THAT 'MUTATIONS CAUSE EVOLUTION' IS A FALSEHOOD

Mutations are dislocations, breaks and impairments as a result of radiation of chemical effects in the DNA molecule in the nucleus of the living cell and that carries all the information about a human being. The information in DNA is set out by 4 separate nucleotides, symbolized by the letters A, T, C and G, laid out in a special and significant sequence.  But an error in a single letter in that sequence will damage the entire structure. The leukemia observed in children appears because one of the letters in the DNA is incorrect. The reason for diseases such as cancer appearing or subsequent generations being deformed as a result of the radiation leakage in Chernobyl of the atom bomb dropped over Hiroshima is harmful effects of this kind caused by mutations in people's bodies.

Almost all mutations are harmful, and they are generally lethal to living things. Examples of mutations that are not harmful generally do the organism no good, and are at best neutral. Scientists have concluded that not a single one out of all those that have been studied has had a positive effect on a living thing's life. 1

But the theory of evolution is based on fictitious mutations that produce "new" living things and work miracles. Darwinists maintain that species emerge from one another through structures and organs appearing as a result of countless fictitious and beneficial mutations.  This claim, a source of terrible shame for Darwinists, is put forward by Darwinist scientists who know that mutations always harm an organism. Moreover, although Darwinists are well aware of these harmful effects of mutations they still point to a mutant, four-winged fruit fly subjected to mutations in the laboratory in support of their claims. Darwinists portrayed the extra pair of wings produced in a fruit fly as a result of carefully performed mutations as the greatest evidence that mutations could lead to evolution. But the two wings in question actually damaged the creature rather than benefiting it, leading to its losing the ability to fly. The University of California molecular biologist summarizes the position as follows:

In the 1970s, Cal Tech geneticist Edward B. Lewis discovered that by carefully breeding three mutant strains he was able to produce a fruit fly in which the balancers were transformed into a second pair of normal-looking wings.

At first glance, this might seem to provide evidence for Carroll's claim that small developmental changes in regulatory DNA can produce large evolutionary changes in form. But the fruit fly is still a fruit fly. Furthermore, although the second pair of wings looks normal, it has no flight muscles. A four-winged fruit fly is like an airplane with a second pair of wings dangling uselessly from its tail. It has great difficulty flying or mat­ing, so it can survive only in the laboratory. As evidence for evolution, a four-winged fruit fly is no better than a two-headed calf in a circus sideshow. 2 

Jonathan Wells continues:

Disabled fruit flies with extra wings or missing legs have taught us something about developmental genetics, but nothing about evolution. All of the evidence points to one conclusion: no matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes-a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even a horsefly, much less a horse. 3  

As we have seen, the four-winged mutant fruit fly that is the only evidence that Darwinists point to in support of their warped claims is in fact nothing more than a disabled fruit fly. No matter what effect mutations may have on a life form, they do not possess the miraculous property of bestowing a characteristic belonging to another life form onto it. But Darwinists want to believe the lie that miracles occur in living things by way of mutations.

The interesting thing is that although Darwinist scientists know that the fruit fly in question is defective, attempts are still made to depict it as the greatest evidence for evolution by mutation in school text books. The molecular biologist Jonathan Wells writes:

According to Peter Raven and George Johnson's 1999 textbook, Biology, "all evolution begins with alterations in the genetic message... Genetic change through mutation and recombination [the re-arrangement of existing genes] provides the raw materials for evolution." The same page features a photo of a four-winged fruit fly, which is described as "a mutant because of changes in Ultrabithorax, a gene regulating a critical stage of development; it possesses two thoracic segments and thus two sets of wings."
...
Adding to the confusion, textbook accounts typically leave the reader with the impression that the extra wings represent a gain of structures. But four-winged fruit flies have actually lost structures which they need for flying. Their balancers are gone, and instead of being replaced with something new have been replaced with copies of structures already present in another segment. Although pictures of four-winged fruit flies give the impression that mutations have added something new, the exact opposite is closer to the truth. 4 

Even if we assume that the "fictitious first cell" that Darwinists claim represents the beginning of life and that cannot possibly have come into being by chance did actually emerge spontaneously, even the smallest stage of the imaginary evolutionary process that would have to take place to give rise to man with his complex  structure would require an astounding amount of information to be produced and countless mutations to take place. "All" of these many mutations have to be beneficial to the life form or else bring about the appearance of something "new."  Because a single error in this fictitious developing life form will cause the entire system to go wrong and collapse. Ninety-nine percent of mutations are

harmful while 1% are neutral. It flies in the face of both reason and science, therefore, to suggest that every single one of these mutations that would have to take place according to the theory of evolution can be beneficial.

It is therefore impossible for a brand new organ or characteristic that did not exist before to appear by chance as the result of mutations. Mutations have no power to bestow new information on a life form that does not belong to it, or to turn it into a different organism. The idea of mutation represents the greatest manifestation of the falsehood and illogicality of Darwinism. Because the idea of evolution is based on these illusory "beneficial mutation" that do not in fact exist.

The Infinite Amount of Time Needed for Hypothetical Beneficial Mutations

Even if we hypothesize that beneficial mutations could take place, the idea of mutation is still incompatible with the theory of evolution. In a paper titled "The Inadequacy of Neo-Darwinian Evolution As a Scientific Theory," Professor Murray Eden from the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Faculty of Electrical Engineering showed that if it required a mere six mutations to bring about an adaptive change, this would occur by chance only once in a billion years - while, if two dozen genes were involved, it would require 10,000,000,000 years, which is much longer than the age of the Earth. 5 Even if we assume that mutations were effective and beneficial in complex organs and structures requiring more than one mutation to occur at the same time, mathematicians still say the problem of time is an acute dilemma for Darwinists. Even Professor of Paleontology George G. Simpson, one of the most unrepentant Darwinists, clearly states that it would take an infinite length of time for five mutations to happen at the same time. 6 An infinite amount of time means zero probability. And that is a probability applying to all the structures and organisms possessed by living things. There is thus no possibility of the glorious variety of life we see in our daily lives coming about through mutations.

The evolutionist George G. Simpson has performed another calculation regarding the mutation claim in question. He admitted that in a community of 100 million individuals we assume to produce a new generation every day, a positive outcome from mutations would only take place once every 274 billion years. That number is many times greater the age of the Earth, estimated at 4.5 billion years. 7 These, of course, are all calculations assuming that mutations have a positive effect of that new generations gave rise to. But no such assumption applies in the real world.

Why Is the Body That Is Supposedly Evolving Protected against Mutations?

All evolutionist scientists know that the probability of a replication error taking place in a living thing's DNA for no reason is very low. Research has revealed that there are protective elements in the cell that prevent genetic errors arising. The information in DNA cannot be copied in the absence of particular enzymes that protect one another against errors.  These include doubt-filter enzymes for ensuring that the right amino acid binds to the right tRNA. One filter rejects amino acids that are too large, and the other those that are too small.  This is a very sensitive and rational system. There are also enzymes that do the final checks against the possibility of any error arising in this intelligent system. Scientists have concluded that there is a better cellular control and protection system aimed at maintaining the integrity of DNA than they had ever imagined. 8

Pierre Paul Grassé, who spent 30 years as professor of evolution at the Sorbonne, wrote this on the subject:

The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer's "Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecules leading to the formation of the eye. 9

Darwinists ignore this miraculous system in DNA and avoid going deeply into the subject and coming with any explanation of it. But they construct a scenario of the history of life built on replication errors with an almost zero possibility of coming about. This once again reveals the nonsensical nature of Darwinist logic.

Following the realization that Darwin's idea of natural selection very definitely did not constitute an account of the so-called evolution and the emergence of the laws of genetics as a lethal blow to Darwinism, the claim of the "evolutionary effect of mutations," which had been the main weapon of neo-Darwinism, was seen to be no more than a deception. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that a mechanism such as mutation, which damages, destroys and kills the living organism, as well as sometimes harming all subsequent generations, can give rise to whole new living things.

But masses of people were taken in by this lie for years. Darwinist scientists of course know that mutations have no such miraculous power. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the present day's most fervid Darwinists, admits that "most mutations are deleterious, so some undesirable side effect is pretty likely." 10 The reason why Darwinists still propose this discredited claim as a mechanism for evolution is their devotion to the superstitious religion of Darwinism. 


1- Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, pp. 74-75

2- Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Regnery Publishing Inc., Washington, 2006, p.34

3- Ibid., p. 36

4- Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, pp.185,186, 187

5- Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Sphere Books Ltd., 1984, p. 4

6- Ibid., p. 230

7- Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 81

8- Ibid., pp.74-75

9 Ibid., p. 81

10 Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 141

THE CLAIM THAT "NATURAL SELECTION CAUSES EVOLUTION" IS A FRAUDULENT ONE

Darwin proposed the concept of natural selection as an "evolutionary mechanism" in the 1800s.

Natural selection is in other words "natural choosing". The idea of natural selection is based on the idea that powerful life forms well adapted to their natural surroundings will survive. For example, in a herd of zebra menaced by lions, it is those zebra that run fastest that will survive.

Natural selection is certainly a mechanism observed among living things in nature. But it does not possess the ability as imagined by evolutionists of bestowing new features on life forms and thus creating new species.

We can clarify this with an example: Let us imagine that in a geographical region somewhere there are two similar kinds of dog, one with longer fur and the other with relatively shorter.  If the temperature in this region falls significantly for some ecological reason, then the longer haired dogs will be more resistant than the shorter haired ones. As a result, the longer haired dogs will gradually come to have an advantage, meaning that they will live longer, and reproduce and find food easier. After a while, the number of shorter haired dogs will decrease considerably, and they will either migrate to warmer climates or else become extinct. In other words, the longer haired dogs will be favored by natural selection.

But note that no new breed of dog emerges during this process. One of the two breeds that were already in existence acquired an advantage through natural selection. It is not the case that as a result of natural selection long haired dogs appeared where there had been none before. It is in any case absolutely impossible for these dogs to turn into another species.

In short, new species and new characteristics do not appear by way of natural selection, only the chances of survival of already existing increasing species rise. Since no new species or characteristic form, it is impossible to speak of "evolution" taking place. To put it another way, no "evolution" comes about through natural selection. Indeed, Darwin himself admitted as much:

Natural selection is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures. 1 
 
The well-known British evolutionist and paleontologist Colin Patterson makes this confession on the subject:

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question. 2

Natural selection is not a mechanism that produces anything new and thus causes species to change, one that works miracles, such as causing a reptile to gradually turn into a bird. In the words of the well-known biologist D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson, "...We see in natural selection is not to create but to destroy-to weed, to prune, to cut down and to cast into the fire." 3

Darwinists are therefore lying when they describe natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. Even though they know full well that natural selection does not bring evolution about, they still try to impose this deception.  Adopting the legacy inherited from Darwin and not being able to invent a new mechanism for their imaginary scenario make them so devoted to this outdated claim, this terrible falsehood. There are still Darwinist scientists today who adhere to this terrible lie. Those who have seen that this lie cannot be maintained have come up with another one. That is the idea that "mutations cause evolution."
 

1- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1859 (London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1971) - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 84

2- Colin Patterson, "Cladistics", Interview by Brian Leek, Peter Franz, 4 March 1982, BBC.

3- Lee M. Spetner, Not By Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, The Judaica Press Inc., 1997, p. 175