The Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology) magazine in its April 2003 issue and the Hurriyet Bilim (Hurriyet Science) magazine on the 5th of April 2003 reported a research project published in the Science magazine on the 21st of March 2003. Both, Hurriyet Bilim (Hurriyet Science) and Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), took it upon themselves to defend Darwinism again and did so by storytelling as usual, difference being that in these articles they enriched an old tale considerably. The Darwinists looked once more at the DNA of some creatures and interpreted them as they wanted to understand them, thereby creating new tales. This time they enriched them even further to create the tale of the evolution of the beetles.
But neither “science” magazines published research results were based on anything but the power of imagination, though they reported them as if they were “science-facts”.
The article titled “The Different Ancestors Of The Beetles” in the Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology) magazine began with the following sentence: “It has been revealed that even though all species of beetles have fundamental similarities, they did not evolve from a common ancestor but are the descendents of different species.”
Someone reading this could be misled to believe that scientists made a new discovery whereby they proved the “evolution of beetles.” Even if the reader was not misled by this, it is clear that the self-confident style of Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology) intended this by relating the story in an absolute and definite manner.
Hurriyet Bilim (Hurriyet Science) clearly took the same view as its title revealed: “Beetles Left The Seas For Land In Two Separate Eras.”
The research conducted by Francesco Nardi and his colleagues from the Siena University in Italy claimed, contrary to the existing view of all beetles having a common ancestry, that they evolved in separate eras in two distinct branches and became land dwellers at different times. They claim that one group of hexapods (six feeters) evolved much earlier than the rest from the crustaceans (hard-shelled sea dwellers). Nardi and his colleagues claim also that the three body sections, six feet, eye and leg design and other common features of beetles is not the consequence of a common ancestry but because of the need to adapt to the same living environment.
The few bold words here sum up in reality a tale of enormous proportions by the name of “Convergent Evolution”. Evolutionists, when they cannot classify creatures despite their common characteristics under one ancestor, resort to the claim that these evolved by what they term “convergent evolution”, according which, if we take an example from the above tale, beetles descending from separate ancestors, can have a similar body design after hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Similar environmental condition, they say, can cause for two distinct species of beetles to evolve to resemble each other. A certain species of beetle can, by the so-called “coincidental” mutations, “concurrently” develop, with another distinct species of beetle by the same coincidental mutations and in parallel processes, into beetles with striking similarities.
Even if we disregard the damaging effects of mutations, the possibility of this happening is next to nothing. In fact, the possibility of this happening is smaller than the possibility of two pairs of dice being rolled in two separate corners of the world, millions of times, yielding the same numbers each time in the same sequence. Nevertheless, evolutionists believe in this impossibility.
The dogma defended by the Science magazine and consequently Hurriyet Bilim (Hurriyet Science) and Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology) magazines, or better, the tale they believe, are evident. There is no other reason than their commitment to Darwinism for them to present these tall tales as if they were scientific facts. Their blind devotion to Darwinism led them to present this claim as if it was the final word on the subject even though the original source stated that it was subject to criticism. Another science magazine, Nature, despite its evolutionary credentials, acknowledged that Nardi’s claims are arguable and printed these words by Cyrille D’Haese:
“I really don’t buy it.”
As seen, both magazines defend a chain of impossibilities in the name of Darwinism and relate to their readership, views much disputed even among evolutionist, as if they were scientific facts. Our advise to both magazines, if they want to persist in defending evolution, is for them to cease to present efforts trying to establish imaginary links between species, as evidence for evolution and instead, to try to explain how a little beetle could evolve by coincidental mutations. If they can manage to bring forth a solid thesis in this regard, they will have assisted the claims made by the evolution theory, because, thus far, it has not even once been observed that coincidental mutations have added to the DNA’s data, thereby improving or benefiting it. If they wish to rescue the evolution theory from its appearance of a story resting on shaky grounds, even though this is impossible, they should at least try to do that once, although irrespective of how hard they try, they would not be succeeding.
God says in the Qur’an about the deniers:
“”Say: “Can any of your partner-gods bring creation out of nothing and then regenerate it?” Say: “God brings creation out of nothing and then regenerates it. So how have you been perverted?”” (Qur’an, 10: 34)