An article in the 7 April 2006, edition of Science magazine has recently inspired the publication of numerous reports in the media. It is striking that these reports claim that molecular evolution has been proven. However, when examined, the article that inspired these reports consists of an evolutionist scenario concerning the emergence of a hormone-receptor relationship. The article proclaims that if the hormone-receptor relationship can emerge through gradual evolution, then all the complex systems in living things can emerge similarly through gradual evolution. In order to give a scientific appearance to a dreamed-up scenario based on evolutionist assumptions, conjecture and preconceptions, the article is liberally sprinkled with showy results, colorful diagrams, tables and graphics. Because this scenario is entirely unrealistic, the conclusion based on it is equally irrational and illogical.
Darwin himself expressed concern on this subject a century or so before modern science demonstrated that irreducible complexity is a fact:
“If it 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.” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189)
Even variations at the molecular level in the body can give rise to fatal consequences. For that reason, the hormonal mechanisms in living things operate within a very fine equilibrium. In order for hormones to have the necessary effects, they need to bind to receptors specially created for the particular hormone in question. For example, the hormone insulin, which is secreted by the pancreas and regulates blood sugar levels, needs to bind to special insulin receptors to serve its purpose. In short, the hormone and receptor resemble a lock and key system that initiates a specific physiological process in the body. In the same way that a lock can only be opened by a key specially designed to open it, a hormone can only perform its specific function by binding to a receptor that is sensitive to it. It is impossible for a key or lock to come into existence by chance and it is even less likely for this key and lock to be compatible with one another by chance. To claim that the infinitely more complex hormone-receptor system could come into being by coincidence, with both the complex individual structures and mutual compatibility of both elements, is even more irrational than maintaining that a lock and key could emerge in the absence of a locksmith. However, this is exactly the irrational claim the article seeks to prove.
The article deals with the hormone aldosterone, which establishes the sodium and potassium ion balance in the body and binds with the receptor mineralocorticoid (MR). The article suggests that both components of the complex hormone-receptor system in question emerged by way of “gradual evolution” in a manner compatible with Darwin”s theory.
First, there is no scientific basis for claims that the receptors mentioned above evolved from one another hundreds of millions of years ago or that there is a line of descent among them. This is merely an evolutionist assumption. One has been declared to descend from the other solely based on the two hormones having a similar amino acid sequence.
The fact is, that mutation, the only “transforming and developing agent” that evolutionists point to in their claims, cannot transform the AncCR receptor into the MR receptor by adding on new amino acids. On the contrary, mutation would damage the AncCR receptor and make it functionless, because mutations have a 99% chance of being destructive and only a 1% chance of being neutral. To believe that any random mutation in an organic structure can turn it into a different, more complex structure with additional characteristics is to believe in the impossible.
Many species in existence today have many kinds of hormones, proteins and receptors in common. Although these molecular structures generally control similar functions, there are structural differences between them that vary from one life form to another.
An attempt is being made here to conceal one very important point and to give the misleading impression that everything is settled and squared away. That point is this:
Most of the components of complex systems consist not of individual molecules, as in this hormone-receptor relationship, but of far more complex structures consisting of large numbers of molecules. For example, the exceedingly complex retina, one of the 40 basic parts of the eye, consists not of one molecule or molecule group, but of trillions of retinal cells, each consisting of billions of varieties of molecules that combine in an orderly measured system.
That being the case, those who make the claims carried in the article have to explain how the retinal layer, specialized solely for the purpose of sight, initially emerged as the result of chance and also what unrelated tasks it served in while waiting for the emergence of the eye. Alternatively, they could explain what the feathers on birds” wings did before wings emerged, or how the Bowman capsules, which filter the blood in the kidneys more meticulously than any dialysis machine, came into being by chance before the kidney itself and what different roles these played in previous organisms. In the same way, they need to account for each of all the countless complex organs, systems and structural components in all of the millions of species that have ever existed. In addition, they need to know that each of these countless components has to have its own unique explanation; an explanation for one is irrelevant to another. Sleight of hand such as inventing a made-up scenario for the emergence of a two-part molecular system, as in the Science article, and then applying this generalization to millions of complex systems is not acceptable.
Mitochondria, for example, one of the countless components that make up the living cell, are not only part of a cell with an exceedingly complex structure, but also have their own separate complex structure. The Mitochondrion is not a mere molecule or a chemical substance. This organelle, which makes the cell”s energy production possible, contains a factory design of the most extraordinary complexity.
There can be no question of such a complex system emerging through simple chemical reactions, molecular interactions and slow, gradual increments. Chemical reactions and molecular interactions have specific limitations; these can only produce more chemical substances and molecules, whereas most of the components of complex systems are complex structures created within a flawless order and plan. To draw a comparison, the difference between a molecule and mitochondria is like the difference between a brick and a skyscraper. What evolutionists are attempting to do in the article in question is, to use the same analogy, nothing more than to claim that they have accounted for the presence of the skyscraper by writing a scenario concerning the brick.
In short, inventing an evolutionist tale regarding the coming into being of a molecule-receptor relationship and then saying, “Look, we have now accounted for the existence of the eye, ear, arm, leg, cell, nervous system and kidney — in short for the coming into being of all the structures in living things — and have also proved evolution.” is a deception only blind and ignorant supporters of Darwinism could possible believe in. The way that some of the local media make headline news out of the molecular evolution story in Science magazine, under captions such as “molecular evolution has been proven,” is one striking example of this dogmatic ignorance.
What Evolutionists Really Have to Explain
In mathematical terms, the chances of one protein molecule consisting of 500 amino acids in a living cell coming into being by coincidence is 1 in 10950. Again mathematically speaking, that means a probability of zero. In other words, it is impossible for even one single protein molecule in one single cell to form coincidently in a lifeless environment.
This evolutionist attempt to prove molecular evolution must explain these dilemmas. Writing attention-grabbing headlines about evolution does not prove evolution at all. Rather it is an attempt to keep evolution, which is devoid of any proof or evidence, alive by means of the usual propaganda and psychological manipulation.
The same thing applies to the article in question, which frequently asserts that the complex structure of life has emerged in a manner compatible with Darwin”s theses.
The theory of evolution is built upon Darwin”s name and claims. For this reason, Darwin”s image needs to be kept alive, even if by artificial respiration.
However, it is obvious that Darwin, whose every thesis is a separate source of shame for the world of science, cannot enjoy prestige on any subject.
Darwin was an amateur naturalist whose level of science and culture was much lower than that of today”s primary school students. —He was completely unaware of genetics, molecular biology and cell biology; he imagined the cell to be a bubble filled with water. He lived in a time of complete ignorance in which it was believed that antelopes turned into giraffes by stretching their necks to reach leaves on high branches and that rotten meat produced flies.
It was in that atmosphere of ignorance and lack of scientific knowledge that he came up with unscientific evolutionist scenarios such as the transmission of acquired characteristics to subsequent generations and new species emerging in that manner.
Certain Darwinist scientists and publishing organizations that still attempt to defend these fantasies of Darwin”s in the 21st century should scrupulously avoid falling into the same situation as Darwin, who represents a primitive, 19th century level of science, ignorance and bigotry. They must accept the fact that Allah has created all living things together with their perfect structures.
“”This is Allah”s creation. Show me then what those besides Him have created! The wrongdoers are clearly misguided.”” (Surah Luqman, 11)