CHAPTER II REFUTATION OF DARWINISM/A TOPIC EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN: COLOURS IN NATURE

CHAPTER II REFUTATION OF DARWINISM/

A TOPIC EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN: COLOURS IN NATURE

A TOPIC EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN: COLOURS IN NATURE

When we look at nature, we see that every plant and every animal have their own particular colours and patterns exclusive to their kind. Furthermore, each of these colours and patterns have different meanings for living things: an invitation to mate, expression of aggression, a warning against danger and many notions like these acquire a meaning among animals from the perception of colours and patterns.

The theory of evolution, which claims that everything has come into being by random coincidence, has reached a total impasse because of the artistry, diversity of colours and harmony exhibited in nature. Charles Darwin, the founder of the theory in the form in which we have it today, also had to confess the situation he faced because of the design evident in living beings. Darwin stated that he could not understand why the colours of living creatures have particular meanings:

My difficulty is, why are caterpillars sometimes so beautifully and artistically coloured? Seeing that many are coloured to escape danger, I can hardly attribute their bright colour in other cases to mere physical conditions.1

Certainly, it is impossible for colours and order in nature to have come into being by natural selection.

Let us verify with an example that it is impossible for the colours of living beings and systems of transformation of colour to come about by natural selection. Let us take chameleons for an example. Chameleons are animals capable of adapting to the colours present in the environment and changing their colours according to the surroundings. While resting on a green leaf, they assume a green colour, while moving onto a brown branch, their skin changes to brown in a very short time. Let us think together over how this process of colour change takes place.

A living creature changes its colour as a consequence of highly complex processes taking place in its body. It is impossible for a man to change either his own colour or another living being's colour, because the human body is not equipped with the proper systems for such an operation. Nor is it possible for a human to develop such a system on his own because it is not like a piece of equipment to be developed and installed. In short, for a living creature to be able to change its colour, it is imperative for this creature to come into being with such a colour change mechanism.

Let us think about the first chameleon on the earth. What would happen if this creature did not have the ability to change colour? First, the chameleon would be easy prey since it could not hide. Besides, since it would be easily recognised, hunting would be very difficult for it. This would finally cause a chameleon devoid of any other defence mechanism to die or starve and, after a while, to become extinct. Yet, the existence of chameleons in the world today evidently proves that such an event has never taken place. So, chameleons possessed this perfect system from the first moment they appeared on earth.

Evolutionists claim that chameleons have developed this system over time. This would make some questions occur to our minds: why have chameleons chosen to develop such a complex system such as changing colour instead of an easier defence mechanism? Why has it chosen changing colour while there are so many kinds of defence mechanisms? How has such a mechanism, providing for all the chemical processes necessary for colour change, been formed in the chameleon? Is it possible for a reptile to think of such a mechanism and then develop the necessary systems in its body? More, is it possible for a reptile to encode the information necessary for colour change in the DNA present in its cells?

Do you not see that Allah sends down water from the sky and by it We bring forth fruits of varying colours?... (Qur'an, 35:27)

Unquestionably, this is impossible. The conclusion to be drawn from the answers given to such questions as above will be one and the same: it is impossible for a living creature to develop such a complex system that allows it to change its own colour.

And also the things of varying colours He has created for you in the earth. There is certainly a Sign in that for people who pay heed. (Qur'an, 16:13)

Not only systems of colour change, but also the diversities of colour and pattern in living beings deserve focus. It is impossible for the bright colours in parrots, the diverse colours in fish, the symmetry in the wings of butterflies, the fascinating patterns in flowers and the colours of other living things to have been formed on their own. Such perfect patterns, colours and figures, which serve very important purposes in the lives of living things, are concrete evidence of creation. It is obvious that there is a superior design in the formation of the colours around us.

Let us make it clear with an example: let us suppose that we are designing a product consisting of squares. Even to draw one of them, we need to make a small calculation and make sure that all four sides are linear and equal and the square has 90-degree angles at the corners. We can draw the square only after making some calculations and adjustments. As seen, even drawing a single square requires some knowledge and skill.

Let us apply the same reasoning to living creatures around us and ponder on them. There is perfect harmony, order and plan in living beings. A person who appreciates the necessity of knowledge and skill in drawing a simple square, will understand right away that origination of the order, harmony, colours and design in the universe is also a product of infinite knowledge and skill. Therefore there is no reasonable or scientific ground for claiming that a system such as the universe has come into existence by chance. Allah, the Most Powerful, has created the entire universe. Allah is the One Who fashions everything He creates most beautifully.

They said 'Glory be to You! We have no knowledge except what You have taught us. You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.' (Surat al-Baqara: 32)

1. Francis Darwin, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. II, p. 275.

Download (DOC)
Download (PDF)
Buy Now
Malayalam, Indonesia, Türkçe

CHAPTER II REFUTATION OF DARWINISM/DARWINIST MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

CHAPTER II REFUTATION OF DARWINISM/

DARWINIST MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

DARWINIST MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

THE APE-MAN SIMILARITY IS A TALE!

The completion of human's gene map today does not yield the result that man and ape are relatives. One need not be deceived by evolutionists' attempts to exploit this new scientific development just as they do with all others.

As known, the recent completion of the human gene map within the scope of the Human Genome Project has been a very important scientific improvement. However, some results of this project are being distorted in some evolutionist publications. It is claimed that the genes of chimpanzees have a similarity to human genes by 98 % and this is promoted as an evidence to the claim that apes are close to humans, and therefore, to the theory of evolution. In truth, this is a "fake" evidence put forward by evolutionists who benefit from the lack of knowledge of society about this subject.

98 % Similarity Claim Is A Misleading Propaganda

First, it should be stated that the 98% similarity concept, frequently advanced by evolutionists about the DNAs of man and chimpanzee, is deceptive.

In order to claim that the genetic make-ups of man and chimpanzee bear 98 % similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped just as that of man's, the two has to be compared, and the result of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is available, because so far, only the gene of mankind has been mapped. No such research is yet done for the chimpanzee.

In reality, the 98 % similarity between the genes of man and ape, which now and then becomes an agenda item, is a propaganda oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared.

However there are about hundred thousand genes, and therefore 100 thousand proteins coded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98 % similar only because of the similarity in 40 out of 100.000 proteins.

On the other hand, the DNA comparison carried out on those 40 proteins is also controversial. This comparison was made in 1987 by two biologists named Sibley and Ahlquist and published in the periodical named Journal of Molecular Evolution.1 However another scientist named Sarich who examined the data obtained by these two scientists concluded that the reliability of the method they used is controversial and that the data has been exaggeratedly interpreted. 2 Dr. Don Batten, another biologist, also analysed the issue in 1996 and concluded that the real similarity rate is 96.2%, not 98 %.3

Human DNA Is Also Similar To That Of The Worm, Mosquito And Chicken!

Moreover, the above mentioned basic proteins are common vital molecules present in various other living beings. The structure of the same kinds of proteins present not only in chimpanzee, but also in completely different living beings, is very similar to that in the humans.

For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man.4 This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms! According to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum, in which man is included, and Nematoda phylum were different from each other even 530 million years ago.

On the other hand, in another finding which also appeared in the Turkish media, it was stated that the comparisons carried out between the genes of fruit fly belonging to the Drosophila species and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%.5 On the other hand, the analyses done on some proteins show man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of land dwelling animals were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile.6

Another example used by evolutionists on "the genetic similarity between man and ape", is the presence of 48 chromosomes in chimpanzees and gorillas versus 46 chromosomes in man. Evolutionists regard the closeness of the number of chromosomes as indication of an evolutionary relationship. However, if this logic used by evolutionists were true, then man should have an even closer relative than chimpanzee: "the potato"!. Because the number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46

These examples certify that the concept of genetic similarity does not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. This is because the genetic similarities are not in line with the alleged evolution schemes, and on the contrary, they yield completely opposite results.

Genetic Similarities Upset The "Evolution Scheme" That Is Sought To Be Constituted

He created the heavens and the earth with truth and formed you, giving you the best of forms. And He is your final destination. (Qur'an, 64:3)

Unsurprisingly, when the issue is evaluated as a whole, it is seen that the subject of "bio-chemical similarities" does not constitute an evidence for evolution, but on the contrary leaves the theory in the lurch. Dr. Christian Schwabe, a biochemistry researcher from the Medical Faculty of South Carolina University, is an evolutionist scientist who has spent years to find evidence for evolution in the molecular domain. He particularly did researches on insulin and relaxin-type proteins and tried to establish evolutionary relationships between living beings. However, he had to confess for many times that he could not find any evidence for evolution at any point in his studies. In an article published in Science magazine, he said;

"Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to palaeontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message"7

Based on the recent findings obtained in the field of molecular biology, the renowned biochemist Prof. Michael Denton made the following comments;

"Each class at molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology… At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives… There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago… the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted." 8

Similarities Are Not Evidence For Evolution But For Creation

It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic make-ups would resemble to one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.

This "common material" is not the result of an evolution but of "common design", that is, their being created upon the same plan.

It is possible to explain this subject with an example; all constructions in the world are done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same is true for living beings as well.

Life did not originate as a result of unconscious coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the owner of infinite knowledge and wisdom.

1. Journal of Molecular Evolution, v. 26 pp.99-1212.
2. Sarich et al, 1989, Cladisticts 5:3-32.
3. CEN, 19 (1); 21-22 December 1996-February 1997.
4. New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p. 27.
5. Hurriyet, 24 February 2000.
6. New Scientist v.103, 16 August 1984, p.19.
7. Christian Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in Biochemical Sciences, v. 11, July 1986.
8. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London; Burnett Books 1985, pp.290-291.

Download (DOC)
Download (PDF)
Buy Now
Malayalam, Indonesia, Türkçe

CHAPTER II REFUTATION OF DARWINISM/CLONING IS NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

CHAPTER II REFUTATION OF DARWINISM/

CLONING IS NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

CLONING IS NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

The fact that such a question as whether such a scientific advance as cloning "supports evolution" is asked or even comes to mind actually reveals a very important truth. This is the cheapness of the propaganda that evolutionists resort to to get people to accept their theory. Since the subject of cloning has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it cannot be a matter of concern for any professional evolutionist. However, some of those who blindly support evolution at whatever cost, and particularly certain circles within media organizations, have even tried to turn such a totally unconnected matter as cloning into propaganda for evolution.

What Does Cloning A Living Thing Mean?

The DNA of the living thing that is proposed to be copied is used in the cloning process. The DNA is extracted from any cell belonging to the organism in question, and then placed into an egg cell belonging to another organism of the same species. A shock is then given immediately afterwards, which prompts the egg cell to start dividing. The embryo is then placed into a living thing's womb, where it continues to divide. Scientists then await its development and birth.

Why Has Cloning Nothing To Do With Evolution?

The concepts of cloning and evolution are completely different. The theory of evolution is built on the claim that inanimate matter turned into living matter by chance. (There is not the slightest scientific proof that this could actually happen.) Cloning, on the other hand, is the copying of a living thing by using genetic material from that creature's cells. The new organism starts from a single cell, and a biological process is transferred to the laboratory and repeated there. In other words, there is no question of such a process happening by "chance"-the basic claim of the theory of evolution-nor of "lifeless matter coming to life."

The cloning process is no evidence for evolution whatsoever. It is, however, clear evidence of a biological law that totally undermines evolution. That is the famous principle that "Life can only come from life," put forward by the famous scientist Louis Pasteur towards the end of the nineteenth century. The fact that cloning is presented as evidence for evolution, despite that open truth, is a deception being carried out by the media.

Advances in many branches of science over the last 30 years have demonstrated that the emergence of life cannot be explained in terms of chance. Evolutionists' scientific errors and one-sided comments have been well-documented, and the theory of evolution has become indefensible within the realm of science. This fact has propelled some evolutionists to look in other areas. That is why scientific advances such as "cloning," or "test-tube babies," have been so fanatically used as evidence for evolution in the recent past.

Evolutionists have nothing more to say to society in the name of science, and so take refuge in the gaps in people's scientific knowledge and try to prolong the theory's life in that way, even though that merely brings the theory to a pitiable state. Just like all other scientific advances, cloning is a very important and revealing scientific advance that also sheds light on the fact that life was created.

Another misunderstanding that people have fallen into as regards cloning is the idea that cloning can "create human beings." However, cloning bears no such interpretation. Cloning consists of adding genetic information which already exists to a living reproduction mechanism that also already exists. No new mechanism or genetic information is created in the process. Genetic information is taken from someone who already exists and is placed inside a female womb. This enables the child that is eventually born to be the "identical twin" of the person from whom the genetic information was taken.

Many people who do not fully understand what cloning is have all kinds of fantastic ideas about it. For instance, they imagine that a cell can be taken from a 30-year-old man and another 30-year-old can be created that same day. Such an example of cloning is only to be found in science fiction, and is not and never will be possible. Cloning basically consists of bringing a person's "identical twin" to life by natural methods (in other words in a mother's womb).This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, nor with the concept of "creating man."

Creating a human being or any other living thing-in other words bringing something into existence out of nothing-is a power peculiar to God. Scientific advances confirm the same thing by showing that this creation cannot be done by man. This is expressed in a verse:

The Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an, 2: 117)

Download (DOC)
Download (PDF)
Buy Now
Malayalam, Indonesia, Türkçe

CHAPTER II REFUTATION OF DARWINISM/DIFFERENT RACES ARE NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

CHAPTER II REFUTATION OF DARWINISM/

DIFFERENT RACES ARE NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

DIFFERENT RACES ARE NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

Some evolutionists try to put the existence of different races forward as evidence for evolution. In fact, this claim is more frequently expressed by amateur evolutionists who have a less than sufficient knowledge of the theory they defend.

The thesis proposed by those who defend this claim is based on the question, "If, as divine sources say, life began with one man and one woman, how could different races have emerged?" Another way of putting it is: "Since Adam and Eve's height, colour, and other features were those of only two people, how could races with entirely different features have emerged?"

In fact, the problem lying beneath all these questions or objections is an insufficient knowledge of the laws of genetics, or the ignoring of them. In order to understand the reason for the differences between the races in today's world, it will be necessary to have some idea of the subject of "variation," which is closely linked to this question.

Variation, a term used in genetics, refers to a genetic event that causes the individuals or groups of a certain type or species to possess different characteristics from one another. The source of this variation is the genetic information possessed by the individuals within that species. As a result of breeding between those individuals, that genetic information comes together in later generations in different combinations. There is an exchange of genetic material between the mother's and father's chromosomes. Genes thus get mixed up with one another. The result of this is a wide variety of individual features.

No matter what their height, skin colour and skull volume, all races are part of the human species.

The different physical features between human races are due to variations within the human race. All the people on Earth carry basically the same genetic information, yet some have slanted eyes, some have red hair, some have long noses, and others are short of stature, all depending on the extent of the variation potential of this genetic information.

In order to understand the variation potential, let us consider a society in which brunette, brown-eyed people predominate over blond, blue-eyed individuals. As a result of the two communities intermingling and marrying over time, new generations which are brunette but blue-eyed will be seen. In other words, the physical characteristics of both groups will come together in subsequent generations and produce new appearances. When one imagines other physical characteristics mixing in the same way, it is clear that a great variety will emerge.

The important point that must be understood here is this: There are two genes that rule every physical feature. One may dominate the other, or they may both influence matters to an equal extent. For instance, two genes determine the colour of a person's eyes. One comes from the mother, the other from the father. Whichever gene is the dominant one, the individual's eye colour will be determined by that gene. In general, dark colours dominate lighter ones. In this way, if a person possesses genes for brown and for green eyes, his eyes will be brown because the brown eye gene is dominant. However, the recessive green colour can be passed down the generations and emerge at a later time. In other words, parents with brown eyes can have a green-eyed child. That is because that colour gene is recessive in both parents.

This law applies to all other physical features and the genes which govern them. Hundreds, or even thousands, of physical features, such as the ears, nose, the shape of the mouth, height, bone structure, and organ structure, shape, and characteristics, are all controlled in the same way. Thanks to this, all the limitless information in the genetic structure can be passed on to subsequent generations without becoming outwardly visible. Adam, the first human being, and Eve, were able to pass the rich information in their genetic structure on to subsequent generations even though only a part of it was reflected in their physical appearance. Geographical isolation that had happened over human history has led to an atmosphere where different physical features came together in different groups. Over a long period of time, this led to different groups having different bone structures, skin colour, height, and skull volumes. This eventually led to the different races.

However, this long period did not change one thing, of course. No matter what their height, skin colour and skull volume, all races are part of the human species.

Download (DOC)
Download (PDF)
Buy Now
Malayalam, Indonesia, Türkçe

CHAPTER II REFUTATION OF DARWINISM/YET ANOTHER BLOW TO THE MYTH OF "VESTIGIAL ORGANS"

CHAPTER II REFUTATION OF DARWINISM/

YET ANOTHER BLOW TO THE MYTH OF "VESTIGIAL ORGANS"

YET ANOTHER BLOW TO THE MYTH OF "VESTIGIAL ORGANS"

Darwinism considers all life on Earth as a product of chance mutations and natural selection and, as an a priori commitment, excludes intelligent design. In order to argue against design, the Darwinist mind seeks for flaws in the biological systems. From Darwin to Dawkins, over and over, this dogmatic stance has led the evolutionist to insist on the existence of imaginary flaws and "useless" vestigial organs in living systems. However, over and over, these bold claims by evolutionists turned out to be manifestations of ignorance. The allegedly vestigial organs were discovered to be performing very important functions and the whole "vestigial organ" argument turned out to be a fallacy.

The history of science documents a steady reduction in the number of the so-called vestigial organs. The allegedly non-functional organs, one by one, turned out to be organs whose functions had not yet been discovered. A list of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 structures, including the appendix and the coccyx. As science progressed, it was discovered that all of the organs in Wiedersheim's list in fact had very important functions. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a "vestigial organ," was in fact a part of the lymphatic system. A medical publication notes in 1997 that "other bodily organs and tissues-the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and small collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer's patch in the small intestine-are also part of the lymphatic system. They too help the body fight infection."1

It was also discovered that the tonsils, which were also included in Wiedersheim's list of vestigial organs, had a significant role in protecting the throat against infections, particularly until adolescence. It was found that the coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column supports the bones around the pelvis and is the convergence point of some small muscles and for this reason, it would not be possible to sit comfortably without a coccyx.

In the years that followed, it was realized that the thymus triggered the immune system in the human body by activating the T cells, that the pineal gland was in charge of the secretion of some important hormones, that the thyroid gland was effective in providing steady growth in babies and children, and that the pituitary gland controlled the correct functioning of many hormone glands. All of these were once considered to be "vestigial organs." Finally, the semi-lunar fold in the eye, which was referred to as a vestigial organ by Darwin, has been found in fact to be in charge of cleansing and lubricating the eye.

The steady reduction in the list of vestigial organs results from the fact that this is an argument from ignorance. Some wiser evolutionists also came to realize this fact. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, once wrote in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that "vestigial organs" provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution. 2

THE LEG OF THE HORSE

The latest blow to the myth of vestigial organs comes from a recent study on the leg of the horse. In an article in the 20-27 December 2001 issue of the journal Nature, titled "Biomechanics: Damper for bad vibrations," it is noted that "Some muscle fibres in the legs of horses seem to be evolutionary leftovers with no function. But in fact they may act to damp damaging vibrations generated in the leg as the horse runs." The article reads as follows:

Horses and camels have muscles in their legs with tendons more than 600 millimetres long connected to muscle fibres less than 6 millimetres long. Such short muscles can change length only by a few millimetres as the animal moves, and seem unlikely to be of much use to large mammals. The tendons function as passive springs, and it has been assumed that the short muscle fibres are redundant, the remnants of longer fibres that have lost their function over the course of evolution. But Wilson and colleagues argue… that these fibres might protect bones and tendons from potentially damaging vibrations….

Michael Behe

Their experiments show that short muscle fibers can damp the damaging vibrations following the impact of a foot on the ground. When the foot of a running animal hits the ground, the impact sets the leg vibrating; the frequency of the vibrations is relatively high-for example, 30-40 Hz in horses-so many cycles of vibration would occur while the foot was on the ground if there were no damping.

The vibrations might cause damage, because bone and tendon are susceptible to fatigue failure. Fatigue in bones and tendons is the accumulation of damage resulting from repeated application of stresses. Bone fatigue is responsible for the stress fractures suffered by both human athletes and racehorses, and tendon fatigue may explain at least some cases of tendonitis. Wilson et al. suggest that the very short muscle fibres protect both bones and tendons from fatigue damage by damping out vibrations…3

In short, a closer loot at the anatomy of the horse revealed that the structures that have been considered as nonfunctional by evolutionists have very important functions.

In other words, scientific progress demonstrated that what was considered to be evidence for evolution is in fact evidence for design. Evolutionists should take a hint from this fact, if they are willing to do so. The Nature commentator seems to be reasonable:

Wilson et al. have found an important role for a muscle that seemed to be the relic of a structure that had lost its function in the course of evolution. Their work makes us wonder whether other vestiges (such as the human appendix) are as useless as they seem.4

This is not surprising. The more we learn about nature, the more we see the evidence for creation. As Michael Behe notes, "the conclusion of design comes not from what we do not know, but from what we have learned over the past 50 years."5 And Darwinism turns out to be an argument from ignorance, or, in other words, an "atheism of the gaps."

1. The Merck Manual of Medical Information, Home edition, Merck & Co., Inc. The Merck Publishing Group, Rahway, New Jersey, 1997.
2. S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?", Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.
3. R. Mcneill Alexander, "Biomechanics: Damper For Bad Vibrations", Nature, 20-27 December 2001.
4. Ibid..
5. Behe's Seminar in Princeton, 1997.

Download (DOC)
Download (PDF)
Buy Now
Malayalam, Indonesia, Türkçe