The Islamic Perspective on Stem Cell Research:

Stem cell treatments are a type of intervention strategy that

introduces new cells into damaged tissue in order to treat disease or
injury
Stem cell treatments offers significant potential for generation of
tissues that can potentially replace diseased and damaged areas in
the body, with minimal risk of rejection and side effects.
There are many stem cell treatments exist such as bone marrow
transplantation.
It will be possible in the near future with adult and embryonic stem
cells to treat cancer, Diabetes Mellitus Type 1, Parkinson, Cardiac
failure, Huntington disease, muscle damage and neurological
diseases, baldness, missing teeth, hematopoiesis, deafness,
blindness and vision impairement etc InshaAllah.
We must never forget Allah is the One who heals us :
26/80

and when I am ill, it is He who heals me;

The stem cells to transform to the cells of the related tissue is a

miracle of Allah.
It is not known scientifically in detail how certain genes being
activated and others being suppressed to cause the cells
differentiate. But we know very complex mechanisms play a role
and are evidences of the infinite power and wisdom and art of Allah.
These evidences of course destroy the pagan religion Darwinism
which denies the existence of a Creator and alleges that all life is a
product of blind chance.
However with the new scientific evidences it is so obvious even
children can understand that evolution never occurred and Allah
created entire universe and living beings.
There are only two views of how life emerged.
One of them is the theory of evolution. Evolution claims that life on
earth began by chance, and that therefore all the species we see
around us are the result of mere coincidence.
The other explanation is creation. No other, third explanation or
proposal can be put forward. This fact is now accepted even by the
leading evolutionists in the world, and they state this quite frankly.
Douglas Futuyma is one of these: According to him:
In fact Futuymas words underline a very important truth. Towards
the end, he says, When we look at the life on earth, if we see that
life emerges all of a sudden, with its complete and perfect form,
then we have to admit that life is created, not a result of chance.
Here it can clearly be seen that, even Futuyma who is known as an

evolutionist himself, accepts this as a fact.

So as soon as the invalidity of evolutionary theory is proven, then
creation is the only explanation left.
We will now evaluate the suggestions regarding evolution and test
them scientifically.
To account for life as the result of an evolutionary process,
evolutionists first of all have to answer the following questions.
1. How did first living thing come into being on earth? How did
the first living cell form?
2. What are the mechanisms responsible for living things
evolving into one another?
3. If all the species on earth are the result of evolution, then
there must be a vast amount of fossil evidence of this. Are
there any such fossils?
Lets evaluate these principles one by one.
The question is: How did the first living thing come into being? How
can a single cell come into existence by itself?
AS WEVE JUST SEEN IN THE DOCUMENTARY FILM , the complexity of
the cell can not be explained as the work of mere coincidences.
Neither a single cell nor a single enzyme can form by chance.
Our second question is: Are there any mechanisms in nature that
could cause living things to evolve?
Imaginary Mechanisms of Evolution
The neo-Darwinist model, which is the "mainstream" argument
today, proposes that life evolved through two mechanisms:
"NATURAL SELECTION" and "MUTATION". According to this
suggestion, Natural selection and mutation are two complementary
factors. First, random mutations in the genetic structure of living
things help new traits to be developed, and then suitable ones are
selected by natural selection. And living things therefore evolve.
To test such a hypothesis, lets see how these mechanisms work.
Darwin was the first person to claim that NATURAL SELECTION
had an evolutionary force. He then erected his entire theory on it.
The name he gave to his book The Origin of Species, by means of
Natural Selection indicates that natural selection was the basis of
Darwin's theory.
However, since Darwin's time there has not been a single piece of
evidence to show that natural selection causes one species to
evolve into another .
Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited
to the natural conditions of their habitats will succeed and have
offspring, whereas those which are unfit will vanish. Take, for
example, a herd of deer. If the deer are threatened by predators,
naturally those that can run faster will survive. This is true. But no
matter how long this process goes on, it will never transform deer
into another living species. As far as their genetic material allows
them to do so, there will be faster-running deer. But deer will always
remain deer.

Natural selection has no power to improve genetic material. It can

not change DNA by any means. It only eliminates the defective,
weak or sick individuals in the population. It cannot produce new
species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot
make anything evolve. Darwin accepted this reality by saying:
"Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations
chance to occur". (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A
Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p.
177.)
This is why neo-Darwinism has had to add mutations alongside
natural selection as the "cause of favourable variations". However
as we shall see, mutations can only be "the cause of unfavourable
changes".
Mutations
Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements that take place in
the genetic material, or DNA. These breaks or replacements are the
result of harmful external effects such as radiation or chemical
action. Every mutation is an "accident". A mutation either damages
the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. In
general, it leads to cancer or various other disorders.
However evolutionists claim that mutations transform living
organisms into more advanced and perfect forms. But scientific
observations and experiments have shown that mutations are
harmful. The effects of mutations have been experienced by people
in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: death, disability, and freaks
of nature
It is obvious that DNA has a very complex structure and that random
effects can only harm that structure. B.G. Ranganathan states:
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly,
most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather
than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random
change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not
for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a
highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a
random change in the framework of the building which, in all
probability, would not be an improvement. (B. G.
Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth
Trust, 1988, p.7)
Besides, not surprisingly, no useful mutation has ever been
observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. All efforts put
into "generating a useful mutation" have resulted in failure. For
decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments on fruit flies,
hoping to observe any single beneficial mutation. Generation upon
generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was
ever observed. In all the thousands of fly-breeding
experiments carried out for more than fifty years, a distinct
new species has never been seen to emerge... nor even a
new enzyme.

Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the

experiments carried out on fruit flies:
Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have
subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat,
cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All
sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious,
have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the
geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles
they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or
tend to revert to the wild type.( Michael Pitman, Adam and
Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70.)
The same holds true for man. All mutations that take place in
humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as
mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer.
These mutations are presented in evolutionist textbooks as
examples of "the evolutionary mechanism at work". Needless to say,
a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an
evolutionary mechanism"evolution is alleged to produce better
forms that are better fitted to survive.
To summarise, there are two main properties of mutations:
l ) The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they
occur accidentally, they almost always damage the living
organism.
2 ) Mutations add no new information to an organism's
DNA: The genetic information is either destroyed, or its place in
the sequence is changed. Thus, mutations do not lead to a new
organ or a new trait leading to the emergance of a new species.
They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the head,
or an ear out of the abdomen.
Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because
there exists no mechanism in nature that might cause them to do
so. This agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which
demonstrates that this scenario is far removed from reality.
The 3rd question is whether there is any fossil evidence which can
prove the evolutionary process.
We can acquire information about how life emerged from the fossil
record. Fossils are the remains of living things that lived in the past.
Usually they are bones, often in petrified form. So when we examine
fossils we can learn what kind of living things once existed and what
features they possessed. That is to say, fossils reveal the history of
life on earth.
Now, lets see how the advocates of evolution interpret the fossils
and put them to the test on the question of the evolutionary family
tree .
According to the theory of evolution, life began in the depths of the
oceans, quite by chance, approximately 4 billion years ago. The

drawing of a cell you see here represents the very first living cell, as
claimed by evolution. However, there is not a single piece of
scientific evidence or any scientific finding to show how this cell
could have come into being by coincidence.
Again, according to the theory of evolution, it is claimed that, over
billions of years, this single cell first evolved into invertebrate
species, and that these then evolved into fish, then fish into
amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, and then finally reptiles
evolved into birds and mammals. Similarly, man, as a result of such
an imaginary line of descent, evolved from apelike creatures. This is
what the theory of evolution claims.
On the other hand, when we look at the fossil record, we see that
today, we have a rich fossil stock. It is possible to find the fossils of
millions of species that lived in the past in the fossil record. But
most of these belong to present-day species. This means they are
stable species. We still find fossils of stable species of fishes, various
reptiles and mammals.
Of course these are not the kinds of fossils that could prove the
evolutionary process. The supporters of the theory of evolution have
to show us intermediate transitional fossils, which link one species
to another. Certainly there is no way that this first single-celled
organism could all of a sudden change into an invertebrate sea
creature.
If it is asserted that species evolved into one another by successive
minute variations, and that this happened over billions of years,
then evolutionists have to show us these slow, minute changes in
the fossilized examples of those species. They must show us halffish half-reptile, half-reptile half-mammal, half-reptile half-bird
fossils. These imaginary species are called Transitional Forms.
There can be no doubt that if there is no such fossil proof concerning
changes among the fossils of stable species, then there is nothing
left to discuss as regards the theory of evolution.
If we consider the capacity of the fossil record, we see that we have
millions of fossils in hand which belong to stable species. But the
number of so-called transitional species must be much higher than
that of the stable species we observe today. Trillions of transitional
species should be present linking these species to one another. That
is because if there had been slow and fine gradations that had
lasted for billions of years, then the number of stable species should
have been smaller, and the number of transitional form fossils
reflecting those variations should be much higher.
What do we mean by Transitional Forms? Lets explain this
concept in detail.
The starfish is an invertebrate sea creature. According to
evolutionists, it evolved into fish over some 100 million years. If this
is a fact, then when we examine the fossil record, we should come
across starfish fossils. Yes, we certainly have them today. We must

then find fish fossils. We have them today as well. However, we

must find half-starfish half-fish fossils, too; only these could possibly
prove the existence of such a process.
And when we compare the numbers, there must be a much smaller
number of starfish fossils and fish fossils, and a great many more
transitional fossils. This process, that we have considered very
quickly and in terms of only three evolutionary stages, would
actually have consisted of hundreds of very minor changes.
At this point the fossil record gives us a very clear and absolute
answer.
When we look at the fossil record, we find millions of starfish and
fish fossils. These photos belong to real fossils. But today there
exists not even one single transitional form fossil to confirm that a
transition between starfish and fish ever took place, even though
one would expect there to have been millions of transitional forms
and thus millions of such fossils. All there are, are the fancy
illustrations shown here.
Fossils show that each species appeared abruptly,complete and
perfectly formed. The absence of the transitional forms and their
fossils is a cause of great distress to some. That distress was first
expressed by the founder of the theory, Charles Darwin.
In his book Origin of the Species Darwin stated:
Darwin was right. If any evolutionary process had happened, every
geological stratum should have contained transitional fossils proving
that change. However Darwin was also aware of the lack of such
fossils. That absence leads us to another question: Darwin said
those words 140 years ago, reflecting a problem specific to his own
time. What about today? Here, a well-known paleontologist and
evolutionist, Derek Ager, gives the answer:
The sudden emergence of life obviously leads us to a single truth:
That is Creation. And in fact, Ager is replying to Futuyma, whose
mention of this problem I touched on at the beginning of my speech.
Futuyma said When we look at the life on earth, if we see that life
emerges all of a sudden, with its complete and perfect form, then
we have to admit that life is created. Here it is as if the evolutionist
Ager is replying to the evolutionist Futuyma. Yes we observe a
sudden emergence of living groups, but no gradual evolution of life.
Obviously this is a testimony that there has never been any
evolutionary process, but only creation.
I want to conclude our first discussion by answering one common
claim put forward by evolutionists. They claim: Yes we dont have
the transitional fossils yet, but lets try some more, and perhaps we
will find them in future. That is what they say.

Actually evolutionist paleontologists do not support this claim,

because they are well aware of the facts. This claim is put forward
by those who try to defend the theory of evolution and try to lock
the discussion into a dead end. The answer is obvious. If we have
millions of fossils of stable species, and we certainly do have them,
in order to prove a gradual transition, then there should be trillions
of fossils of transitional forms. But we dont have any. This
lobviously shows that there was no such process. Indeed
paleontologists who are also evolutionists admit this fact and state:

Neville George is one of them, and he says:

After mentioning these points, I want to take a look at the various
stages of life. Lets continue with the records representing the time
when life first emerged.
The Cambrian agethis name might be unfamiliar to you. It can be
defined as the most ancient stratum in which the first visible fossils
of living things are embedded. The Cambrian age was some 520
million years ago. The living things in that period were invertebrate
marine animals, like jellyfish, water lilies, starfish, worms and snails.
One of those marine invertebrates was the trilobite, which is extinct
today, although others still survive. These living things are the most
ancient species. But still, they possess very complex systems.
However they have no ancestors, and there is no trace of any
transition from other species. They come onto the scene abruptly,
with their complete structures. Besides, they have excellent organs
and systems.
For instance, they had very complex organs like eyes, gills and
complex systems like blood circulation. The wide variety of species
were totally distinct from each other. None of them had any
ancestors, and they all had excellent organs and systems. This
evidence is quite contrary to evolution.
Evolution claims that such systems and organs are the result of
gradual development, in which a primitive form leads to more
complex ones. However fossils of those species do not show us any
such progression. These excellent species appeared abruptly.
I mentioned the trilobite earlier, an extinct species which lived in
this period. I want to tell you briefly about the trilobite. This slide
shows a trilobite fossil, 520 million years old. Lets examine its eye
closely, zooming in on it. The trilobite eye has a compound eye
structure. A compound eye structure can be observed in nearly all
insects of our time.
Just as can be seen here. This is what we find in the most ancient
eye in the fossil record, and next to it, here is the structure in living
things today. This is an obvious and clear proof that there was never
any transition from primitive to complex forms, as the theory of
evolution claims. Thus, it is documented here that the first eye
appeared as a fully-formed one, which proves the fact of creation.
There is more to say, the trilobite eye consisted of many lensed

units. It was composed of two lenses with differing refractive indices

joined together. This means, it is not a primitive design. It appears
that we are looking at a fact of creation.
Just after the invertebrates, we find fish fossils. Fish are vertebrates,
and vertebra is a complex structure. Thus vertebra cannot have
appeared abruptly. According to evolutionists, there must have been
transitional species witnessing a gradual and slow progression. But
the fossil record shows that fish emerged suddenly in their complete
states.
We are talking of a 100-million year period during which
evolutionists can not offer a single transitional form linking fish to
invertebrates. This kind of explanation, makes evolution sound like a
fairy tale. Because, a belief that rocks, soil and inanimate matter
can form life, is the stuff of fairy tales. However, some parts of this
tale are such that even the word tale fails to do it justice, maybe
we should describe them as a tale within a tale.
I want to speak briefly about these. The First claim is how fish
stepped onto the land. Evolutionists make such a claim. When a fish
and a reptile are compared, there appear to be more differences
than similarities. Both are quite distinct groups. The primary
differences are:
Fish have fins. But reptiles have feet.
Fish breathe through their gills, whereas reptiles have lungs.
The metabolism and weight bearing mechanism of fish are suited to
underwater conditions. But reptiles are fine tuned to live on land.
If one of these features is absent then the creature can not live on
land as a reptile. For instance, fish breathe through their gills, and
evolutionists say gills were transformed into lungs. Now, lungs are
perfect organs. And no evolutionist can assert that lungs formed all
of a sudden. They describe this transformation as a gradual and
very slow process, lasting millions of years.
So what are we meant to understand from this description? Perhaps
something like this: fish step on to the land, and wait for millions of
years while hoping to develop lungs. This is a luxury they cannot
afford, and such an animal is quite inconceivable. And the problem
is not limited to lungs alone, but to each and every other difference
as well.
So according to the proponents of evolution we are to expect all of
these unbelievable changes to occur at the same time and in the
same living thing. And when asked how it all happened, they again
insist on coincidences.
You see, the theory of evolution possesses no other mechanism than
coincidences. You may well guess that if asked about it, they have
no answer or cant suggest a reasonable mechanism. So how did it
happen? How did fish come on to the land and become reptiles?
They claim that somehow they went ahead and, fish stepped on to
the land and became reptiles. That is their best effort at an
explanation, and it is clearly an unsuccessful one. But they are very
successful at wasting time, and we should congratulate them on

that.
When they find a fossil, and if they think it belongs to an extict
species, they easily make up any story they like. The claim of
transition from fish to reptiles is a typical example .
The fossil we see here belongs to an animal called the coelecanth. It
is alleged to represent the transitional form between fish and
reptiles. Evolutionists suggested it was a half-fish half-reptile
creature. And they claimed that this 350 million year old fossil
species was now extinct, having served its function as a transitional
form.
They made several calculations, and studies, claiming that it had a
big brain, a functioning lung and feet. Relying on these findings,
they were sure that it was a transitional form. As for the
environment in which it lived, they said it had lived near the surface
of the sea and had been even wandering onto the land. Again these
illustrations are copied from evolutionist textbooks. These
explanations were put forward at the beginning of the 20 th century
and consequently found their way into textbooks, while newspapers
and journals published them extensively That interpretation was
portrayed as established fact, until December 23rd 1938.
This date is of considerable importance in the history of science.
Because when a scientist called Curtain Latimer was exploring South
Africa, he came across a living specimen of this so-called extinct
species. Moreover, it was also realised then that this was no half-fish
half-reptile creature but a fish . These film shots prove the point.
So far, more than 200 specimens of this animal have been found in
the Komor Islands, in the Kalumbiya river in the Republic of South
Africa and last year in Indonesia. And by the way, further
examinations were carried out to test the earlier findings. These
revealed that, No!, the brain is not a big one, but a fish brain of a
comparable size to those of all other fish.
Now, it is gratifying to find a species is alive when it had once been
thought to be extinct. However, this fact points to another reality.
Evolutionists are quite capable of making up any old tale when they
find a fossil of an extinct species. We have seen in this example how
biased interpretations and fanciful comments can be offered.
I want to continue with the subject of birds. Birds are very special
species which exhibit aerodynamic skills. The harmony of the
movement of the wings, and the ability to fly is a miracle in itself.
They exhibit the kind of art which mankind tried to imitate in the
last century. How did this skill and these animals themselves come
into existence? How did wings emerge? Evolutionists must first of all
explain these points.
Evolutionists tried to explain all this. They asserted that reptiles
were the ancestors of birds and said dinosaurs turned into birds.
Surely this is a noteworthy claim. But then they had to explain some
specific points. They presented some fossils too, the Archeopteryx
fossil being the most prominent . They assumed it was a half-bird
half-reptile creature. It was published in every evolutionist source.

But later on, all the assumptions made about this fossil, which even
had some bones missing, were eventually refuted.
As the missing bone fragments were found, especially with the last
Archaeopteryx fossil found in Germany in 1992, it was realised that
Archaopteryx was a pure bird after all, and that it had no dinasour
characteristics. Again, 2 fossils found in 1995 and in 1996 in China
revealed that there had been birds living before Archaeopteryx, so it
is illogical to present archaeopteryx as a transitional form. Despite
all these facts, they still defended the so-called link between
dinosaurs and birds.
The advocates of such an assumption, who defend it in the name of
science, have to answer a number of points. How did a dinosaur turn
into a bird? They have put forward 2 theories to account for it. The
first is called the cursorial theory. Cursorial is a latin word which
might lead one to believe that the theory therefore possesses some
kind of scientific credibility. Allow me to tell you what it actually
means, and then you can judge for yourselves if it is scientific or
not.
According to the cursorial theory, dinasours once lived on land, then
they became airborne and turned into birds. Some evolutionists did
not subscribe to that theory and offered an alternative one. That
more recent one is called the arboreal theory, again a latin name.
What do these evolutionists actually say? They say it would have
been very difficult for dinosaurs to have become airborne. So How
did they manage it? They say that dinasours which used to jump
from one tree to another turned into birds.
We have only these two theories to hand. Portraying these two
claims as scientific assumptions, disturbed some other scientists,
who responded that these assumptions had no scientific
perspective, and nothing to do with science at all. So the author of
the first theory defended himself and his theory. That was John
Ostrom, a professor at Yale, who replied: yes I accept that my
theory is based on imagination only, but the advocates of the
jumping dinasours theory are talking from imagination as well. That
is his excuse!.
Lets examine the tale about the dinasours, and how they managed
to take to the air. evolutionists have an explanation. They say that
when dinasours were on land, they used to run after insects, such as
flies. They used their front legs to catch the flies, so after a while
these developed and eventually became wings.
Here we see these drawings. A dinasour is chasing after a fly, its
front legs are developing and in the end, they have been
transformed into wings. A dinasour is very near to catching a fly,
and afterwards becomes a bird. Here you see, evolutionists are
trying to explain the origin of flight in their scenario, yet one of the
characters is already flying. The insects are already capable of
flight.
I have to say that these cartoons were not drawn for the purpose of
criticizing the theory. They are taken from the evolutionist resources.

10

So we are facing a strange situation. There are scientists who try to

explain the origin of flight with the help of another flying creature.
You might say that if insects which were capable of flight had
existed before dinosaurs managed to fly, which is a fact admitted by
evolutionists, then they should have offered an explanation of how
insects themselves came to be able to fly.
But the evolutionist perspective is unable to offer even one single
word about how that tiny insect could have been able to fly. A fly
beats its wings some 1000 times a second. As seen here. And its
wings move synchronously, concurrently. This specific movement of
the wings is essential for smooth flight. Otherwise it would not be
able to fly at all, And yet it does, carrying out instant maneuvers,
ascending and descending, and landing on walls or ceilings.
If we compare these maneuvers to the aerospace technology of
today, man is still at a pretty primitive level.. We possess no
material as flexible as the wings of an insect. you have probably
heard about Sikorsky Helicopters, which are designed after long
studies, Some 2000 different flight patterns of insects were
programmed into computers and resulting application is now being
used on these Sikorsky helicopters. The evolutionary point of view is
therefore condemned to silence regarding these creatures.
I want to end this dream in a dream affair with another living
group: sea-mammals. These are cute animals, such as whales,
dolphins and others. But perhaps not so cute for evolutionists.
Because like millions of other species, evolutionists are also unable
to account for the origin of sea-mammals.
How did they originate? If asked, evolutionists come up with an even
more fantastic tale. As I had stated earlier, according to evolution, it
is believed that reptiles turned into mammals. But of course, there
are no scientific findings nor any scientific data to support this
imaginary transformation.
Again according to evolution, if we continue further, land mammals
later returned to the sea to become sea mammals. This explanation
faces a particular difficulty when it comes to the subject of whales.
Whales are approximately 30 meters long and weigh approximately
60 tons. They are the biggest animals in the world, and it is
impossible to put forward any animal as their ancestor since there
are no other similar mammals of such a size.. Dinasours are reptiles
so they can not be considered.
The first person who worried about this issue was the author of the
theory of evolution, Charles Darwin. Searching for an ancestor on
the land, he eventually found a solution . In his book Origin of
Species he claims that the ancestors of the whales were bears,
which tried to swim in the sea. This assumption did not satisfy his
followers, so it was removed from later editions of origin of
species. Yes, but they have not been able to replace it with another
more suitable mammal yet. Because, I repeat, there is no other such
large animal on land. Moreover there would also have to be

11

transitional features between the two species. There should also be

some fossil evidence of it. What sort of creature could it be? We
made a guess here. It would have to be a big land dwelling mammal
and a little bit whale.
We have designed one for you here. Evolutionists would have to
come up with a fossil of a creature something similar to this.
Something with characteristics both of a land mammal and a whale
at one and the same time. Without doubt, this illustration is a
figment of the imagination, such animals never lived. And the origin
of sea mammals is still a mystery for evolutionists.
I want to end this discussion with the fossils of species which are still
alive today. Each of them is evidence for creation. And they are facts
of creation that completely silence evolutionists. You are now
looking at a dragonfly fossil, 135 million years old, and under it a
present-day dragonfly.. There is no difference between them. And
there is neither an ancestor of it nor a species evolved from it. A
100-million-year-old ant fossil, is no different to ants of today. A 50million-year-old bat fossil is again no different from bats living today.
Every one of them is evidence for creation, . A 400-million-year-old
shark fossil, and a living specimen from today. There is no change at
all. It has neither an ancestor nor an evolved counterpart.
These paleontological findings are obviously evidence proving that
these creatures came into existence all of a sudden, with their
complete forms, and are thus created. Consequently, evolutionists
are silenced in the field of paleontology. Faced with these realities
made clear from the fossil record, evolutionists directed all their
attention to the myth or tale that man had evolved from apelike
creatures.
They prefer to say a common ancestor , but this has no
importance for us, they claim that man evolved from it, over millions
of years, following half-ape half-man intermediary species. Now if
this scenario had been presented as a simple fairy tale, we might
have not replied to them. Such fantastic happenings would be
acceptable in fairy tales, a frog may become a prince, but only in
tales. However if such a claim is being presented in the name of
science, then we certainly will reply to them, and we have lots of
words to say.
But how can it be allowed? How can they tell us such scenarios in
the name of science without any scientific finding at all? At this
point they employ a number of tactics and frauds. I want to tell you
about these tricks. 6,500 different ape species have lived so far. And
only 120 of them are still alive today, the rest of them are extinct.
They constitute a great resource for the evolutionists. So
evolutionists take skulls and other bones of these extinct species
and arrange them in order, from biggest to the smallest. And at the
end of this chain they place fossils of vanished human races. So
they construct an imaginary family tree.
Lets focus first on humans. Human species consists of different
races. The volume of their skulls, their height, the characteristics of

12

their bones all demostrate distinct features. For example, there is

a human race in Africa called the Pigmies. Their average height is
less than in other human races. You may be quite sure that if
pigmies were extinct today, and if we only knew them from fossil
remains, then no doubt about it, evolutionists would place pigmies
at the end of the family tree next to modern man. They would then
have said: we observe that man had been short, but in time later
evolved to be taller!
However, since pigmes are not extinct, but are still living, they cant
make such a claim, although they do for other vanished human
races. When it comes to apes, and the so-called common ancestor,
half-ape half-man species, as years passed, evolutionists themselves
have admitted that these alleged ancestors were nothing more than
apes.
Today
the
mostly
pronounced
man-like
apes
are
the
Australopithecus series. The well known english anatomist Sir Zolly
Zuckerman is an expert on them. He was especially commissioned
to study them. He has worked on them from the evolutionist point of
view, for 15 years. He explained the results, in these words these
fossils are simply apes. There is no way to call them man-like.
Consequently, in the history of life, there have been apes and they
continue to exist, there have been humans and they still exist, but
there were never manlike apes on earth. They have lived only in the
dreams of the evolutionists.
Lets have a quick look at some of the allegations evolutionists
make. In 1856 they announced Neanderthal man was the ancestor
of man and for 100 years they published that claim in their
textbooks, until 1960 when it was discovered that these were
intellectual, social creatures that can only be described as another
vanished human race.
In 1912, they announced Piltdown man was the ancestor of man but
later in 1953 they admitted that it had not been so; I will go into this
in some detail later on. In 1922 Hesperopithecus was declared to
have been the ancestor of man but in 1927 they apologised again.
Zinjanthropus was in 1959 announced to have been an ancestor of
man, but was later realised to have been an ape after all, as
mentioned in evolutionist resources. Ramapithecus was announced
to be the ancestor of man in 1964. This was published in all
evolutionist resources, journals, newspapers and textbooks.
It was even published in Time magazine, which said if this is not
the ancestor of man, then we have no other proof. They were so
sure about that fossil. But in 1979 they again offered their apologies
and, said we were wrong, it is an ape species in their own
publications.
Consequently, this is all about the false logic, false reasoning of the
evolutionists. Well despite all these facts, we still see half-ape halfman illustrations in newspapers, magazines and even on TV ads.
How can this be? Here a significant type of fraud emerges. A

13

method called reconstruction is used as a means of deception.

Reconstruction means rebuilding, restoration.
Evolutionists, whenever they find a skull or bones of an ape, carry it
to their workshops, and as seen here, start to work on it. With the
help of the casts taken from humans, they generate halfape halfman
illustrations, reconstructions. But science tells us one plain fact. Soft
tissues never leave traces in fossils. Soft tissues like eyes, nose, lips,
skin, ears and hair can not be estimated, even if we have the
complete skeleton in our hands. They can not be determined
scientifically. However these fragments are often interpreted by
biased evolutionists. As a result, apelike man images are formed.
Once they have finished putting the finishing touches to the image,
you see it standing there as if it had once actually lived and had
posed for a photograph. People are shown that image, and are no
doubt taken in by it.
As regards the method used here, lets hear an opinion from an
evolutionist, who is a well known expert. Earnst Hooten says :
.
These reconstructions are used to mislead people. Actually their
only expectation, their only aim is to mislead people where they
want. Because they know that people do not like to read long
scientific articles which they are unfamiliar with.
But a gazing face like this carries key messages to societys
subconscious. Lets unmask the fraud prepared here. An ape, but its
eyes have been replaced by human eyes. Thus they managed to
form an apelike man. This example reveals only one fact, and that is
the imaginative power of the artist. Other than this, it has no
scientific value.
Lets have a look at other examples of this reconstruction technique.
This partial skull belongs to an ape named Zinjantropus. A little
while ago, we saw that evolutionists first claimed this to be the
ancestor of man but later on have admitted their mistake and
apologised. However, let us see the kind of interpretations they
came up with before doing so. In National Geographic magazine a
drawing like this appeared. Another drawing came from Maurice
Wilson and such a drawing appeared in the Sunday Times. These 3
drawings are totally different from eachother, yet all originated from
the same partial skull. They invented a creature as they imagined it
to be or in the way they wanted people to believe. Certainly these
drawings have one thing in common, their aim is to assure people
that apelike men had lived in the past. And that their ancestor is an
apelike creature.
This single tooth has a peculiar place in the history of science. In
1922 evolutionists found a single tooth in the USA. They claimed
that it belonged to the imaginary ancestor of man, an apelike man.
A little while later, they named this tooth Nebrasca Man. Neither
did they neglect to give it a scientific name: Hesperepithecus
Heraldcookii. Again articles were published, and discussions made.
We said earlier that, even though we have the whole skeleton,

14

scientifically, we cannot determine these soft tissues. However lets

see to what extent evolutionists comment on these parts, with the
help of just a single tooth. Calling it Nebraska man they
reconstructed it from head to toe. And they even managed to take a
snapshot from its daily life and published it in their papers and
textbooks. They published numerous articles in the name of science
and inspired people in this way. One scientist of the time could not
stand that, and criticized their work. He said you can not determine
all these characters with the help of a single tooth. You are
exaggerating. But they accused him of standing in the way of
science. They silenced him in that way which is a well known, typical
tactic employed by evolutionists.
The articles about Nebraska-man urged other scientists to
investigate, and they finally found other fragments of the skeleton.
However, the new findings revealed a surprising result. It was
realised that this tooth could not have belonged to a man, nor even
an ape, but was unexpectedly found to belong to a wild pig. But as
you see, based on a single tooth they told allegedly scientific tales
for years. Nebraska-man turned out to be nebraska-pig in the
end.
This jaw bone belongs to Ramapithecus, an ape which Ive already
mentioned about, that was published in Time magazine. At the time
when it was claimed to have been the ancestor of man, again they
had only this single jaw bone in their possession, but they drew
imaginary biased illustrations to lead the public on. These biased
explanations were published in scientific resources again and again,
in order to influence peoples minds.
I told you about evolutionist scientists a short while ago. We now
return to them. In this photograph, a group of evolutionist scientists
can be seen; they had made an important discovery. They are so
glad that their pleasure can be seen on their faces. Feelings of joy
and pride are mixed in their expressions. These scientists have an
exclusive place in the history of science. They are the foremost bestorganized and most professional cheats who ever existed. I am
talking about the Piltdown-man forgery.
I want to summerize this forgery briefly. In 1912 in England, a
scientist, called Dawson, announced that he had unearthed a very
special fossil relating to the ancestor of man. This fossil, which was
estimated to be 500 thousand years-old was immediately placed in
the British Museum in London. And for 40 years it was exhibited as
the ancestor of man. It was presented to visitors, and introduced to
them as their ancestor. Again, articles were published in famous
scientific journals and papers, and taught to children in schools. In
order to show you the extent of their work, I have to say that, the
number of doctoral theses alone dealing with this fossil was more
than 500; these studies agreed that it was the ancestor of man.
These explanations went on till 1949. At that time, Kenneth Oakley,
an English physical anthropologist, geologist, and paleontologist,
began to date the fossils one by one by means of a new method, by

15

measuring their relative fluorine content. After he finished the other

fossils, he started on the Piltdown fossil, and was shocked. The skull
and the jaw bone were of different ages, they were not the same. If
these bones had belonged to the same creature then how could that
be? Investigations went on and soon it emerged that Piltdown-man
was a forgery. The skull was human and some 500 years old,
whereas the jaw bone belonged to a recently dead ape. These bones
had been combined with special laboratory techniques. As seen
here. Moreover, teeth were mounted on the jaw bone, then filed and
stained by potassium dichromate to achieve a dated appearance.
The bones were then placed in a museum and exhibited for 40
years. It was finally hurriedly removed from the museum.
One scientist who discovered that fraud was astounded, and asked:
The cheat here is so obvious; I wonder how nobody noticed it. The
answer is so simple. The theory of evolution, in fact, is not a theory
based on scientific findings. But a dogma against science itself.
Thus, in order to present it as the only truth that science reveals,
they cheated on the drawings, performed professional forgeries and
even astounding cruelties.
I said astounding cruelties. I want to spend a couple of words on one
of them. The man you see on the screen is Ota Benga. He was the
object of such an unfortunate incident. In 1904, Ota Benga was a
pygmy living in the Congo, the father of two children. One might
wonder What could the evolutionists have done to him? Some
evolutionists believed that "half-man half-ape" creatures were still to
be found alive. So the hunt for living transitional forms began in
the early 20th century. They classified human races from primitive to
advanced ones. As they described the African people as an apelike
men, they captured Ota Benga, chained him and caged him like an
animal. They took him to the USA, displayed him to the public at the
St Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him
as "the closest transitional link to man". 2 years later they took
him to the Bronx Zoo in New York. There they exhibited him under
the name of "the ancient ancestor of man". He was caged along
with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla, and an orang-utan. Unable to
bear the treatment he was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually
committed suicide.
--Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga... These scandals
demonstrate that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ
any kind of unscientific method to prove their theory. Here there are
a fictional story and an army of volunteers ready to try everything to
verify this tale.
The most interesting and significant fact that nullifies the imaginary
family tree of man is the old history of modern man. The facts
reveal that Homo sapiens, who looked exactly like us, lived as long
as one million years ago.
Here you see one very clear piece of evidence, a skull fossil, which
invalidates all their claims. This fossil was unearthed in 1995 in

16

Spain in a region called Atapuerca. The discovery shocked the

paleontologists who discovered it. Because it is 800 thousand years
old, and thus demolishes the family tree of man. There is no way
they can defend evolution with this fossil in their hands. Discover
magazine, even though it supports the evolutionary point of view,
asks if this is the face of our past or not.
Ferreras, The paleontologist who was leading the Gran Dolina
excavation, said:
We expected something big, something large, something
inflated you know, something "primitive". Our expectation of
an 800,000 years old boy was something like Turkana Boy. And
what we found was a totally modern face.... To me this is most
spectacular These are the kinds of things that shake you.
Finding something totally unexpected like that. Not finding
fossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, and it's okay. But the
most spectacular thing is finding something you thought
belonged to the present, in the past. It's like finding
something like like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That
would be very surprising. We don't expect cassettes and
tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a
modern face it's the same thing. We were very surprised
when we saw it.
"Is This The Face of Our Past", Discover, December 1997, p. 97100.
There is no fossil evidence that life developed from primitive to
complex forms. There is no support for this theory, but considerable
evidence to oppose it. This is becoming ever clearer, as the
scientific data accumulate.
Robert Locke, the editor of Discovering Archeology, which is an
important publication on the origins of man, says "The search for
human ancestors gives more heat than light", and quotes the
confession of another famous evolutionist paleoantropologist Tim
White:
We're all frustrated by "all the questions we haven't been
able to answer."
(Robert Locke, "Family Fights" Discovering Archaeology, July/August
1999, p. 36-39.)
The article reviews the impasse of the theory of evolution on the
origins of man and the groundlessness of the propaganda spread
about this subject:
Perhaps no area of science is more contentious than the
search for human origins. Elite paleontologists disagree
over even the most basic outlines of the human family
tree. New branches grow amid great fanfare, only to
wither and die in the face of new fossil finds.
Robert Locke, "Family Fights" Discovering Archaeology,
July/August 1999, p. 36-39.
The same fact was also recently accepted by Henry Gee, the editor
of the well-known journal Nature. In his book In Search of Deep

17

Time, published in 1999, Gee refers to the evolutionary schemes

about the evolution of man as "a completely human invention
created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices" and
adds:
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a
bedtime storyamusing, perhaps even instructive, but
not scientific.
Henry Gee, In Search of Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New
History of Life, New York, The Free Press, 1999, p. 126-127.
We said they would have to answer our 3 questions. At the
beginning we observed the complexity of the cell. First, evolution
had to account for it. But it is impossible. Secondly, we asked how
this transformation occurred from species to species, we saw again
that there is no mechanism in nature to cause species to evolve. If
such a process had existed in the past, there should have been
innumerable fossil proofs, but we have seen a sudden explosion of
life in the history of life, which obviously means that all living things
were created.
Despite all these facts, evolutionists have been recounting their
scenario for more than 140 years. And they influence the public.
How can this be? The answer lies in the words of one famous
political leader; who said: if you tell a lie loudly and
repeatedly, you can convince a segment of the society, after
a while.
Yes.. evolutionists tried this. They told a lie, but defended it in a
professional manner. And at last, they managed to influence at least
a part of society. However, forget about how a species came about,
they are still unable to explain how a single cell came to exist, and
they will never be able to. This fact is mentioned in the Quran, as
well. Allah states:
46/4 Say: Have you thought about those you call upon apart from
Allah? Show me what they have created on the earth.Or do they
have a partnership in the heavens? Produce a Book for me before
this one
or a shred of knowledge if you are telling the truth.
They can create nothing, they have no power to create. Because,
this power belongs to Allah, who created the earth, the heaven and
everything in between.
Thank you

18