< <
13 / total: 15

Some of Darwinism's Errors on the Subject of DNA

Some scientists expend great time and energy with the aim of propping up the theory of evolution rather than contributing to scientific progress. Since they believe in Darwinism as a dogma right from the outset, they are led to false conclusions in the scientific studies they carry out. In the field of molecular biology, they put forward concepts and theses of absolutely no scientific value to provide evidence for the supposed theory of evolution. Although these concepts or theses are scientifically worthless, they find support in the Darwinist media and portray them as the truth. However, advances in science and technology are revealing the irrational nature of these claims. Prejudiced analyses, distortions and biased reports based on a materialist world view have no power to conceal the knowledge, artistry and intelligence of Allah that pervade all places. The superiority of the truth over superstition is revealed in many verses of the Qur'an, some of which read as follows:

Say: "My Lord hurls forth the Truth–the Knower of all unseen things." Say: "The Truth has come. Falsehood cannot originate or regenerate." (Surah Saba, 48-49)

… By His Words Allah wipes out the false and confirms the truth. He knows what the heart contains. (Surat ash-Shura, 24)

Allah confirms the Truth by His words, even though the evildoers hate it. (Surah Yunus, 82)

Next, here are the broad lines of a few of the inconclusive claims intended to support for the fictitious theory of evolution:

The "Junk DNA" Error: An Example of Evolutionist Ignorance

So far, the Human Genome Project has revealed only the sequence of the code in DNA. We still do not know, apart from a few genes, which functions in the human body these codes determine. Some 30,000 genes-only 3% of human DNA-encode the protein in the DNA chain and work in a demonstrably active manner. We still do not know what purpose is served by the rest of the long DNA chain.

At this point, evolutionists place one-sided interpretations on that mystery. Darwinist scientists suggest that the genes in question have no purpose and consist merely of nonsensical or "junk" sequences. They claim that these genes have lost their functions over the course of an evolutionary process lasting millions of years. In fact, this preconception has been refuted by new scientific discoveries. Until five or six years ago, scientists gave the name "junk DNA" to large strings of genes whose functions were unknown-thus they couldn't describe them as genes. Contrary to their claims, however, it has emerged that these actually direct vital functions are of critical importance in the repair of functioning gene segments. 145

In an article in the journal Nature Genetics on 13 May, 2002, Dr. John V. Moran and his team reported that the active parts of junk DNA were sections carrying out repair services for the genome.146 These can produce copies of themselves in a manner similar to copying and pasting a section of text-an exceedingly useful function when the DNA's double helix begins to separate. The double helix can be damaged when chemicals reach the cell or when there is any outside pressure, which can lead to cell death. Those parts of DNA formerly claimed to be junk travel around inside the genome and identify such faulty separations; when they encounter such a phenomenon, they go into action and bring that region back together into alignment.147

From time to time, evolutionist sources suggest that some organs in living things no longer have any function, having been inherited from these species' ancestors. For example, the appendix or the coccyx in the human body were for years regarded as vestigial organs, no longer of any use. However, recent scientific research has revealed that all these organs do actually have important functions. The list of organs that evolutionists at the beginning of the 20th century described as "vestigial" is now totally discredited. In the words of the evolutionist writer S. R. Scadding, "As our knowledge has increased, the list of vestigial structures has decreased."148 (For details, see Harun Yahya, Darwinism Refuted, Goodword Books, 2002.) In the same way, the claim put forward by evolutionists, that a large part of DNA serves no purpose, has also been discredited by recent discoveries.

The Human Genome Project and other genetic research have established that during the process of protein manufacture, genes constantly interact with one another. During this process, one gene does not act independently of other sections of DNA. As one gene works-particularly during the early stages of protein coding-sections of DNA that do not constitute genes regulate it. For that reason, no scientist who closely monitors such research any longer attaches any validity to the concept of junk DNA.

Even though evolutionists may not welcome the fact, those sections of DNA once claimed to be junk are actually in a constant state of activity and have various functions as yet undiscovered has been around for some time. In Science magazine, a team of molecular biologists from the Harvard Medical Faculty and physicists from Boston University shed light on this subject in a 1994 report titled "Does nonsense DNA speak its own dialect?"149 Based on their study of 37 DNA strips containing 50,000 base pairs, taken from various living things, they reported that so-called junk DNA, which occupies 90% of human DNA, is actually written in a special language. Their tests revealed that the DNA described as "junk" was by no means meaningless. An article titled "Hints of a language in junk DNA" reported studies by Boston University's Eugene Stanley demonstrating that DNA sequences had features resembling those of a human language.150

 

Ignorance was without doubt one of the reasons why these 97% of DNA sequences w ere formerly described as serving no purpose. The Cleveland University evolutionist scientist Evan Eichler admits this:

The term "junk DNA" is a reflection of our ignorance.151

dna

Ernst Mayr, himself an evolutionist, also refers to the inadequacy of our knowledge about genes:

A serious practical limit to science is the difficulty of exhaustively explaining the workings of a highly complex system. The same practical point can be made about the regulatory mechanisms of the genome, which are highly complex and which are still far from being understood. 152

An article titled "The Unseen Genome: Beyond DNA" in the November 2003 Scientific American magazine quotes John S. Mattick, director of the Molecular Bioscience Institute at Queensland University in Australia:

Indeed, what was damned as junk because it was not understood may, in fact, turn out to be the very basis of human complexity.153

Prof. Mattick, a molecular biologist, refers to the importance of these strings known as introns that do not directly participate in protein production, and to erroneous interpretations made regarding them:

The failure to recognize the full implications of this . . . may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.154

In New Scientist magazine published November 19, 2005, the importance of so called junk DNA is mentioned:

... remarkably, junk DNA may turn out to be as important as genes-if not more so. . . What's so special about junk DNA that ensures it is mothballed in this way? One clue comes from comparing genomes . . . it could encode vital information that scientists haven't yet unraveled-the more DNA, the higher the capacity to store information and produce complex organisms. One thing is clear. Now that we've mapped our genes, it's time to start exploring the junkyard.155

Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, also states that those parts of DNA referred to as so-called junk are in fact nothing of the sort:

I have been troubled for a long time about the way in which we dismissed about 95% of the genome as being junk because we didn't know what its function was. We did not think it had one because we had not discovered one yet. I found it quite gratifying to discover that when you have the whole genome in front of you, it is pretty clear that a lot of the stuff we call "junk" has the fingerprints of being a DNA sequence that is actually doing something, at least, judging by the way evolution has treated it. So I think we should probably remove the term "junk" from the genome.156

Evolutionist geneticists wished to portray those DNA sections they described as junk as compelling evidence for their theories. For years, their way of dismissing these sections as unimportant and their adherence to dogmatic beliefs in evolution prevented scientists from investigating those "junk" components, as was described in the journal Science:

Although catchy, the term "junk DNA" for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who, except a small number of genomic clochards, would like to dig through genomic garbage? However, in science as in normal life, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. Because of them, the view of junk DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to change in the early 1990s.157

Dr. Paul Nelson revealed the scientific dilemmas facing the theory of evolution in several studies. He provides an account of the concept of junk DNA in an article titled "The Junk Dealer Ain't Selling That No More":

In one of his later books, written with his wife Ann Druyan (Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, Ballantine, 1992), the late Carl Sagan argued that "genetic junk," the "redundancies, stutters, [and] untranscribable nonsense" in DNA, proved that there are "deep imperfections at the heart of life." Such comments are commonplace in the biological literature-although perhaps less common than they were a few years ago. The reason? Geneticists are discovering functions for what used to be apparent genetic debris.158

In an article titled " 'Junk' DNA reveals vital role: Inscrutable genetic sequences seem indispensable," Helen Pearson reports that:

Scientists are puzzling over a collection of mystery DNA segments that seem to be essential to the survival of virtually all vertebrates. But their function is completely unknown. The segments . . . lie in the large parts of the genome that do not code for any protein. Their presence adds to growing evidence that the importance of these areas, often dismissed as junk DNA, could be much more fundamental than anyone suspected. 159

Dr. Kelly A. Frazer, who investigated those sections of DNA claimed to be junk for the Perlegan Sciences company, says, "People will be intrigued by this [finding]. It is the kind of stuff that blows people away." while the Cambridge Broad Institute geneticist Kerstin Lindblad-Toh describes these studies as "the tip of the iceberg."160

Those Sections of DNA Still Awaiting to be Discovered are Among the Miracles of Creation

In the messenger RNA that carries the copy of the DNA, there are two main parts: the protein-coding parts known as the exons and those parts that do not code proteins, known as the introns.

Introns, whose functions have only recently begun to be understood, are long DNA strips. These parts on the messenger RNA that do not encode protein are extracted by the cutting enzymes. Discovered in 1977, introns were first referred to as "intervening genes" since they intervene in those parts that do encode protein. According to an article in Science magazine, "Mining Treasures from 'Junk DNA'," introns are currently regarded as a "complex mix of different DNA, much of which are vital to the life of the cell."1 The report also states that as the functions of introns are revealed, they may possibly be used as tumor markers in the treatment of cancer. Findings of a direct correlation between changes in introns and the emergence of cancer are a sign of introns' vital importance to human life.

1- R. Nowak, "Mining Treasures from 'Junk DNA'," Science, 1994, Vol. 263, p. 608; Jerry Bergman, "The Functions of Introns: From Junk DNA to Designed DNA", 18 November 2001; http://www.rae.org/introns.html

dna

1. (Protein coding parts of DNA)
2. (Non-protein coding parts of DNA)
3. (Protein coding parts of DNA)
4. Cutting Region
5. Cutting Region
6. Cutting enzymes known as spliceosomes go into action.

7. The part that is extracted and that does not enter into protein coding - the intron - used to be thought of, out of ignorance, we junk, though it is now known to occupy a very important place.
8. Spliceosome enzymes cut out and extract those parts that do not enter into protein coding - the introns. Those components left over after the cutting - the exons - are then added on to one another.

But despite these findings, most evolutionists continued to advocate the concept of junk DNA right to the bitter end, since it suited their own purposes. Finally, however, intense research into DNA proved that the DNA sections in question were vitally important, and were therefore beneficial DNA segments. Thus another Darwinist gaffe went down in the pages of history.

The Invalidity of the "Mitochondrial Eve" Thesis

The mitochondria consisting of protein inside the cell produce the energy needed by the cell. In these plants, chemical energy obtained from foodstuffs is converted into energy packets known as ATPs which the cell can use. All the events permitting life inside the cell take place thanks to these ready-to-use energy packets. In addition to being present in the cell nucleus, DNA is also found in these energy-producing mitochondria.

Mitochondria contain mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Evolutionists interpret the inherited variation in mitochondrial DNA as a form of evolution and combine that hypothesis with another which they refer to as the "molecular clock." This hypothesis, launched in 1965, suggested that regular changes would take place in the nucleotide and protein sequences. On that basis, it was further assumed that living things could be analyzed in terms of mtDNA changes to determine at what time they separated from a common ancestor.

However, it is unclear what kind of clock mechanism in mtDNA can bring about regular changes in living things. Fossilized bones cannot harbor DNA molecules, since these decay very quickly. Therefore, there can be no question on investigating natural history on the basis of the DNA molecule. These analyses are evolutionists' efforts to force the history of life to square with their own hypotheses.

Based on that preconception, evolutionists tried to establish when and where the human family tree began. Since the widest variety of mitochondrial DNA was observed in Africans, they decided that these must be the oldest "branch" of family tree and claimed that all human races living today were descended from a woman who lived in Africa 130,000 years ago, and that she had appeared by way of evolution as the first representative of Homo sapiens.

Since the estimates regarding this woman were based on mitochondrial DNA analyses, she is known as the "mitochondrial Eve." But when examined with an unbiased scientific eye, the method employed in this research can easily be seen as incapable of determining either the dating or geographical location of the earliest humans. Evolutionists rely on claims and hypotheses that cannot be proven, nor documented with experiment and observation. Indeed, many scientists who support the theory of evolution admit that this thesis has no scientific value.

Henry Gee, a member of the editorial board of Nature magazine, described the results of mitochondrial DNA research as "garbage" in an article titled "Statistical Cloud over African Eden."161 In his article dealing with 136 existing mtDNA series, Gee reported that the number of family trees drawn up exceeded 1 billion. In other words, around 1 billion alternative family trees were ignored in this research, and only the single tree was chosen that matched the hypothesis of a supposed evolutionary transition between chimpanzees and human beings.

First off, none of these hypotheses constitute any scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. For example, any evolutionist claiming, on the basis of molecular clock analysis, that humans and chimpanzees separated from one another 10 million years ago has already started out assuming an evolutionary relationship between these two species. Such people are thinking in a logical vicious circle. Studies of this kind, built on such assumptions, are a waste of time.

The Washington University geneticist Alan Templeton states that it is impossible to determine a date for the origin of humanity on the basis of DNA series, because strains of DNA have become exceedingly mixed up among human communities.162 Viewed in mathematical terms, this makes it impossible to distinguish the mtDNA belonging to any single human in the family tree. The most striking admission came from the authors of the thesis themselves. Mark Stoneking from Pennsylvania State University, who repeated the study in 1992, admitted in a letter to Science magazine that the "African Eve" thesis was invalid. 163

In addition, mitochondrial DNA analyses were performed on the assumption that mitochondria are passed on only by the mother, and that changes in mitochondrial DNA components can thus be traced back though the matriarchal line, right back to the very earliest ancestor. But in fact, the idea that mitochondria are passed on only by females is now no more than a myth, because scientific discoveries have shown that mitochondria can also be handed down from the father. "Mitochondria can be inherited from both parents," a report in New Scientist magazine, described how Danish patients had received around 90% of their mitochondria from their fathers. This meant that all mtDNA studies supporting evolutionary scenarios were completely meaningless. This state of affairs is described in New Scientist magazine:

Evolutionary biologists often date the divergence of species by the differences in genetic sequences in mitochondrial DNA. Even if paternal DNA is inherited very rarely, it could invalidate many of their findings.164

Despite being a well-known evolutionist publication, the magazine Nature admitted that these findings disproved the hypotheses of mitochondrial DNA:

The assumption that mitochondrial DNA . . . is inherited purely through the maternal line is a lynchpin of studies tracking human evolutionary history and the movements of human populations in the prehistoric past.165

mitokondri

A. CELL

1. Chromosome
2. Nucleus

3. Mitochondria
4. Nuclear DNA
5. Mitochondrial DNA

In addition to being present in the cell nucleus, DNA is also found in mitochondria, the centers of energy production.

Finally, an article in the journal Annals of Human Genetics reported that more than half of all the mitochondrial DNA analyses published to date had been found to be flawed.166 According to the report, the mitochondrial DNA data banks used by evolutionists were based on incorrectly processed data. This state of affairs, revealed by the researcher Peter Forster, was reported in Nature magazine:

The mistakes may be so extensive that geneticists could be drawing incorrect conclusions in studies of human populations. . .167

This analysis of Forster's further confirmed the unreliable nature of the statistical data used by evolutionists in their studies. As you've seen, genetic analysis that examine the genes of human beings living today are carried out using flawed methodology and interpreted solely in the light of evolutionist preconceptions. Concrete scientific findings proving the invalidity of mitochondrial DNA analyses refute evolutionist claims. Since no evolutionary process ever actually took place, everyone constructs his own personal scenario, and the mitochondrial Eve thesis is just one of those endeavors to prop up the theory of evolution-which is about to be consigned to history because of the heavy blows it's been dealt.

The Invalidity of the "Selfish Gene" and "Conscious Gene" Claims

Another of Darwinists' fictitious claims is the theory of the selfish gene (or gene selection) theory, according to which, specific types of gene increase their likelihood of perpetuating themselves by developing individuals with a better ability to survive and reproduce. Thus, those gene types that are better able to pass on their genetic information to subsequent generations and produce plants and animals will supposedly be dominant in the world..168

Before considering why this theory is invalid, let's examine the way it was proposed. Gene selectivity is an example of the logic that philosophers describe as reductionism-the claim that everything, even including the human mind, can be reduced to matter. However, as you saw in detail earlier, the claim that life consists solely of matter is clearly deceptive. The claims made by Richard Dawkins-a dyed-in-the-wool advocate of the theory of evolution who applied this theory to human beings-are therefore false, even ridiculous. According to Dawkins, "We are survival machines-robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules [of DNA] known as genes."169 In his book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins suggests that all living things contain genes that only seek to maintain their existence by duplicating themselves; and that the only aim of life is the survival of DNA. In fact, however, this claim rests on the exceedingly irrational assumption that genes possess conscious intent. This indicates just how far astray modern materialist reductionism can lead.

The better to see how ridiculous this assumption is, recall what genes actually are: parts of DNA added on to one another and compressed by means of folding and packaging. As you read in detail in preceding chapters, the giant DNA molecule consists of elements added to one another according to a specific code. It's of course impossible for a molecule consisting of blind, and unconscious atoms to be selfish, or to have any other conscious objective such as to multiply itself by way of sexual reproduction. No atom possesses consciousness or intelligence, and certainly not selfishness. For that reason, Dawkins' thesis is unscientific, an irrational fairy tale.

The Australian scientist Lucy G. Sullivan has criticized Dawkins for "a proliferation of pseudo-theories, whose claim on our attention lies more in the realm of literature than of science."170 The Harvard University evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin includes Dawkins among those authors who make unconfirmed claims, or claims that conflict with the facts in the tales they advocate:

As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing. Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market. 171

Even Dawkins himself revealed that all this was put forward for propaganda purposes by admitting that his actions were biased and that his thesis was not a scientific one. On the first page of his book The Extended Phenotype, he wrote:

This is a work of unabashed advocacy. I want to argue in favor of a particular way of looking at animals and plants, and a particular way of wondering why they do the things that they do. What I am advocating is not a new theory, not a hypothesis which can be verified or falsified, not a model which can be judged by its predictions. 172

Since evolutionists are unwilling to admit the existence of the soul, they regard human beings as assemblages of matter and try to ascribe consciousness to that matter in some way. Their making such invalid claims as ascribing consciousness to genes is an indication of the very awkward position in which they find themselves. Today's evolutionists, who imagine that there is intelligence and consciousness in molecules and in the inanimate atoms that comprise those molecules have taken the place of the pagans of centuries ago who thought that there was intelligent consciousness in their idols crafted of stone or wood.

As a result of their superstitious belief, they claim that phenomena such as violence, rape, sexual harassment, aggression and jealousy have been bequeathed to human beings by their alleged animal forebears, and that such behavior is a natural result of evolution. At the root of this claim there lies the evolutionist idea that a human being is a machine made of genes, and that genes' sole aim is to evolve and survive, as if they were conscious entities.

In the same way that it is impossible for a book to aim at increasing its numbers by way of reproduction, to be selfish, or to possess consciousness in any way, so it is impossible for DNA-a chain of molecules consisting of unconscious and inanimate atoms, and no molecule possesses intelligence and awareness. In addition, the Israeli scientist Gerald L. Schroeder notes that the way that a cell passes on a strand of its DNA by dividing is actually altruistic behavior, rather than selfishness:

One of the puzzles of meiosis is the altruistic nature of the cell. Why should a cell willingly give up half of its chromosomal information, and thereby essentially guarantee that its progeny will not be an identical copy of itself? I would have thought that altruism stops at self-destruction. A parent's mixing its chromosomes with those of another is, in a sense, self destruction, since the parent will not be reproduced in the child. Not a very selfish way for a potentially selfish gene to act.173

Therefore, the idea of the selfish gene has nothing to do with the true facts, and the claim is no more than a fantasy. Darwinist thinking-which describes human beings as animals and regards them as mere robots that carry genes and are responsible for passing those genes on to the next generation-is mainly responsible for the acts of violence, genocide, oppression and moral degeneration that increased enormously during the 20th century. Such a perspective endows all oppression, aggression and immorality with apparent scientific legitimacy. Even Hitler, who perpetrated the worst slaughter of the 20th century, regarded Darwinism as supporting him. It was Darwinism that justified his oppression and aggression. Hitler regarded all races other than the alleged Master Race as unworthy of living and regarded their slaughter as no more reprehensible than killing an animal.

Darwinism, maintaining that human beings are genetically aggressive, ruthless, competitive, selfish and potential murderers, is nonsense used to justify crimes of all kinds. All human beings bear the souls breathed into them by Allah, and they are all responsible to our Lord, Who created them out of nothing. In the Qur'an, Allah reveals the creation of those who imagine themselves to be unfettered, and that they will be resurrected after death:

Does man reckon he will be left to go on unchecked? Was he not a drop of ejaculated sperm, then a blood-clot which He created and shaped,making from it both sexes, male and female? Is He Who does this not able to bring the dead to life? (Surat al-Qiyama, 36-40)

manzara

Say: "I seek refuge with the Lord of humanity,
the King of humanity, the deity of humanity."
(Surat an-Nas, 1-3)

Conclusion

Science that frees itself from ideological concerns and works independently of evolutionists' biased interpretations will doubtless develop rapidly. If the true facts revealed by logic, reason and science are taken into account; and if the origin of life is investigated without turning towards the nonsensical explanation of chance, then a clear and rapid answer can be obtained to the question of how life and the universe emerged. Thus the road ahead of true science will be opened up, and scientific advances will accelerate. Energy, time and money will not be wasted on presenting false evidence, and science will be freed from such pointless aims as advocating illogical and contradictory concepts such as chance. In one verse, our Lord tells us:

[Say: "It has been revealed to me that a band of the jinn listened and said,] 'Some of us are Muslims and some are deviators. Those who have become Muslim are those who sought right guidance.' " (Surat al-Jinn, 14)

 

Footnotes

145. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-05/uomh-pop051002.php

146. Denyse O'Leary, By Design or By Chance?, p. 235.

147. Ibid.

148. S. R. Scadding, "Do Vestigial Organs Provide Evidence for Evolution?", Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 175.

149. Elizabeth Pennisi, "Does Nonsense DNA Speak Its Own Dialect?", Science News, Vol 164 , 10 December 1994.

150. Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, p. 290; ["Mining Treasures form Junk DNA", Science, 4 February 1994; "Hints of a Language in Junk DNA", Science, 25 November 1994].

151. Gretchen Vogel, " Objection #2: Why Sequence the Junk?", Science, vol. 291, no. 5507,16 February 2001, p. 1184.

152. Ernst Mayr, This is Biology, The Science of the Living World, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 7th edi­tion, USA, 1999, P. 105.

153. W. Wayt Gibbs, "The Unseen Genome," Scientific American, November 2003, p. 53.

154. Ibid..

155. "The Word: Junk DNA", New Scientist, 19 November 2005.

156. Francis S. Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome Project", Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, p. 147.

157. Wojciech Makalowski, "Not Junk After All", Science, 23 May 2003, Vol 300, no. 5623, pp. 1246-1247.

158. Paul Nelson, "The Junk Dealer Ain't Selling That No More", 1997; http://www.arn.org/docs/

odesign/od182/ls182.htm#anchor569108

159. Helen Pearson, "'Junk' DNA reveals vital role: Inscrutable genetic sequences seem indispensable", 7 May 2004; http://www.bi­o­ed­on­line.org/news/news.cfm?art=956

160. Ibid.

161. Henry Gee, "Statistical Cloud over African Eden", Nature, 13 Februaryt 1992, Vol. 355, p. 583.

162. Marcia Barinaga, "'African Eve' Backers Beat a Retreat", Science, 7 February 1992, Vol. 255, p. 687.

163. S. Blair Hedges, Sudhir Kumar, Koichiro Tamura, Mark Stoneking, "Human Origins and Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA Sequences", Science, 7 February 1992, Vol. 255, pp. 737-739.

164. Danny Penman, "Mitochondria Can Be Inherited From Both Parents", New Scientist, 23 August 2002; http://www.news­ci­en­tist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992716

165. Eleanor Lawrence, "Fathers Can Be Influential Too", 18 March 1999: http://www.na­ture.com/nsu/ 990318/990318-5.html

166. P.M. Forster, "To Err is Human", Annals of Human Genetics, January 2003, Vol. 67, no. 1. pp. 2-4.

167. Carina Dennis, "Error Reports Threaten to Unravel Databases of Mitochondrial DNA", Nature, 20 February 2003, Vol. 421, pp. 773-774.

168. Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds,p. 69.

169. Ibid. pp.69-70.

170. http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/ls171.htm

171. Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons", review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan, New York Review, 9 January 1997, pp. 28-32.

172. Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype, W. W. Norton, New York, p. 1.

173. Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God, pp. 72-73.

 

13 / total 15
You can read Harun Yahya's book If Darwin Had Known About DNA online, share it on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, download it to your computer, use it in your homework and theses, and publish, copy or reproduce it on your own web sites or blogs without paying any copyright fee, so long as you acknowledge this site as the reference.
Harun Yahya's Influences | Presentations | Audio Books | Interactive CDs | Conferences| About this site | Make your homepage | Add to favorites | RSS Feed
All materials can be copied, printed and distributed by referring to this site.
(c) All publication rights of the personal photos of Mr. Adnan Oktar that are present in our website and in all other Harun Yahya works belong to Global Publication Ltd. Co. They cannot be used or published without prior consent even if used partially.
© 1994 Harun Yahya. www.harunyahya.com - info@harunyahya.com
page_top