Evidence Of Evolution: Fossils

The subject of fossils is lengthy and vast, and goes back in time at least hundreds of millions of years. Fossils provide evidence of evolution in general, and evolution of the human body in particular. The 4,600 million-year history of the earth has been documented with a reasonable level of scientific accuracy, and the last several hundred million years of life on the earth have been recorded and organic fossils preserved with even greater detail and accuracy. This historical geological record clearly confirms the evolution of life and organisms on the earth.
In general, geological history and fossils are one way to prove evolution, but some critics of the theory of evolution, due to their ignorance, think that this is the strongest and only evidence for the theory.
However, the fact of the matter is that it is just one of the links that infer evolution, and it may not even be the strongest when compared with the research in genetics and comparative anatomy. Furthermore, fossils are no longer studied only by historical geologists, anatomists, and anthropologists who make conclusions that an ignorant person could question. Today, it is possible to conduct precise laboratory analysis of fossils to accurately determine the geological age, and genetic analyses of fossils that are tens of thousands of years old in order to accurately identify them.

Evidence Of Evolution: Comparative Anatomy

Comparative Anatomy
Comparative anatomy confirms evolution. There are many examples of this, but I will present only one: the laryngeal nerve that is found in fish, amphibians, deer, humans, and giraffes. In fish, this nerve travels from the brain to the gill after looping around the heart.
Now if the body of each animal was designed independently, and didn’t evolve from fish, this nerve would directly connect the brain to the upper part of the larynx since there is a just a short distance between them. However, in nature, this nerve follows the same route in animals as it does in fish. This means that it evolved from the nerve in fish, and that the elongation of the neck and the remote position of the heart in the animal’s body compelled it to stretch so that it could make a detour around the aorta, just as it does in fish. This nerve takes a long course in giraffes because it loops around the aorta, then it turns back almost an equal distance until it reaches the upper neck and connects to the upper part of the larynx. The long course this nerve takes is of no real benefit according to biologists and comparative anatomists. It has made this detour in fish and has followed the same circuitous route in the rest of the animals due to evolution. So this detour is a historical inheritance.
Therefore, the laryngeal nerve has taken this unnecessary turn because it wasn’t originally designed for each animal independently. It traveled from the brain down to where the chest starts and returned to the upper larynx. This is proof of evolution and development because in each evolutionary step, the lengthening of the nerve by tiny increments was much easier than making a direct connection. Otherwise, if the body of each animal was designed and created independently, the nerve would be directly connected, and the economical waste resulting from designing a nerve of this length as in the giraffe, for example, would be unnecessary.
The fact mentioned above is also used to oppose intelligent design, since this defect in design that occurred during the process of evolution proves that this is not an intelligent design perfectly suited for all animals. The original design led to significant lengthening of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in animals, especially the ones with long necks such as the giraffe, without adding any benefit. This invalidates intelligent design in evolution.
What has been mentioned above is a summary of how comparative anatomy is used to prove evolution, and it is also the atheist argument against intelligent design. I have tried to simplify the issue as much as possible. Illustrations may help simplify it further.
God willing, we will discuss this argument and show that the defect in body structuring that happened during the evolutionary process is not a viable argument against the law-abiding and purposeful nature of evolution. The first genetic plan is purposeful and law-abiding, and therefore indicates a lawmaker and designer who set it down in order to achieve a specific result. Indeed, the matter of the recurrent laryngeal nerve refutes the claims of those who believe that creation occurred in a single burst and who deny evolution, because all design and implementation occurring in a single burst requires negation of this defect that we see in the elongation of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. In fact, even if we were to say that the elongation of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is beneficial, it wouldn’t change the fact that it is a historical evolutionary inheritance that opposes creation occurring in a single burst.
I have presented the example of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in particular because it is not only used to prove the theory of evolution, but also to deny that evolution is law-abiding and purposeful. I will demonstrate how this conclusion is invalid, and how imperfections in the products of evolution do not in any way mean that evolution doesn’t conform to laws, but merely indicates that creation didn’t occur in a single burst. Rather, it happened in stages, and through evolution

Evidence Of Evolution: The Combination of Variation, Natural Selection, and Heredity Unquestionably Results in Evolution

Evidence of Evolution:
This can be simplified with the following examples:
Europeans descended from dark-skinned (black) origins, yet today, we find that their skin is white. Actually, they are grades of white. For example, southern Europeans are less white than northern Europeans because favored races were selected by the environment. As for the reason that nature selected white skin, it might simply be due to Vitamin D, which requires sunlight to penetrate the skin for it to be synthesized, as dark skin prevents or reduces the penetration of sunlight.
In Europe, where there is less sunlight, people with dark skin are at higher risk of developing Vitamin D deficiency, which poses a threat to life and reproduction, so the fittest survive. Since variation in skin to life and reproduction, so the fittest survive. Since variation in skin color (or pigment) will inevitably occur, light skin is selected because in an environment with little sunlight, a person with light skin is fit to survive. So in this way, an inevitable sifting process occurs, and this continues one generation after another until the skin attains a color that is suitable for the environment. 

The same applies to nose size, height, and other traits.

Exposure to a new environment inevitably causes an adaptation to it. In the 50,000-100,000 years since the African diaspora, there has been an opportunity for substantial adaptation, both cultural and biological. We can see traces of the latter in skin color and in size and shape of the nose, eyes, head, and body. One can say that each ethnic group has been genetically engineered under the influence of the environments where it settled. Black skin color protects those who live near the equator from burning under the sun’s ultraviolet radiation which can also lead to deadly skin cancers.
The dairy-poor diet of European farmers, based almost entirely on cereals that lack ready-made vitamin D, might have left them vulnerable to rickets (our milk still has to be enriched with this vitamin). But they were able to survive at the higher latitudes to which they migrated from the Middle East  because the essential vitamin can be produced with the aid of sunlight, from precursor molecules found in cereals. For this Europeans have developed the whiteness of their skin, which the sun’s ultraviolet radiation can penetrate to transform these precursors into vitamin D. It is not without reason that Europeans have, on average, whiter skin the further north they are born.
The size and shape of the body are adapted to temperature and humidity. In hot and humid climates, like tropical forests, it is advantageous to be short since there is greater surface area for the evaporation of sweat compared to the body’s volume. A smaller body also uses less energy and produces less heat. Frizzy hair allows sweat to remain on the scalp longer and results in greater cooling. With these adaptations, the risk of overheating in tropical climates is diminished.
Populations living in tropical forests generally are short, Pygmies being the extreme example (Cavalli-Sforza 1000, 10-11).[1]
Example: The change in the color of moths from white to black as a result of the industrial revolution. Moths benefited from their white color because the white bark of trees concealed them and they weren’t seen by birds. With the industrial revolution in Europe, tree bark blackened in some of the industrial areas as a result of the pollution caused by coal. The white moths were then exposed to birds, whereas the moths with a darker color mutation were able to remain hidden and survive. So the color of the moths changed within a short period of time, rather than requiring millions of years, because they have a short life cycle. Therefore, in the case of moths, a relatively short time period is sufficient for hundreds or thousands of generations to pass and for biological evolution to occur.
Example: The variable neck length of the ancestors of giraffes, with some having a relatively longer neck than others. If we assume that giraffes lived where food was at a height more suitable for those with long necks than short necks, then natural selection would occur, favoring the giraffes better suited for life in that environment.
Therefore, short-necked giraffes would either starve to death, or would be incapable of reproducing and mating due to insufficient food, or they wouldn’t be able to feed their young. In this way, the number of short-necked giralfes would decrease in this environment, and they might become extinct, whereas long-necked giraffes would survive and reproduce satisfactorily. So giraffes with the long-neck trait would increase in number and pass these genetic traits to their offspring, and the short-necked trait would be cleansed from the giraffe genetic plan, generation after generation.
These matters are practically self-evident, and proving their validity today using genetics is the same as proving that the earth spins around the sun using images. Nonetheless, a great number of people deny it just because they think it contradicts religious scriptures.
Example: Predatory animals such as wolves vary in all aspects, just like other organisms. If wolves exist in an environment where the prey is quick, then slow, short-legged wolves will starve to death, so they won’t pass their traits on to the next generation. With the passage of time, through natural selection, fast, long-legged wolves will develop in that environment. In a snowy environment, only white wolves will survive because the dark ones will be easily seen by the prey and won’t be able to hunt, so they will starve to death. In this way, the color of the wolf’s fur is gradually refined to white, and the same thing can happen to prey, such as when the fur of rabbits becomes white in order to aid in camouflage.
As for polar bears, their white color aids them greatly in camouflage while hunting their prey, so the prey don’t notice them until it is too late. Were it not for the white color trait, they might not have been able to obtain food. The white color is not acquired suddenly, but rather through the process of evolution, just as with the evolution of moths during the industrial revolution. Both occur when genetic mutations provide the option suitable for the survival, reproduction, and establishment of one trait at the expense of another. However, the time that it took for the polar bear to evolve from the brown bear was approximately 150,000 years according to Dr. Ian Stirling. This time period is far longer than that required by the moths of the industrial revolution, the reason being the difference between long and short animal life cycles, as I have clarified previously.[2]
Example: Nowadays, we all say that despite signficant advancements in construction, technology, and medicine, our health problems, diseases, and their complications have increased.
All of us—perhaps even some doctors—wonder, what is the reason for this?! Yet, one of the reasons is clear: it is simply that we have, with our advancements, eliminated one side of the evolution equation of our (physical) species: natural selection.
To clarify further, let’s examine any hereditary disease: diabetes, for example. The healthcare industry (doctors, laboratories, specialists, pharmacists, and medications, etc.) prolongs the life of diabetics so that they reach adolescence, have children, and pass their genes to their offspring. This causes an increase in the number of those among us who have these genes.
Therefore, with our advancements we have eliminated natural selection. Had we not added health care to the equation, natural selection would have occurred, and many diabetics would have died before reaching adolescence and being able to have children, so the number of people who have these genes would have gradually decreased.
In addition, due to our residing in somewhat protected houses, many people have become incapable of withstanding the difficulties associated with living in a natural environment, such as the ability to withstand germs or insect bites.
Moreover, there is a study regarding the biological elimination that befell the natives of the New World as a result of the germs carried by pets that were brought to this region by new settlers. While Europeans had adapted to living with these germs and developed a resistance to them, the natives of the New World hadn’t, so these germs gave rise to the restructuring of these populations based on the system of evolution.

[1] Professor Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, born in 1922 in Genoa, is an Italian population geneticist who also worked in the field of anthropology. He received his MD in 1944 and collaborated with evolutionary biologist Ronald Fisher at Cambridge University. He has been a professor at Stanford University in California since 1970 (now emeritus), and is a member of the Lincean Academy. He won the Balzan Prize for the Science of Human Origins in 1999. He is also an emeritus member of the Italian Society for Evolutionary Biology.
[2] Doctor lan Stirling is considered one of the world’s leading authorities on polar bears. He has written and spoken extensively about the danger posed to polar bears

The Theory of Development and Evolution

Second: The Theory of Development and Evolution
On November 24,1859, Charles Darwin published his famous book On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. In this book, he presented a theory stating that organisms on the earth (plants and animals) evolved, and did not come into existence suddenly or at once.
Although at the time Darwin did not have enough fossils to support his theory, he presented evidence that he obtained from an observation and research of hybridization and domestication during his famous global expedition on the HMS Beagle, and from the observations and research of other biologists. Most of Darwin’s evidence came from observation, comparative anatomy, and research on the lineage of modern organisms. However, scientific evidence for evolution continued to accumulate after Darwin through research, aided by technological advancements in the study of fossils, comparative anatomy, and genetics.
Darwin, as well as the evolutionary biologists who came after him, concluded that the combination of variation between individuals (due to variation in their genetic plans, for instance), the process of selection carried out by their natural surroundings, and heredity, results in evolution of life suitable for that environment.
If the reader understands the meaning of variations in genetic plans and nature’s preservation or selection of the favored races, then they will clearly see that evolution is inevitable, and that fossil evidence as proof of evolution is unnecessary.
Simply stated, whenever we have variation, selection, and heredity, we inevitably have evolution. Variation exists, and there is no doubt that it is present among individuals of the same species. Selection also inevitably exists, because it is an intrinsic part of nature, its demands, and the environmental changes that constantly occur, such as declining water levels, droughts, rising or dropping temperatures, or the introduction of a new predator or prey. And as long as breeding and reproduction occurs, heredity is inevitable as well. So evolution was inevitable in the past, just as it is in the present, and will be in the future, since all of its required components have and still do exist.
Therefore, the issue is not debatable, because it is as clear as the earth’s spin. In addition to this, there is evidence that has accumulated from comparative anatomy, fossils, and genetics that confirms evolution, though evolution is obvious, even in the lineage of modern organisms.
Evolution Of Compound Organ Such As Eye, Ear And Nose
Therefore, evolution occurs whenever there is variation, heredity due to reproduction, and natural selection of the fittest. For example, if we take the evolution of compound organs such as the eye, ear, and nose, the first evolutionary step would be the evolution of a sensory cell in a primitive, multi-cellular animal. These cells would then multiply in later generations, due to the fact that there is variation caused by genetic mutation that provides for this multiplication. If these sensory cells provide benefit and energy for the animal by helping it to elude enemies and acquire food, and the energy provided exceeds the cost, then animals with this trait will be more capable of surviving, and will be selected by the natural environment. With this, selection of these sensory cells takes place. So in this way, whenever the evolutionary step is of more benefit than cost to the animal, it will be preserved.
After specialized sensory cells multiply through evolutionary steps due to variation and selection, a group of cells that sense light becomes available, and another group that senses chemicals or smell also becomes available, and so on. When a group of cells that senses light exists in the animal, and variation is also present, the environment selects the most favorable cells to progress toward the optimal state. So a concave shape is favored because it senses light better, as is a lens that concentrates light and makes the image clearer, and so forth.
When suitable improvement mutations are available, the animal favors (not through consciously favoring, but in accordance with the law of evolution that I have described) a system that combines and organizes the work of sensory cells with different functions as a group, rather than individually, because that makes it better able to survive. If mutation provides such a system, or provides the connection of such a system between the sensory cells and the organization of their work, then the system will be preserved. This represents the primitive nervous system, which we can say is the basis for the brain.
And this is how the sensory cells evolve to become an eye, a nose, etc. In general, it is a matter of economics for the animal: if the trait acquired through genetic mutation helps the animal to obtain food and increases its ability to acquire two units of energy while the energy expenditure of putting this trait into operation is one unit, then this trait will benefit the animal, and will usually be preserved.
On the other hand, when the energy expenditure of operating the trait exceeds the benefit (and using the above example, the energy expenditure would be three units), then the l, and it will be eliminated. Elimination in this instance does not mean that an individual animal eliminates the trait, but rather it is eliminated by the entire species, meaning that animals that acquire this trait that is more harmful than beneficial will perish, because they won’t be capable of surviving or competing with their peers.
There is a difference of opinion regarding the path taken by evolution, and there are several theories to explain its course. These theories disagree about the speed of evolution and whether it always proceeds very slowly, or whether its speed is discretely variable or continuously variable. There is also the theory of extreme genetic mutation that has been abandoned, for the most part. This theory states that a compound organ comes into existence directly and at one time through a single genetic mutation.

Discussing the Hypotheses of Abiogenesis

maxresdefaultDiscussing the Hypotheses of Abiogenesis
None of the theories of abiogenesis have been proven with scientific evidence. Actually, they are all unproven theories or hypotheses. The DNA and RNA present in living cells, which are considered replicators, as well as the proteins that could conceivably self-replicate, all consist of very large numbers of units or molecules. So if we were to consider the probability that they would accidentally form, or assemble, simultaneously, just once, in the correct replicable way, we would reach a number that cannot be achieved scientifically within the time limits that we are familiar with on the earth.
Even if we assumed that abiogenesis began with the simplest protein that ensures the self-replication process (and let’s accept the assumption that it’s extremely simple and consists of just a 32-amino-acid sequence), since there are 20 different types of amino acids that can form this sequence, then the number of possibilities we would have is (4.294967296 x 10 ‘“), or approximately 4 x 10(power 41), which is the number 4 followed by 41 zeros. This is a very large number, and it represents an extremely low probability of occurrence.
In fact, this made Dr. Richard Dawkins stumble into unrealistic assumptions in his book The Blind Watchmaker, in a desperate attempt to decrease the number of zeros on one side and increase them on the other. In this way, most atheists drop tens of zeros here, and add tens of zeros there, in a very unscientific and careless way, making imaginary assumptions in the hope of eventually reaching a number they deem acceptable and achievable within the time limits available on the earth, about a billion years at most.
Now let’s assume that the first miracle occurred: amino acids formed on the earth under the extraordinary circumstances suitable for their emergence or arrival, and they were in an environment on the earth that was suitable for one attempt at the emergence of a self-repIicating protein each second for a billion years. The number of available attempts would be (31,449,600,000,000,000) or approximately 3 X 10(power 16). If we subtracted this number from the number of required attempts, we would still need 3.9999999999999999999999997 x 10(power 41) attempts, approximately (3.9 X 10(p41)), in order for it to be possible. As we can see, one attempt per second for a billion years had almost no effect on the number. Therefore, if we calculate the time required for the probability to be met at one attempt per second, the time period is approximately (4 x 10p41) seconds, or approximately 10p34 years, which is the number I with 34 zeros after it. This is an enormous number, far exceeding the age of the earth, and even the age of the universe. The age of use earth is estimated at 4.5 billion years, which is a single digit with nine digits after it, and the age of the universe is estimated at 13.7 billion years, which has just ten digit after it.
If we calculate it another way, by calculating how many attempts per second for a billion years it would take to obtain a self-replicating protein within the limits of probability, the number of attempts per second would be the result of dividing the number of required attempts by the available time, which is a billion years. The result would be: (12,718,762,718,762,718,762,718,762.718763), or approximately 10p25, meaning we would need 1 with 25 zeros, or almost 10 million, million, million, million attempts each second for a billion years in order for it to be possible. This number is extremely far-fetched.
Not only that, but the but the probability of sufficient amino acids existing on earth is also very low. There are two types of amino acids: left-handed and right-handed. The proteins that exists within the structure of life are only comprised of left-handed amino acids. This means that the probability of ending up with the required protein is one half to the power of the number of amino acids in that protein. So if the number of amino acids in the required protein is 50, for example, then the probability of all of them being left-handed is one half to the power of 50. This is a very low probability. By combining the extremely low probability of each of the required consecutive steps for the formation of a protein, the possibility almost disappears, becoming nearly impossible.
However, there are atheist who calculate it backwards, deriving the required numbers from the premises so as to make it possible in the end. For example, the first problem is the availability of building material: amino acids. So they resort to proposing hypothesis, such as the hypotheses that amino acids has formed due to the conditions on the earth and the abundance of lightning as earth was forming, in order to solve this problem. Another far-fetched hypothesis is that the earth was bombarded with meteors loaded with amino acids 4 billion years ago. When they discovered that the amino acids could only be left handed, some of them propose yet another far-fetched hypothesis, saying that this meteors what exposed to the light of the neutron star on their way to the earth, and so on. Therefore, the whole claim is built upon far-fetched hypothesis in order the proof that the formation of a self replicating protein on the earth billions of years ago was completely normal. Despite the fact that all of these hypotheses are far-fetched, and that the probability of Just one of them is so low that it barely exists, let alone all of them occurring in succession, some of them feel they can say that they are reasonable and acceptable.
Atheist find it very reasonable to believe that an enormous number of meteors loaded with massive amounts of Amino Acids specifically chose the planet earth, which is like a grain of sand in the desert compared to universe, even if the probability of this event is so low that it barely exist!
Atheist also find it very reasonable for these meteors to have been exposed to the light of a neutron star on their way to the earth so as to form left-handed Amino Acids. They find all of this hypothesis, which have an almost nonexistent probability, to be very reasonable. However, they find it far-fetched that a lawmaker is behind the law that created the self replicating protein or DNA! They also find it far-fetched that a speaker is behind the linguistic genetic plan!
I think that what has been presented is sufficient to conclude this issue. Would a rational person, who knows of the nearly nonexistent probability of an event occurring, even when factoring in the entire age of the universe, still say that it is normal for the event to occur during  the one to one-and-a-half billion year period prior to the existence of life on the earth, and at the same time refused to discuss any possibility that this event might be miraculous, and then grasp at straws to prove his hypothesis? Then, when he finds scientific evidence that some meteors might have struck the earth at some point in time, he uses this possibility and goes so far as to say that these meteors came from the depths of the galaxy like vats loaded with amino acids. But just saying amino acids doesn’t achieve their goal, so they add that these amino acid filled vats passed by a neutron star on their way to the earth, and the light polarized them, eventually causing them to transform from a mixture of right and left-handed into only left-handed amino acids. The imaginary hypotheses continue in order to escape this suffocating dilemma of probabilities.
The Other Hypothesis
There are other hypotheses regarding the formation of RNA and DNA, such as the one introduced by some chemists and biochemists, which suggests that it didn’t begin with proteins or nucleic acids, but rather with non-living chemical substances like polymers or clay particles that were formed in a certain replicable way.
. . . we might say that their survival machines must have been seized at a later stage by DNA. If so, the original replicators were utterly destroyed, for no trace of them remains in modern survival machines. Along these lines, A. G. Cairns-Smith has made the intriguing suggestion that our ancestors, the first replicators, may have been not organic molecules at all, but inorganic crystals—minerals, little bits of dry clay (Dawkins 1989, 21-22).
These are far-fetched hypotheses, and they continue to be just that— hypotheses that aren’t based on accurate scientific data. Depending on what occurs in certain chemical reactions in which crystals seem to replicate is nothing more than dependence on a phenomenon irrelevant to the topic of research. The truth is that replication and the passing down of information don’t occur in chemical reactions at all.
Within experimental and theoretical sciences, these are merely hypotheses that have yet to be proven by anything scientifically reliable. There is no difference between them and the “Great Spirit in the sky” that arranged the pebbles on the beach, as Dawkins’ primitive tribe believes. Therefore, I see no reason to discuss or refute these hypotheses, since they are nothing more than assumptions that don’t reach a scientific level worthy of discussion or response.[1]
All things considered, if the discussion shifts to the sub-biological level, meaning the level of chemical reactions, then it would be best for the discussion with atheists to shift to the established principles of chemical reactions, the physics of atomic and subatomic particles, and the four forces (the weak nuclear, strong nuclear, gravitational, and electromagnetic). Since we are moving on to atomic and subatomic forces, our discussion should be about proving the existence of a god at this sub-biological level, be it molecular, atomic, or subatomic.
According to the hypothesis that there is a polymer or something similar to it that began to replicate itself regularly and to evolve until it brought us to where we are today, life would have begun from that polymer, rather than from a protein, or genetic plan. If that is the case, it would be better for the discussion to be about the origin of matter. We will discuss this when we reach the topic of the big bang, and we will prove the existence of a god at this level of research and knowledge. This will be enough to prove the existence of a god regardless of the presence and evolution of physical life, and whether or not it has come into existence through the intervention of a god, and whether it evolved randomly or non-randomly or purposefully or non-purposefully.
There is a theory, or hypothesis, which suggests that life came pre-fabricated within certain meteorites or rocks a few hundred million years after the formation of the planet Earth. In this respect, there are experiments being conducted to determine whether it is possible for living organisms or primary replicators to survive extreme cold, extreme heat, and severe collisions. It has also been proven that some multicellular organisms can live in a state of hibernation without water at extremely low temperatures.
Another theory, or hypothesis, is that the first replicators emerged on the edge of swamps and oceans that were exposed to wet-dry cycles and severe tides as a result of the moon being closer to the earth than it is now. This, in conjunction with the sun, might have caused amino acids to concentrate in small pools, and this would have facilitated the formation of the primordial soup that is suitable for the emergence of the first replicators.
Yet another theory, or hypothesis, concerns extreme conditions, and assumes that abiogenesis occurred in either hot springs or in an extremely acidic environment. This hypothesis was introduced due to the discovery of several life forms in the depths of the oceans that are able to survive high temperatures. Some of them can also survive high levels of acidity. Therefore, the first replicators may have emerged under similar conditions, especially since these conditions were prevalent in the first several hundred million years of the earth’s existence.
Actually, an unbiased person can clearly see that the proposed theory regarding abiogenesis is not a solid scientific presentation based on facts and reality. Rather, it is research based on the foundation and the hypothesis that nothing exists but nature, and everything must be explained exclusively within the limits of nature, even if it is a series of one imaginary hypothesis after another. Achieving one of them alone is absolutely impossible, let alone achieving all of them in succession.
In fact, rationality determines that if all of these very low probabilities were achieved in succession, it would indicate the occurrence of a miracle, which would indicate that there is someone who has managed things in this way to achieve this result: the existence of life on the earth.
Dawkins: emergence of the cell to be a miracle, but a miracle relative to time. 
Since thus far there is no scientific theory that explains abiogenesis with an acceptable, scientific explanation supported by conclusive evidence, Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, goes to the extent of discussing the possibility of a quasi-miracle occurring, like when lightning strikes a person at the very moment they expected, or when lightning strikes the same person seven times as documented in the Guinness Book of World Records. Dawkins says that what is considered miraculous in a short period of time isn’t considered miraculous over a long period of time—in other words, when sufficient time is available. This means he assumes the emergence of the cell to be a miracle, but a miracle relative to time. 
To refute this, it is sufficient to say that the probability of a self-replicating organism arising is almost non-existent within the time limits we are familiar with. In fact, even if he wanted to calculate the probability at the level of the entire universe, the number of planets potentially suitable for this occurrence wouldn’t support it since he would have to include the probability of meteors being loaded with amino acids, the probability that they would strike the earth, the probability that they would be left-hand amino acids, and the probability that a nucleic acid or self-replicating protein would emerge, making it absolutely deserving of the description of miraculous, supernatural and extraordinary. 
Therefore, even the strongest proponents of the idea that the first emergence of modem life was a completely natural occurrence say that it happened only once, and it never recurred. This is an implicit confession that abiogenesis is a miracle, or at the very least, a dificult and far-fetched claim[2]
Organisms can never be totally unrelated to one another, since it is all but certain that life as we know it originated only once on earth (Dawkins 1996, 258).
ln conclusion: there is no logical, scientific explanation for the emergence of life that is supported with evidence, or even accepted by scientists.
As far as the primordial soup theory, postulating a miracle or unseen intervention to explain the availability of a primordial soup suitable for the emergence of life may not be less likely than postulating the natural availability of the soup and the subsequent formation of the protein.
We can say that postulating a divine miracle—after we prove thanjie existence of a god—would make the issue of abiogenesis even more logical than postulating crystalline or clay replicators.
However, saying that they formed and replicated without external intervention to the point of producing life would mean that they would have to replicate many times after that first replication, and they would have to continue to produce new life, or at least a new type of primary replicator every so often, up until today, as long as the raw materials were available. This hasn’t happened before, nor is it currently happening. Therefore, it is incorrect.
Moreover, the same applies for the primordial soup theory. Even if we recreate the primordial soup in the laboratory, it isn’t expected to produce a self-replicating protein, or a ribonucleic acid, without our intervening beyond making the primordial soup. Therefore, we must assume that an outside intervention compiled chemical compounds, crystals, clay particles, or amino acids into a compound capable of self-replicating, multiplying, and producing the first life. If this was the case, then why wouldn’t this intervention that produced life be a divine, unseen intervention, especially after we prove the existence of a god in due course?!
Abiogenesis doesn’t have a scientific explanation. It forms a gap that science and scientists have been unable to fill despite all of the laboratory capabilities available today, which, for the purpose of experimentation, provide the right conditions to simulate any time period in which biologists and biochemists would expect life to emerge, just as it would have formed four billion years ago, or even less than that.
Regarding what was mentioned above, my objective is not to reject the hypothesis of abiogenesis, or the formation of a self-replicating protein by some means if the material, conditions, and time are available. In fact, l believe in what the Imams pbut have said, and what cosmologists and biologists predict: that the universe is filled with organisms, and we are not alone.
What I wanted to make clear is that abiogenesis is a dilemma that science has not solved, for it hasn’t found a way around the problem of the availability of material and conditions suitable for the emergence of life, or let us say, as we believe, the implementation of the first genetic plan, or the seed of the genetic plan, out of inorganic chemical substances that evolved until it reached its purpose: the human being, and the human genetic plan.
In conclusion, there is no hypothesis of scientific value to explain the emergence of life on the earth in a logical and acceptable way without postulating the occurrence of things that are scientifically impossible. Therefore, there is a logical and acceptable opportunity, at least up to this point, to assume the intervention of a god along with the unseen aspect in order to explain abiogenesis alongside those unlikely, or quasi-impossible-to-occur hypotheses.
However, let us examine the hypothesis that the opposing party-the atheist party—clings to, which is that inorganic primordial chemical replicators, made of crystals or clay, produced protein, or that the earth was a bowl of left-handed amino acid soup, and that the number of attempts were sufficient (just like that, without having a scientific, logical, achievable explanation for the availability of this substance).
Then, after all of this we acquired our protein composed of only left- handed amino acids. If this had happened, would it negate the truth that Dawkins and other like-minded atheists are trying to overlook: that the genetic plan is compound, complex, law-abiding, linguistic, and it achieves a purpose—as we shall demonstrate—therefore indicating a lawmaker and a speaker? If they reject that He, or a deputy of His, is the lawmaker of the genetic plan, with Him being the unseen reason behind its emergence on the earth, and if they insist that only natural causes are the reason for its emergence, then how will they negate or overlook the fact that it proceeds toward a purpose, obeys laws, and uses a language, all of which cause it to function, and indicate the purposeful one who created and spoke through its law?!
Is it possible for us to say that the plans for a building or a bridge, when successfully implemented, obey laws, are written in an engineering language, and that the one who wrote it is conscious, yet not say the same when we see the genetic plan implemented and functional?
Does our language indicate that we are conscious of meanings and intend meanings, yet the genetic language does not indicate that its creator or speaker realizes and intends to achieve a particular meaning or purpose with it?!
I believe any rational person would say that if our language indicates that we are intelligent beings and that we intend to achieve meanings, then the genetic language indicates that there is a speaker and purposeful being behind it, especially since it has achieved clear purposes that have now become known to us, such as intelligence—the best survival machine.

[1] If you wall: up and down a pebbly beach, you will notice that the pebbles are not arranged at random. The smaller pebbles typically tend to be found in segregated zones running along the length of the beach, the larger ones in different zones or stripes. The pebbles have been sorted, arranged, selected. A tribe living near the shore might wonder at this evidence of sorting or arrangement in the world, and might develop a myth to account for it, perhaps attributing it to a Great Spirit in the sky with a tidy mind and a sense of order” (Dawkins 1986, 43). -This will be discussed later in the book.
[2] ln addition, all of this still will not produce a eukaryotic cell that is suitable for evolution and speciation. The best that can be obtained is the production of a self-replicating protein. Let’s say the best possible scenario is that this protein can become a living bacterial cell through evolution. Bacterial cells differ from the cells of plant and animal organisms, which are eukaryotic. Commonly known organisms are scientifically divided into bacteria which are prokaryotes, and eukaryotes, which contain organelles. The transformation of an organism from a bacteria to a eukaryote qualified for evolution and speciation is a complex issue, and the probability of its occurrence is rather low. If we were to calculate it, we might enter the same probability maze as before. Margulis’ theory says that eukaryotic cells, such as the cells in our bodies, result from the merging of different types of bacteria. For example, there are mitochondria within the nuclei of our cells that have DNA that is different than the cell’s primary DNA. This means that some type of union occurred in the past, which is why there is more than one type of cellular DNA. The mitochondria are self-replicating, and this means that there is more than one replication mechanism in eukaryotes. However, mitochondria usually come only from the mother, because the ovum is large enough to accommodate mitochondria, unlike the sperm, which is small. Therefore, we can track the female ancestor through mitochondrial DNA, just as we can track the male ancestor through the Y chromosome since it exists only in male sperm. The chloroplast, an eukaryotic cellular organelle that exists in plants, contains DNA that is different than the plant’s primary DNA.

First: The Theory of Abiogenesis (The First Seed)

maxresdefaultThe theory of evolution is actually divided into two parts—or almost two separate theories—that explain the emergence, development, and evolution of life on this earth. The first part, or the first theory, is concerned with explaining the emergence of the first life, or the origin of life on the earth from nonliving matter. The second part, or the second theory, is concerned with explaining the evolution and development of life from that first seed. So it makes sense for us to discuss
the origin of life first, and after that we will turn to the discussion of development.
First: The Theory of Abiogenesis (The First Seed)
Biologists believe that each living cell contains the secret of material life by which replication, growth, and reproduction occur. That secret is the chromosome, the location where information is stored. The chromosomes carry DNA, consisting of non-homogeneous sequences of four different nucleotides (A-T-C-G). These four types of nucleotides represent the letters of the genetic language that are used for writing and storing information. The information is copied during the replication process when DNA is duplicated. Therefore, DNA can be considered the component that represents life, because it carries information for replicating itself and producing proteins, and therefore results in reproduction and growth. Variation can occur as a result of the mixing of male and female DNA, or due to mutations that occur specifically during the duplication process, or in some cases, due to radioactive bombardment. Another nucleic acid, known as RNA, is used as a mediator for transmitting information during DNA replication and protein production.
The information in DNA is read by RNA and translated into either a new copy of DNA so that reproduction can occur, or into protein chains that affect the shape and behavior of the cell so that growth can take place. So what makes liver cells different than intestinal cells is the genes that were expressed as a plan for their construction. These pieces of information, or genes, are written in a law-abiding way, and in a precise language, in order for the meaning to reach RNA. Then, either DNA replication takes place, or protein chains are produced. Therefore, we have factories and an industry based on a law-abiding, linguistic plan (i.e. the information, or genes).
There is more than one hypothesis or theory of abiogenesis. One theory is that a group of meteors carrying amino acids struck the earth billions of years ago and a primordial soup of left-handed amino acids formed in the water on the earth. Then, either a self-replicating protein or RNA happened to form. Another theory is that chemical materials that self-replicate emerged first, until we reached life, or DNA.

Is Creationism Acceptable Based On Scientific Method?


Truly, anyone who has a basic background in evolution and how it occurs scientifically, or has read a book by any scientist of evolution and examined their responses to arguments, or has simply read the book that Darwin wrote in the nineteenth century where he included and responded to numerous arguments, and then proceeds to examine the words that those who call themselves religious authorities and religious scholars have written, will find that they address issues that they know nothing about. They don’t even understand evolution, or how it occurs according to scientists. Instead, they have understood evolution in a backward way, and then proceeded to argue in an extremely superficial and simplistic manner based on that backward understanding. We also find them repeating Darwin’s original arguments—that Darwin had already presented and refuted in his book—similar to how they present superficial arguments in an attempt to refute the accuracy of the principles and methods of historical geology used to determine the age of the older rock layers, even though the accuracy of these methods is undeniable.
They argue against the theory of evolution, asking why the circumcision of children isn’t inherited, and why an ape that is trained to walk doesn’t pass the walking trait down to its offspring, When average people read these arguments, people who don’t know what evolution is—they might fall for them. But they are simplistic arguments to those who understand the theory of evolution and how it works. The traits that are inherited by the next generation are those written in the genetic plan of the organism. They are not acquired traits, like the walking of a trained ape or the circumcision of a child. This is self-evident to evolutionary biologists.
On the other hand, some of the people who challenge the theory of evolution assume that evolutionary biology states that compound and complex organs such as the eye came into existence through a single mutation. Not even Darwin says that, let alone modern scientists. They are supposed to be refuting what is taught in well-established universities around the world. These universities don’t teach that com pound and complex organs such as the eye came into existence through a single mutation, or even tens or hundreds of mutations. In fact, they are ignorant of the basics of the theory of evolution. So these people present a distorted version of the theory, and respond based on their erroneous understanding of it. This is nauseating for whoever reads their books, and it makes them conclude that they are completely defeated in the face of evolution, as well as the atheist movement, the movement that they are trying to confront using single-burst creationism that excludes evolution. This theory contradicts not only biology, historical geology and archeology, but also the literal meaning of religious scriptures as well. This will be clarified when we discuss religious scriptures, like the Quran, which clearly indicate that creation occurred in many stages and through evolution.
A single question is enough to topple single-burst creationism that excludes evolution. It has definitely, and undoubtedly, already been proven through historical geology, that when the rock layer is older, it contains organisms of lower rank, and when the layer is newer, it contains organisms more developed than the ones in the layers that preceded it. The issue is one of development: moving from bacteria to eukaryotes to multicellular organisms, reaching the fish of the ancient world, passing through the vertebrates and fish, then amphibians and land animals, then mammals, then the diversity of mammals and increasing size, and so on. So the question is: why did God create living things in multiple bursts in different time periods, while in each period creating a group more developed than their predecessors, so that whoever sees them believes that they have evolved from the earlier ones? Do those who deny evolution think that God wants to deceive us?! God is far above that.
Do they have a logical, scientific explanation—other than evolution—for these bursts that succeed each other in time, development, and complexity? For example, if we were to take the whales and dolphins that now live in water, that are considered to have evolved from mammals that lived on land, we would find—in the fossils discovered so far—a chain of intermediate organisms appearing consecutively over time, each one separated from the other by millions of years.
They started as land mammals, then gradually developed so as to descend into and live in the water. We find that each group evolves progressively toward living easily in water, until we eventually reach the whale. Is there a reasonable explanation or answer as to why God created these creatures over consecutive time periods, so that whoever sees them determines that the whale is an inevitable result of this chain of organisms that appeared consecutively over time, and progressively evolved towards life in water?!
I believe there is no logical answer except evolution. Otherwise, the alternative answer, which contradicts science, would be to accuse God Almighty of doing all of this in order to deceive the people, but He is far above that.
We look at whales and dolphins and we find that they swim by bending their bodies up and down in a manner identical to land mammals when they run. They don’t swim like fish that, in most cases, bend from side to side. When we observe whales, we find that they give birth and feed milk produced by mammary glands to their young in exactly the same way as mammals.
Sometimes the opponents of evolution also resort to books by biologists and geneticists who are resistant to, or critical of, the theory of evolution, without recognizing that some of them don’t deny evolution, but instead simply regard it as a controlled process, or present it in a novel way. For example, scientists disagree -about how mutation works (its speed, pausing, etc.) to affect biological diversity. There is a tremendous difference between those who say that the theory of evolution is true, with a god directing it, and those who say it is false,
Their shared belief is that a god exists, not that the theory of evolution is false. Furthermore, not every statement by a biologist has scientific value. One should not just present an opinion, especially when it is the opinion he has adopted. Supporting evidence should also be presented in order for people to see whether it has scientific value, or if it has already been scientifically refuted, and then the issue will be settled. There are universities and research centers around the world that adopt precise scientific standards and have people who evaluate research papers, books, and critiques of scientific theories. If there was a valuable scientific critique by an expert, these universities and scientific centers would have quickly embraced it, and it would be published and promoted, and scientific seminars would be held to discuss it.
However, what we see is the exact opposite. Today, in all the well-known universities around the world, the theory of evolution is the only explanation for the existence of life on the earth. Whoever wants ‘to search for the truth themselves by conducting scientific research should at least acquire sufficient knowledge in historical geology, evolutionary biology, genetics, anthropology and archeology, They should then read the scientific critiques of the theory of evolution, as well as the responses to them, so as to make their position scientifically solid and valuable, However, if someone says that some biologist has responded to the theory of evolution in some book, or some scientist said something about the theory of evolution so it is false, or if one refers to someone who is not even a specialist when evaluating the theory, then these are truly contrived and unscientific stances. When you read their scientific reviews, you sometimes find they lack any credibility, since some of them present the theory of evolution in a twisted, backward way, and then respond to it. It is as if the responses are intended for the average person who doesn’t know anything about the theory of evolution, and are meant to be a marketing tool for their insignificant research. There is no scientific basis for these responses. Rather, they are based on the fact that their authors have advanced degrees in biology, or in a field that is not even relevant to the topic, such as cosmology.
In summary, whoever says that they want to refute the theory of evolution shouldn’t distort or twist it. He must refute the theory as it is presented in well-established universities around the world today, not as he imagines it, or as the opponents of the theory have incorrectly presented it.
A note of caution: I have noticed that those who reject the theory of evolution repeat the same arguments that evolution scientists have already presented and responded to themselves. This is inappropriate for whoever claims to have knowledge and claims to be scientifically refuting the theory. They should read and recognize that evolution scientists have already responded to their arguments, some of which were presented by Darwin himself in the nineteenth century. Therefore, whoever repeats the same arguments is either incapable of discussing and refuting the responses of the evolution scientists to these arguments, or he hasn’t read what evolution scientists have written and doesn’t know that they were the first to present and respond to these argument as well as dozens of other arguments. In either case, it was inappropriate for them to put anything down in writing without knowledge.