Tale Vol

What is the best place to buy Doctor Who DVDs in Australia?

Evidently, Doctor Who is more popular than I thought. I’ve just been browsing through online DVD stores for a while and everywhere I look they’re either on ‘LOW STOCK’ or ‘OUT OF STOCK’ or ‘ON ORDER.’
The DVDs are also very expensive. I own Series 3 box set and Volumes 1, 2, 3 & 5 of Series 2. I’m trying to track down Series 2, Vol 4 and the Series 1 box set, but everywhere I look, on the internet, in EzyDVD, JB HI-FI they don’t have any in stock.
Everywhere I’ve looked has a very limited range of the series and all the box sets appear to be ‘SOLD OUT’ except for a couple from the Classic Doctor Who that ran from 1963 to 1989 like the “K9 TALES” DVD set.
(I don’t want any Classic Doctor Who DVDs, that is, ones that were made before 2005. I am of the new generation and like the revived Series.)

I’ve ordered the ones I want through EzyDVD but is there a website or store you can suggest which is cheaper and has a better range?

I would recommend the ABC store or if not you should be able to find it in the store of the official Doctor Who website.
Best Of Luck Mate.:)

Darwin National Geographic error

The November issue of National Geographic magazine (NG) posed the question "Was Darwin wrong?" on its front cover. Natural scientist David Quammen, author of the article of the same name, replied "No" to that question from their perspective, and stated that the theory of Darwinian evolution today received the backing of powerful scientific evidence. Quammen repeat the main claims of Darwin's Origin of species, but overlooked an important detail.

Darwin added another chapter to his book, one called "The difficulties in the theory" and admitted openly the existence of difficulties in these terms:

Such is the sum of the various objections and difficulties that can justly be key against my theory … I have felt these difficulties far too heavily for many years to doubt their weight. 1

The fact is, however, that article was not discussed GN one of the phenomena that Darwin regarded as a problem for his theory, and even ignored their existence. For example, although Darwin referred in his book to the way the fossil record does not support your theory and complexity in the eye, NG magazine did not even touch on issues that the theory of evolution is unable to explain how the explosion Cambrian biological complexity and the origin of genetic information.

Quammen, who thus appears to be more of a Darwinist than Darwin himself, emerged as the defender not a theory that can account for the difficulties, but a "dogma" that needs to be protected from criticism.

In this article, Quammen called test is analyzed and the Darwinist propaganda launched by the magazine GN refuted.

An example of dogmatic position of Turkey GN

The English edition of this article NG "Was Darwin wrong?" also devoted space to works of Harun Yahya on the theory of evolution. In the section that describes the reactions worldwide against the trends of the following words appeared in reference to Harun Yahya:

His discomfort has its paralleled by Islamic creationists such as Harun Yahya, author of a recent volume titled The Evolution of deception, which points to the story of creation in six days the Koran as the literal truth and calls the theory of evolution "more than a deception imposed on us by the dominators of the world system."

Interestingly, however, did not appear on Harun Yahya Turkish NG version, and this section was altered, taking as follows: "This discomfort shows a parallel between those supporting the Islamic idea of creation. "

As someone who said that his main aim as to describe the philosophy and scientific invalidity Darwinism, Harun Yahya has closely followed the Darwinist propaganda in recent years and has responded, in the light of scientific findings, the pro-evolutionary writings and emissions of organisms, which is NG. (See www.darwinism-watch.com)

If Darwinism really supported by a mass of evidence, as claimed GN in this article, then why GN Turkey trying to prevent scientific criticisms of Harun Yahya to be heard? Could it be that NG Turkey Darwinism was concerned that it will not be able to withstand scientific criticism, for example? In fact, this attitude towards the desktop NG, Turkey not only shows the magazine is not willing to inform their readers of the source of effective criticism of evolution, but also confirms the criticism that is trying to keep up Darwinism as an ideology.

GN is not ready to Face the Modern Scientific Consensus

No doubt that in order to provide a realistic response to the question "Was Darwin wrong?" one has to look at what Darwin actually said, and comparing it with modern scientific facts. In its book The Origin of Species, which unveiled his theory of evolution, Darwin provided a very important criterion by which to test his theory. So concrete is that the criterion that Darwin's own words would "absolutely break down" theory. Darwin wrote:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have been formed by numerous, successive modifications, mild, my theory would absolutely break down. "2

Darwin argued that organisms evolve in a gradual process. Thinking of this imaginary process in reverse, it seems that Darwin assumed that these bodies have reducibility. Without However, advances in the field of biochemistry, especially in the last 40 years have revealed that the cell has a higher complexity, the details were unknown at the time of Darwin, so it is likened to a black "box" and that certain structures within the cell actually possess the characteristic of " irreducible complexity. "

"Irreducible complexity" is a phenomenon based on empirical evidence and, literally, is the antithesis of Darwin's theory. The most important figure in bringing this concept on the agenda of the scientific world is the biochemist Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University in the U.S.. In his book 1996 Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Behe examines the evolution of irreducibly complex nature of the cell and some other biological structures, and reveals that they can not be considered in terms of evolution. Behe states that irreducible complexity has on the claims of Darwinism as follows:

"For Darwin, the cell was a 'black box' – its inner workings were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has open and know how it works. The application of Darwin to test ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered in recent 40 years, we can say that Darwin's theory has' absolutely broken down. "3

Irreducible complexity has demolished Darwinism, and showed that life is the product of intelligent design, that is, that God created all living things. The way the GN seeks to prevent his readers that this is an escape from reality.

Biogeographic stories NG

NG In his article, Quammen begins his account of the evidence for Darwinism called the biogeography, and may be useful to provide a description of this concept at this time. Biogeography is a branch of science that investigates the geographical distribution of species and seeks an answer the question of how they got these regions of the habitat by mapping their locations on the Earth.

Most books in the field biogeography are full of facts that do not say anything for or against, the theory of evolution: the maps of areas of habitat of living species, the characteristics of these areas, issues relating to the spread of organisms, and the grouping of species on the basis of the geographical area … 4

When their distribution is discussed on Earth can see that species do not usually exhibit a worldwide distribution. The species more widespread in large groups in areas have climatic and environmental conditions. Since Darwin, evolutionists have tried to portray this double as evidence for evolution, but with respect to the "categories key of life "of the geographic distribution of their efforts have not reached an evolutionary scenario constant.

In his book Systematics and Biogeography, Nelson G. and N. Platnick New York's American Museum of Natural History discusses the studies in this area and present their conclusions:

We conclude, therefore, that biogeography (or the geographical distribution of organisms) has not been shown that the evidence for or against evolution in any sense. 5

If evolutionists really want to offer evidence of his theory then what they have to do is leave their fairy tales about "if this is living here, then it must have evolved here, and if that life is there, then there must have evolved ", and instead scientifically documented their own answers to the question of how living things are created in the first place. (It is an indisputable fact that the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection can not explain the origin of species.)

The fact that evolutionary claims on the basis of biogeography are myths are no scientific evidence clearly in natural gas inspection of claims about paleontology. The fossil record clearly shows that the idea that living things by evolution transmits is a myth.

NG trick paleontology

GN makes a generalization about the fossil strata, telling his readers that the so-called species closely are generally linked side by side in consecutive layers, and a way of life that dates back millions of years in one stratum is followed by a similar but not identical, one in the posterior layer. As an example of this generalization is mentioned sequence of equine evolutionists, even abandoned for years, maintains the horse of today came at the end of the sequence Hyracotherium, Orohippus, Epihippus and Mohippus, fossils of which are found in consecutive strata.

What are you doing here GN is a blatant deception. The equine sequence is an unfounded one, the invalidity of which has now been demonstrated. That puts things, is presented as a generalization about the fossil record can not be described as anything but an attempt to verify that the widespread and misleading example.

The life forms emerged without parents evolutionary, but in a moment, and with impeccable body structures

Darwin, who argued that living things arose through evolution and graduated they expected the fossil record to confirm that the claim was obtained in future excavations, was wrong. The fossils obtained from the endless excavations conducted by paleontologists from around the world have produced results that openly contradict the idea of change gradually in consecutive layers. These facts relate to the phenomena of sudden appearance and stasis.

Species arise suddenly, without evolutionary progenitors, but with impeccable body structures. In his 1999 book Fossils and Evolution, Tom Kemp, curator of the Zoological Collections in the Oxford University Museum of Natural History supports the following:

In almost all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known forms of stem group. 6

The fossils of hundreds of millions of years old that have no
monitoring the evolution invalidates neo-Darwinism

Moreover, the species do not show a gradual change as suggested in the general NG. The species with life histories of hundreds of millions of years show a "stability" that proves staying over geological strata. The shark, the coelacanth, ants, salamanders and other species, fossils of which have been found and which have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years have led paleontologists to accept stasis as one of the most striking aspects the fossil record. This phenomenon refutes Darwinism prediction of gradual change and invalidate the theory. J. Peter Professor of Geology Williamson described in the journal Nature:

The main problem is morphological stasis. One theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be an explanation general evolutionary process, has failed to predict the general stagnation in the long term morphological now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record. 7

In short, the claim graduated NG change throughout geological strata is a myth supported in the face of the science of paleontology. The form NG is designed to support that myth with the equine sequence only makes matters worse.

Truth in equine sequence that NG seeks to conceal its readers

The equine sequence is based on various ungulate fossils unearthed in North America. Darwinists set these in such a way as to establish a sequence according to the characteristics of the fossils' teeth and number of toes, and for years it as evidence for Darwinism. Continuing the paleontological excavations, however, finally revealed the inconsistencies in the series. GN, known for his blind devotion to Darwinism, is not afraid to hide the development of its readers and the writing that the alleged evolutionary ancestors of the horse occur in consecutive geological strata.

The former editor of the BBC Gordon Rattray Science Taylor describes how the equine sequence is no evidence of Darwinism:

But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change … The horse is often cited as the only fully solved examples. But the fact is that the line of Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged that show a steady increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Samples from different sources together into a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that lined the reality in this order in time. 8

At a meeting in November 1980 at the Museum of Natural History in Chicago, attended by 150 evolutionists, a speaker, Boyce Rensberger said that there was no basis in the fossil record for the scenario of horse evolution, and there is sickness gradual evolution never took place:

The example of evolution, horse popularly said, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes in the fox-sized creatures with four fingers living near 50 million years to this day is much larger than a horse of fingers, has long been known to be incorrect. Instead of a gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species look completely different, remain unchanged and then disappear. Transitional forms are unknown. 9

Discoveries that living things included in the sequence imaginary horse evolution actually lived in the same time, and together, totally refute Quammen. One of the most striking examples of this came to light in 1981. The fossils of thousands of living creatures 10 million years, which had been buried by lava, as a result of a volcanic eruption and whose skeletons were preserved until today, were unearthed U.S. in the state of Nebraska. With this discovery it was learned that three horses and one point supposed to have lived at different times and have ancestral relationships between them in the context of the evolutionary sequence of imaginary horse, side by side actually lived. Interestingly, the source of this information NG's magazine. 10

The myth of whale evolution

I do not see any difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale. 11

From Fishing along observation bears a riverbank, Darwin expounded his ideas on the origin of whales in these words in his book The Origin of Species, although Fernando has decided to delete that section in later editions of the book. However, evolutionists who came after Darwin had no doubts about the adoption of this myth, with several minor amendments, which came down as a monument to the open nature of his imagination. Continued to propagate the myth that the whale did not evolve from the bear, but of other land mammals, as if it were a scientific fact.

We now see that the GN, one of the leading representatives of Darwinian mythology, are behaving differently, and is trying to portray this great myth, supported in the interests of the dogma of evolution, as a representative evidence of evolution.

There are huge differences in terms of basic physiological characteristics such as water conservation, the view and the communication between whales and land mammals that were allegedly parent. Now consider the dilemma facing the scientific myth evolution by examining the project on whales:

The special design of water conservation in the bodies of whales

Despite living in water, whales are unable to meet their water needs of saltwater from the sea. They need fresh water to live. Although no one knows exactly how to meet their needs water, it is thought that a large part of it is obtained by eating sea creatures that contain salt levels are 30% lower than the ocean water.In this environment, where water Candy is very low, the maximum conservation of water in living bodies things "and the minimum consumption of it are fundamental. The water levels are of great importance for whales, so, like camels, whales do not perspire. Your kidneys regulate the concentration of urine, so that the water supply.

Why is whale fat milk?

Another delicate balance with respect to the needs of water appears in the level of fat in the milk of the female whale. The mother whale feeds its young with a very thick milk, cheese consistency. This milk is ten times more fat than human milk. There is a reason why this chemical Milk contains such a high level of fat. Water is produced as a byproduct as the fat is processed after being consumed by the baby. In this way the mother meets the needs of their offspring by the water with minimal water loss.

The design in the eyes of the whales'

There are complex arrangements in the whale eye design and communication systems, there are no examples of which are found in terrestrial mammals. Land mammals have eyelids to protect against dust and impact. Whales, by contrast, have a hard layer of protection against a danger, the pressure under the sea. Moreover, the index measured in the whale eye design enables a killer whale to jump and catch a fish six feet above the water level in an amusement park with an accuracy considerable. In addition, the eyes of whales are on both sides of the head, unlike terrestrial mammals, protecting them from the stream. With levels rod and cones in the eye, their levels of sensitivity to light, color and other details are high. In addition to that relationship, the presence of phosphorus in the eyes is a design which facilitates their ability to see in the dark depths of the oceans.

The mathematical calculation used by whales

The sense used for the whales in the location of food sources and each other is not really in sight, but rather hearing. Many whaling in the dark regions at the bottom of the sea thanks to a natural form of "sonar." brain of the whale emits clicking sounds in a manner not yet well understood by scientists. The distance of a object is determined by a mathematical calculation. The whale brain multiplies the speed at which the sounds they emit bounce hits an object and the time necessary for this, and divide the result by two. The result is the distance from the object itself. On the other hand, the whale also has the ability to focus sound waves to your brain at a point specific and issue these as a light pulse. Returned waves are analyzed and interpreted in the brain of the animal. This interpretation determines the shape of the body to she, her size, speed and position. The skull of the animal is sound-proof to protect the bombing of the powerful sound waves that constantly emits and which could even severely damage the brain itself. The sound system in the animal is incredibly sensitive, so much so that the U.S. Navy mimics the sound design in mammals marine technology development itself. 12

Special designs for whales

Perfect designs in whales are by no means limited to them. The shape of the mouth of the whale has been designed in such a way that is ideal for adapting to the teats of their mother, the calf is able to suckle without losing a drop of milk and without taking a drop of seawater. On the other hand, have lungs capable of storing high levels of oxygen for long dives and a membrane designed ear to protect high pressure.

These agreements, each of which indicates a clear design, they have something special for whales and should not be found in mammals land. GN, however, expects readers to set aside reason and I think all of these occurred by chance. GN denies that the whales have been designed so Smart, maintaining instead that one day decided to live a land mammal in the sea and the whale evolved as a result of unconscious mechanisms, such as random mutation and natural selection.

However, what the mutation could produce sound in a mammal that was supposedly the mother of the whale? Taking into account the effect of the mutations and the importance of the brain to the survival of the whale, it is clear that mutations that damage the brain, damaging or killing the whale. Could the brain, which produces sound waves, being able to focus these on a particular point and determine the location of objects using a mathematical calculation, acquire a perfect sound in an area damaged during this process to chance? What coincidence could produce the sound of a quality so high that even units U.S. Navy technological development have not been able to match it? What mutations could turn the foot of a land mammal into fins and a tail capable of propelling several tons of weight?

There is no doubt that these issues will also be asked to respect the systems that make it possible to use water productively, suction system and protection systems in the eye and ear. However, NG has no reasonable answer to give to these questions. There is only one answer. The whales were created fully formed at one time. God created the whales to be impeccable, endowed with all the systems to their needs, as did all other living things. In a verse of the Koran reveals that:

The humanity! remember God's blessing for you. Is there any creator other than God foresees that from heaven and earth? There is no god but He: So how has been perverted? (Qur'an, 35: 3)

(For an answer more detailed history of whales fantastic view http://www.harunyahya.com/70national_geographic_sci29.php NG)

NG error regarding embryology

Another error in the article in NG Quammen is the repetition of a myth, once known as the "law of recapitulation." This belonged to the German biologist Ernst Haeckel and his claim regarding the embryology Darwin was heavily "inspired" by Haeckel. The law of recapitulation argues that development living embryological stages is repeated imaginary decline suffered during the alleged evolutionary ancestors.

The fact that Quammen devotes considerable space to this in his article reveals a huge gap of knowledge on your part. Exceptions along the lines that Haeckel's claims lacked scientific justification and that the evidence offered was forged 136 years ago13 began, and the end of the recapitulation law came as a matter of scientific debate as early as 80 years ago 14. Even George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, admitted this fact 42 years ago in the words:

Haeckel inaccuracy of the evolutionary principle involved. It has been firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny. 15

Moreover, the myth of recapitulation, which has no qualms GN recapitulating itself implying a British embryologist referred to 1997 as "best known fraud in the history of biology." In his book Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The Natural History of Creation), written in 1868, Haeckel deliberately distorted images humans, monkeys and dogs embryos so that the support of his claim.

One striking aspect of this fraud is also a monument "Centenario" Darwinian dogmatism. Until recently, a number of sources Darwinist including textbooks, then either use the pictures were fake, or repeat the myth of recapitulation. Professor at Harvard University and evolutionary Stephen Jay Gould shows great common sense and offers the following criticisms:

… [W] e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in many if not most, of modern textbooks! 16

NG did not use false drawings. However, no doubt about the use recapitulation, the invalidity of which resulted in at least 80 years ago, as support for Darwinism.

We urge NG to consider the words of Stephen Jay Gould.

NG errors with respect to morphology

Quammen exhibits an attitude of reflection in this section in regard to the claims of Darwin on the subject of morphology. The form is organized in a zoo birds, monkeys, big cats, crocodiles and fish in the aquarium is interpreted as evidence of evolution. As Quammen, the fact that living beings can be classified under a hierarchical system of families, orders and kingdoms must be the product of an evolutionary process.

However, the hierarchical classification Quammen portrait as evidence for evolution is nonsense. This is because the fact that life forms can be classified hierarchically is not a prediction was first introduced by evolutionists and confirmed. The Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus, the father of modern classification system, was a scientist who believes in creation out of nothing and believes that the classification as intelligent product design. That is consistent with what we see with our own eyes and based on common sense. The ability to be classified hierarchically is a feature well-known intelligent design. Means of transport, for example, can be classified as land, sea and air vehicles, and can be divided into subcategories and sub- even lower. However, this classification does not indicate that the modes of transport in question was born through evolution.

In fact, in an article published in the journal New Scientist, a prominent evolutionist Mark Ridley makes the following statement:

The mere fact that the species can be classified hierarchically in genera, families, and so on, is not an argument for evolution. It is possible to classify any set of objects in a hierarchy if the change is evolutionary or not. 17

preconception of Quammen

In the same way that what Quammen writes about this issue far from supporting his claim, but also reveals how prejudice and not based on scientific evidence:

This pattern of tiered resemblances? Groups of similar species nested within groupings extensive, and all who are descended from a single source? is not naturally present among other collections of articles. You will not find anything equivalent if you try to classify rocks, or musical instruments or jewelry. Why not? Because rock types and styles of jewelry do not reflect unbroken descent from common ancestors. Biodiversity not. The number of common features between one species and another indicates how long ago two species split from a common ancestry. (P. 13)

Quammen placed in the hierarchical classification of living beings in a separate place, arguing that it reflects a continuous chain of descent from an ancestor common. This term, however, is labeled helpless in a desperate attempt to agree Quammen Darwin.

As evidenced above, there fossil record can be proposed as evidence of an evolutionary relationship between categories of life. The words of the leading evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches" are an admission of fact that does not exist evidence of the supposed evolutionary relationships between living things. 18

In summary, the origin of the evolutionary chain of descent that exists between the claims Quammen categories of life is not a scientific fact, as the fossil record, but their dogmatic mentality.

The skeletal structure of five-digit error

Quammen argues that the way in which various vertebrates such as bats, dolphins and humans share the characteristic of having five digits is derived from the offspring of a common ancestor. This assertion is based on the fact that, although not the same basic plan in the front and rear legs of the living things concerned, these can still be easily differentiated (claim homological). This demand can Quammen, of course, only to deceive readers who are not aware of the facts of modern science. Advances in molecular biology definitely invalidate this claim based on morphology. One surprising discovery that led to this is that the production of these organs, which is supposed inheritance from a common ancestor, is in fact controlled by different genes in different creatures.

Evolutionary biologist William Fix describes the collapse of the evolutionary thesis about pentadactylism (having five digits) in this area in the face of this discovery:

The older textbooks on evolution that much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious similarities between skeletons of members of different animals. Thus, the `pentadactyl 'limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, wing of a bird, and fin of a whale, and this is carried out to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make sense either. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous now are known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes in the hands of a common ancestor is broken. 19

NG Vestigial Darwinism

Quammen does not show a remarkable determination to understand the fact that Darwin's claims have been demolished by modern science. One indication of this is his repetition of the complaint regarding vestigial organs, an assertion that is wholly illusory. It retained in the article that organs like the male nipple, structures claimed to be the remains of hind legs in certain snakes, or beetles covered wings not actually used, are redundant, no function bodies remnant of the evolutionary process. Quammen is clearly ignoring the final results of scientific development:

The list of 180 alleged vestigial organs in the early 20th century was finally reduced to almost none in the face of scientific research findings. One by one, we learned that a large number of bodies such as the appendix and the semilunar fold, once it is assumed that rudimentary organs, are actually functions.20 "Science" In any case, the process by which humans come to know what was previously unknown. The gradual emergence of organ function that time was considered a relic shows that, of course, the functions of the past few organs whose functions are still unknown will be revealed soon.

In fact, a great many evolutionists have admitted today that the myth of "vestigial organs" is an argument rooted in ignorance. In an article titled "No Plot Vestigial Organs Evidence for Evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory, the SR Scadding evolutionary biologist admits this fact:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and because the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution. 21

Evolutionists claim "On the issue of organ remains vestigialism not derived from any of these organs, but the nature of the remains of their own perspectives. The existence of any living only proves the existence of God, his creator. The way that inanimate and unconscious atoms combine to produce a sight, smell, touch and seeing human being is the proof of God's perfect creation. That's because it is impossible for the atoms, which can not smell, hear or see, the desire for perception and combine to this purpose. For a sample of the material to stand and see himself in front of a mirror, or like material and touch in itself has no place in the logic of evolution. These feelings can only be explained in terms of a superior creation, ie the existence of God and His perfect creation. Despite this self-evident truth same, evolutionists maintain irrational and blind belief that they are the product of matter and blind chance, demonstrating that its claim regarding the bodies vestigial is a perspective based on this prejudice and dogma.

The realization that the organs considered as vestigial by evolutionists have in actually functions is a proof. For example, the structures appear as vestiges of the hind legs of certain species of snakes are currently known to help to hold one another during mating. To regard the male nipple as the product of an evolutionary process is also based on a distorted logic. If male nipple were reminiscent of an evolutionary process, then men should have evolved from a population consisting solely of women, is a scene so unimaginable that no evolutionist has felt able to accept it. Coleoptera, another example cited by Quammen, are also no evidence of evolution. Insect species that do not develop a functional wing are usually seen in open habitats, with strong winds, such as oceanic islands. In an environment where the winds blow strong and surrounded by large bodies of water, insects able to fly in no way is an advantage, and may even be dangerous. This is because the insects that fly in the air are exposed to the effects of wind and can be launched on trees or rocks, finally crippled or dead. There may, therefore, has been a tendency to move toward a lifestyle based on land. Over time, the population of insects that live near the floor is to consist of individuals who do not develop wings and void. This is because, unlike flying insects, mutations that prevent the insects that live close to ground level in developing wings can not be harmful to the insect (in the provision that do not cause a total breakdown in their physiology).

A mutation that prevents the development of the wing of a flying insect living in a perfect environment influences winds would be harmful and perhaps even lethal. This is because typically an insect that uses its wings to feed and avoid predators that have wings without function because the mutation and would be unable to survive and thus eliminate the population.

Moreover, in insects that live in a habitat affected by the wind and used his feet to move in the same way that non-flying insects, a mutation in the wings could not have lethal consequences. This is because the insect will already be accustomed to a lifestyle that does not use the wings, and not make any difference if their wings are healthy or otherwise lose their function due a mutation (if the mutation in question is one that affects the general physiology of the insect). In summary, mutations that lead to destructive loss of the wings of an insect can not be lethal in an environment in which the wings are in any case does not matter.

However, it can be said that the beetle is assumed to have undergone a process represent evidence of evolution. The theory of evolution proposes that organs gradually assume a more complex. Genetics proposed change to support this statement must be such as to add new genetic information from DNA to creatures. "Clearly, however, that beetles do not get any new genetic information during this process and that, by contrast, suffer a loss of information in the genes control the development of the wing.

Can this acquisition of genetic information, which is not seen in beetles, can be seen in any other living thing? Definitely not. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate the emergence of a new body, or even a new protein, through random mutations.

In summary, the theory of evolution maintains that living things acquire new organs with the addition of new genetic information in their DNA, but the vestigial organ argument is that it refers to a loss of function, ie a loss of genetic data. Therefore, vestigial organs provide no scientific support to the theory of evolution. The reason for the evolutionary determination to place this claim on the scientific agenda is psychological rather than scientific. Your screen of blind devotion to materialism leads them to adopt a vestigial eye to the evident truth of creation. (You can read the article by Harun Yahya that destroys the point vestigial evolutionary view here. Http: / / www.darwinism-watch.com/hurriyet_science0407.php)

James P. Gills, MD, founder of St. Luke's Cataract and Laser Institute in Tarpon Springs, Florida, is a creationist scientist. It is also a world-renowned ophthalmologist. In his book Darwinism in the Microscope, Gills cites a large number of creating tests that completely undermine evolution, and writes that the only reason why scientists still insist evolution is the spiritual waterfall thought of themselves as the product of blind chance. 22

The error of thinking that resistance to antibiotics and DDT is evidence of evolution

The article deals with GN to show that the immunity of bacteria to antibiotics and insect resistance to pesticides like DDT is evidence of evolution. On the issue of resistance to the microbes seem to develop drugs Quammen trust states:

There is no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory this process of forced transformation among our anti germs. (P. 21)

However, the enthusiasm Quammen bacterial immunity to portray as evidence of evolution is totally out of place. It then explains why these two phenomena do not represent evidence for Darwinism.

The first of the molecules "mortal" used against micro-organisms was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Flamenco discovered a molecule that killed Staphylococcus bacteria to mold, after which antibiotics taken from micro-organisms were used against various bacteria. Although it seemed at first to final results had been obtained, the truth later emerged: the bacteria are acquiring resistance to antibiotics. The vast majority of bacteria to antibiotics exposed die, but they remain a small minority are concerned that quickly multiply and eventually come to constitute the entire population. Therefore all population becomes resistant to the antibiotic.

However, there is no question of the bacteria through mutations in development here, because the bacteria already possess the characteristics in question before being exposed to antibiotics. Despite being an evolutionist publication, Scientific American magazine admitted these made in its March 1998 edition:

Many bacteria possess resistance genes even before commercial antibiotics came into use. Scientists do not I know exactly why these genes evolved and were maintained. 23

Insects develop resistance to pesticides such as DDT in the same way, and, again Similarly, this is not an evidence of evolution.

The prominent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala accepts the truth of this in the words:

The genetic variants required for resistance to various types of pesticides were apparently present in each of the populations exposed to these compounds by man. 24

One of those to carry out further investigation on this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner. In his book not by chance published in 1997, showed that bacterial Spetner immunity is caused by two different mechanisms, but these do not provide support for the theory of evolution. For more details on this topic, see # Q19 and http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_01.html http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions05.php)

Another piece called test Article NG, plus the resistance of bacteria and insects, refers to genetic similarities.

The delusion that evolution can be observed

NG asserts that evolution is actually seen in nature and in the laboratory. This, however, is a fantastic and baseless assertion. In an article entitled "How do you form new species?" published in the June 14, 2003, edition of New Scientist, George Turner made the following significant "Admission"

Not long ago, we thought we knew how species formed. We believe that the process almost always started with complete isolation of populations. It often appears after the population had gone through a severe "genetic bottleneck", as might happen after a pregnant woman was dragged out to a remote island and their offspring mated with each other. The beauty of this so-called founder effect "model" was that it could be tested in the laboratory. In fact, just did not hold up. Despite evolutionary biologists' best efforts, no one has even approached the creation of a new species from a founder population. Moreover, as we know, no new species was formed as a result of the release of a small human beings number of organisms in extraterrestrial environments. 25

As we have seen, evolutionists do not really know how new species are formed. In other words, the statement Quammen is about being able to witness evolution in action is totally unfounded. The fact that the long years of study carried out by the scholarships in the finch beak length in the Galapagos Islands is cited in support is the result of Darwinism to represent variations distort the evidence itself. (For more information, see http://www.harunyahya.com/nas04.php)

Conclusion

As we have seen, Darwin was wrong. National Geographic to raise the issue of whether he was wrong is as ridiculous as ask, "Was Freud wrong?" or "Was Marx wrong?" This is because, like Freudianism and Marxism, Darwinism is a theory that has come the end of his life. We call on NG magazine to abandon its support for this outdated myth and accept that creation is the true origin of life.

What GN have to do is to set aside their prejudices and stop supporting Darwinism as a dogma, and to address the scientific evidence that detracts theory. The findings in past 40 years, in particular, have shown definitively naturalistic philosophy void in the heart of Darwinism. If GN is embracing this fact will that the organized complexity of life and the genetic information that determines the point that intelligent design, that is, that life has evolved on their own through of chance and natural phenomena, but it was "created."

NG – and all Darwinists others – have so far avoided dealing with this, and can therefore be used to conceal the difficulties facing his theory. However, they should be aware that this escape is of no use to keep alive his theory. This is because greater development in the world of science is a notice that the age of the affairs of swept under the carpet has come to an end.

The way in which the movement intelligent design, which has been sweeping through the U.S. in the last 10 years, have one to one placed at the discovery of the dogmas of Darwinism, has become the focus of great interest. The intellectual foundation of this movement is the "Intelligent Design Theory." The theory in question holds that the complex biological structures containing large amounts of information can only be explained in terms of causes based on intelligence, and that these causes can be empirically studied in the field of biology. 26

One indication that the intelligent design movement can represent the dynamics of great cultural change is the way that is effectively and comprehensively the evidence reveals that as long taught as evidence for Darwinism in schools is actually in mythology deception, misrepresentation and even fraud. University of California Berkeley, Professor Phillip E. Johnson, the leader of the movement, emphasizes that Darwinism are passed to the dustbin of history sometime in this century. 27

It will be used here to remind GN of damage caused by maintenance in certain its defense policy in no criticism of Darwinism. It should be remembered that the GN announced the discovery of the fossil discovered in China Archaeoraptor as proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs, without waiting to be described in scientific journals are concerned. Later, however, realized that the fossil does not represent a missing link at all, but it was a fake "produced" by a Chinese peasant.26 Because of their blind devotion to Darwinism GN has not hesitated to adopt this fossil as a "test" unscientific methods, and later was found in "modern paleontology greatest shame." 29

According to the ornithologist Dr. Storrs Olson, "National Geographic has reached a very low level for the exercise of sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism." 30

The representation of the claim in the summary, which killed at least 80 years ago, as evidence of evolution in the NG article "Was Darwin wrong "shows that it lacks the seriousness of science and continues his baseless journalism, the tabloid press." NG is not behaving wisely. Maintaining this approach does not provide all the support for Darwinism. By contrast, NG are documenting their own dogmatism in an increasingly evident.

NG invite to consider these points and to accept that the creation of the true origin of life.

There is no doubt that the Lord of all living things on Earth, in heaven, and among them is God. In a verse from the Quran God reveals that:

Your God is one God. There is no god but He, the Merciful, Gracious. (Qur'an, 2: 163)

Under the pen name Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar has written some 250 works. His books contain a total of 46,000 pages and 31,500 illustrations. Of these books, 7,000 pages and 6,000 illustrations deal with the collapse of the theory of evolution. You can read, for free, all the books Adnan Oktar has written under the pen name Harun Yahya on these websites www.harunyahya.com

1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library.
2. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the first edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.
3. Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996
4. For more information about evolutionary theory in biogeography, see Walter J. ReMine, "The Biotic Message: Evolution versus Message Theory", San Pablo de la Science, 1 ed edition, 1993. Page 538.
5. G. Nelson and N. Platnick, Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and vicariance, Columbia University Press, 1981, p. 223.
6. Fossils and evolution Dr TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, University of Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 246.
7. Peter G. Williamson, "and morphological stasis restricting development: the real problems of neo-Darwinism, "Nature, vol. 294, November 19, 1981, p. 214; Stephen E. Jones, http://members.iinet.net.au/ Sihon ~ /
8. Gordon Rattray Taylor, The great evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 230.
9. Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5 1980, p. 15.
10. MR Voorhies, "The old ashfall Create a Pompeii of prehistoric animals," National Geographic Vol 159, No. 1, January 1981 pp.67-68, 74, "Horse Search defies Evolution" Creation Ex Nihilo 5 (3): January 15, 1983, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3723.asp
11. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the first edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 184.
12. Dolphin Sonar to detect mines, ScienceNOW 1998: 2
13 Rutimeyer L., "Referate," Archiv für Anthropologie, 1868
Keith S. Thompson 14, "recapitulates ontogeny and phylogeny ', American Scientist, vol. 76, May / June 1988, p. 273
15 GG Simpson, W. Beck, an Introduction to Biology, Harcourt Brace and World, New York, 1965, p. 241.
16 Stephen Jay Gould, "Abscheulich! – Atrocious! – A pioneer of natural selection theory," Natural History, March 2000, p. 45.
17 Ridley Mark "Who doubts evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 90 (June 25, 1981), p. 832.
18 SJ Gould, "Evolution Pace irregular," History Nature, May 1977, p. 13-14.
19 William Fix, hawkers Bone: Evolution of sales, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, 1984, p. 189.
20 J. Bergman & G. Howe, vestigial organs are fully functional, CRS Books, Terre Haute, IN, 1990.
21 Scadding SR-Do 'Vestigial Organs Evidence' Provide for evolution? "Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.
22 James P. Gills, MD and Thomas Woodward, Ph.D., the Darwinism in the microscope, Charisma House, 2002, p. 39.
23 Stuart B. Levy, "The challenge of antibiotic resistance," Scientific American, March 1998, p. 35
24 Francisco J. Ayala, "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239, September 1978, p. 64
25 George Turner, "How did new species? ", New Scientist, vol. 178, 2399 edition, the June 14, 2003, p. 36
26 http://www.arn.org, Http: / / www.discovery.org/csc/
Phillip E. Johnson 27 "freezing Science," Touchstone Magazine, December 2003
28 Archaeoraptor For more information on counterfeiting, see http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions03.php # Q7
29 Tim Friend, "The 'missing link' fossil was not", USA Today, 02.01.2000
30 Open Letter to the Society National Geographic by Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

About the Author

ABOUT THE AUTHOR, HARUN YAHYA
Born in Ankara in 1956, Adnan Oktar writes his books under the pen name of Harun Yahya. Ever since his university years, he has dedicated his life to telling of the existence and oneness of Almighty Allah, and to disseminating the moral values of the Qur’an. He has never wavered in the face of difficulties and despite oppression, still continues this intellectual struggle today exhibiting great patience and determination. For mor information pls visit: http://www.harunyahya.com/theauthor.php