Your Tail That You Know Little About!
My fellow human!
Imagine if you wake up one day
to find that a protrusion
on your lower back
—which you'd ignored for some time—
had elongated and grown into a tail
What would you do?
Could this tail really be
a message to bond you with
your neglected evolutionary ancestors?
"The blow, perhaps the
most devastating to Man
is the one that revealed to him
the fact that he is no more than
an animal in a chain of animal evolution
Your forefathers were animals, they are
common fathers for you and other animals
among those animals are monkeys
and great apes known as African apes
A very hard blow
to the narcissism of mankind!
This is what Charles Darwin did.
This is the theory of evolution
It made us understand
that we are a breed of animals
a descendent of animals
nothing more than that!"
Wait, dear viewers —before you denounce
this or laugh— could this be true?
Isn't it possible that our narcissism
causes us to reject scientific facts
and deny our evolutionary forefathers?
Isn't it possible that once
we are scientifically convinced
that we're just another type of ape
we would be as proud as
Professor Richard Dawkins is?!
Don't you accept for yourself
what this evolutionary biology professor
has accepted for himself?!
Isn't it possible that you have cousins
with whom you've severed the bonds
of kinship;
out of arrogance and narcissism?
"Us and the chimpanzees,
the bonobos, and then the gorillas,
the orangutans,
these are the African apes
these are the African apes,
and we are all 'cousins'
We're certainly not brothers
but cousins;
because we share a common grandfather
Common ancestor...common origin
common origin...common grandfather
Two different branches
came out of this grandfather.
This branch, for example,
ended with the chimpanzee: the Chimp
and that branch ended with Man.
Therefore, we are cousins"
So, before we get carried away by emotion
let's judge this scientifically
What is the evidence
that the origin of Man is animal?
"The Chimp is our cousin, it is similar
to us; amazingly so
in its skeletal system,
its muscular system, its nervous system,
its blood chemistry,
even its behavior in so many aspects,
and of course at the level
of the genome
About 99% of the chimp's genome
is identical to the human genome
About 99%! It is the closest to us...
It's amazing!
This —without a doubt—
is greatly hurtful to Man's pride"
Frankly, I'm going to be deeply hurt
if I find out —after forty—
that I've been deluding myself
over the past years;
believing that I'm special and
that other organisms
were subjected for my service
But that's ok, I'll humble
myself before scientific facts
and give up my emotional narcissism
and I invite you to do the same
So, according to our fellow, there are
at least two main pieces of evidence:
Morphological similarity
and 99% genetic similarity
As for the 99%
it has a very interesting story
which I will tell you later
Allah willing
For now, let's study
the morphological similarity
Evolutionists say that there is
similarity between living organisms
and that this similarity indicates that
they all originated from a single organism
that underwent mutations, random
processes, and blind natural selection
until it produced millions
of living species
Therefore, the evolutionary tree
can be drawn
based on morphological
and genetic similarities
Of course
estimates will differ
and there will be different versions
of the evolutionary tree
depending on the different estimates
of morphological similarity
and the methods
of defining genetic similarity
Today's point is that —for evolutionists—
morphological similarity is evidence
of common origin
and the greater the similarity
between certain organisms
the greater their proximity
in the evolutionary tree
For example, look at humans,
cats, bats, whales, and horses
Their positions are close
in the evolutionary tree
Do you know why? Because they are
extremely similar, as you can see
which indicates that they have
a common origin, right?!
I see you staring and squinting
without much conviction!
According to evolutionists, this is
due to your shallowness and weak
observational skills.
Educate us then, evolutionists!
Let's learn together...
For example, this 2017 edition
book, by Raven and Johnson
on page 432
has the title:
"Homologous structures
suggest common derivation"
and the book: "Essentials of Biology"
2018 edition, states that
these organisms are anatomically identical
and that: "This unity of anatomy
is evidence of a common ancestor."
Biology books are full
of such illustrations
as are the lectures of evolutionists:
both Arabs and non-Arabs
So, as a result of your sharp observation
dear evolutionists, we learn
that this similarity —which is hidden
from simple folk like us—
is strong evidence for a common ancestor
and that the greater the similarity
between organisms
the closer the relatedness
as it was easy for random mutations
and natural selection
to produce such similar forms
from a common ancestor, correct?!
Exactly!
So, similarity indicates relatedness
and greater similarity
means closer-relatedness
and closer-relatedness
means greater similarity
Aha! Understood!
But wait a second
Can you please, dear evolutionists
—before the bell rings
and the class ends—
explain this figure I found
in a world-renowned biology book
whose title I'll provide shortly
This figure shows
placental and marsupial mammals
Placentals, which represent most mammals,
complete their fetal development aided
by the placenta within the uterus
While marsupials, like kangaroos
are born prematurely
to complete their development in
a special pouch in their mother’s belly
There, it nurses from its mother
and develops slowly, goes outside
to sense the world, and returns to
the pouch, until it can manage on its own
You, evolutionists, claim that
marsupials diverged from placentals
160 million years ago
as in this paper in "Nature"
Therefore, they are very
distantly related to placentals
and the common ancestor must be very
ancient and kinship bonds no longer exist
Random mutations and blind
natural selection worked on both lineages
such that it formed marsupials
that greatly differ
genetically and gestationally
from placentals
So, their relatedness is very distant
and there should be no similarity
between marsupials and placentals
However, this book
shows the exact opposite
It establishes the great similarity
between organisms of the two groups:
The placental and marsupial squirrels
are strikingly similar;
the placental and
marsupial wolves are similar;
and the same is true for mice, moles,
wombats, anteaters, lemurs, etc.
According to your rule:
similarity indicates
a common origin and close-relatedness
Yet, we hardly find any relatedness
between these animals according to
your evolutionary tree; despite
their great morphological similarity
You regard us as fools because
we didn't notice the great
similarity between the placental squirrel
and the whale, the elephant, the deer,
and all known placental mammals;
these close relatives
on your evolutionary tree.
Which is more obvious: this similarity
or the similarity between placental
and marsupial squirrels?!
How can you —after this— consider
morphological similarity as evidence
when we see that animals
with close morphological similarity
are very distantly-related
on your alleged tree
while those closely related on the tree
are morphologically very different
when compared to the similarity
between marsupials and placentals?!
Now, dear evolutionists, we need
an answer to that question
You can either say:
The placental squirrel is in fact
more similar to the whale
than the marsupial squirrel
In which case, rejoice
in your 'scientific' facts
and 'accurate' observations!
Or you admit that morphological similarity
doesn't indicate a common origin
and that evolutionary trees are
no better than a Pokemon evolution tree!
Then we'd thank you for your admission and
move on to discuss another of your jokes
These are the only two possible answers
Here, dear viewers, is a practical
application for you today
Ask this question to any believer
in evolution, and see what happens
They will either stay quiet
In this case, give them a chance
to return to the truth
or they will try to baffle you
with crossword puzzles
They will throw out arguments
like fireworks to distract you, such as:
"The theory was modified to 'Evo-Devo'"
"Most marsupials are found in Australia
which separated from the rest of
the continents 70 million years ago."
"Similarity isn't the only evidence;
there is molecular genetics."
and "There is a difference between
homology and analogy."
Certainly for us, dear viewers, with
the knowledge Allah has blessed us with
we recognize that this is
what's known as 'Word Salad':
one of the symptoms that
helps in diagnosing schizophrenia
A cocktail of logical fallacies and
allegations which, in turn, require proof
As well as irrelevant side issues!
Thanks to Allah, we can
prove this for each of these terms
and even turn their evidence
against them, as we did before
This distraction away from the topic
is one of the logical fallacies
mastered by the myth disciples
a fallacy known as:
"Red Herring Fallacy"
It involves raising issues;
irrelevant to the question
Therefore, dear viewer
do not let them baffle you
Say, "I asked a specific question
so give me a specific answer
Is similarity evidence of
common ancestry? Yes or no?
If yes, then you're telling me
that the placental squirrel
looks more like an elephant
than a marsupial squirrel
If no, then stop using
similarity as evidence!"
Before we end this topic
we can't help but
thank the book that alerted us
to the morphological similarity
between placentals and marsupials;
the book that alerted us
to the invalidity of the claim
that similarity indicates a common origin;
the book that embarrassed the authors
of "Biology" by Raven and Johnson - 2017
and other evolutionists
Let's reveal the name of this book:
It is "Biology"
by Raven and Johnson - 2017!
Is this possible?!
Yes, everything is possible
in the world of the Myth
So, similarity means close-relatedness
and thus the validity of the myth
while higher similarity
does not indicate relatedness
but yet still means
the validity of the myth
And all roads lead to the Myth!
But wait a minute...
Is it possible that all the
professors who wrote and reviewed
such world-renowned books
missed this contradiction;
that none of them
have an explanation (from evolution)
about the phenomenon of similarity
between placentals and marsupials?!
Note, my friends, that this question
has nothing to do with our topic
Our topic is: Does morphological
similarity indicate a common origin?
The myth disciples are cornered now
as they have to answer with yes or no
Our question wasn't:
How do you explain the similarity
between placentals and marsupials?
That is a separate question
which we will ask
after getting an answer to the first one;
which is the topic of this episode
This is critical, dear viewer
to prevent the myth disciple
from getting away with the
fallacy of "changing the subject"
Assume that the Myth has a convincing
explanation for this similarity,
does this explanation support
the claim that similarity
indicates a close common origin?
Not at all! They, themselves, say that
placentals and marsupials are far removed
from their last common ancestor;
some 160 million years ago
So we will discuss later, Allah willing
the explanation provided by
the Myth disciples for this similarity;
in another chapter
on the comedy and obstinacy of evolution!
We will discuss what is known as:
"convergent evolution",
"developmental bias",
"genetic channeling",
and similar terminology
Until then, don't allow anyone
to use the argument:
"There is no way that scientists and
authors could fall into a contradiction,
and place two figures with
two different conclusions
in the same book
and in adjacent pages!"
We saw in the episode: "Wakey-Wakey"
that, when it comes to the Myth
all knowledge, logic, honesty,
updated information, and
keeping up with discoveries
disappears!
It's enough —in the case of
Raven and Johnson book for example—
to see the amount
of myths and old wives tales
stuffed between these two figures
(pages 432 - 435)
From claiming a faulty
design for the retina
to claiming the existence
of vestigial organs
such as the appendix
and whale pelvic bones;
myths which we discussed
in detail in the episodes:
"Caught you!" and "Wakey-Wakey"
where we used research carried out
by the Myth disciples themselves
to expose such claims
as backward and absurd myths
All of this was placed by the authors
in a chapter titled:
"The Evidence for Evolution"
This is not exclusive
to Raven and Johnson
It's also found in other
internationally distributed books
So, don't let them do the thinking
for you and don't use the argument:
"No way could they do that!"
Again, dear viewers, even if
you had never seen this episode
or even heard of marsupials;
is it a logical scientific position
to conclude that some similarity
between organisms means that
they evolved from a common origin
by random mutations and blind nature
without the need for design
or an all-knowing creator?!
When you find, in each of these
animals, precisely-constructed integrated
bones with specific
dimensions and densities
in harmony with the blood
vessels nourishing them
and the nerves moving them
along with other body systems;
that allow the bird to fly,
the whale to swim,
the four-legged animals to run gracefully,
and the human to walk and
use his hands skilfully
Can any sane person then
say anything except:
"...Our Lord is He Who gave each thing its
distinctive form, then guided [it].
...gave each thing its distinctive
form..." (Quran Translated Meaning 20:50)
He made the coordinated bones
of each
organism compatible with
the function it was created for
Everything is facilitated to serve
the function it was created for:
"...you see no discrepancy in the creation
of the All-Merciful..." (QTM 67:3)
Every species is created
with mastery and harmony
If you rid yourself of myths
and pseudoscience
then, when you're faced with
the strong morphological
similarity between marsupials and
placentals —despite the vast difference
in genetic code and biological systems—
can you help but acknowledge that
these are signs manifested by
an Able and an All-Knowing Creator
Similarity to the point
of identical morphology
—despite a great difference in reality—
is a display of the miraculous Power
that Allah Almighty boasts about
I was contemplating the words of Allah
which can be translated as:
"And it is He who sent
down water from the sky,
and with it We brought out the germination
of everything, then We brought out from it
greenery from which We bring out layered
grain, And out of the palm-trees
—from their spathes— clusters of dates,
hanging low, and gardens of grapevines,
and the olives, and the pomegranates—
apparently similar yet dissimilar.
look at its fruit when it yields and at
its ripening. Indeed, in that are signs
for people who believe."
(Quran 6:99)
I reflected on the Almighty's words:
"..apparently similar yet dissimilar.."
"Apparently similar" things are those
that may be confused with each other
because of their
extreme morphological resemblance
They appear as one thing
although they're different in reality
You may confuse one person for another
if there is a strong similarity
between them
So I said to myself:
Perhaps the verse indicates that
the mentioned varieties of fruit
—olives and pomegranates—
include types that can be confused
with each other, such that the beholder
perceives them as one;
while they are actually different
So, in the famous scientific research
website: "Pubmed"
I looked up phrases such as:
"Genetic diversity of olives", and
"genetic diversity of pomegranates"
I found many scientific publications
describing the huge diversity in olives
For example, in Italy alone
there are more than 500 varieties!
Also, this scientific paper
published by Oxford University Press
reports the building of a database
for olive varieties around the world
because of their highly similar morphology
and the ease of adulterating olive oils
with those of lesser quality
It states that the different varieties
are so similar in appearance
and composition, that it's difficult
to distinguish between them
so they have to resort to
genetic identity for verification
I found a recent similar study
on pomegranate varieties
stating that they are
genetically different
but difficult to distinguish
based on appearance alone
"..apparently similar yet dissimilar.."
(QTM 6:99)
So, this is an aspect
of the Capability
that Allah Almighty boasts about
This is also evident in the similarity
between marsupials and placentals
So, in today's episode we proved
that similarity doesn't indicate
common ancestry
relatedness, nor
the validity of the Myth
But we still have to answer the question
asked at the beginning of the episode:
What if a protrusion
grew on your lower back
and elongated until it resembled
a tail? What would you do?
The story starts with the
'Champion of Similarity': Darwin
In his book, "The Descent of Man" he
called this protrusion: rudiment of a tail
The idea was well received
by Darwin's lackeys
A human tail?!
What could it be other than
evidence for Man's animal origins?
They began collecting similar 'evidence'
with catchy scientific names such as:
"devolution" and "atavism"
They claimed it was
the reappearance of a genetic trait
lost in previous generations
Humans lost their tails
through evolutionary change
Then, the tail reappeared
in some people!
They displayed such
pictures in conferences and debates
with a message to humanity:
Did we not tell you, human
that you are nothing but the
son of animals; you animal?!
"We have descended from
animals, nothing more"
Then they became obsessed
with human tails
to the point that the 'tails' they
displayed in their conferences
were later found to be photoshopped
But wait a minute!
What could this tail really be?!
Maybe we're just driven
by arrogant pride
to deny this tail and refuse
to belong to organisms with tails?
Some researchers decided not to
stop at the superficial appearance
and look beyond the skin layer
Several papers were then published
some even by proponents of the myth
as in "Nature"
confirming that the so-called 'tail'
was in fact spurs and appendages
of adipose tissue and muscle;
nothing to do with the animal tail
as it has no bones or cartilage
Rather, these spurs may appear in
different places such as the neck
as in this paper in "Nature"
Tell me now: Is there an animal
with a tail on its neck
that we may have
descended from?!
What myth zealots call a tail
is actually a sickness
with a scientific name such as:
Spinal dysraphism,
Spina bifida, or Lipoma
It's not a true 'tail' which indicates an
animal origin; as Darwin's 'tails' claim
"Some of these tails
—as I told you— can wiggle
so they are a true tail."
Indeed, some human 'tails'
do wiggle, twist, and spin around!
A journey to search for any apparent
similarity to support the Myth!
If we want to define knowledge
perhaps one of the best definitions is:
Knowledge is not stopping at the
appearance of things
but rather exploring them in depth
Whereas the Myth zealots drive people
from knowledge to ignorance
when they delude them that
some superficial morphological
similarities mean common origin
or lack of design
They accuse intelligent people
of shallowness
while they present the clearest
example of shallowness!
Allah says, what can be translated as:
"...but most people do not know.
They know what is apparent of the worldly
life but they are unaware of the Hereafter
Do they not contemplate within themselves?
Allah has not created the heavens and the
earth and what is between them except
in truth and for a specified term.
But indeed, many among mankind do deny
the meeting with their Lord."
(Quran 30:6-8)
"They know what is apparent of
the worldly life..." Absolute shallowness!
After this presentation, dear viewer
if you get up one day
to find a spur growing
from your lower back;
the decision is yours:
either you consider it a tail;
a blessing from evolution
to remove your hesitancy about
accepting evolution as scientific fact
So, it provided you with a tail to take
you back to your origin and ancestors
to apologize to your ancestors
like a dutiful son
You can even fly to India
and transform —by virtue of this tail—
from a jobless person
into a pampered idol;
after the theory of evolution provided
a scientific basis for your worship
Or, you can consider it a "spina bifida",
"spinal dysraphism", or "Lipoma"
and go to a surgeon
to get it removed!
Peace be upon you