Worshippers of Microbes
Peace be upon you
You've heard of cow worshipers,
fire worshipers, and Satan worshipers
but have you ever heard
of microbe worshipers;
those who've gone to the extreme
of deifying microbes
and attributing
the characteristics of will,
choice, knowledge,
and creation to them?!
Let's see how pseudoscience leads its
followers to such a state of ignorance!
This episode is one of the most important
episodes of The Journey of Certainty
It is full of surprises
so stay tuned...
Last episode, we saw how three
forts of the theory of evolution
were demolished by its followers:
Innumerable transitional forms,
slow change,
and gradualism
Two forts remain:
Blind natural selection
and random changes
Let's tighten the noose!
Blind natural selection
Let's ask the evolution theory disciples:
In your evolutionary trees;
is there a relationship
between placentals and marsupials?
They'll answer:
"No, their origins diverged from
each other 160 million years ago."
Then why are they
so similar in form
despite the great difference
in their genetic encoding
and vital systems?
Is it an act of blindness and randomness
or a manifestation of Allah's Ability?
They'll say: "No, not at all!
This is a phenomenon known as
Convergent Evolution;
i.e. unintended random changes
but —due to similar environments—
natural selection shaped them
in the same way
and produced similar results
in two unrelated organisms."
So, in similar environments
natural selection worked
in similar ways!
Aha! What about bats and whales
do they resemble each other?
"Of course not; as the smallest bat
barely weighs a gram
while the sperm whale weighs
up to 50 tons."
The more important question
is whether their environmental
conditions are similar
Of course not!
The bat lives on land
while whales live in the water;
two completely different
environmental conditions!
Aha! Then, your blind natural selection
should act
on the bat and the whale
in a completely different manner;
so why do they have
systems in common?
Why do we find
—in both bats and whales—
an echolocation (sonar) system
that is nearly identical?
A sonar that launches
and receives sound waves
to determine the direction of their prey
Why didn't such a device appear
in other mammals; more related
to the bat
in your evolutionary trees?
Or in other terrestrials
(like the bat)
subject to similar
'natural selection factors'?
Doesn't this point
to an All-Knowing Creator:
"...Who gave
everything its form
then guided (it).”
(Quran Translated Meaning 20:50)
Who gave these two different organisms
the system they each need?
They answer: "No, this is just
another type of convergent evolution
that works even with different
conditions for natural selection."
Is that so?
Then, what about the Cichlid Fishes
that amazed you?
Fish in different lakes; yet with
great similarities between them
According to you, they descended
from a single common ancestor
then diverged into separate lakes
If their ancestor is the same
why did this origin
diversify —in one of the lakes—
into numerous forms
very similar to the numerous forms
in another lake?
This is not the same situation
as placentals and marsupials
where a placental squirrel
resembles a marsupial squirrel
but of one fish, that, according to you
diversified into many forms
in a lake
and another fish like the first one
that diversified into many
similar forms in a different lake
If you manage to convince some
that randomness and blindness
can produce two similar organisms
how can you convince them
that one organism can produce
two nearly-identical sets of organisms?
They say, "We will call this
phenomenon: Parallel Evolution!"
Guys, we are not asking you
about a new name for the myth
but for an explanation that
can convince any rational person
But this is their way!
All universal facts debunk a theory?
No problem!
Just create a new name
to make the listener feel that
you are aware of these facts;
and you don't see that
they pose any threat to your theory
Instead
you've found a scientific explanation
and modified the theory
to accommodate this fact
(Adnan Ibrahim)
"They are fully aware of this"
They explain, in detail, the facts
that debunk their myth, using new titles:
So-and-so Evolution!
The psychological impact
is to convince you that;
had fact posed any threat to their
theory, they would have noticed it!
Whereas, in reality
they covered up
the blatant contradicting evidence
with misleading terminology
Did you see
our neighbor's white car?
You mean the black one?
Yes, I saw it
No, no, his white car
No, no, the black one
I recognize it
Look!
This is the car. It is white!
Dude, this is called
"Whitish black"!
You can simply remove the word "Evolution"
from all the comic names of the theory
and replace them with "Impossible":
"The Parallel Impossible"
"The Convergent Impossible"
"The Quantal Impossible"
"The Punctuated Impossible"
etc.
You will find someone who says:
"This is an advantage for the theory
of evolution: its flexibility
to accommodate new discoveries"
There is a big difference
dear viewers
between, on one hand, a theory
based on something:
some solid tenets of mind,
senses, and experimentation
then an observation
conflicts with some of its details
and these details are modified
to accommodate the observation;
and, on the other hand
a theory based on myths;
with all observations demolishing its
pillars and emptying it from all content;
while you insist
on resuscitating this theory
by changing its name
and proposing additional assumptions
without any evidence whatsoever
Just like our friend
with his conspiracy theory
about his neighborhood!
Once again
we ask the followers of this theory:
"We want a scientific explanation.
No more names!
Is the phenomenon of Cichlid Fishes
for example
a result of randomness
and blind selection?"
The answer comes from this Nature paper
which states that
for such a phenomenon
to occur by convergent evolution
"an extraordinary coincidence"
is needed!
Frankly, I almost laughed aloud
when I read this
Really?! So according to you
everything we mentioned before
did NOT require
an extraordinary coincidence;
just this specific phenomenon!
When we used to tell them:
"Living organisms form
a fully integrated system
that includes predators and preys;
birds that feed on flowers
and return the favor through pollination;
bees with long beaks
to suck nectar from deep flowers;
figs that split open
for a specific kind of insect
to transfer its seeds
and pollinate other figs
while this insect benefits by
by laying its eggs in the opened figs;
each type of fig
with its own type of insects;
small marine organisms cleaning
the gills and teeth of large fish;
by eating the parasites and food leftovers
(a mutual benefit);
trillions of bacteria, of different types
in every human intestine;
and other countless examples
of mutually-beneficial relationships
Are all such integrated systems
a result of ordinary coincidences?!"
They'll say:
"Yes, and we'll call what happened
"Coevolution"!
Leave your names aside;
our question is clear:
"Did randomness and blindness
create all organisms: male and female
then create this co-existence
between them in such
an integrated, intricate,
and harmonious system?"
They'll answer:
"Yes, by coincidence."
Any self-respecting scientist
dear viewers
follows the evidence wherever it may lead
while the myth disciples
want to pull the myth cart
against the direction
of the 'horses' of evidence
But even they were forced to admit
—in view of the Cichlid phenomenon—
that an extraordinary coincidence
was needed
Okay!
Where do we go from here?
They said:
"It seems that natural election
is guided along specific routes"
and 'scientific' papers announced that:
"although natural selection has no
predetermined endpoints", i.e. is blind
evolution happens"along
certain trajectories" and you found
papers with phrases such as:
"constraints on natural selection"
These constraints were even
described as: absolute or strict!
Constraints, constraints, constraints...
So, you are saying that
"blind natural selection" is guided
So —with this guidance
and constraints— it is no longer blind!
Great!
Your second fort has just collapsed:
The fort of "blind natural selection"
Did they acknowledge the demise
of their myth, after this?
No, instead, they sought refuge
in their last fort and said:
"Well, the changes are random
even if natural selection is constrained
so we will rename the theory:
"Evo-Devo"
Let's tighten the noose further
as we have reached the first
and final remaining fort:
The fort of random change
Do changes such as mutations
occur randomly?
It is important here
dear viewers
to understand that this
is a two-fold question
First, is it possible for organisms
to be formed by random mutations?
Second, are the changes
that really occur
in the genetic material of an organism
to help it adapt
to a new environment such as
when bacteria acquires
resistance to antibiotics;
are they random changes?
The burden of truth
forced many myth disciples
to backpedal on their idea
that the change is random
They started using phrases such as:
"developmental bias" and
"constraints on evolution"
Others stated that
the changes are not random
such as this well-known
seminal article in Nature, in 1988
titled: "The Origin of Mutants"
and this 2014 article
in the same journal
which reviewed numerous phenomena
then explicitly stated:
"they show that variation is not random"
Similar statements followed:
that mutations were not random
but directed
and that was contradictory
to a fundamental neo-Darwinism tenet
Several new terms appeared
in evolution literature
such as
"Directed mutations"
and "Selected mutations"
Moreover, Professor of biology
Denis Noble made
this momentous announcement
at the 2013 International Conference
of Physiological Sciences:
"It is difficult, if not impossible
to find a genome change operator
that is truly random
in its action within the DNA of a cell
All careful studies of mutagenesis
find statistically significant
non-random patterns of change."
So, according to Noble
it is difficult —if not impossible—
to find random changes
in genetic material
and that all types of change
are NOT random
He reaffirms with this statement:
"So my first conclusion is this:
Not only is mutation not random;
that was one of the essential assumptions
of the neo-Darwinian synthesis
but proteins
at least some of them
did not evolve
via gradual accumulation of mutations."
He affirms that changes are
not random and that cellular proteins
—at least some of them—
did not evolve though
random accumulation of mutations!
With this, the first (and last standing)
fort of the myth is demolished!
So organisms were NOT
formed by random mutations
nor were their adaptations
a result of random changes!
The last fort has fallen;
and it turns out that the forts
were made of flimsy carton
and their insides were:
"...like a mirage in a desert:
the thirsty one thinks it is water until
when he has reached it he finds
it to be nothing..." (QTM 24:39)
Nothing remains of the myth of evolution!
No innumerable transitional forms
No slow change!
No gradualism!
No blind natural selection!
No random changes!
So, what did the myth followers do?
Did they concede
the destruction of their myth?
Never!
Instead, Professor Noble and others
demanded an extension
for the theory of evolution
while Nature's statement
that mutations are not random
headlined with:
"Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?"
Really?!
This scenario reminds me
of two doctors examining a skeleton
and one asks the other:
"Do you think he needs treatment?"
The other doctor replies:
"I believe he is doing well;
his blood pressure is good;
his pulse is excellent;
and his breathing is fine."
So, the myth followers
will never budge
By hook or by crook
there MUST be evolution!
But what word to put
before 'evolution'?
This is what we can disagree upon
Nothing remains of evolution
yet the predetermined doctrinal outcome
is still standing;
the blind doctrine of 'no creation'
must remain!
Notice that the meaning
of the word "evolution"
in all these theories and amendments
has come to mean
—literally— "no creation";
that organisms are not created
with Wisdom and Intention!
This statement is the true
literal meaning of the word evolution
This meaning must endure
for the myth zealots; at any cost
and all roads
must lead to this myth!
That's why they conclude their comic
modifications to the theory by saying:
"This updated model of the theory
solves Darwin's Dilemma without
the need for an Intelligent Designer"
Just like Hawking's joke
of gravity creating everything
and that this removes
the need for a creator
This is the predetermined result
that must remain at any cost
The theory has been completely
emptied of all content
and its pillars demolished!
Yet, its predetermined outcome must
endure (even if it's hanging in midair):
That there is no creation
with will and intent!
Now, after they said that
changes are not random, but directed
and that natural selection
is directed (not blind)
a burning question presents itself:
Who is responsible
for this direction?
Here, you see them attributing
this guidance to any material thing
regardless of
how absurd the attribution is
rather than attributing it
to the All-Knowing Doer
Whom no vision can encompass;
yet He is evidenced by everything
They attribute direction
to evolution
as in this Nature paper
which states that 'evolution'
managed to reduce the risk
of deleterious mutations
i.e. prevent their randomness
Evolution?!
Evolution is dead!
Evolution
—after the destruction of its forts—
is just a ghost of something
that never even existed!
Other times, they attribute
the selection of mutations
to the cells themselves;
as in this Nature paper
which concluded with:
"cells may have mechanisms for
choosing which mutations will occur"
So, cells, before they existed
decided to generate
the appropriate mutations
necessary for their existence
which allowed evolution to occur!
In other publications
they attribute selection to microbes;
They even termed this:
"Microbial Intelligence"
which they define as:
"the intelligence shown by microorganisms"
In addition to other terms
such as:
"clever microbes"
"Cells are incredibly smart"
"brainy bacteria"
"bacteria choose"
"bacteria decide"
"Bacteria are more capable of complex
decision-making than thought"
"bacteria are big thinkers"
etc.
They even went so far as
to attribute intelligence to viruses:
"surprisingly intelligent viruses"!
Dear viewers, we are not talking
about figurative expressions
but about attributing
will and intelligent
selection to microbes
because they don't believe in a Lord Who
gave each thing its form then guided it;
a Lord who is in charge of His creation;
whose Greatness is manifest
in all His creatures
To whom, then, will they attribute
the dazzling, complex,
and precise behavior
exhibited by organisms?
To whom will they attribute choice,
knowledge, and creation?
They have to attribute these Divine
Attributes to creatures; even microbes
thereby becoming more like
'microbe worshipers'
Yes, worshipers of microbes!
"Have you not seen those
who argue regarding Allah’s signs?
How are they turned away?"
(Quran Translated Meaning 40:69)
Don't you see those
who dispute Allah’s written
signs (Qur'anic Verses) and
observed signs in the universe
how they end up
and where their stubbornness
and arrogance takes them?
How they themselves become microbes;
harmful to human intelligence
by attributing intelligence to microbes!
In Rajasthan, India, there are temples
where they worship rats
I would not be surprised if, one day
the myth disciples set up temples
to worship bacteria!
In fact, some of them went so far as to
attribute actions to inanimate atoms
saying that there is "intelligence
at the atomic or molecular level"
and that "the existence
of internal intelligence...
leads to the confirmation of the absence
of an external intelligence or God."
They went over and beyond
ascribing actions to matter
to ascribe actions to laws (of nature)
i.e. to nothing
like Stephen Hawking
who attributed all creation
to the law of gravity
and was accordingly praised
by Dawkins who said:
"Darwinism kicked God out of biology
but physics remained more uncertain.
Hawking is now
administering the coup de grace"!
This is Richard Dawkins
whose countless lies we've exposed
in previous episodes;
as well as his deceit, prevarication,
and delirium
Yet, he is still applauded by
some Arab zealots of the myth
(Adnan Ibrahim): "Richard Dawkins
was fortunate and lucky
He is ecstatic to this day
with this experiment
A scientist!
Glory be to Allah!
whether you agree with him or not
the man is a scientist
with a scientist's mentality
and scientist's passion
He sanctifies science;
exults and rejoices in it
It's amazing!"
These are the 'scientists' whose images
are embellished for Muslims
and this is what whims
and desires do to their followers
when they put disbelief
in the Creator as a goal
and subjugate everything
to serve this goal!
They are people who have already
taken the decision to disbelieve;
"...But signs and warnings
are of no avail for people
who do not believe."
(Quran Translated Meaning 10:101)
To conclude
dear viewers
when the myth followers
try to dazzle you
with the percentage of scientists
who support evolution
—Let's set aside their lies about
the percentage, as we'll show—
ask them the following simple question:
"This 98% or 99% percentage
support which
type of evolution exactly?"
We saw, in the last episode
how much they disagree
They are also in major disagreement
about the specifics of today's episode:
Are mutations random or not random?
Is selection directed or not directed?
They differ vastly in their views
on such questions
So, why not admit it honestly?
What you're saying is that
this % of 'scholars' insist, in advance
that there must be no creation;
but beyond that
they don't agree about anything
Look at this dogmatic blind
predetermined position!
May Allah guide our listeners
from the Muslim youth who've
been affected by the myth's pollution
Guide us and them
to the truth with Your permission;
You guide whomever
You will to a straight path
Peace and Mercy of Allah
be upon you