Scientific Research and the Fools of Mankind

Peace be upon you.

Introduction: Nature Journal Research and the Challenge to Evolution Theory

For a week, the renowned global journal Nature published this research that received great acclaim and attention. The results of this research are shocking in relation to what is called the theory of evolution, and the way the Darwinian community dealt with it is even more shocking, so it should not pass without comment.

This episode is important for you, every one of you who listens to us, as the theory of evolution is being taught to our children in school curricula in a gradual and insidious manner, to eventually become an alternative to the fact that Allah the Almighty created us and created everything, so that one day it will be said that creation is outdated religious beliefs, and it will be forbidden to mention it in schools as happened in the West.

Darwin and his followers shine for our children in schools, and YouTubers supported by the systems of Arab countries shine upon them as the great scientists. While if you say Allah is the Creator of everything, they say this is religion not science. Come let us see in this example from a Nature paper who is speaking with the truth of science, and who has a blind, foolish creed disguised as science.

The research published by Nature was reviewed two hundred and forty thousand times in a week, and is considered one of the strongest in performance among research, more than ninety-nine percent of the research published in global journals, and was mentioned in sixty-one news platforms in a week.

Summary of the Theory of Evolution

Before we review the research, what is the summary of the theory of evolution? Its summary is that living organisms originated from a common ancestor through random changes, primarily genetic mutations, and through blind natural selection.

Darwinists insist on the randomness of mutations because if they are not random, this means that there is someone who directs them, that there is someone who intended and wanted the mutations to occur in a certain way to lead to the appearance of living organisms. This intention and will mean that the organisms were created by an All-Knowing Creator, which is what the theory of evolution fights against, as it insists that organisms came about through purely material causes without intention or will, and considers talking about a Creator to be religion not science, and considers talking about intention and design to be "pseudo-science" meaning false science.

They say mutations are random, but natural selection is strict and determined in the direction of preserving the most suitable organisms for survival. Okay, who made natural selection work in this way? The Creator? But they say natural selection is blind, with no intention or will. Okay, how do you explain the existence of nature in this way so that it selects the most suitable for survival? Who created nature in the first place? They say it's not our concern, this is explained by physicists. Physicists who are atheists come and explain to you the origin of the universe with explanations they claim are materialistic, but in reality, they are based on metaphysical notions that contradict reason and innate nature.

Therefore, in reality, the randomness of mutations is the most important thing in the theory of evolution, and it is the greatest driver of evolution according to the claim of the Darwinists.

Shocking Results of Nature Research

The Nature paper we have today summarizes that researchers followed with precision and patience the mutations that occur in one of the plants over many generations of this plant, and found that these mutations are not random.

This discovery shakes the most important pillar of the theory of evolution, as it was supposed that the mutations that occur now are random, and based on this, the mutations that occurred historically in ancient times and produced organisms from a common ancestor according to their claim are also random. If the mutations we see now in the labs are not random, this means that the ancient mutations are also not random. This shakes the theory of evolution that says there is no direction, no intention, no will, but randomness, blindness, and chance.

Come let us see what the researchers say about the results of this research and how they dealt with it.

Are the Results Generalizable?

Okay, does this conclusion apply only to this type of plant that they studied? They say it is important to see to what extent these results apply to other organisms besides the Arabidopsis plant, but the evolutionary bias, meaning that mutations are not random, provides an alternative explanation for many previous observations in eukaryotic organisms, including the limited genetic variation in specific sites. That is, they expect their results to be generalized to other organisms.

Simplified Explanation of the Discovery

And to simplify what they discovered, dear guests, the genetic material of any creature contains genetic regions and non-genetic regions. The genetic regions are those that are read to produce proteins that make up most of the organism's body. The non-genetic regions have many other functions, including contributing to the reading of the genetic regions, as we explained in the episode "Zaid Eats Dog Meat."

The genetic regions, in turn, contain essential vital genes. If mutations occur in these genes at a high rate, they threaten the life of the creature and prevent the continuation of its offspring. The research team noted that these essential vital genes are protected from mutations at a high rate, and even if mutations occur in them, there are mechanisms in the cell to repair harmful mutations quickly to preserve these essential genes. While less vital genes are protected from mutations to a lesser degree, and non-genetic regions to an even lesser degree.

What does this lead to? It leads to diversity in the plant while preserving its offspring from damage at the same time, because the essential genes are protected. This is unlike the prevailing idea that mutations are random, and therefore it is assumed that they occur equally or almost equally in different genetic regions, for natural selection to come and filter and eliminate the plants that have harmful mutations in their essential genes. The research says no, the essential genes are originally protected from harmful mutations.

Importance of the Study and Media Reactions

This is the importance of this study. What did the scientific news websites say about it? For example, Science Daily said: "A study that threatens the assumption of the theory of evolution that DNA mutations are random." The Live Science headline read: "A new study presents the first evidence that mutations in DNA are not random," and it says underneath: "This contradicts one of the basic assumptions of the theory of evolution." The Science Alert website says: "New evidence threatens the idea that mutations are completely random," and it says at the beginning of the news: "There is a widespread misconception that evolution has some kind of direction, a belief that biologists around the world are trying to correct urgently." The news continues: "But new research shows that there may be some truth to this widespread misconception, at least more than we have realized at any time before." The Max Planck Institute also published about the research with the title: "Shattering expectations in the game of mutation roulette." And the Satic Daily website published with the title: "DNA mutations do not occur randomly, a discovery that changes our view of evolution."

How Darwinists Deal with Results: The Loaded Dice

Now, what do we expect the Darwinists to say after all of this? Did they perhaps say that the most important pillar of our theory, which is the randomness of changes, has fallen, and it has been proven that there is intention and wisdom in the places where mutations occur and the mechanisms that mitigate their harmful effects? Is it now time for us to admit that the theory of random evolution is false, and that creatures were created with intention and will?

Let's see what the researchers who made this discovery said. They called what happened "mutation bias," meaning evolutionary bias, meaning mutations do not occur randomly. They titled it: "Evolution of mutation bias dice." When someone plays dice and wants to get higher numbers, they load one side of the dice so that the numbers come out as they wish every time they throw it. They do not leave things to chance, but intervene to produce planned and intended results. So these researchers say that what happened is like a loaded dice, so that when evolution plays with the dice, it comes up with fewer harmful mutations and more beneficial ones. The matter is evolution by chance, but the chance is not exactly chance, and the reason is simply the loaded or programmed dice that chance plays with.

Do you see why we called our word "Dice and the Fools of the Sons of Adam"? In the hadith which Albanee authenticated, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "The sun does not rise without something of Allah's creation glorifying Allah with praise, except for the devils and the fools of the sons of Adam."

Is their speech the speech of these researchers science, or is it blind Darwinist doctrine that contradicts all observations? Loaded dice, as if the void knew in advance which mutations would be beneficial and which would be harmful before they occurred, and based on this, they changed their dice laws, as if the void knew what would be, and what was not, how it would be.

Previous Evidence of Non-Randomness of Mutations

To inform you, brothers, this is not the first time that research has proven that mutations are not random. We have mentioned other papers in Nature, such as this paper in 1988 and this paper in 2014. We also mentioned the words of the Darwinist biology professor Dennis Noble at a global physiology conference in 2012, where James Shapiro agreed with him that it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a genome-altering factor that is truly random in its work within the process, in its work within the DNA in the cell. And all types of mutation studies have found clear statistically non-random patterns of change. And this Dennis Noble is an evolutionist follower of Darwin.

It is not only that there is evidence of the non-randomness of mutations in some organisms, but all studies indicate non-randomness. And we have shown that they use expressions such as "unusual chance" like the idea of loaded dice to explain scientific phenomena. And we have shown in two episodes of the Journey of Certainty: "All Roads Lead to Superstition" and "The Worshippers of Microbes," we have shown in detail convincing to every truth-seeking student that the pillars of the myth of evolution have been demolished one after another by research from Darwin's followers themselves, and that their theory has been completely emptied of its content, and they no longer agree on anything from it.

The Blind Darwinist Doctrine

Nevertheless, they cling to one thing: that there is no creation with intention and will. So when you hear evolution, it means exactly "no creation." And we have shown that the Darwinist doctrine is a blind doctrine far from science, so that every time phenomena and discoveries come, they contradict it. They give evolution a new name to make you think that this phenomenon does not contradict evolution. So they became like the pagans who used to worship Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, Manat, and Dhushara, and so the Darwinists have various gods.

The word evolution in it means "no creation": convergent evolution, divergent evolution, parallel evolution, gradual evolution, quantitative evolution, punctuated evolution, large mutation evolution, saltation evolution, extended evolution, shared evolution. Names invented to deceive you that they have found an explanation for the phenomenon that demolishes their theory from its foundation. They do not agree on anything from that, but they refute each other and make fools of each other, and they agree on only one thing: that there is no creation with intention and will, and they cannot think outside this box because they have placed the denial of the Creator as a blind premise, not a scientific result.

And what benefit is there in the verses and oaths to a people who do not believe, and Allah is truthful: {Even if We had sent down to them the angels and the dead spoke to them and We had gathered against them every thing in front of them, they would not have believed unless Allah willed. But most of them do not know.}

All of this why? Because their masters, the Western scientists, said it is random, so it must be random. Now these parrots of the Arabs are in an embarrassing position, even if they do not know about these papers, and if they know about them and read them, they may not understand them. But oh parrots of the Arabs, here are your masters saying it is not random, ah then it is not random since they said so, they have told the truth. But when Allah the Most High said: {Verily, We have created everything according to a measure} and He said: {And He has created everything and determined it precisely}, these verses meant nothing to you, but you must distort and alter their meaning to agree with the science of your masters.

Response to the Allegation of Cherry-Picking and Attempts to Preserve the Theory of Evolution

When we cite papers from Science and Nature in the episodes of Journey of Certainty on scientific phenomena, some so-called intelligent individuals come forward to say: "You are cherry-picking, citing research by evolutionists to refute the theory of evolution, while these researchers themselves support the theory." Look at the brilliance and understanding! Yes, we take the science and leave the rubbish of ideas and whims, because we are not like those who rent their minds to foolish researchers. We take scientific experiments and their results if they are methodologically sound, and we leave the foolish conclusions to the researchers.

This Nature paper that we have, even though the researchers insist that they still believe in the gods of evolution despite their results, what did they do? They titled it with "Natural Selection," as if to say that even if mutations are not random, the natural selection which is a pillar of the theory still stands. But if you read the paper, you will know that this title does not describe the research at all, and what they proved is the intention in the stages of mutations that precede their alleged blind natural selection. In fact, they reduced the importance of natural selection in several places in the paper.

Even to show that their results do not challenge the gods of evolution, they mentioned the word "evolution" and its derivatives in the research fifty-two times, in a crude and forced manner, as in this sentence which says: "Since evolutionary biases are results of evolution, they may differ among organisms." Many sentences like this we read over and over again to understand the relation of evolution to the subject, there is no relation except the crude and forced one.

Imagine if a researcher who believes in God published his research results and said: "We studied the genetic material that God created in the plant that God created, and we found that the mutations that God created give traits that God created for the benefit of the human that God created on this earth that God created." To such a person we would say: "Do not strain yourself, brother, there is no need to repeat in this costly manner." And he is right in that Allah the Almighty created all this. The Darwinists use the word "evolution" in the same way but falsely fifty-two times in this paper. And this is one of the reasons for the acceptance of their research for publication in the journal Nature, which we have seen a side of its arrogance and its establishment of inquisitions against the team that mentioned the word "Creator" in a research about the great design of the hand, as in the episode "Will they give me the Nobel Prize?".

Conclusion and Final Message

Does all this mean that we say that creatures arose from directed, intentional mutations, and that we say what is known as guided evolution? No, and we have clarified our scientific analysis of the idea of guided evolution and the problems with this term in the episode "Why do we not take from the theory of evolution what does not contradict Islam?".

In conclusion, this Nature research, my brothers, is another evidence of the power and greatness of Allah, where He made changes occur at a high rate in parts of the genetic material, and provided other parts with mechanisms to protect them as necessary. As we have shown in Journey of Certainty, the intention, will, and greatness are pervasive in every detail of creation, not just in the results of this research. {Allah has made whatever He creates perfect}. And thus are the verses of Allah the Almighty inscribed in the Quran and observed in the universe, so those who believed increased in faith and rejoiced, and those in whose hearts was a disease increased in filth to their filth and died while they were disbelievers.

May Allah guide us and guide us with us, and peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.