← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
Dear brothers, the last episode I published so far from the series "Journey of Certainty" was titled "The Origin of Man Between the Theory of Evolution and the Quran." I claim that it is one of the scientifically precise episodes in refuting the myth of human evolution from lower creatures.
One of the novelists, Dr. Ahmed Khairi Al-Umri, published a series of articles in response to this episode, claiming that it contains distortion and misquoting of scientific research that was not said, and that I am trying to deceive the public to pass my idea. So, I would like to clarify the credibility of this episode and this series that has benefited many by the grace of Allah, praise be to Him.
The response is your right upon me as an audience following me, because the aforementioned novelist claims that my audience does not possess the sufficient awareness to notice my distortion and manipulation. Therefore, out of respect for you, it is incumbent upon me to clarify whether you have placed your trust in the right place or the wrong place.
The total of what Dr. Al-Umri published in response to the episode "The Origin of Man" that has reached me is five articles. I asked some brothers to read them and send me the most important points therein, because there is not actually time to follow everything written about the poor servant. We will discuss the most important nine errors according to what has reached me. Let us address them one by one.
The first mistake, according to Al-Umri, is in the first minutes of the episode, specifically in my statement: "What is commonly spread by the followers of the theory of evolution in their most famous magazines, books, scientific websites, and educational lectures for the general public is that humans evolved from common origins with animals, going through transitional stages from semi-human creatures to modern humans, whom they call Homo Sapiens. And that this modern human first appeared in Ethiopia about 195,000 years ago, as in this paper published in 'Nature' in 2005."
Al-Umri says: "The study did not indicate that this is the first appearance of modern humans, but rather this is the date of the discovered fossils, and that I did not complete the sentence." The statement in the magazine 'Nature' says: "The oldest fossils discovered so far." Therefore, Al-Umri, you said: "Therefore, what happened in this presentation by Dr. Qunaybi is that he made the recipient assume that the evolutionists believed that Homo Sapiens first appeared 195,000 years ago." "Assume" is excellent!
So, I wanted to make the recipient assume that the evolutionists believed that modern humans first appeared 195,000 years ago, otherwise, they are innocent of this belief, and according to Al-Umri, I lied to them.
Notice in this article: "That is, this couple, estimated to be 195,000 years old, was a witness to the earliest days of Homo Sapiens or what they call modern humans." Notice that they do not say "yet" or "until now," nor do they suggest that it is possible to discover something older than this discovery. Therefore, they actually decide that humans first appeared 195,000 years ago.
Also here: "That is, the dating - the history of these skulls - matches well with the genetic analysis which suggests that Homo Sapiens first appeared 200,000 years ago." It is the same 195,000 plus or minus 5,000, as in the 'Nature' paper. Therefore, dear sirs, notice here in the 'Nature' website itself, it did not say that these skulls are the oldest discovered so far and that we might discover older ones. Therefore, when we say that the evolutionists claimed that humans first appeared 195,000 years ago, this does not contradict the truth.
Also, dear sirs, the most famous magazines in this field are 'Nature' and 'Science'. Let's see what 'Science' says in 2018 in an article titled: "More research supports the theory that modern humans appeared or originated in Africa 200,000 years ago. However, recent discoveries show more complexity than previously expected." This is in an article from 2018. Therefore, this belief was indeed prevalent, and they say that more research supported it, in the magazine 'Science'.
Okay, are we still seeing whether Iyad lied by claiming that the evolutionists said that humans first appeared 195,000 years ago? You have this article in 'Science Daily' titled: "Oldest Homo Sapiens - meaning modern human - fossils push the origin of humans to 195,000 years ago."
Let's go to some other scientific websites like the 'Britannica' website: "You learn that human anatomy was taught 200,000 years ago in East Africa." The same thing, they conclude that humans first appeared 200,000 years ago. They did not say "yet" or "until now" or suggest that we might find something older.
Let's see another website like this one, which is 'Your Genome': "Modern humans originated in Africa within the past two hundred thousand years." The Globe and Mail Canadian website: "Modern humans date back to about 195,000 years ago." This is the headline.
And some scientific papers like this paper that says: The 'Conversation' website says in this sentence: "According to textbooks, all humans existing today have descended from a group that lived in East Africa about 200,000 years ago." These websites, dear sirs, still mention the number 195,000 or 200,000, otherwise, there are many websites that have updated after the new fossils we mentioned in the episode.
So, let's go back to Al-Umri's words. Al-Umri says: "What happened in this presentation by Dr. Qunaybi is that he made the recipient assume that the evolutionists believed that Homo Sapiens first appeared 195,000 years ago." And "first appeared" means that he did not exist before. So, did I actually make the recipient assume that, or did the evolutionists really believe that?
And for accuracy, when we gather 'The Journey of Certainty' into a book, God willing, I will say in this place: "They believed that the first human appeared 195,000 years ago based on this paper in 'Nature' instead of 'as in this paper in 'Nature'." But this difference does not change the truth of the matter, that this was a prevalent belief among evolutionists. This is the first mistake that the novelist mentioned claims I intentionally passed on to the public and that I lied about the evolutionists.
Let's see the second mistake from what was sent to me by the brothers who reviewed the articles. Dr. Al-Amri says: "Then two articles appear behind Dr. Qunibi, who says: the first article was published in 1995, and it talks about how Lucy's upright stance did not resemble that of modern humans, but he did not explain this stance. The second article was published in 2000, and I did not find any relation to Lucy." Excellent. So the accusation is that Eyad presents images of articles to make the viewer think that his speech is based on scientific research, even though they do not support what he says.
This is the first research. The phrase that appeared with the research: "Research that questions many details of the early conclusions about Lucy." Okay, let's see if the research actually questions or does not question the conclusions. Of course, it was said that Lucy's stance was like that of modern humans, so the article in the conclusion says: "Lucy's upright posture is different from that of modern humans and remains a mystery." If Dr. Al-Amri had taken the trouble to extract the full article, he would find at the end of it these phrases: "The prevailing views on Lucy's body position are almost impossible to reconcile." Then he mentions here that some research confirms that her stance is like that of humans, and some refute that. Do we contradict what we mentioned? So does this research actually question the early conclusions about Lucy? Was her structure or uprightness like that of the modern human body? And what is the relevance of Dr. Al-Amri's statement: "But he did not explain this stance"? Which stance? And what explanation? I am talking about a certain concept that this research proves the incorrectness of early conclusions about Lucy.
The third mistake according to Al-Amri is that the second article has no relation to Lucy. The question here is: does Dr. Al-Amri realize that the scientific name for Lucy is "Australopithecus afarensis" as in the website of the Natural History Museum? And even on sites like Wikipedia? Or did Dr. Al-Amri limit himself to searching for the word "Lucy" in the abstract of the research, without taking the trouble to extract the full paper and search for Lucy or her scientific name in it? If you are ignorant of the scientific name, Dr. Al-Amri, or lazy about extracting the paper, then that is your problem. Solve it before accusing others of tampering. If you extract the paper and search for the scientific name of Lucy, you will find it repeated ten times, three of which are in this table, for example. And for accuracy, this paper itself was appropriately placed when I spoke in the episode about the confusion, and it is related to Lucy, not as Dr. Al-Amri thought.
Let's now see the fourth alleged mistake according to Dr. Al-Amri. He said: "Then Dr. Qunibi, quoting from another article in the magazine 'Science,' translated it as follows: 'Experts agree that this fossil will complicate efforts to follow the twisted path of human evolution.' But the word 'complicate' in this context does not mean complicate but means to converge, to gather. That is, it is here as in the Merriam-Webster dictionary for the word." And by God, my brothers, it is regrettable that one needs to respond to such a statement and explain a word with such clarity.
Let's see the dictionary that Dr. Al-Amri relied on. These are the meanings of "complicate" according to Merriam-Webster: the first meaning is "to make something complicated or difficult." The second meaning is "to involve or complicate, especially to make something more complicated, more difficult, or more difficult." The third meaning is "to combine, especially in an intricate, complicated, and inseparable manner." These are all the meanings of the word "complicate" as they appeared in the dictionary that Dr. Al-Amri relied on in his translation. The question is: where did you get the meaning of "converge" or "converge" from this dictionary? One of the brothers told me that he searched for this meaning in twenty dictionaries and sent me pictures of them and did not find this meaning. And he made a great effort in tracking the meanings word by word and did not find this meaning.
Does Dr. Al-Amri mean the third meaning? When Dr. Al-Amri claims that the third meaning in Merriam-Webster is the intended one in this case and in this context, the meaning becomes: "Experts agree that this fossil will combine in an intricate, inseparable manner the efforts to follow the twisted path of human origins." Knowing that the title of the article in which this statement appeared is: "Fossil complicates or causes confusion in the human family tree." When you see someone arguing about the translation of a word, you learn the extent of ignorance or the bankruptcy of the argument.
The fifth mistake according to Dr. Al-Amri is that I said: "This article was published in 2005." But the truth is that this article was published in 2001 and was talking about discoveries from 1995 and 1999 to the end. So I say, dear guests: yes, I mistakenly said that this article was published in 2005, and the correct date is 2001. But first, the correct date is shown in the image displayed next to me, and then an error of this kind does not affect the idea in the slightest.
The sixth mistake according to Dr. Al-Amri said: "Here, Dr. Qunibi made a very serious mistake, oh my God, and his audience's failure to point it out to him indicates what I previously said about Dr. Qunibi's confidence in the awareness of the targeted group. Professor Groves' statement was not about the recently discovered fossil in Ethiopia at all."
Let's see together that very serious mistake according to Dr. Al-Amri. An article from the "ABC" website discussed the results of two recent studies at the time. The first study was in the journal "Science" and the second study was in the journal "Nature." And that article quoted a comment from Professor Groves about the results of the "Nature" study that it had turned the apple cart upside down. The location of the mistake is that I said based on this article that Groves was commenting with this statement on the fossil that "Science" spoke about, while the correct thing is that he was talking about the results of the "Nature" study. Yes, this was a mistake on my part where I confused between the journal "Nature" and the journal "Science." There is no evidence in the "Science" study nor was Groves' statement about it, but rather about the "Nature" study.
But dear guests, what was the idea I was talking about in this place? That there is confusion and chaos in the alleged tree of human evolution. So whether Groves' statement was about turning the apple cart upside down because of the "Nature" journal study or because of the "Science" journal, the apple cart is still upside down and the confusion is still present, which is expressed by Groves' statement that we mentioned: "We do not know how many types were present - meaning of the alleged human ancestors - and we do not know which one follows which one." Yes, there was confusion between the two magazines, both of which are among the greatest magazines, so I have no interest in mentioning one instead of the other.
Nevertheless, the mentioned novelist insists on considering these mistakes as evidence of deliberately deceiving the public.
Let us see the eighth and penultimate mistake in what I have reviewed to see who is actually deceiving their audience. I spoke about the skull discovered in Kenya and said about it: "They estimated the age of the skull to be three and a half million years old until an article in Nature magazine expressed its severe shock about it and published its article saying: 'The evolutionary history of man is complex and unclear,' and so on."
Al-Umri says: "Dr. Qanibi quotes Nature magazine as feeling severe shock and that the evolutionary history is complex and unclear, and that it seems today on the verge of throwing more confusion due to the discovery of a new species dating back three and a half million years." End of Dr. Qanibi's speech. Al-Umri says: "The magazine did not use the word severe shock, the rest of the translation from the beginning is correct." Ah, I said: "The magazine expressed its severe shock and said so." Then the novelist and writer comes to tell you: "The magazine did not say, 'I am shocked.'" We say: "Zayd conveyed his thanks to Umar and said, 'I am grateful to you.'" Then someone comes and says: "You lied, Zayd did not say thank you to Umar." Yes, the magazine did not say, "I am shocked," nor did I claim that it said it was shocked, but it expressed its shock. And I do not know if I am dealing with a third-grade elementary student until I explain to him the difference between 'said' and 'expressed' oh novelist and writer? Amazing indeed!
Let us see the ninth mistake according to Al-Umri. He continues on this point saying: "Indeed, the author of the article - meaning in Nature - says something very intriguing about the flat-faced man of Kenya: 'I think the main role of the scientific name in the coming few years will be to spoil the party (party spoiler) and reveal the confusing puzzles in the research on the evolutionary relationships between hominins.' Al-Umri comments saying: 'The researchers have a party like a surprise party, and this discovery spoils it by revealing it early, but Dr. Qanibi does not say all of this, but rather the Kenyan fossil spoiled the party because it hastened the good news. So, Iyad came and claimed the exact opposite that the Kenyan fossil confused and perplexed them.'"
Let us see the original text that Al-Umri translated to see who is actually deceiving his audience. This is the text that Al-Umri translated from Nature. Notice in it: "It highlights the confusion facing research into the evolutionary relationships of hominins." Al-Umri translates "highlights the confusion" to "reveals the confusing puzzles" so that it fits his claim that the topic is a joyful party.
Is this meaning, oh Al-Umri, that fits the introduction of the article which I confirmed that my translation of it is correct? The introduction of the article says: "The evolutionary history of man is complex and unclear, it seems today on the verge of throwing more confusion due to the discovery of a new species dating back three and a half million years." Is the topic, as you claim, solved puzzles and a joyful party with pleasant surprises for evolutionists, or confusion and stumbling, oh Al-Umri? Is it not a flaw to make light of your followers and deceive them in this way, then accuse others of what you do? As the saying goes: "She threw me with her excuses and slipped away."
Why the lie, oh Doctor, and the falsification of the translation in victory for the myth of evolution which has become for you like the blind sacred creed? Why did you evade, oh Doctor, from trying to communicate with you in a brotherly manner to discuss with you the invalidity of what you publish to the people, then you evade to the pages of the internet to falsify and distort even in translation?
And finally, my brothers, I thank Allah that the episode "Origin of Man" did not come out with except such mistakes from people who tried hard to dig into it letter by letter. In the end, the real mistakes: 2005 instead of 2001, "Science" instead of "Nature." Mistakes that do not affect in the least the content of the episode which contained dozens of references from global scientific journals. All the credit for that goes to Allah. I ask Allah to guide us all to what He loves and is pleased with. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.