THE WORLD IN OUR BRAINS

      When you look out of the window, you think that you see an image with your eyes, as this is the way that you have been taught to think. However, in reality this is not how it works, because you do not see the world with your eyes. You see the image created in your brains. This is not a prediction, nor a philosophical speculation, but the scientific truth.

     This concept can be better understood when we realize how the visual system operates. The eye is responsible for transforming light into an electric signal by means of the cells in the retina. This electrical signal reaches the sight center in the brain. The signals create the vision you see when you look out of the window. In other words, the sights you see are created in your brain.

     You see the image in your brain, not the view outside the window. For example, in the picture shown on the right hand side, the light reaches the eyes of the person from outside. This light passes to the small sight center located at the back of the brain after the cells in the eyes transform it into electrical signals. It is these electrical signals which form the picture in the brain. In reality when we open the brain, we wouldn't be able to see any image. However, some kind of consciousness in the mind receives electrical signals in the form of an image. The brain perceives electrical signals in the form of an image, yet it has no eye, eye cells, or retina. So, to whom does the consciousness in the brain belong? 

What Darwin Did Not Know

As Charles Darwin was forced to admit, "I remember well the time when the thought of the [structure of the] eye made me cold all over." One of the main reasons why was that his theory was unable to account for the eyeball's flawless structures and complexity. The illusory mechanisms of evolution could not have given rise to such a complex organ. To prove that the eye could have come into being through the imaginary phases of evolution, Darwin needed to reduce the eye's components to very simple forms-but this he was unable to do.

How did such a complex organ emerge? The lack of any explanation is as great a dilemma for present-day adherents of the theory of evolution as it was for its original architects. Darwinists encounter this dilemma wherever they encounter complexity. How could such intricate variety have come into existence by way of a trial-and-error process that, they maintained, took place over the course of millions of years? Evolutionists cannot offer any logical scenario to answer that question.

The Cambrian Period

Life on Earth exhibits the most amazing variety. From the Poles to the Amazon, from mountain peaks to the ocean deeps, our planet overflows with an endless variety of life forms. Its many organisms, from bacteria to worms, from ants to trees, from sea gulls to dolphins, have each been equipped with extraordinarily sensitive systems and gloriously complex structures, thanks to which they can survive in such close harmony with their environment. These systems, whose details are still being discovered by biologists, contain features that astonish human beings.

Scientists and thinkers have investigated nature in all periods of history, witnessed its flawless harmony and planning, and have sought to answer such questions as these:

The Cambrian, Evolution And Creation

Before moving on to consider the Cambrian explosion itself, we first need to briefly compare what features are to be expected from the fossil record according to the theory of evolution, versus creation.

Darwin's theory of evolution claims that all forms of life are descended from one original single cell. According to that claim, all the millions of plant and animal species must have descended from this single cell. In the fossil record, therefore, there should exist various traces of the "family tree" deriving from this common ancestor. Evolutionists maintain that there is a direct line of descent between this imaginary first cell and all later living species, from fish to primates and from octopuses to frogs. If this hypothesis is true, then it should have left available traces. Namely:

The Origin Of Species According To The Fossil Record

When Charles Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859, he set out his own ideas on their origin and claimed that this was based on various mechanisms of the imaginary evolutionary process.

According to his thinking, evolution led to minute changes in species through these mechanisms; and these differences then increased, until every new living species developed from some previous one, as a result of very small changes. Again according to the theory, living species are not distinguished from one another by major anatomical differences, but begin diverging from one another through minuscule variations.

This implies that all living things are related to one another. One living species experienced random and gradual changes over a period of time lasting for millions of years, at the end of which its descendents have developed into another species entirely. In that case, evidence of the long transformation period-fossils of at least some of the various intermediate forms-should exist in the Earth's fossil record. Since they lived in a kind of transitional period, many of these transitional forms had yet to complete the development of their more sophisticated organs, and must have been deformed, crippled and deficient in some way.

Since this supposed process of evolutionary change lasted for millions of years, these alleged intermediate forms must have existed on Earth for almost the entire intervening time-and should have left a great many surviving traces in the fossil record.

Yet The Fossil Findings Were Incompatible With Darwin's Theory!

Cambrian fossils discovered in Wales dealt a severe blow to the classification with which Darwin set out his theory. The Cambrian Period (from 542 to 488 million years ago), the oldest in the history of multi-cellular organisms, represented the sudden emergence of a great many phyla and classes of animals, all in their fully formed states, in an environment where only single-celled organisms had existed before. To put it another way, biology operated in the exact opposite manner of what Darwin predicted: Phyla emerged along with individual species, not afterward.

No doubt, this was a matter of concern for any evolutionist! Darwin himself was well aware of the results already emerging from the fossil discoveries of his own day, and he described this as one of the gravest difficulties that could threaten his theory:

Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian* [Cambrian] stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.4

But Darwin Was Wrong!

Our current knowledge regarding the pre-Cambrian is doubtless much more complete than it was in Darwin's time. Ever since then, enormous research has been conducted into pre-Cambrian fossils-and the emerging results have actually made the problems facing evolutionists even more difficult, rather than resolving Darwin's original concerns. New Cambrian fossil beds were discovered in Canada, Greenland and China.8

Darwin thought that the evidence necessary to prove his theory would be obtained through future fossil discoveries. However, improvements in technology and advances in the fields of genetics, biology, biochemistry and medicine, and the wide-ranging fossil findings, all revealed facts that would totally eliminate his theory.

Fossil Sufficiency

In Darwin's day, the living cell was thought of as merely a sac filled with liquid. Scientists of the Victorian era were ignorant of the organelles in the cell and its other microscopic structures. Nobody knew that the DNA molecule contained enough information to fill many volumes of an encyclopedia. It was thought that if a baby was born handicapped, that was because of fears the mother had experienced during the gestation process.

In Darwin's time it was believed that the soil of a land being plowed away could change that region's climate. People imagined that outer space was a colorless fluid known as ether and that if people's hands were severed over the course of a few generations eventually children without any hands would be born. The electron microscope did not yet exist in 1859. Neither did the refrigerator (which was invented only in 1938), the telephone (1876), the typewriter (1867), or even the ballpoint pen (1863). Researchers of the time tried to understand natural phenomena by means of such rudimentary equipment as compasses, thermometers and the like.

Accordingly, in the days when Darwin was making his studies and conjectures, research into biology and the knowledge resulting from that research were very limited.

The Pre-Cambrian Earth

Cambrian rocks no older than 550 My contained the earliest animal fossil record-arthropods, mollusks, brachiopods, and others. Below them there were no animal fossils [emphasis added]. Darwin himself conceded that his theory of evolution by natural selection required a history of previous populations for all these creatures to have descended from. Scientists hatched a brood of suggestions; all fossil-bearing rocks from the critical interval of animal evolution had been eroded or metamorphosed, or animals arose in freshwater lakes and only later entered the oceans. None proved satisfactory, and the wealth of animal fossils that defined the beginning of the Cambrian age remained an enigma.16

Logically enough, "the Pre-Cambrian Era" is the name given to the vast stretch of time between the formation of the Earth up to the Cambrian Period.

. . . but if you disbelieve, what is in the heavens and in the Earth belongs to Allah. Allah is Rich Beyond Need, Praiseworthy. (Surat an-Nisa', 131)

Ediacaran: A False Intermediate-Form Fauna

The rocks that generally underlie the Cambrian rocks are simply called Precambrian rocks. Some are thousands of feet thick, and many are undisturbed-perfectly suitable for the preservation of fossils. If it is possible to find fossils of microscopic, single-celled, soft-bodied bacteria and algae, it should certainly be possible to find fossils of the transitional forms between those organisms and the complex invertebrates. Many billions times billions of the intermediates would have lived and died during the vast stretch of time required for the evolution of such a diversity of complex organisms. The world's museums should be bursting at the seams with enormous collections of the fossils of transitional forms. As a matter of fact, not a single such fossil has ever been found! Right from the start, jellyfish have been jellyfish, trilobites have been trilobites, sponges have been sponges, and snails have been snails. Furthermore, not a single fossil has been found linking, say, clams and snails, sponges and jellyfish, or trilobites and crabs… 23 (Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. in Biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)

The Variety Of Life In The Ediacaran Period And Evolutionists' Inconsistencies

"It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one form to another,"28 says evolutionist Douglas Futuyma, New York University's professor of evolutionary biology.

Ediacaran life forms were interesting creatures with very different characteristics from those that came both before and after them. Dickinsonia, around half a meter in length, Palaeophragmodictya, a sponge-like organism with a flattened appearance, and Aspidella, with small cavities on its surface, were just a few of the Ediacaran life forms. Some of these bore no resemblance to any creatures living today. A few, however, had similar features to present-day jellyfish, starfish, sponges and crinoids.

The emergence of these unusual-looking creatures opened a wide divergence of opinion among evolutionists. The Cambridge University evolutionist Simon Conway-Morris said, "The problem is that the same fossils are interpreted in completely different ways by different people."29

Darwinism Watch

Channels That Only Show Animals’ Savage Aspects Are Engaging in Darwinist Propaganda 2012-04-06   Perfection Is an Outcome Shown by Science and Prevails in All Living Structures 2012-03-28   There Is No Such Thing as the “First Self-reproducing Molecule That Gave Rise to Life” 2012-03-28   Response To The Darwinist Deceptions In The News Site Malaysian Insider 2012-03-25   Prof. Robert Davis, from Glasgow University, warned that the Scottish curriculum is “under pressure” of atheists like Richard Dawkins 2012-02-29   Fearing death will avail CNN producer Larry King nothing at all 2012-02-25   The Huffington Post Writer Nidhal Guessoum’s Errors Concerning Evolution 2012-01-18   The error of Al Jazeera TV's claim that evolution and religion might be reconciled must be made up for right away 2012-01-03   Why are Darwinist journals ceasing publication one after the other? 2011-06-19   Tales of ''Feathered Dinosaurs'' No Longer Deceive Anyone 2011-06-18       Read all responses to the Darwinist propaganda >>