Books that demolish the theory of evolution

Documentaries that demolish the theory of evolution

Websites about the collapse of the theory of evolution

Books on the fact of creation

Documentaries on the fact of creation

Articles on the fact of creation


Vol I:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)
Vol II:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)
Vol III:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)
Vol IV:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)

The Claim That Homo Erectus Was A Primitive Species Is Nothing But Prejudice
Homo erectus means ‘upright man.’ These humans possessed an identical skeletal structure to modern man, and like us were capable of walking upright. The reason why Homo erectus is considered ‘primitive’ is the fact that its skull volume (900-1100 cc) is smaller than the modern human average (1400 cc) and its thick eyebrow protrusions. The fact is, however, that there are many human beings today with the same average skull dimensions as Homo erectus, and thick eyebrow protrusions can be found in various races today (as is the case with native Australians). The fact that the anatomical features of Homo erectus can still be seen today demonstrates that it is very definitely not a primitive species. In fact, many evolutionists now say that Homo erectus is a variation of Homo sapiens, in other words a true human being.
Why It Is Meaningless For Evolutionists To Use Australopithecus In Their Human Evolution Claims
Evolutionists give the name Australopithecus, meaning ‘southern ape,’ to man’s first alleged ape-like ancestor. In fact, these creatures are nothing but an ancient extinct species of ape. Although various Australopithecus species have been found, only Australopithecus afarensis (represented by ‘Lucy,’ put forward as proof of human evolution when discovered in 1974) is regarded as man’s direct ancestor. Detailed analysis of Australopithecus fossils, however, have revealed that these were an ordinary species of ape.
Why does the intelligent behaviour in monkeys not show that man evolved from apes?
Monkeys exhibit various forms of intelligent and social behaviour. Evolutionists point to the way monkeys manage to imitate human behaviour, and then construct similarities. Monkeys are claimed to be the closest animals to man in terms of intelligence, and these similarities are used by evolutionists as the basis for the claim that man evolved from apes. The fact is, however, that the idea that monkey intelligence and behaviour proves evolution is an invalid one, since there are countless creatures in nature which exhibit human-like behaviour despite being far removed from man.
Why the propaganda regarding the evolution of human intelligence is untrue
The Unique Structure of Avian Lung Refutes Evolution
The Evolution of the Human Brain: A Blindly Supported Darwinist Myth
Evolutionists claim that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and that during that imaginary process his brain also grew and developed. According to this view, the growth of the brain is a so-called evolutionary adaptation. Again according to this claim, random mutations and natural selection, bereft of any aim or purpose, are responsible for the alleged evolution of the brain. That which Darwinists most frequently resort to support these claims—based on their own prejudices—is the diagram of the skulls which they set out in order from small to large. A number of scientific sources frequently set this claim and these plans before us.
The Complex Design and High Processing Capacity in the Human Brain
The Irreducible Complexity of Wings Refutes Evolution



The Sensitive Design in Feathers

Feathers are “the most complex epidermal appendages found in animals.”(2) Designed with great sensitivity, these structures allow birds to fly, and are highly productive but very light. Moreover, bird wing feathers are themselves “one of the most beautifully designed structures in the world.” From the point of view of their dimensions, form, color and tissue, feathers possess such an enormous variety that few works of art can compare with the color harmony in them.(3)

The famous ornithologist Alan Feduccia describes the design in feathers as follows:



The microscopic hook system in feathers

There may be as many as 1 million barbules on a single flight feather of a large bird.(5) The picture to the side shows the tiny hooklets and grooves on the barbules of a feather magnified 20,000 times.(6) Thanks to the design in these hooklets the barbules are able to move away from one another under pressure, and the bird’s wing and feathers are thus prevented from being damaged in high winds.

Evolutionists claim that feathers evolved from the scales on birds’ alleged ancestors—reptiles. The fact is, however, that scales are folds in the skin, whereas feathers emerge from follicles in the skin, in a similar manner to hairs. Feathers consist of barbs, barbules and hook. Furthermore, the places where barbules and scales emerge from are very different.

The Complexity in Feathers

Feathers and other structures comprise the bird’s plumage. The plumage, together with dermal and subdermal muscles, ligaments, the brain and sensory organs, comprises an interconnected structure requiring the functioning of a complex unit, otherwise it will not be possible for the feather to function in a healthy manner. Moreover, with such details as its angle, thickness and shape, the range of variation which can be tolerated in the construction of the feather is very narrow. Even the slightest deviations can render this entire flight system non-functioning. When the follicle structure and complexity are added to this, the scenario of this system coming about by means of evolution becomes totally nonsensical. In fact, even to guess the stages of this imaginary evolution appears impossible.

The difficulty of this is admitted in one evolutionist publication:

The chief difficulty in thinking about the evolution of the first feathers is the difficulty in accounting for the genesis of the structure through a continuous sequence of selective forces and with a continuous series of hypothetical morphological steps* that are functionally plausible. (7)

* Hypothetical morphological steps: Steps presumed to have been taken by feathers during their alleged evolution, structural steps of different appearances.

The following comment appears in another evolutionist publication, “Even speculating on the most primitive stages of the evolution of feathers is very problematic.” (8)

The Irreconcilable Differences between Scales and Feathers

detail of a bird feather
detail of a reptile scales

The pictures on the right clearly reveal the differences between scales and feathers. The considerable differences between feathers and scales exist among the genes in which the data for the two structures are coded at the genetic level. This inevitably leads to the question of how, during the alleged transition to birds, and by what mechanism a scale-covered reptile could have acquired the necessary data for the bird feather. According to the theory of evolution, the genetic information for feathers, which did not at that time yet exist in nature, must have been new, and furthermore this information must have been added to the reptile DNA by a natural causes-based mechanism. Evolutionists suggest random mutations for that alleged mechanism. However, it is a known fact that mutations do not add new genetic information to living things, and can therefore have no evolutionary effect. Quite helpless when it comes to proposing a mechanism, evolutionists refuse to abandon their claim, and follow the logic of “It exists, therefore it evolved.” In other words, they blindly defend the idea that feathers evolved from scales.

Evolutionists seek to resolve their dilemma over the evolution of feathers by adding a speculative phase to the scenario. They maintain that feathers first appeared on dinosaurs in such a way as to provide thermal insulation, and that these later evolved and specialized in such a way as to be beneficial for flight. This is yet another of evolutionists’ “Just So Stories.” It is very easy to come up with such tales. First of all the advantage(s) of a given feature of a living thing is described. A scenario is then produced as to how this advantage might have evolved. In practice, of course, there is no limit to the evolutionist theses which can be produced in this way. Like all other “Just So Stories,” this evolutionary tale is unable to provide any answer as to how new genetic information might have emerged.

Another important point on this subject is that the feather structure in flightless birds totally contradicts the claim that the alleged evolution of the feather took place first for thermal insulation and then for flight. When the feathers of flightless birds such as the chicken are examined they are different to the feathers of flying birds. The feathers of flightless birds have a contoured structure rather than the aerodynamic structure in flying birds. These contours resemble the hairs which cover the mammalian body. What needs to be realized about that similarity is that the hairs on mammals regulate thermal insulation in a particularly sound manner.(9) Contoured feathers which make flight impossible will therefore represent an advantage in terms of insulation.

That advantage deals a fatal blow to the evolutionist scenario that the transition to flight took place after thermal insulation. According to that scenario, feathers assumed to have evolved initially for insulation should have a contoured structure, in which case only feathers which provide greater thermal insulation, in other words more contoured feathers, will be selected. For that reason, the hypothetical progress from a contoured structure to an aerodynamic one will be eliminated.

It thus appears that there is no evidence that the feather structure will evolve from thermal insulation to flight. Indeed, it must be thought that the hair-like feathers of flightless birds will work in the exact opposite direction. In short, evolutionists are constructing fantasies, and swimming against the current.

There is also an important biochemical difference between scales and feathers. Both consist of keratin (a kind of protein, the building block of human hair); feathers are made from F-keratin, and scales from a-keratin. However, the biochemical routes of these two types of keratin are very different: A. H. Brush, a foremost authority on the subject, states:

At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis (shape/form generation), gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different. (10)

The Fossil Record Refutes Feather Evolution

The irreconcilable differences between scales and feathers clearly reveal the invalidity of the evolutionists’ claims. In addition, the oldest known bird, Archaeopteryx, has an asymmetrical feather structure identical to that of modern flying birds. In other words, the oldest known bird emerged with the most perfect feather structure, whereas the theory of evolution would expect a “primitive” structure. The researchers L. Martin and S. A. Czerkas state that, “The oldest known feathers … are already modern in form and microscopic detail.” (11)

These words demonstrate that the fossil record invalidates the scenarios of feather evolution. A Columbia University biologist makes the same admission, saying that no transitional form exists between the most primitive feather in our possession and reptilian scales.(12)

Comments from an Aerodynamicist

Dr. Andy McIntosh, a member of the Leeds University academic staff and an expert on aerodynamics, described the superior design in feathers in an interview:

That’s right. The feather is made such that if you bend it, everything bends with it, and yet it’s a very light structure. So the hooks catch the ridges and they slide over the ridges—it’s a mechanical engineer’s dream to have such useful, lightweight engineering. But if you have a sliding joint, you need lubrication. To do this the bird twists its neck around 180º and dips its beak into a tiny oil gland right down at the back of its spine. It then preens itself, wiping this oil all over its feathers, so that they join together nicely, and these sliding joints are oiled. That’s a marvellous bit of engineering.
I have seen a photo in a book, of an aircraft landing at Hong Kong and underneath it is a falcon landing at the same time. Now as you look at birds and planes together, are you going to say that one is designed and the other isn’t? I would find that scientifically preposterous.(13)

Another Major Blow to the Bird Evolution Scenario: Peacock Feathers

Another important example to reveal the invalidity of the scenarios of bird evolution is the peacock feather. The design which gives these creatures their wonderful colors and patterns points to intelligent design, as it is both most aesthetically pleasing and exceedingly complex. That explains why when Charles Darwin saw the beauty-filled design in peacock feathers he realized he was looking at the inconsistency of his own theory, and admitted, “The sight of a feather in a peacock"s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!” (14)

There are geometrical designs in the peacock feather which are based on mathematical equations. One astonishing feature of the wondrous colors in these feathers, which change according to the angle of light reflection, is that they are not based on pigments. Researchers who have studies this design have revealed that the layers of the feathers are very carefully designed and that the structure which gives rise to the pattern is irreducibly complex. Such a feather design cannot, of course, be explained in terms of imaginary processes based on natural causes, and demonstrates the invalidity of Darwinism.


There are major anatomical differences between living birds and living reptiles, their alleged ancestors. Robert Caroll, a world expert of vertebrate paleontology, says the following on the subject:

Birds are ‘the most clearly distinct of vertebrate classes’ and there’s an enormous gap in anatomy, and way of life between birds and their putative closest relatives, reptiles.(15)

These words are an important admission. They refute the evolutionist thesis that there was evolution between the two groups, either in the fossil record or among living specimens.

Evolutionists support scenarios of bird evolution not because they are a consistent thesis based on scientific evidence, but as a dogma adopted for philosophical reasons. There is only one explanation for the complex design in bird feathers and the absence in the fossil record of any specimen which might represent support for evolution. Birds did not evolve, but were intelligently brought into being. In other words, they were created. There is no doubt that God, the all-knowing and Almighty, created the perfect structures in birds and their flying abilities.

The ability to fly given to birds by God is revealed in one verse of the Qur’an as follows:

""Do they not see the birds suspended in mid-air up in the sky? Nothing holds them there except God. There are certainly Signs in that for people who believe.""  (Qur’an, 16:79)


1 Jonathan D. Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, Chapter 4; Dr. Jerry Bergman, "The Evolution of Feathers: A Major Problem for Darwinism", Technical Journal 17(1), 2003, pp. 33-41
2 R. O. Prum, and S. Williamson, “Theory of the Growth and Evolution of Feather Shape”, Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular Developmental Evolution) 291: 30-57, 2001
6 Photos: courtesy of David Menton
7 P. Regal, “The Evolutionary origin of Feathers”, The Quarterly Review of Biology, 50(1): 35-66, 1975:pp. 35-36
8 W. J. Bock, “Explanatory History of the Origin of Feathers”, American Zoologist, 40: 478-485
10 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 9:131-142, 1996
11 L. Martin, and S. A. Czerkas, “The Fossil Record of Feather Evolution in the Mesozoic”, American Zoologist, 40: 687-694, 2000; p. 687
13“Flying High”, An interview with Dr. Andy McIntosh, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v20n2_mcintosh.asp 
14 F. Darwin, (Ed), Letter to Asa Gray, dated 3 April 1860, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, John Murray, London, Vol. 2, pp. 296, 1887; 1911 Edition, D. Appleton and Company, New York and London, Vol. 2, pp. 90–91
15 R. Caroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997 p. 306

Why the Idea of Bird Evolution Is No Longer Tenable



In order to create, God has no need to design

As verses of the Qur'an tell us:


2007 Darwinism-Watch.com