THE EVALUATION OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
Some evolutionists say that the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes extend all the way down to the heart and then come back although it could reach its destination easily by directly reaching to the side, and this is a poor design that cannot be attributed to a deity. This nerve loops around the heart in all mammals but its route looks weirder in giraffes given that they have pretty long necks. There are some biological benefits of the nerve's downward route. It connects the muscles around esophagus and trachea, and some tissues of the heart to the nervous system. Also, damages in our breasts or diseases such as cancer may stimulate this nerve and notify us of the problem there, thus paving the way for early diagnosis. The primary reason for the indirect route of this nerve is the requirements of embryonic development. A man-made machine starts functioning only when its construction is completed and it doesn't change throughout its life cycle. Whereas organisms are always alive since becoming fertilized eggs and take various forms throughout their lifespans, therefore it is not sufficient to evaluate them only according to their current forms. Think of a cable that connects both sides of a wall that is still under construction. At first, a short cable would be sufficient because the wall would be small. The cable would need to be extended as the wall is constructed and widened over time. When the wall’s construction finishes and it reaches its maximum length, the cable needs to be much longer than its initial state so that it can loop around the wall. This is similar to the case in mammals including giraffes. As the neck grows and the heart goes down during the development of the embryo, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is pulled from both sides, forcing it to take an indirect route and causing other organs to come between its starting and ending points. This has no adverse effect for the organism because impulses are transmitted in almost infinite speeds along nerves anyway, having a bit longer nerve has no significance against the speed of impulses. The shortest route is often not the best route; if it were, I would have to drill a hole in my table through which I would pass my laptop charger to connect to the socket in the shortest route, instead of looping it around the table. I don’t have to tell you how absurd this solution would be. There is no poor design in the recurrent laryngeal nerve. It is possible that new functions of this nerve be discovered in the future, our knowledge about the nervous system is quite limited yet.
Is the gene of leg growth in snakes evidence for evolution?
Many studies have recently revealed that snakes indeed have the genes to grow legs, but they cannot grow legs because these genes are not activated by other mechanisms. Well, if snakes are not meant to have legs, why did God give them the gene to grow legs? Does this gene prove that snakes used to have legs in the past? The answer to this is interestingly present in the Torah and in the Islamic traditions. Satan entered the Garden of Eden in the form of a serpent so as to talk to and deceive Adam and Eve (pbut). When Adam (pbuh) ate from the forbidden tree, the Torah narrates that God told to the serpent: “So the LORD God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.’ (Genesis 3:14)” This verse states that snakes lost their legs after this incident and have been doomed to crawl on their bellies. A similar story is mentioned in some commentaries on the Quran. The Muslim scholars Ibn Jareer at-Tabari (1/532) and Wahb ibn Munabbih reported that when Satan wanted to tempt Adam and Eve (pbut), he entered the body of a snake, and the snake had four legs. It was one of the most beautiful beasts that God had created, and when the snake entered Paradise, Satan emerged from its body.
As you have seen, the leg gene in snakes is evidence not for evolution, but for the truth of the Holy Scriptures. Another thing to remark on is that snakes’ losing their legs due to a mutation is not as easy as evolutionists claim, because being subject to a mutation that deprived them of their legs when their body was not suitable for creeping yet must’ve definitely been a disadvantage, not an advantage. Then how could the snakes that lost their legs and were deprived of legs’ functions succeed in natural selection against those that had legs? This can only happen with God’s deliberate intervention, not with the blind mechanisms of evolution.
Are the pelvic bones of whales evidence for evolution?
Evolutionists consider the pelvic bones in whales as vestigial organs and as proof that these creatures had hind limbs in the past. This hypothesis has always been one of the most popular examples of so-called vestigial organs proposed by evolutionists. However, this hypothesis was proved to be problematic not long ago. It has been proved that the pelvic bone, which has no direct link with the skeleton, helps whales maneuver better during sex. It is not easy for huge and cumbersome animals like whales to have sex under the water without the help of this bone. The statistics demonstrate that whales with large pelvic bones tend to have larger penises and mate with more females. The evolutionist article that reveals this study makes this confession: “Contrary to popular belief, these are not vestigial structures. They do have a function. That function is reproduction”. The same article ends with this deduction that we fully agree with: “Just because we can’t conceive of a function doesn’t mean it has no use. That’s a little short-sighted on the part of our imagination.”
WHY DOES EVOLUTION HAVE HIGH ACCEPTANCE AMONG THE SCIENTISTS?
I had associated Darwinism with the huge trial of the End Times called Dajjal (the Antichrist) in another section. Now, let’s look at the logical reasons as to why Darwinism has such high acceptance in this age.
Firstly, a belief/theory’s having the acceptance of the majority doesn’t make it more rational. If one decides to believe in something by using his reason only, the quantity of people endorsing a particular view should be irrelevant in the decision process. If everybody in the world had believed that the computer I am using now came into existence by coincidence, this would not have altered the fact that this claim is totally preposterous. Most people are stupid. The number of disbelievers has always been higher than the number of believers throughout history, and this age is no exception to that. “And We have not sent you except comprehensively to mankind as a bringer of good tidings and a warner. But most of the people do not know. (Qur’an 34:28)” The excuse of disbelieving just because the majority have disbelieved will not be accepted on Judgment Day. People feel safer when they follow the majority as if Hell won’t have enough room to accommodate them when it will be filled with too many infidels. There is no doubt that God is powerful enough to punish the entire creation in hellfire. “Is there not in Hell a [sufficient] residence for the disbelievers? (Qur’an 29:68)” Darwin had no self-confidence when he first proposed his theory because theists were the majority back then. Confessions like “The sight of the peacock's tail makes me sick” and “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” were told by Darwin himself. But now, theists have lost their confidence due to atheists’ gaining the majority. Atheism has become an unquestionable dogma as people prefer to follow the majority, we need somebody to shout the truth: “The emperor has no clothes!”
Today, the prevalent ideology of science is positivism. The existence of God and creation are inherently unacceptable for our so-called scientists because they cannot be explained by scientific methods. Normally, a hypothesis should be rejected if doesn’t conform to the evidence at hand. However, the theory of evolution is in an exclusive position in that it has no alternative as far as positivistic scientists are concerned, that’s why this theory has ended up being an unquestionable dogma. In fact, the creation of everything by God is also a possibility, excluding God and creation from science means injecting bias into it. Since it is very difficult to find the DNA sequences of past species and test their compatibility with the hypothesized evolutionary progress; we can say that the theory of evolution is nothing but aggregated assumptions, and it is yet a philosophical idea rather than a testable scientific theory.
In order to contest creationism, the evolutionists contend that the idea of creation is not scientific and the creationists are motivated by religious sentiments instead of science while endorsing creation. There are three subclaims in this contention: The idea of creation is not scientific, creation is a religious theory, and the creationists are motivated by religious sentiments instead of science. Now, let’s point out the problems with these claims. Firstly, creation’s not being scientific wouldn’t make it less correct. The truth doesn’t have to be scientific nor does it have to be explicable by science. Science is not the truth in and of itself, it is an instrument to reach the truth. Science has limits just like any human construct and it is short of explaining much of the phenomena in the universe. Just like questions such as the source of morality, the relativity of truth, the meaning of life transcend the methodological limits of science and enter the domain of philosophy/religion, the question of the origin of species can be evaluated likewise and discussed within the domain of philosophy/religion. After all, the acceptance of theories like biological evolution and multiple universes in science is a sign that the scientists are often compelled to transcend the testable scientific domain. Considering creation a purely religious claim for being advocated by religion is not a sensible approach either; this would be equivalent to the preposterous claim that all those who help the poor are motivated by religion because helping the poor is prescribed in religion. The third subclaim says that creationists are motivated by religion. This claim is partially true. People’s attachment to religion is also emotional as well as rational, and believing in religion may instill emotional bias in a scientist. However, this is not exclusive to religious scientists; irreligious scientists are often influenced by their secular/atheistic sentiments in their work too. It is totally unrealistic to expect neutrality from a scientist who had a secular upbringing and is engulfed by the secular mindset, with affection for irreligious ideologies and activities in his heart. People’s actions are directed by their minds and emotions, nobody can isolate his mind from his emotions completely. The situation of those who blame everybody but themselves of being emotional is similar to all people’s delusional conviction that the newspaper they read is the most objective one.
Theists can actually approach the theory of evolution more open-mindedly contrary to what many would think. Positivists have a single option to believe in: evolution or evolution. Creation is inherently not acceptable for them as they consider it “unscientific” no matter how much evidence would favor it. On the other hand, since believing in evolution is not blasphemy as far as one doesn’t reject God, theists have two options to choose: creation or evolution that is controlled by God. From this perspective, having more than one alternative to select from makes creationists more impartial in their decision of whether to believe in evolution or not. Man can get himself to believe in anything as long as he wishes so. If someone wishes or is conditioned to believe that the Earth is flat; he can create for himself many pieces of evidence in favor of this, and turn a blind eye to everything that debunks his opinions and think of himself as the smartest guy on the planet. The current state of evolutionists is not much different from this. If one does not want to believe in God, he wouldn’t believe even if God showed himself to him because he wouldn’t be sure if the thing he saw was really God, and not a hallucination or an illusion.
Somebody may ask: “Why are most scientists atheists if everything is created by God?” We ask them in return: “Why do most Muslims reject evolution if evolution is a fact?” They will have their answers ready: “It is because in Muslim countries, evolution is not taught properly and those who believe in this theory are somehow marginalized.” We also have our answer ready: “Today, evolution is taught as a compulsory subject all around the world when creation has not made it to school curriculums. It is not even allowed to endorse creation in top universities anymore. Given all these facts, do you consider the high acceptance of evolution among educated people as success?” Seventy percent of what biologists learn is about evolution, that’s why it is not expected of them to reject evolution. If seventy percent of the curriculum in a school were about racism, trust me that there would not be a single person who graduates from that school without racist dispositions. Since the religious world-view was pretty strong in the Middle Ages, even the most irreligious scientists wouldn’t reject God altogether because they were constantly imposed the religious world-view which had made them unable to think outside the box of religion. Now, since the positivistic world-view is constantly being imposed on people, even the most religious scientists cannot think outside the box of positivism and even religious people have the prejudices of positivistic-atheistic world-view in their subconscious.
 Cherry, Kendra. "How Many Neurons Are in the Brain?" Verywell. N.p., 11 Mar. 2016. Web. 03 July 2016.
 Tuttle, Russell Howard. “Theories of Bipedalism.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 22 Feb. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution/Theories-of-bipedalism.
 “He Is Asking about the Way in Which Iblees Whispered to Our Father Adam - Islam Question & Answer.” Islam Question&Answer, 20 Aug. 2016, islamqa.info/en/answers/111596/he-is-asking-about-the-way-in-which-iblees-whispered-to-our-father-adam.
 Thompson, Helen. “Promiscuous Whales Make Good Use of Their Pelvises.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 8 Sept. 2014, www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/promiscuous-whales-make-good-use-pelvises-180952620/.
Let’s inspect the two driving mechanisms that the theory of evolution depends upon: mutation and natural selection.
Mutations are changes in DNA because of errors made during DNA replication. Mutations are heritable only when they occur in the cells that produce offspring. In other words, mutations that occur in somatic cells have no role to play in evolution. It is a very very tiny probability for a mutation to avail an organism. Even if a mutation avails the organism, this benefit wouldn’t make the organism more complex or sophisticated. Suppose that a war broke out in a country and all healthy male citizens of that country are obliged to join the war. A man whose one arm has failed to grow due to a mutation is exempted from the war for being unfit. If we assumed that the men who joined the war would be killed in the battle, this would mean that the one-armed man has become victorious in the natural selection process. This man is actually mutated in a way that curtails his power, but the circumstances of his environment made him advantageous. This mutation has definitely not made him a more complex and sophisticated organism. Another possible scenario is that a grandchild of this one-armed man may be mutated in a way that eliminates the factor preventing his arm growth, and it may restore his second arm by chance. If the war is no longer there and there is no need to be exempt from the war, this mutation too is definitely a beneficial mutation. However, this mutation didn’t create the arm from scratch. The gene for the arm was already present in the genome, but couldn’t be used due to the first mutation. The power of the second mutation is not creating the new arm from scratch, but to eliminate the factor that prevents its growth. Someone looking at it from outside may falsely think that it is the single mutation that created the entire arm, and this is the case in many of the situations in which the evolution of unicellular organisms are claimed to have been observed.
The case of the bacteria that acquire immunity to certain antibiotics is similar to the situation described above despite being cited as evidence for evolution. A mutation deforms the proteins that these bacteria use for binding to the antibiotics, thereby saving the lives of these bacteria. However, this mutation does not make the bacteria more sophisticated; conversely, it disrupts their function of binding to the antibiotics. Since that function harms the bacteria at that moment, a mutation disrupting it happens to avail the bacteria. This is analogous to the first example we had given in the previous paragraph about losing the arm. If the antibiotics were to be removed later, the bacteria may restore its previous function of binding to antibiotics in the long run as a result of mutations because there is no longer a need for protection against the antibiotics. However, this restoration would happen by modifying the existing feature a little bit instead of creating it as a new feature from scratch. This is analogous to the second example we had given in the previous paragraph about restoring the arm. Almost all of the observed beneficial mutations fall under either of the two categories we described here, and this is all that beneficial mutations can offer. Thinking that a mutation can develop the organism is like expecting from a car to function better after shooting a bullet at it. It is a far-fetched fantasy to believe that the combinations of mutations have created incredible organs, and the combinations of these organs have created complex systems.
Natural selection is the survival of the fit and the elimination of the unfit for the environment. Natural selection selects between already existing genes, it can never add a new gene to a species. 99.9% of the DNA of all human beings is the same. Natural selection could affect only the 0.1 % of humans even millions of years passed; it can never turn humans or any other species into a new species. God has given every species a particular gene pool so that they can adapt to their environments. Species can never go beyond their gene pool no matter how many years go by.
Evolutionists present natural selection as if it is an intelligent system. They claim that nature can always choose the fittest organisms for that particular environment. However, given that the differences between members of the same species are so small, it is clear that natural selection doesn’t work as easily and precisely as presented by evolutionists. Many variations in the gene pool of a population are too insignificant to trigger natural selection, natural selection cannot select mutations that provide a little benefit. Let’s think of the differences between humans. Evolutionists associate the slanted-eyes of Asian people with their Siberian origins where there is a cold climate. If slanted eyes were very advantageous in cold climates, Northern Europeans would have had slanted eyes as they too live in a cold climate and are not exempt from natural selection. The African Khoisan people have slanted eyes despite living in a hot climate, what explanation can evolutionists bring to this? Another famous example that evolutionists use is the smaller nostrils of people of cold climates that provide them with better warming up of the air they breathe, whereas Neanderthals had lived in Europe during the Ice Age in a very cold climate and they are known for having pretty wide nostrils. For instance, it is expected according to evolution that people living in cold climates be hairier because hairs protect us from cold, but the people living in hot climates now (especially Middle Easterners and Indians) are significantly hairier than those living up North in cold climates. Another example that defies evolution is that in order to decrease the heat loss of the body as we go up north, we would expect to see bigger organisms for the ratio of “surface area/volume” to be small. However, races of Siberian origin such as Central Asian, Chinese, and Japanese people are generally smaller in size than Africans who live in a hot climate. As we have seen, natural selection cannot make selections among small differences, believing that it can is equivalent to worshipping nature. Natural selection is a blind and haphazard system.
Evolutionists believe that the white skin of Europeans is an adaptation for exploiting Sun rays more in Northern lands where there is a scarcity of sunlight. However if we evaluate from a different perspective, black people feel even hotter in hot climates because dark colors absorb the sunlight, and white people feel even colder in cold climates because light colors reflect the sunlight. This is why it is a disadvantage for Africans who live in a hot climate to be dark-skinned, and for Europeans who live in a cold climate to be light-skinned from this perspective. If Africans were white and Europeans were black, evolutionists would’ve explained this by invoking the argument of protection from heat. That is to say, evolutionists would have interpreted the situation in a way that favors the theory of evolution no matter what the situation had been.
Today, there are weak, sick and frail members in every species despite millions of years of natural selection. There are weak people as well as strong people, sick people as well as robust people, and stupid people as well as clever people. If natural selection had been as effective as presented by evolutionists, our gene pool would always have progressed in the positive direction, bad genes would have been weeded out and our population would’ve ended up almost perfect after millions of years of natural selection. However, there are weak creatures in every species including humans despite having been subject to natural selection for a very long time. Let’s finish this topic with a popular joke: Natural selection cannot be at work in this world where there are this many silly people.
The theory of evolution never comes up with an answer to the question of “why?” because it is not grounded in cause and effect relationships. For example, if the firefly’s production of light has evolutionary benefits, then why didn’t other insects evolve to produce light as well? Well, if light production provides no evolutionary advantage, then why did fireflies evolve to produce light? If female spiders’ eating their male spouses has evolutionary benefits, then why didn’t other insects adopt this behavior as well? Well, if eating the spouse provides no evolutionary advantage, then why did spiders adopt this behavior? If the dance of bees that is meant to impart the location of the food source to each other has evolutionary benefits, then why didn’t other insects develop a similar method for conveying information as well? Well, if this dance provides no evolutionary advantage, then why did bees develop it? If the pitcher plant’s consumption of insects has evolutionary benefits, then why didn’t other plants that live under similar conditions evolve to consume insects as well? Well, if this provides no evolutionary advantage, then why did pitcher plants evolve to consume insects? Evolution cannot suggest a logical and consistent answer to any of these, for “chance” is the only mechanism it can propose.
THE FAIRY TALE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
The story of human evolution is one of the most absurd scenarios of evolutionary theory. I am only going to elaborate on human evolution here but the same set of arguments could be used to criticize other scenarios of evolution too. Evolutionists set the beginning point of human evolution back to six million years ago. According to this scenario, although the human brain had not evolved up until two million years ago and it was somewhat similar to the chimpanzee brain, it has developed incredibly over the last two million years and has become twelve times more complex than the monkey brain. The human brain is three times bigger than the chimpanzee brain in size and it has 12 times more neurons than the chimpanzee brain. (The human brain: 86 billion neurons, The chimp brain: 7 billion neurons) Evolutionists usually mention the size difference and skip the difference between the number of neurons so as to make the gap between the brains of these two species look smaller, whereas the complexity of a brain is more important than its size. This scenario also says that humans have weakened in terms of physical strength over the last two million years. According to their claim, the Homo erectus who lived 1.5 million years ago was physically stronger and more durable than modern humans. Let’s ask these questions now: If two million years is enough of a time for the brain to develop so incredibly, why couldn’t the brains of other species approach the human brain although there have been complex species on Earth for hundreds of millions of years? One of the most frequently asked questions against evolution is this: if we came from monkeys, why there are still monkeys? Although this question is often asked out of ignorance, it is very logical in essence. Evolutionists claim that we humans are a breed of monkeys and we came from common ancestors with other monkey breeds, chimpanzees being the closest one. The more appropriate question that should be asked here is this: how could we become much more intelligent than other monkey breeds if we share the same ancestors with them, although they had as much time as we had to evolve at the same time period with similar circumstances? Why did the brains of other monkey breeds remain somewhat unchanged when our brains developed so much during this period? In other words, if we came from monkeys, why didn’t other monkeys become (like) humans?
The most important factor that permits an animal to survive and dominate other members of the population is physical strength. This was the case in human populations too until not long ago. Since we now are organized by laws, intelligence has gained the upper hand over physical strength as far as our prospects in life are concerned. If we put modern people into the wild, it is expected that the strongest and the most durable of us have the greatest survival advantage. Moreover, considering that ancient hominids were deprived of the ability to speak and the background knowledge we now have about nature, we see that intelligence had no value at all in that wild environment. Namely, we expect from evolution to increase physical strength and keep intelligence constant in a population living in an uncivilized environment where physical strength is more valuable than intelligence, because intelligence gives no survival advantage in the absence of civilization, knowledge, and language. However, we see the exact opposite in the so-called story of human evolution. This scenario accepts that human intelligence has developed so much in the last two million years with a twelvefold increase in the number of neurons in the brain. At the same time, this scenario accepts that humans have lost physical strength: the Homo erectus who lived 1-2 million years ago and the Homo sapiens of tens of thousands of years ago were physically stronger and more durable than modern humans. This contradiction reveals the absurdity of the story of human evolution.
Some evolutionists propose the following scenario in order to explain how the human brain grew so much: Assume that our ancestors who were living as dependent on trees were forced to migrate to a savanna for some unknown reason. These ape-like creatures had to use tools in order to defend themselves as they could not climb up on trees anymore. This necessity triggered development in their brains over time. Let’s evaluate this scenario briefly, aside from the fact that this wouldn’t account for significant development in the brain even if it did really happen. The animals that are designed to live on trees go to a treeless and dangerous terrain of Africa where they are not accustomed to living in. These small animals that walk on all fours, with undeveloped brains, that can neither use tools nor walk long distances, and are designed to live in forests by climbing trees survive for millions of years in the African savanna among plenty of dangerous species with incredible competition for resources (remember that adapting to a new environment takes millions of years even if we accept evolution to be true). How could these creatures survive in a place that is completely incongruous with their anatomies for a very long time? This is similar to humans’ deciding to live under seas and continuing their lineage under seas for millions of years, utterly impossible!
Individuals are often in competition with the members of other species rather than those of their own. This is because the food is scarce and many species have their eyes on this scarce food. All carnivores in nature are in competition to eat the limited quantity of herbivores, and all herbivores are in competition to eat the limited quantity of plants. Creatures produce offspring and increase their population in proportion with the amount of food they acquire, thus dominating the habitat they live in. Since the physical differences between members of different species are more than the physical differences between members of the same species, interspecific competition is much tougher than intraspecific competition. For instance, it is easier for a human to compete with another human in a footrace but it is very difficult for him to compete with a horse in the same contest. This means that it is very difficult for a species that is not adapted to its environment to compete with other species in there. A species that enters a new habitat will surely die out until it gets the adaptations needed for that environment. Let’s explain this via a very simple model. Suppose that the most suitable number for an environment is 10. Some lions have 10, some of them have 9, and some have 8; and this range varies in monkeys from 3 to 5. Evolutionists say that the monkeys that have number 5 will eliminate those that have 3 and 4 because they focus only on that species. However, when we consider that those monkeys are in competition with lions at the same time, we can see that even the lions that have 8 can easily eliminate the monkeys that have 5. Even the fittest monkeys are doomed to die out in a short time in this place that is incongruous with their anatomy.
It is impossible for a species to enter a new habitat and evolve in accordance with its conditions as proposed in the evolutionary scenario above; because even if we accept evolution to be true, they wouldn’t be able to sustain their lineage during the millions of years that they need for adaptation in the first place. For example, evolutionists claim that some brown bears were forced to go to the Arctic millions of years ago, and they evolved into polar bears after many adaptations to their new habitat. In reality, it is not possible for brown bears to survive in the Arctic for many generations without dying out because they neither have furs that protect from cold, nor do they have feet that are suitable for walking on ice, nor do they have bodies that are designed for swimming as polar bears do. These creatures wouldn’t have enough time to evolve even if we accepted evolution to be true, because they couldn’t continue their lineages for a very long time in their new habitat. What function does natural selection have, despite evolutionists’ attributing incredible functions to it, if it cannot even eliminate the species that have completely incongruous anatomies with their environment for millions of years? If natural selection can really make true selections, it should eliminate the creatures that come to a new habitat during the course of millions of years that they need for adapting to their new environment.
In many situations, the adaptation and the factor triggering the adaptation must appear at the same time for the adaptation to avail the species. However, this is not possible since evolution takes place in millions of years, not in the blink of an eye. For instance, did human beings acquire the physical requirements for speaking first (speaking is a complex activity that involves the brain, vocal cords, and the tongue) or did they create a language that has a particular vocabulary first? It is impossible for language to appear first because a language cannot be created when there is nobody who can speak it. It is impossible for speaking ability (the evolution of many organs including the brain) to appear first too because there is no benefit in acquiring these abilities when there is no language to speak. We can apply this logic to many other evolutionary scenarios although we mentioned it here very superficially.
Another interesting factor is that the growth of the brain depends on the growth of the skull; the brain cannot grow unless the skull allows it to grow. Our skulls grow until we become adults and this separates us from all other species which have their growth completed at an early age. This is why the human skull must’ve reached enough flexibility before brain growth so that the brain can find a room for its growth according to evolution. However, having a more flexible skull without brain growth is not an advantage for the creature; on the contrary, the creature must sacrifice some of the muscles that strengthen the jaw in order to relieve the strain on the skull for the skull to grow easily. Sacrificing muscles for skull growth that is not accompanied by brain growth is a vain sacrifice that puts the creature at a disadvantage in natural selection. So, it is a disadvantage in terms of natural selection for a species to make its skull growable when the brain inside it doesn’t grow. It defies the laws of natural selection to make the skull flexible before the development of the brain. Since enlarging the brain before making the skull flexible will cause the brain to explode (there are certain diseases in which this really happens), evolution cannot account for the development of the human brain. We can see how difficult it is to make changes in the system that God perfectly created when we apply this logic to other organs as well.
Evolutionists regard our bipedalism as a crucial breakthrough in our evolutionary story. We first need to tell that the oldest artifacts found don’t go beyond 2.6 million years ago, whereas fossils prow that there were ape-like creatures walking upright as early as 4 million years ago. Namely, it is not possible to correlate our ability to walk upright with our use of hand tools, nor is it possible to correlate it with our brain development. Is becoming bipedal really as easy as evolutionists recount it? Since almost the entire body functions during walking, the change of walking style should require the change of virtually the entire body. A creature must have a skeleton and musculature suitable for walking upright, and a sensitive mechanism of balance in which many organs have a function, the brain being at the top of the list. The absence of any of these three factors would make upright walking painful. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that an animal living in that age obtained one of the required features of upright walking through a mutation. This animal could neither walk upright properly, nor could it walk on all fours as successfully as its fellows. This mutation wouldn’t bring him but a disadvantage in his movements. Is it possible for modern people to start walking on all fours in the future? Try to walk on all fours for a moment now. You will be unable to lift yourself up after a minute even if you walk at a slow pace. This is because your hands are not big enough to keep you balanced, your arms and shoulders are not strong enough to carry you, your skeleton is not suitable for this motion (your back and wrists will ache in a short time), and your hands will be damaged for being too soft and delicate, etc… Let’s ask our question again: Is it possible for humans to walk on all fours one day? No, because our bodies are designed for upright walking in every aspect. When monkeys try to walk upright, they feel a pain similar to the one we feel when we try to walk on all fours. It is as impossible for our so-called ancestors to start walking upright as it is for humans to start walking on all fours or in any other position.
If the theory of evolution were true, we would see many vestigial organs in every species, because new environmental conditions and bodily functions would render some of the already existing organs and functions redundant. Since there is no reason for these organs and functions to be weeded out by natural selection –we assume that they don’t have noteworthy adverse effects for the organism-, we would expect them to remain for a very long time in the body. However, all organisms are indeed perfect and seem designed for their environments since the beginning of time. It is true that evolutionists propose some organs such as the appendix as vestigial organs, but scientists discover new benefits and functions of these organs each day. The list of vestigial organs proposed by evolutionists keeps shrinking as new researches are conducted. If we had lived in nature under conditions similar to those of animals up until ten thousand years ago, we probably would have been much stronger and more durable now. The human being is the weakest and the most delicate creature in nature. Animals don’t get sick although they eat very unhygienic food and drink dirty water, but we may catch an infection even if we avoid washing our hands before a meal. If we had come from ape-like creatures, we would have retained their sterile digestive systems until the present time, and we wouldn’t have been as weak and flimsy as we now are. For instance, we would now have been able to digest raw meat if humans used to eat raw meat like animals in the past and learned cooking later, but our stomachs are not tough enough to kill the bacteria in raw meat. Moreover, our jaws and teeth are not strong enough to tear apart and chew raw meat. Well, if evolution is true, why did we lose our capability to safely digest raw meat? Isn’t this ability always an advantage for us? The capability of being protected from the harms of raw meat wouldn’t have provided us with anything but an advantage in difficult conditions. As you see, the human being is not created for the difficult conditions of wildlife; instead, he is created for civilized life. If evolution were a fact, we would have had many legacies in our body that there were passed down to us from our so-called hunter-gatherer ancestors; but we don’t even have the legacy of being able to tear apart, chew and safely digest raw meat.
Rejecting evolution doesn’t mean rejecting every single thing that this theory proposes. There are certain elements of truths in everything, including the theory of evolution. It is possible to observe small changes in a population in the long-term especially in regards to the frequency of particular features, and natural selection can play a part in this transformation. It is possible to observe small changes in the human population as well in terms of the quality, quantity, and distribution of the already existing features, but we would never expect humans to grow two wings and start flying no matter how much time passes by. Dinosaurs’ transforming into birds is as ridiculous and unfeasible as humans’ growing wings and starting to fly one day. Unfortunately, the former is taught in universities under the name “science” when the latter can only be a topic of science fiction.
Did Humans Learn Speech Later?
The evolutionist view of history claims that ancient humans would live like animals without the power of speech and that language appeared later by chance. Firstly, we need to make it clear that there is no evidence in any shape or form supporting that ancient humans lacked speech; evolutionists who claim this do so because they regard it as an inevitable stage of the evolutionary process. However, it is impossible for humans to think, communicate, and survive without language. We humans think in words, and our ability to think is limited with the vocabulary we know. It is virtually impossible for us to perceive a phenomenon that has no correspondence in language. How could people that do not know any vocabulary nor have communication with each other know how to produce offspring? How could they know how to raise a child even if they made one? How could they assign a father to the child in case of pregnancy? How could they establish a relationship between sex and pregnancy? We need language to think and make deductions; therefore language must be as old as humanity itself. You can make the following argument: When animals can do all of the above-mentioned things without speech, why couldn’t humans have done them as well? In fact, a very important factor is omitted in this argument: Animals have instincts and humans do not. Animals act by instincts, not by rational evaluations and deductions. For instance, a bee doesn’t build hexagonal honeycombs by using mathematical calculations; he does it by the instincts given to it by God. The human being who is deprived of instincts and is always in need of learning and rational deductions could not survive without language and thinking. Evolutionists have the incorrect presumption of separating language from man.
Junk (Noncoding) DNA
Up until very recent history, it was held that more than 90% of the human genome is redundant because of not participating in protein-encoding and these segments of DNA were called “Junk DNA”. Moreover, evolutionists would use Junk DNA as an argument against creation because it would imply a poor design of DNA. However, even evolutionists cannot use the term “Junk DNA” for noncoding DNA anymore because many roles of these segments of DNA have been discovered. One of the chief roles of noncoding DNA is that its segments act as switches for coding DNA: noncoding DNA activates the genes of coding DNA that are responsible for protein synthesis when the right time comes. The fact that different segments of DNA are interlinked and dependent on each other reveals that DNA is too intricate to come into existence gradually and coincidentally. If the genes that synthesize proteins are in need of noncoding DNA to be activated, which of these did appear first in terms of evolution? A protein-synthesizing gene would be functionless without the noncoding DNA segment responsible for it because there would be no switch activating it, and the noncoding DNA segment would be functionless without the protein-synthesizing DNA for which it is responsible because it would have nothing to activate. These segments of DNA wouldn’t avail the species if they appeared separately from each other, thus making it impossible for changes in DNA to occur gradually. This intricate and interlinked structure of DNA is an example of irreducible complexity, and it presents huge challenges to the theory of evolution.
When constructing a building, firstly architects make the design of the building, depending on which civil engineers later construct it with minimum cost and maximum sturdiness. This is a nice analogy for the formation of living beings. Our DNA is the stage of architecture, it draws the blueprints for our potential features. The stage of civil engineering begins with the formation of the zygote after fertilization. Our cells differ in the course of our development although they all have the exact same DNA; some of them become muscle cells, some of them become nerve cells, some of them become bone cells, some of them end up becoming skin cells… The reason why our cells attain different features over time despite having the same DNA is that different genes of the same genome are expressed in different cells. Although we haven’t fully understood how the fetus develops inside the womb, the intercommunication between the cells, the separation and differentiation of the cells are without doubt truly amazing processes. The sequence of development in this process is vital. For instance, the first fully developed organ is the heart and the first fully developed system is the circulatory system because all the cells that will later form will need nutrition from blood. If the heart didn’t form first, the result would be a failure just like the case of a civil engineer who tries to erect a building before laying its foundation, and the fetus would perish. Evolutionary theory has some weak explanations for the stage of architecture (DNA sequence), but it has no explanation for the stage of civil engineering (the development of living beings) at all. Coincidence, the god of atheists, need also to decide correctly how it will be built when it creates a novel feature in living beings.
Evolutionists consider the fact that particular species are similar to each other, and that species can be classified depending on their similarity level as strong evidence for evolution. Particular species’ higher resemblance to each other than to other species is because they are designed for similar life conditions. For example, cars of different brands resemble each other more than they resemble planes of different brands. Does that mean all cars have evolved from each other? Of course not. The reason why cars resemble each other is that they are all designed for moving on land, and the reason why planes resemble each other is that they are all designed for moving in the air. Just like this, the higher similarity of particular species does not imply evolution at all. “From the palm-trees, from their spathes, come forth the low hanging bunches. (We produce) vineyards and the olive and the pomegranate, either similar or not similar to each other. (Quran 6:99)”
The classification of species (taxonomy) is at odds with the theory of evolution in many respects. Many species resemble each other very much despite being traced back to different origins by the evolutionists. For instance, although marsupial and placental mammals are claimed to have separated since more than 100 million years ago and are classified under different groups, they indeed have lots of similarities. Bats have a lot in common with birds despite being mammals. Whales and dolphins resemble fishes very much despite being mammals. According to evolution, although vertebrates and cephalopods were separated from each other more than 500 million years ago and their eyes have formed independently of each other, their eyes are virtually identical. Evolutionists were forced to create a term called “convergent evolution” to explain these situations. There is no doubt that the current classification of species is built upon evolutionary presumptions, many species have features unexpected of their category in the classification and they clearly violate the so-called evolutionary tree. According to the evolutionary theory prepared by evolutionists, a salmon is more related to a human being than it is to a shark, and a crocodile is more related to a sparrow than it is to an iguana. No doubt that species are classified by evolutionist bias instead of common sense.
The similarities between living beings prove that they are all the creation of the same God. The similar cell-tissue-organ structure of every living being demonstrates that they are the artworks of the same craftsman. The theory of evolution claims that all creatures have come from a common root. This claim is true, but this common root is nothing but the almighty God. The origin of all creatures, animate or inanimate, is the almighty God. Each similarity between different species is a seal of monotheism, and all these similarities declare that their creator is one.
There are examples of coexistence of two species in nature that benefits both species. For example, the bacteria in our intestines synthesize vitamins B and K for us, and we provide for them a safe place to live in return. There are more advanced cases of mutualism in which the species are so dependent on each other that they cannot live separately, and this is called “obligate mutualism”. One of the best examples given to obligate mutualism is the mutualistic relationship between figs and fig wasps. Figs are not fruits; they are bags carrying introverted flowers. Since these flowers are introverted and have no contact with the outside world, it is very difficult for them to deliver their pollens to female flowers by means of wind and insects. They solve this problem with the help of fig wasps which are small enough to enter figs through their small openings (these openings are so small that even fig wasps lose their wings when they manage to enter it). These fig wasps lay their own eggs inside the fig if they happen to enter a male fig. Firstly, the male wasps hatch from these eggs and fertilize their female sisters. Then these male wasps strive to dig a tunnel outside the fig but they die before completing them. After that, the female wasps hatch and exit the fig by using the tunnels dug by the male wasps, taking along the pollen of the fig that had become ready for reproduction in the process. These female wasps either enter a male fig and restart the same cycle, or enter a female fig and cause that fig to be fertilized thanks to the pollen they bring along. This incredible cycle and relationship let both fig wasps and figs to continue their lineages, neither of these species could have existed had it not been for this mutualistic relationship.
These sort of obligate mutualism examples in nature are too intricate and incredible to be explained by the blind mechanisms of evolution. Considering that species were clueless about each other and about the future during evolution, it is impossible for them to evolve in a way that makes their lives completely dependent on each other. In the example above, did fig trees make their flowers introverted knowing that one day a species called fig wasps will emerge and come to their aid? Of course not. The establishment of these relationships through evolution must take quite a long time even if everything goes right. It is not realistic to think that these species lived together and improved their relationship with their partners for millions of years although the relationship between them wasn’t very profitable and beneficial at the beginning of this evolutionary process. The collaboration narrated above is so sensitive that if female wasps hatched first, they would leave the fig unfertilized. If male wasps had no instinct of digging a hole in the fig, the system would fail because female wasps would be contained in the fig. The blind mechanisms of evolution cannot account for the subtle collaboration of two or more species that evolve independently from each other and their improving of this collaboration to the point of vital importance for their lives.
Evolution and Sexual Reproduction
Sexual reproduction is one of the worst nightmares of evolutionists. Species that use asexual reproduction have one set of DNA (haploid) while species that use sexual reproduction have two sets of DNAs (diploid), one coming from the mother and the other coming from the father. Sexual reproduction is a nightmare of evolutionists because it requires that reproductive functions of both sexes evolve separately but in harmony with each other. There are different kinds of reproduction in nature: in some organisms both fertilization and embryo development take place outside the body, in some organisms fertilization takes place inside the body but embryo development takes place outside, and in placental mammals both fertilization and embryo development take place inside the female body.
Radical changes in the reproduction type cannot come about independently from the other gender. For instance, a species that switches from external fertilization to internal fertilization must have both genders obtain the mechanisms for the new type of fertilization at the same time. There cannot be even a single generation delay between the genders in the acquisition of new mechanisms because the species would die out if even one generation couldn’t reproduce. It is mathematically impossible for these changes to occur separately but at the same time in both genders (or in both sexual organs). The even greater problem is in regards to recognition of the gametes of the same species. Eggs can recognize the proteins on sperms and they allow only the sperms of its own species to penetrate in. For example, a human egg wouldn’t let in a monkey sperm for fertilization. All species have special proteins on their sperms which are exclusive to them so that their sperms can be recognized by the eggs of the same species. Moreover, the eggs of many species attract the sperms of the same species by using secretion, sperms would have had trouble finding the eggs of its species if it wasn’t so. If all species that use sexual reproduction evolved from the same root, how did these distinctive proteins differ in each species? The differentiation of the proteins of sperms must exactly coincide with the evolution of proteins on eggs in a way that recognizes the new sperm proteins, and this would be a mathematical miracle. The thing we are mentioning is similar to dropping our key accidentally and having it twisted, and finding our lock twisted as well in a way that matches perfectly with the new shape of our key when we go home. This coincidence must have happened for every sexually-reproducing species, and this means that miracles as many as the number of sexually-reproducing species must have taken place. A similar recognition system exists in plants as well between pollens and the stigmas of pistils, adding further miracles to the list. It is also known that sperms use their own enzymes to break down the hyaluronic acid surrounding the egg in order to penetrate the egg. This interactive system between the acid and the enzymes must have been created by eggs and sperms at the same time, and coincidence cannot account for this very minute probability. The topic of sexual reproduction alone is more than enough to debunk the theory of evolution.
Now, let’s come to the topic of how sexual reproduction began. Suppose that the first sexual reproduction was quite primitive. The most likely scenario is that two haploid one-celled organisms collided and combined their DNAs, thus becoming one diploid cell. Since the newly formed cell wouldn’t know meiosis, it wouldn’t turn back to its haploid state. Assume that this cell or its descendants learned meiosis thanks to an incredible coincidence. The new cells that the meiosis would produce wouldn’t be different from the cells we had in the first place before the collision of two cells. Why would these newly formed haploid cells seek to combine with other haploid cells to restart the cycle? The best possibility is that everything would turn back to the initial state. Suppose that this cell is very clever and it decided to combine with other cells whenever possible in order to live as diploid. It is impossible for sexual reproduction to be maintained by natural selection because asexual reproduction is much faster and simpler. Organisms pass down half of their DNA in sexual reproduction while they pass down their entire DNA in asexual reproduction. This is why sexual reproduction is very inefficient and difficult for organisms whose sole purpose in life according to evolution is to pass down their genes to the next generation. One organism creates one offspring in asexual reproduction while two organisms create one offspring in sexual reproduction; namely, a population of asexually-reproducing organisms would increase at least two times as fast as a population of sexually-reproducing organisms of similar type. That’s why sexual reproduction would be eliminated in a short time through natural selection even if it appeared by coincidence. All asexual organisms such as bacteria would have evolved into sexual reproduction if sexual reproduction were advantageous.
An organism’s success in natural selection depends on passing its genes down to the next generation as much as possible. Sexual reproduction wouldn’t create two different sexes (male and female) even if it had somehow appeared coincidentally, because sexual reproduction is very inefficient for females. A female organism gives birth to an offspring that carries half of her DNA instead of an offspring carrying all of her DNA because of sexual reproduction, even though all burden of that offspring is on the female. Males, on the other hand, have their genes spread just by fertilizing females without sharing the burden of the offspring. According to Darwinism, even husband and wife are competitors in terms of natural selection, it would be foolish of a mother to give birth to an offspring that carries the genes of the father even though the father is her rival in terms of natural selection. It is true that sexual reproduction has many benefits in complex creatures like humans thanks to the specialization of genders in different and complementary tasks; however, at the beginning of sexual reproduction, these benefits would not have been in place as there would not have been any specialization yet. If evolution were true, females wouldn’t have entered this unfair cycle in the first place. Even if they entered, they would have exited this cycle by creating a mechanism that fertilizes each other or their own selves. By doing so, they would have eliminated all male rivals and would be able to spread their genes two times more. Females’ fertilizing each other wouldn’t have curtailed genetic variation either because the DNAs of two different organisms combine in this way. As we have seen, it is not possible for sexual reproduction to appear coincidentally, nor is it possible for it to continue despite natural selection, nor is it possible for it to create the two very different sexes that we now have.
Evolution and Sexual Attraction
Creatures that sexually reproduce are attracted to the opposite gender once they become eligible for reproduction. This is a great miracle although we often take this for granted. Being attracted to members of the same species instead of members of millions of other species is too magnificent to be accounted for by blind mechanisms. Among all individuals of the same species, being only attracted to those of the opposite gender is another degree in this magnificence. A man can only impregnate human beings among millions of species, and among human beings, he can only impregnate female ones. The probability of this man finding the right organism that he can mate with is very low in a blind and random system. Luckily, mechanisms and hormones that God has given this man allow him to find the right organisms that he can mate with and cause him to feel sexual attraction exclusively to them in the middle of this chaos. This incredible instinct exists in all species that reproduce by sex, reproduction wouldn’t be possible if it wasn’t so.
This harmony troubles the theory of evolution because it hinders unusual changes in species. Men are attracted to the present-day physical and emotional attributes of women, and women are attracted to the present-day physical and emotional attributes of men. An evolutionary change in either of these genders would be a disadvantage in terms of sexual selection because it wouldn’t be found attractive by the opposite sex, and this would decrease the possibility of this gene being passed down to future generations. For instance, let’s suppose that we are going to live on a different planet a hundred years from now, and having claws will be more advantageous than our present-day delicate nails. Also, suppose for the sake of argument that some fascinating mutations appeared which created claws on the hands of some people. This feature wouldn’t be found attractive by the opposite sex because people biologically find soft and delicate hands more attractive. As a result, people with claws wouldn’t be preferred by the opposite sex, thereby curtailing their prospect of reproducing and passing their genes to future generations. This feature of having claws wouldn’t contribute to evolution due to sexual selection despite being advantageous in practice. The perception of aesthetics and beauty in every species is an obstacle to evolution because it causes the elimination of new and unusual features that appear in the opposite sex, and this makes the so-called process of evolution even more difficult.
Our ability to perceive and appreciate beauty can only be explained by God’s putting this feature in us, because beauty has no value in terms of evolution. The pleasure that we feel while looking at beautiful things like landscapes, seas, and stars; and our appreciation of the beauty of particular features in the opposite gender have no evolutionary explanation because beauty is neither proportional to health nor to providing pragmatic benefit. Something can be beautiful without having any evolutionary benefit.
It is manifest that evolution is absolutely unsatisfactory for explaining human feelings and perceptions. There can be no evolutionary reason as to why we find baby animals so cute, on the contrary, finding animals cute may become our weakness in this world where we compete with them. If evolution were true, we would seek to kill kittens when we look at them for being our rival in natural selection, instead of finding them cute and trying to help them. We have one more emotion that prevents us from killing kittens: mercy. Evolution has no explanation for the feeling of compassion. If evolution were true, we would seek to destroy other species instead of feeling compassion for them, because mercy is a huge weakness in the race of natural selection.
THE MIRACLE OF LIFE
The subject that atheists find the most difficult to explain and therefore often ignore is the subject of life. “He brings forth the living from the dead and brings forth the dead from the living, and revives the earth after it is dead. Likewise will you be raised to life (after you die). (Qur’an 30:19)” God takes the lives of billions of creatures and he creates billions of new creatures in each second. Scientists, on the other hand, could not create a single organism in its simplest form yet. Scientists cannot be entitled to claim that living beings were formed by nature until they manage to create an organism as complex as a human being. Even if they managed to create it, this claim would still be considered illogical because unconscious nature cannot accomplish what intelligent humans can accomplish.
We were all fertilized eggs once upon a time. This egg then grew and began to divide quickly. After that, these new cells formed different organs by cooperating with each other. Every cell knew their duties and where they should go. These cells are so successful masters of this process that humans still have a hard time understanding how this intricate process takes place. Let’s enumerate our questions: How do these unconscious and mindless cells know how to divide when nobody has ever taught it to them? How does each organelle know its duty and why do they do their duties (I don't know any penalty in case they neglect their duties)? How do these unconscious and mindless cells cooperate to form an organism that is much larger and much more complex than themselves? Are these cells more intelligent than us humans that they can accomplish what we cannot understand, let alone accomplish? Animate beings are comprised of atoms just like inanimate beings. Given that there is no difference between animate and inanimate beings in terms of the matter they are comprised of, what makes animate beings alive? What coordinates the cooperation of unconscious atoms? There is no material or physical reason for any movement inside the cell. If we assembled all parts of a machine with each part in its perfect place, we wouldn’t expect that machine to come to life, that machine would still be a pile of unconscious matter. Well, how do molecules assemble, come to life and constitute a living cell? What do animate beings have to the exclusion of inanimate beings that allows them to do what inanimate beings cannot do? All of these have a very simple answer: God the all-mighty. “Does man not consider that We created him from a [mere] sperm-drop - then at once he is a clear adversary? (Qur’an 36:77)” Materialists attribute all these miracles to nature as they disbelieve in God. They attribute God’s attributes to nature: for them all atoms are conscious, knowledgeable, clever, and able to see and hear… Atheism thus attributes divine characteristics to all atoms. Atheism is nothing but a pagan religion with an infinite number of gods.
Not a single molecule would've known what it is supposed to do were it not for God’s intervention. If God does exist, his knowledge must be infinite, and he must know and control everything in the universe without exception. He wouldn’t be “God” if he lacked these features because God cannot have any weakness and cannot experience any deficiency. That’s why deism which claims that God created the universe but neglected it altogether is too an irrational belief.
ANSWERS TO SOME OF THE FAMOUS QUESTIONS OF EVOLUTIONISTS
Are wisdom teeth evidence for evolution?
The problem of wisdom teeth not having enough space to grow has become popular in the last couple of centuries especially among developed countries. The primary reason behind this is that almost all foods are being cooked, processed, softened and chopped up before eating in the modern era. In the past, people would have their jaws develop more as a result of chewing tough food, and have their teeth abraded by the constant rubbing of food and adjacent teeth while chewing hard food, thus gradually diminishing the size of teeth. The gap created by the decrease in molar size would later easily be filled by wisdom teeth. People of the modern era who consume modern food have weaker and narrower jaws for not chewing tough food. Also, their teeth are not narrowed and distorted as they are not subject to abrasion, thereby occupying all the space that the jaw provides. As a result, wisdom teeth cannot find room to grow and disturb other teeth in some people. If you look at the people living in poor and primitive conditions, you will see that their teeth are generally sparse and out of shape, and these people usually don’t have a problem with their wisdom teeth. On the other hand, people in modern societies generally have large and unnaturally well-shaped teeth because their teeth are underused. The consideration of wisdom teeth as vestigial organs is a consequence of modern-age conditions; it is not an example of poor design. If science progresses to the point of feeding people only with pills in the future, all of our teeth would be deemed vestigial organs by this logic. If technology progresses to the point of allowing us to use vehicles for transportation even to very small distances, our legs would be deemed vestigial organs by this logic. We should evaluate our body according to its purpose of creation, not according to today’s conditions.
Are the nipples of men evidence for evolution?
Although both genders have nipples in the first stages of their development, breasts begin to grow and become eligible for producing milk in women thanks to the hormones secreted after puberty. The nipples of men are not vestigial organs because men had never breastfed their infants in the past; it is not a feature that ceased later in evolutionary history. Instead, it is a remnant of fetus development. Nipples are not nonfunctional in men either; they have a role to play in sexual arousal because they are the intersection points of lots of sensitive nerves.