Main page | Jari's writings

Is the theory of evolution true?



Examples in evolution always refer to variation within basic species and adaptation to conditions. The theory of stem cell to human is nonsense




It is difficult for people these days to believe what the Bible teaches about the Creation. They may deem the Biblical description of creation wrong and old-fashioned, while their view of the universe and all living things coming into existence by accident seems more correct. Hence, some people believe that the theory of evolution – in which everything evolved by itself – is correct. This theory was proposed by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species (1859).

  Is it possible, however, that there are faults in this theory? Is it possible that it is not true, but false? The supporters of this theory certainly deny this possibility, but it should be noted that weaknesses and inconsistencies in the theory can be found even in their own writings. These have been discussed, but the possibility of the doctrine's whole foundation being wrong and untenable has never been brought out. It has generally been denied.

Many researchers have neither bothered to put an effort into learning about their theory’s shortcomings. They might have adopted evolution theory in school or through TV programs, but there is a lack of proper familiarization with the theory’s accuracy. This seems to be the case with the majority of researchers. Matti Leisola talks about his experiences in the scientific community:


I was surprised that an internationally known biochemist approved of the evolution theory without ever having given more thought towards it. Our conversation about the topic continued the same year in Switzerland and later in Finland. I have discussed the same issue with hundreds of scientist colleagues from all over the world, and I have yet to find a person, who would have properly familiarized themself with the basics of evolutionary theory. I often come across the following claim: “The whole science community believes that the evolution theory undoubtedly holds true.” The truth of the matter is completely different; only a small section of the science community has seriously thought about it. They have adopted evolution as part of the Western science education. (1)


Preconceptions and biases also greatly affect the way we interpret data, which is in contradiction with our views. We often reject any data that does not support our views of the world. Someone who believes in creation will look for data that supports their ideas and will avoid interpretations different to their understanding. Similarly, people who believe in the accidental birth of life and evolution, will look for data to support their ideology and they will reject any data that does not fit. They will overlook any opposing views and consider people with a different understanding as clueless.

Scientists are also in the same position. Many think scientists are unbiased and infallible, but they are as flawed and biased as everyone else. They eat the same food, go to the same schools, drive the same cars and read the same magazines as the rest of us. Their everyday life is fairly similar to everyone else’s life. It would be wrong to assume they are infallible and neutral, because I’m sure they are not. They too have their own biases and views of the world, which affect the way they see things. Their biases might sometimes be warranted, but they can make mistakes as well. We need to keep this in mind, when looking into evolution and its accuracy.



1. Do fossils prove evolution?
2. The most convincing evidence supporting the theory of evolution
3. The most important factors of evolution
4. Gaps in the theory of evolution


1. Do fossils prove evolution?


Since evolution theorists consider evolution to be a fact, they always try to find evidence that supports their ideas. They consider fossils as such. Some believe that fossils prove species have changed over time and that life evolved from simple life forms to more complex ones. In many textbooks, fossils are mentioned as the most important evidence of evolution. For instance, the next excerpt from a textbook is an example of this (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 154 / a high school biology textbook):


15 Fossils as evidence of evolution


According to the theory of evolution, living organisms have evolved from earlier, simpler forms. Many things show the evolution of living organisms. The most important ones are the fossils of ancient plants and animals.


Fossils are, by far, the best starting point for discussion about whether Darwin’s theory of the evolution of species is a fact. If we want to know whether species have changed over time, we need only consider fossilized materials. Fossils become the most important witnesses in our court of justice, and they represent the best evidence. They are the only concrete, visible history of life at hand. If we reject them, we have no other material.

  Do fossils prove the evolution of species? Do we find buried in the ground plenty of developing forms, such as half-developed wings, hands, feet, senses, or some other intermediate forms?

   No, we do not find such evidence. Instead, we find that various organisms have always differed from each other. The gaps between fossils are great and real, and intermediate forms have not been found.

  Darwin, in his time, had to admit this, although he put his hope in the inadequacy of the findings so far. In The Origin of Species, he wrote about this issue and that modern nature is composed of clearly determined species. Let’s study his comments and then take a look at more recent comments made by modern scientists on the same topic. They indicate that gaps still exist, even though the quantity and quality of fossil materials gathered is perfectly suitable for study (there are millions of fossils in museums):


Darwin: According to this theory, there must have been innumerable intermediate forms between species. Why is it then that we cannot find them buried inside the crust of the Earth? Why is it that all of nature is not at a state of confusion instead of being composed, as we can see, of clearly determined species? Geological research has not exposed the countless slight differences between past and modern species that this theory requires. And this is the most apparent of the many arguments presented against it. However, the answer lies in the large inconsistency of geological findings. (2)


It is not possible to even compile a distorted picture of an organism's evolution based on paleobiological facts. The fossil materials gathered are so perfect now that the lack of intermediate forms cannot have been caused by insufficient data. The gaps are real, and can never be filled in. (A statement of Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson approximately 50 years ago. [3])


The greatest mystery of the fossil materials is that we have not found any clear factor that takes evolution forward in the history of life. (…) We have set the findings in order based on our wishes, but this order cannot actually be found in the real world. (Stephen J. Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment. Natural History, vol. 93, Feb. 1984, p.23)


It is strange that the gaps in the fossil material are consistent in a certain way: fossils are missing from all the important places. (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 19)


None of the officials in five large paleontological museums can present even one simple example of an organism that could be regarded as a piece of evidence of gradual evolution from one species to another. (Dr. Luther Sunderland’s summary in his book Darwin's enigma. He interviewed many representatives of natural history museums for this book and wrote to them aiming at finding out what sort of evidence they had to prove evolution [4])


In this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that would prove the origin of species from intermediate forms. The theory of evolution is not based on observations and facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human race, the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence showing how mindless these theories are. (Dr. Etheridge, world-famous curator of the British Museum [5])


No matter how far in the past we go in the series of the fossils of those animals that have lived before on earth, we cannot find even a trace of animal forms that would be intermediate forms between great groups and phyla… The greatest groups of the animal kingdom do not merge into each other. They are and have been stationary since the beginning… Neither has an animal that could not be set in its own phylum or a great group been found from the earliest stratified rock types… This perfect lack of intermediate forms between the great groups of animals can be interpreted in one way only… If we are willing to take the facts as they are, we have to believe that there have never been such intermediate forms; in other words, these great groups have had the same relation to each other since the very beginning. (Austin H. Clark, The New Evolution, p. 189)


What do fossils indicate? We have seen many expert statements above about fossil records not supporting gradual development. These records do not indicate that current species would originate from a shared original cell. Evolution literature often describes this idea with an evolutionary tree, which should illustrate changes and branches evolving from the original cell into our current species, yet there is no practical evidence to support this. Fossil records do not corroborate with the evolutionary tree that was composed in the 19th century. This tree was developed by Ernst Haeckel, who also became infamous for his fraudulent embryo drawings.

What if, despite all this, we still think evolution theory must be accurate and that current life-forms descend from one and the same original cell? What if we stick to this viewpoint, and assume we all stem from the first cell, which lived in the sea? What kind of evidence should we see in fossil records that would support these ideas? The following should be fulfilled, at the least:


• We should see newly developing senses, arms, legs and other body parts that are beginning to evolve

• We should see more primitive and simple life-forms, which gradually evolve into something more complicated, in the lower layers

• We should see intermediate forms between the basic kinds


What does the evidence really suggest? It suggests that the data contradicts gradual development, due to the following reasons, e.g.:


• We don’t see senses, arms, legs and other body parts in a state of development, despite the evolution theory presuming so. Instead, these body parts are fully developed and functional. Even Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist, acknowledges that every species and organ, which have been studied to this day, are good at what they do. This kind of observation does not go so well with the evolution theory but fits perfectly to the creation model.


The reality based on observations is that every species and every organ inside a species that so far has been examined is good at what it does. The wings on birds, bees and bats are good for flying. Eyes are good at seeing. Leaves are good at photosynthesis. We live on a planet, where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, which all independently indicate a strong illusion of apparent design. Every species fits well into its special lifestyle.  (6)


• We don’t see primitive and simple life-forms that would gradually evolve into something more complex in the lower layers. Instead, the evidence suggests a sudden, abundant and fully developed appearance of life in these layers. Evolutionary literature refers to this as the Cambrian explosion, which is the appearance of multicellular life in layers that are ca. 550 million years old (according to evolutionary time scales), after which there hasn’t been any major changes.

 This finding is made problematic by the fact that researchers cannot find more primitive forms underneath the Cambrian fossils. For example, the trilobite with its complex eyes appeared suddenly without any progenitors.  If the evolution model was accurate, we should be able to find simpler ancestral forms, but we haven’t. The evidence clearly supports creation model, according to which species have been fully developed, complex and separate from the beginning. Many paleontologists have confessed that the Cambrian explosion corroborates very poorly with the evolution model:


If evolution, the progression from simple to complicated, is true, we should find progenitors of these completely developed organisms that lived during the Cambrian period; but they have not been discovered and scientists admit that the possibilities for finding them are very small. Based on facts alone, i.e., based on what really has been discovered from the ground, the theory according to which the main groups of living organisms formed in a sudden creation, is the most probable alternative. (Harold g. Coffin, Evolution or Creation? Liberty, October 1975, p. 12)


Biologists sometimes reject or ignore the sudden appearing of animal life and its notable composition concerning the Cambrian period. The recent paleontological research has, however, led to this sudden increase of organisms being more and more difficult to ignore. (Scientific American, August 1964, p. 34–36)


The fact, as every paleontologist knows, is that most of the species, genera and families and almost all new groups more extensive than the level of a family, appear in fossils suddenly and the well-known, gradational, transitional stages following each other perfectly without gaps don’t pave their way (George Gaylord Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)


• The third observation already mentioned above is the complete lack of intermediate forms between the basic kinds. Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson already came to this conclusion decades ago:


It is not possible to even compile a distorted picture of an organism's evolution based on paleobiological facts. The fossil materials gathered are so perfect now that the lack of intermediate forms cannot have been caused by insufficient data. The gaps are real, and can never be filled in. (7)




2. The most convincing evidence supporting the theory of evolution


When talking about the theory of evolution, evolution usually refers to the changing of species into other species. This simply means that life has evolved from simple and primitive life forms towards more and more complex ones. Those complex structures that can now be found in nature have formed into their present state through biological changes that have been maintained especially by mutations and the natural selection. It is believed that evolution has taken up to hundreds of millions of years.

   Is there proof for the evolution theory? As stated, evolution theorists have tried to gather evidence to support their hypotheses. This supposed evidence is presented in schoolbooks, as well as in general evolutionary literature. It is also frequently brought up in nature films.

The following concepts, especially, get most often repeated in evolutionary literature. Evolutionists like to believe they are adequate examples of evolutionary development, but a closer look at these cases reveals plenty of aspects to point out about them. Now these cases don’t seem that convincing after all. The same has been acknowledged by some evolutionists, as well, after they have taken some time to investigate the evidence.


- Evolution series of horse 

- Archaeopteryx or lizard bird

- Peppered moth and bacteria

- Rudiments

- Embryogenesis

- Similar structure

- Biochemical structure


THE evolution series of the horse. As we begin to investigate the evidence, it’s good to start with something familiar to everyone; a horse, which has been regarded as one of the best examples of gradual evolution. It is believed that there is a perfect series of evolution from its initial stages to the current ones. In many books, the horse has been regarded as the best piece of evidence for evolution and the evolution series has decorated the pages of biology textbooks and books on evolution. The next quote from a textbook indicates its significance (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 156 / a high school biology textbook):


The most important evidence for evolution are fossil series that show the gradual evolution of some animal. A series of this kind can be found, for example, for the evolution of the horse.


However, if we study comments made by some researchers we find indications that the evolution series of the horse is not a convincing piece of evidence. It is just the opposite: on grounds of the findings, we can in no way conclude that they would be direct descendants of one another or any indication of evolution. The bones have been collected from different areas of the world and it is impossible to state that they are in any way connected to each other. Only the supposition of evolution makes people assume this:


Prof. Enoch: Examining these series and especially the fossils of horses may seem convincing for a person unfamiliar with the issue. If the horse fossils had been found in the order where they are presented in consecutive earth layers, there would be some reason to assume that the horse has evolved from Eohippus-like forms. However, the facts show something else. The bones of the horse fossil series were collected from different parts of the world and arranged into an order that supports evolution. These horse fossils cannot be found in this order in any given place on the earth. (...) As a matter of fact, the hoof of the modern horse was found in Colorado from older layers than the bones of the Eohippus. (8)


G. Hardin: There was a time when the fossils of the horse seemed to indicate a rectilinear evolution from small to big, from dog-like to horse-like, from an animal, which had simple biting teeth to the modern horse with its complex teeth. All seemed to be rectilinear – just like links of the same chain. However, the situation did not remain like this for long. As more fossils were found, the chain broke into an ordinary tangle. It was all too apparent that evolution was not rectilinear at all. Horses had occasionally grown bigger, occasionally smaller, during the course of time.  (9)


Shortcomings in the evolution series of the horse. Shortcomings in the evolution series of the horse were already pointed out in the previous quotes but more examples are included in the list below. They indicate how the whole series lies on uncertain ground and how it is very questionable to use it as evidence supporting evolution. We can, of course, believe in these assumptions, but there isn’t any proof for them, as we cannot determine linage relationships. The idea of evolution is the only thing that presupposes it. The most major shortcomings are:


- The most major problem is that it cannot be proven in any way that the fossils found were direct descendants of one another. The evolution series of the horse has not been found in one single place. Instead, it has been collected from different areas of the world, even from different continents. The first ones were collected from North America, the middle ones from Europe and the rest from North America again! In other words, the horse must have crossed the ocean so that it could continue evolving on the other continent and then come back to the former continent, which is quite a bold thought. It is a thought that is impossible to prove true and that is based on mere faith in evolution.


 - The first part in the series or the Eohippus is said to resemble a tapir and a rhinoceros as much as a horse. On the other hand, it has also been said that the Eohippus might have been a rabbit or hyrax, a relative of the current rabbits. Furthermore, many researchers are of the opinion that the Eohippus has nothing to do with horses, whereas the other parts of the series are said to be clearly horses.


 - Both the Eohippus and the modern horse have 18 ribs whereas the next phase after the Eohippus had 19 ribs and the one after that 15. Why do these kinds of inconsistencies appear?


- The evolution series of the horse is often described as starting from a very small animal and ending in a large horse. However, one can state that the size has no evidentiary value, as there are both large and small horses today. Differences in size can be enormous in the very same way as differences between people today. The height of people can vary from under one meter to about two and half meters, but they are still all people.


Archaeopteryx OR lizard bird. Besides the horse, the Archaeopteryx or the lizard bird has been regarded as a good example of evolution. It is said to be the intermediate form between lizards and birds, and its pictures appear almost always in biology textbooks and books about evolution. The next quote from a textbook indicates its significance (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 156 / a high school biology textbook):


The most famous intermediate form fossil is the lizard bird. It had clear features of reptiles, for instance teeth and a tail. Structures characteristic of birds were wings and feathers.


Problems with the lizard bird. Even though some textbooks and books on evolution speak of the lizard bird as a convincing piece of evidence supporting evolution, the issue is not so simple. Quite the contrary, some pieces of evidence indicate that there is no way it can be the intermediate form between lizards and birds. The following points address this idea:


Other birds in older layers. One point that should clearly indicate how the Archaeopteryx cannot be the intermediate form between lizards and birds is that the remains of other ordinary birds have been found from geologically much older layers than those where the remains of the Archaeopteryx were found (in other words, these layers are said to be as much as 60–75 million years older). This indicates that the Archaeopteryx cannot be the progenitor of birds, koska ennen sitä on jo esiintynyt lintuja. Similarly, remains of other birds have been discovered from the same layers as those of the Archaeopteryx. In other words, based on these findings, it is impossible to regard the Archaeopteryx as an important intermediate form.


All features of birds. The lizard bird should be an intermediate form between lizards and birds, because it has characteristics of both of them.

  However, we must note that special features of the lizard bird are also found in other birds nowadays. Some birds have nails at the tips of their wings (ostrich, turaco, and hoatz), some have breastbones similar to those of the lizard bird (hoatz), some birds have had similar teeth (for example, the Hesperonis and Ichtyornis birds that lived in the Cretaceous period – even though not all reptiles these days have teeth). The fact that the lizard bird had special features does not necessarily prove that it was an intermediate form of its time. Instead, it may have been a species of its own that was created to be just like that. The lizard bird may have been a species of its own from the very beginning.

  On the other hand, if the lizard bird really was the intermediate form between lizards and birds, a good question is why its feathers were fully developed and not half scales and half feathers? Should there not be a lot of fossils like this since the evolutionary period between reptiles and birds is estimated at about 80 million years? Where are these fossils and has evolution truly occurred? Toinen aiheellinen kysymys tietysti on where are the intermediate forms of reptiles and birds nowadays? Should we not expect to see now some similar intermediate forms?


Problems with evolution. When it is explained that birds originate from reptiles, details are usually ignored simply with a few lines. However, we are faced with quite major problems if we suppose that birds have evolved from reptiles. The following points are problematic:


- In the lungs of a reptile, there are millions of small bladders, but the lungs of a bird consist of tubes. It is quite hard to believe that there would have been intermediate forms whose lungs would have consisted partially of bladders and partially of tubes. It is unlikely that these intermediate forms would have been able to survive.

 - As the lungs changed, the heart should have been divided into four compartments and the composition of the blood changed. How could such intermediate forms have stayed alive?

- The closed skeletal structure of reptiles should have changed into the hollow skeletal structure of birds. How could this have taken place? In the same way, the whole supporting structure and muscles should have changed.

- The ability to fly should have needed to evolve.

- Feathers should have replaced scales.

- Cold-bloodedness should have changed into warm-bloodedness.

- Preying habits and senses should have changed. It is quite difficult to believe that major changes like these – that should all have come into force simultaneously – could have taken place haphazardly because of evolution. It is, of course, presupposed in the evolution theory, but it is supported by poor evidence. On the other hand, if such changes occurred in the past, they should be occurring today as well. The problem is that nothing like it has been witnessed or detected.


peppered moth and bacteria. Next on the list we have the peppered moth, whose dark and light variations, as well as the variants’ capability to survive in different environments, are commonly regarded as excellent examples of evolutionary development.  But there is one problem with these many variations of the peppered moth: the moth does not become a new species: it is still the same peppered moth both in the beginning and at the end. It is not, for example, a wasp or a worm. The only change taking place is in the number of these modifications; but no new species has been formed. In the introduction of The Origin of Species, the 1971 edition, L. Harrison Matthews stated this simple issue. He stated that the mutual relationship between these different modifications cannot, after all, assist us in solving the process of evolution. It does not change the peppered moth into some other species:


Tests (with peppered moths) indicate clearly how natural selection – survival of the fittest – proceeds in practice. But they do not indicate how the evolutionary process progresses: no matter how much the numbers of light, half-light, and dark forms in the population vary, they all still remain, from the beginning to the end, as Biston betularius. (10)


An example similar to the peppered moth that has been used as evidence supporting evolution is the resistance power of bacteria. It has been thought that as some resistant bacteria have stayed alive and their populations have increased, evolution has yet again been proven.

  However, this is the same as in the case of the peppered moth: the bacterium does not change into another species but remains a bacterium, both in the beginning and at the end. It is a question of a bacterium that has better resistance, but it is still the same species. Similarly, a person may have better immunity against, for instance, influenza or AIDS viruses. These people may not catch the illnesses but this fact does not change them into some other species.


Rudiments are one of the things that have been used as evidence of evolution. For example, the appendix, tail vertebrae, and some other limbs may be regarded as futile parts of the body.

  However, many scientists do not agree with this. It has been observed that many limbs that may be regarded as remains from the past have their own important tasks. It has even been possible to prove in practice that all the 180 organs that were formerly said to be rudiments have their own important function and activity. Such an observation does not, therefore, refer to the uselessness of these limbs, but on the contrary to their usefulness. Professor Enoch writes about the significance of "rudiments":


Before, it was claimed that there are 180 organ rudiments. As more information has been gathered, the amount of rudiments has decreased. Formerly, internal secretion glands were regarded as rudiments, for example. The ear actuator muscles are necessary for blood circulation and important muscles are attached to the coccygeal vertebras. Many researchers do not regard the appendix as a rudiment: instead, it has a task of its own for a newborn baby. It is true that the significance of all these organs is not known yet. However, this does not mean that they have no significance and neither do they mean that humans have evolved. (11)


As far as the so-called ”rudiments” are concerned, it is probably a question of us not understanding their significance. I have also seen claims that the coccyx and the appendix are useless rudiments from the times of phylogeny. Actually, the coccyx is important from the point of view of sitting, and I have not met many satisfied patients from whom it has been removed, because it would have been regarded as useless, perhaps causing backache. The appendix is important as a growth place of intestinal bacteria for a newborn baby. At the age of a couple of years, it has perhaps performed its task and can be removed if it becomes infected. Very rarely does the appendix get infected in children under two years of age. (12)


Rudiments – if they really exist – being used as evidence of evolution is also questionable, as it would not be a question of any actual evolution. Instead, we would be talking about regression. Actual evolution means that new and useful organs appear. One should be able to prove that there are new evolving organs, some of which are half finished or even one quarter finished. In other words, if there are a lot of rudiments, we should also see just as many organs that are being formed right now. Why can we not see them? Plain rudiments do not provide proper evidence for evolution, because we would need to see new organs evolving. However, there is a complete lack of evidence in that department.


EMBRYOGENESIS – or the fact that the stages of evolution of the embryo of different animals, and also those of human, resemble each other – has been said to prove evolution. Also, it has been claimed that as an embryo evolves, it goes through all the phases of phylogeny – from the lowest to the higher shapes of life. For example, the "gill arcs" of a human embryo are believed to be a relic from an ancient fish phase. This theory that mostly arises from the exaggerated and distorted drawings of Ernst Haeckel is also often presented in biology textbooks.

  We spot similarities between different embryos, however, simply because they all begin from one cell. The processes leading to the specialization of the cell groups are almost the same with all vertebrates. It would be a surprise if, at the initial stages, there was nothing in common or if each of the thousands of species had their own form of embryogenesis. Certainly, nobody would anticipate this.

  For example, plant seeds may also resemble each other, but some of them still become trees and others grow into something else. In the same way, the embryos may become fish, chickens, cows or people, even though in the beginning they look quite similar. Thus, their similarity in the beginning does not prove the supposed evolution: instead, the similarity is due to their growth stages. When mature, they become species of their own that noticeably differ from each other.

  The following text also refers to this issue, i.e., to using the different forms of an embryo as evidence of evolution. The text also refers to the significance of the "gill arcs" in a human embryo:


This so-called recapitulation theory, according to which the embryo of a human is climbing up its own pedigree, is utter nonsense. An eminent doctor who is completely familiar with embryology has announced that a "six-week-old embryo resembles a beautiful tiny baby." And as the different stages of the embryo have become more known, many Darwinists have stopped defending the folly. Some of those (people) who still cling to the theory jump over most of the intermediate stages and believe that only the fish stage, tail stage, and hair stage are relevant.

  (...) And the "arcs", of which they so gladly speak as "gill arcs", are simply the grooves or arcs from which the ear cavity, chin, and neck will be formed. (13)


Similar structure OR comparative anatomy. The fact that many animals have similar basic structures – for example, the prehensile hand of a man, the spade-like palm of a mole, the foot of a horse, the fin of a porpoise, or the wing of a bat – has been regarded as a piece of evidence showing that evolution has taken place starting from the same basic type. These structural similarities are believed to prove that all species are related to each other.

  However, if we ponder this subject, we might ask, what kind of limbs should there be if not the existing ones? A bat would not be a bat and a horse would not be a horse if their limbs were different. And if the limbs were different, of what use would they be? Would they have been more useful or would they have become useless? They would hardly have been any better in some other form.

  Therefore, one should understand that a similar structure need not be evidence of a common origin. Instead, it only proves that these animals were created in the same world. Otherwise, they would not even manage on the Earth. It is questionable to regard their similarity as evidence of evolution. We could as well emphasize the differences between a man, a whale, a butterfly, a snake, and an elephant, for example. Even though they have some similarities, there are also major differences.


However, it is not difficult to find a group of organs that appear with almost all the highly created. The brain, the nervous system, the heart and circulation, stomach and digestion system, ears, eyes, feet, head – and a whole bunch of other useful things – are mainly a kind of common property. But what kind of deductions do supporters of evolution use to make this fact into "evidence" supporting that doctrine according to which we all originate from a being that had none of these organs? This tiny unicellular animal, from which all is supposed to have got its beginning, did not have any of these limbs and organs!

  (...) According to these absurd theories, the head of a cod and the head of Einstein have the same origin; one of them is only a little more "developed." But we have to reject everything termed as a head in order for us to believe such nonsense!

  Please, do not ask us to take all creatures that have heads – or that have a certain amount of bones in their paws or their flippers – as our cousins. (14)


Biochemical structure. Genes and blood factors are other subjects that have been used to try to prove evolution.

  However, here too we must question what we are searching for: differences or similarities? It is true that the chemical structures of some species resemble each other and there are similarities between them, but this is exactly how it should be. (According to research, for example, the whale and the tiger should be close relatives on grounds of their blood, as well as the man and the rat!) When there are thousands of species, it is unavoidable that there are similarities between some of them, both in their biochemical properties and in other structures. This is the only way it could be.

  On the other hand, if we search for differences we can find those as well. For example, there is a large gap between the biochemical composition of certain ape species even though they otherwise resemble each other. This would not be possible were they closely related to each other and originated from the same basic form. Why then can we see these kinds of differences? Is it not true that they only prove that it is impossible to draw large conclusions from the origin of all species on grounds of their chemical structure? Michael Denton, a researcher of molecule biology, stated the following regarding the differences between species:


The variation noticed at molecule level refers to an organized, hierarchical system. Each class is separate and unique at the molecular level and there are no intermediate forms uniting these classes. The intermediate forms needed by evolution biology have not been found in molecules or in fossils either. This new technology has found sister relations only. At the molecule level, no organism is a “progenitor”, “primitive”, or “developed” when compared to its relatives. The nature adapts to the same form going against the theory of evolution that was observed already in the 1800s by esteemed researchers of comparative anatomy. (15)




3. The most important factors of evolution


When talking about what promotes development and evolution, usually the most important factors mentioned are mutations and natural selection. For example, a high school biology textbook (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 165) includes the following headline referring to the supposed significance of the above-mentioned issues in evolution:


18 Variation and selection as factors in evolution


Mutations should, therefore, promote evolution and bring about new species. Several experiments regarding their effects have been conducted, especially with banana flies.

   However, if we examine this matter, it is very questionable to name mutation factors promoting evolution. Experiments carried out over the decades and in which mutations were created did not show them as being important to evolution, as is supposed. The following observations do not support evolution:


Within certain limits. First of all, it has been noted that mutations always take place within certain limits. They do not bring about new structures, but cause changes in already existing organs. Generally, the changes observed are rather simple and insignificant. For example, in banana flies one may find deformed wings and feet as well as minor changes in other organs, but no new and useful limbs.

   Instead, while carrying out these experiments it has been observed that crossing of the line usually leads only to death and sterility, or the organisms’ attempt to restore themselves back to their normal state after a few generations. This is because heredity attempts to keep the original species similar and the long-term variation scale is nonexistent.

   Many researchers also deny mutations causing large-scale changes. They point out how mutations take place only within certain limits. Let’s examine some of these comments:


Even though thousands of mutations have been examined in our time, we have found no clear case in which mutation would have changed an animal into a more complex one, produced a new structure, or even caused a deep, new adaptation. (R.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After, p. 131)


The mutations we know – that are thought to be responsible for the creation of the living world – are generally either losses of an organ, disappearances (loss of pigment, loss of an appendage), or reduplications of an existing organ. In no case do they create anything genuinely new or individual to the organic system, anything that could be regarded as the basis of a new organ or as the beginning of a new function. (Jean Rostand, The Orion Book of Evolution, 1961, p. 79)


The results of experimental mutation research tell nothing about macro evolution. So far, the well-known facts regarding the mutation event refer to mutations taking place within narrow limits. The changing of organisms outside the borders of micro evolution cannot be explained by the well-known mutations. (Siegfried Scherer ja Reinhard Junker, Evoluutio, kriittinen analyysi, p. 69)


No new species. Secondly, one should note that no new species have been created during these experiments. As experiments with the banana fly have been carried out hundreds of thousands or millions of times over the decades, one could assume that the fly would have already changed into a wasp, worm, or butterfly, for example. However, nothing of the sort has been observed, and the banana fly still remains a banana fly. It has always been a species of its own and has experienced no change into some other organism.

   Therefore, the author of the book Darwin Retried (Norman Macbeth, 1971, p.33), for example, told about the well-known –deceased – geneticist Richard Goldschmidt and his research. This famous researcher stated that not even a thousand mutations together in one individual would have brought about a new species, because the changes were so minuscule. This indicates that mutations cannot promote evolution in the way that has been presented:


After having observed mutations in the banana flies for many years, Goldschmidt gave up hope. He complained that the changes were so hopelessly minuscule that even if a thousand mutations were to be combined in one individual, a new species would not be created. (16)


NATURAL SELECTION. The second factor that is believed to support evolution is natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest. Darwin believed this was the main reason behind evolution. He believed that the survival of the best adapted individuals could explain evolution altogether.

   However, if we think about this idea, we find it quite problematic. The problem with natural selection is that the process cannot bring about anything new, because natural selection always selects only from what is old and already there. The process cannot create any new kinds of species or completely new species, because mere survival cannot bring about a new plant or animal. Natural selection can only preserve already existing species and select among them.

   It is indeed true that some organism may be more suitable for living than another, and the more suitable one will have better probabilities to survive, but this will not help in creating the very same organism or in changing it. The organism cannot change into another species if it, for example, has happened to be born as a lion. It will certainly remain a lion until the end of its life, as a giraffe and other species will remain the same. Therefore, Darwin’s theory and natural selection cannot account for the origin of new species, because the process only chooses from already existing species and forms. Strangely enough, evolutionists have not put more thought into this:


It is here that Darwin's principle decisively fails. Natural selection may perhaps explain how those who are best equipped remain alive, but it can in no way explain how the best equipped have come into existence. Natural selection is not able to produce new properties: the process can only, given the chance, select from already existing properties. A new organ cannot be "selected", it must be created! Already existing genetic properties and possibilities can be artificially refined, but neither natural nor artificial selection is able to produce anything new. Natural selection may perhaps explain how some individuals are destroyed, but not how some are created. (17)


What about artificial selection or breeding performed by men? Could the creation of new species be explained by this process?

   The very same problem as in natural selection persists: new species are not created. It is true that there are changes and variation in domestic animals, for example – in horses, cats, and dogs, among others – but it has also been noted that there are always certain limits that cannot be crossed, just like when it comes to mutations. Breeding has been regularly carried out on animals for over 2,000 years, and it has been indisputably proven that animals can be refined only within a species. Animals and plants have not changed into other species as a result of breeding: heredity has tried to keep the original species separate.

   Let’s consider the following quote regarding the limitations of refining as well (On Call, 3 July 1972, p. 8, 9). This quote suggests that breeding tests cancel the theory of evolution rather than support it. There are boundaries that cannot be crossed. Species do not transform into a new species, despite the occurrence of variation:


Breeders usually find out that after a few generations of refining, an extreme limit is reached: advancing beyond this point is not possible, and no new species have been created. (…) Therefore, breeding tests cancel the theory of evolution rather than support it. (18)




4. Gaps in the theory of evolution


When thinking about the theory of evolution, we find many problems and thresholds, many of them still unresolved. We have studied many of them in the previous chapters, but in this chapter we will study some areas for which it is difficult to find an explanation.

   There have been attempts to explain the problems in the theory of evolution simply by saying, that time makes all things possible; over the course of millions of years, anything can happen.

   We could compare this to a fairy tale: a girl kisses a frog and the frog suddenly changes into a prince. However, the same fairy tale can turn into fact when enough time is added, i.e., 300 million years. Scientists believe that within that period of time a frog changed into a man. This is how evolutionists give time supernatural abilities. Things that would normally be impossible, become possible with enough time.

   The next quote shows how time makes everything possible even though it goes against practical observation. This is one of the axioms of evolution: the changing of one species into another species: 


Of course, it is true that nobody has been able to examine the gene pools of species long ago disappeared, and neither have we been able to witness the birth of any species – except some polyploids. However, the evolution researchers have hardly a hundred years to use, and it is estimated that the birth of a new species easily takes more than a million years. There is, however, no reason to assume that some other mechanisms than those that change the gene pools of populations nowadays would have been at work in the past. (Koululaisen uusi tietosanakirja, p. 815)


Below, we are going to study more of the problems with the theory of evolution. (There are many other gaps in addition to these. The gap between invertebrates and vertebrates is one unsolved problem, for example.) We will deal with the following points. People have tried to find solutions for these problems in evolution literature, but most of the solutions can be categorized as fiction:


- Initial stages

- Prokaryotes and eukaryotes 

- Multicellular organisms

- Evolution of plants

- From sea to land and from land to sea

- Complex organs


Initial stages. As we mentioned before, the initial stages of life are still a problem. The problem is that no bridge between living and lifeless material has been discovered – there is still a clear gap. It has been difficult to prove this assumed jump from a lifeless material to living organisms, and it overlooks scientific findings such as the research of Louis Pasteur, which proved that life can only be created from life.

   Because this gap between living and lifeless forms has been found to be so huge, other solutions have been suggested. The finder of the genotype molecule structure, Nobel Prize winner Sir Francis Crick, and space researcher Sir Fred Hoyle both came to the conclusion that life must have come into existence in space and sailed from there to here.

   The problem with their theory, however, is that not even it explains the birth of life. Instead, it moves life’s emergence elsewhere, further away. Assuming that life started spontaneously does not help to explain its origin. We still have to admit that there is a great difference between living and lifeless material. This deep and wide gap is hard to cross because no bridge has been discovered.


The observations made in the past three decades show us that there is a clear gap between the living and the lifeless world. This break is one of the most dramatic found in nature, since no uniting bridge (“missing link”) of any kind goes over it. The lack of this uniting bridge has been confirmed by means of experimental science, but it is also a conceptual impossibility and thus resembles other gaps observed in nature.  (19)


Prokaryotes and eukaryotes. When various classifications of populations have been made, very typical classifications are those of plants and animals as well as vertebrates and invertebrates. These are familiar classifications, at least to most people. However, the classification into prokaryotes and eukaryotes, i.e., the classification into elementary nucleus and genuine nucleus cells has generally been regarded as an even more important classification. 

   Of these two cell types, the eukaryotes are more complex; it has been thought that they evolved from the prokaryotes that have been deemed the first organisms on Earth. It is thought that prokaryotes appeared at least "two billion years" before the first eukaryotes.

     We can see major differences between these two cell types in terms of size and internal structure:


- Prokaryotes are much simpler in structure than eukaryotes.


 - Prokaryotes have no nuclei, mitochondria, chloroplasts, or any other cell organs that eukaryotes have.


 - The volume of a prokaryote is only a thousandth of that of a eukaryote: eukaryotes are about 1,000 times larger than prokaryotes.


The problem with the two cell types is: Where are their intermediate forms on the Earth? If eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes, shouldn’t there be a lot of intermediate forms in the ground? After all, it has been stated that evolution took at least a hundred million years. The problem is that the intermediate forms are still missing. Where are the intermediate forms?

   We are also faced with a more major problem: no intermediate form has yet been found. It would indeed be probable that we could find any kind of an intermediate form; then perhaps there would not be such a big difference between these two cell types. From the point of view of the theory of evolution it would be natural that there were no such clear divisions between different groups. But the problem lies, specifically, in the clear distinctiveness of the forms and in the lack of intermediate forms. Their differences remain unexplained:


Even though the evidence supports the idea of the eukaryotes evolving from the prokaryotes, the differences between these two groups are so large that it seems that something other than just time and mutations would have been needed for a simple prokaryote to evolve into a complex eukaryote. (John Reader: Alkumerestä maalle, p.36 / The Rise of Life)


Multi-cellular organisms. After the prokaryotic and eukaryotic phases, multi-cellular organisms should have appeared on Earth.

   However, when we study the evolution of multi-cellular organisms, this is difficult to prove, as well. The problem is that it has been difficult to find evidence to prove that mono-cellular protista suddenly, at some point in the past, started to combine and form working systems. After all, theories about their birth assume that they were created when several cells were combined. This process is explained in the following way: “… After being divided into two parts the newborn cells, daughter cells, did not separate from each other, but remained together as bicellular organisms. A bi-cellular organism could form into a tri-cellular or a quad-cellular organism: the number of cells remaining together increased to tens, hundreds, thousands. (…) The various cells of an organism specialized in different tasks.” (Koululaisen uusi tietosanakirja, p. 772 )

   Were multi-cellular organisms born in the way described above? We must note that this cannot be proven. Some researchers deny this possibility. They also state that several monocellular organisms together do not amount to a multi-cellular organism. They are still mono-cellular organisms, but there are only more of them together!

   Secondly, one should note that no formation of multi-cellular organisms from mono-cellular forms has been observed in nature in modern days, and only the presuppositions regarding the evolution of life require such theories. One can believe that this has happened, but no convincing material supporting this belief has been found.

   The problem with multi-cellular organisms is described in the quotes below. They show how this matter is still an unsolved mystery:


We do not know how multi-cellular organisms could be formed from mono-cellular ones. The development of sexual propagation is a very difficult problem from the point of view of evolution. Many new genes have been needed, and the change caused by the selection pressure is unclear, because bacteria thrive in quite extreme conditions from sub-zero temperatures to boiling springs, from kilometers above into kilometers below the sea level.

   It is strange that all of the approximately one hundred phyla of the animal kingdom and several classes really appeared almost at the same time in the beginning of the multi-cellular life (Evolution and the Fossil Record, K.C. Allen and D.E.G. Briggs, 1989), and no more “evolution” occurred on this level after that: instead seventy phyla just became extinct. (Gould, Wonderful Life, pp. 57–60). (20)


What conclusions can be drawn from the possible relationship between mono-cellular (Protozoa) and multi-cellular (Metazoa) organisms? The only fact is that we are not familiar with the relationship. Almost all possible (as well as many impossible) relationships have been proposed, but the information available to us is insufficient to justify drawing any scientific conclusion about such a relationship. If we please, we may believe that one of these theories is more correct than the others, but we do not have any real evidence. (G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, p. 49) (21)


THE Evolution of plants. Another problem is the evolution of plants. Usually, it has been explained that they, too, evolved first in water -- so the first plants were simple algae from which gradually evolved other water plants and land plants such as mosses, reeds, bushes, flowers, and trees. It is believed that all of this took as long as hundreds of millions of years.

   As far as the evidence for plants moving from the sea onto land is concerned, we must yet again note that there exists no convincing evidence. There is only a presumption and belief that it must have occurred but we cannot know for sure. Just as for animals, it is difficult to find in layers of the Earth any preceding, simpler evolution phase for plants. Instead, it has been observed that all the main plant groups appear in the layers suddenly and fully developed, and that since then they have remained separate. Tämä tukee luomiskäsitystä.

   Neither do we know how the complicated photosynthesis process was created, or how an alga could have changed into a reed and then into a tree or bush. And if this did take place in the past, shouldn’t something similar be occurring now? Has this activity been detected today? We still lack proof of such occurrences, and cannot determine their likelihood.


Paleobotanists consider moving of the plants from the sea onto the land as an equally difficult question as the birth of first life on the early globe. Life on land requires several new properties that the water plants do not need and that could even be detrimental in water. (22)


Plenty of evidence from biology, animal and plant geography and paleontology can be presented to support the theory of evolution, but in spite of everything, I am of the opinion that unprejudiced people come to the conclusion that plant fossils support the idea of a special creation. (…) Could one imagine that an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm would have the same origin, and can this hypothesis be proven true? A supporter of evolution would surely be prepared to answer this question, but I think most evidence could not endure a closer study. (23)


From sea ONto land and from land to sea. In the previous paragraph, it was mentioned that plants are supposed to have moved from the sea onto land. It has been supposed that algae in the sea gradually changed into more complicated plants and then into the present land plants, and all of this took as long as hundreds of millions of years.

   The evolution of animals is supposed to have been similar. This means that when life was born first in the sea, it evolved there for a while and then gradually moved onto the land. Simple mono-cellular organisms that existed only in the sea ultimately became complex land animals such as frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals. All diverse forms of life on Earth arose from this sequence of events.

   However, if we closely examine the likelihood that a fish crept onto land and became a land animal, we face numerous problems. The following issues could be mentioned:


 - One problem is breathing. The fish needed new respiratory organs so they could breathe as easily in air as in water. This had to happen very quickly, because if fish could not develop these organs within a couple of hours, the fish would die. So far, it has been difficult to explain how the gills of a fish can change into lungs in a short time.

- For a fish, moving around on dry land must have been problematic. Practically, the fish would have been like "a fish out of water" and would probably not have gotten anywhere. A tail or fins will not help much when moving on dry land; for this, one needs feet. With the help of the tail and fins, the fish could have, at the most, jumped in the air, but it could not have been able to move forward.

- The fish’s senses needed to change in both activity and structure. Senses that are useful in water are not necessarily useful on dry land. For example, an eye that is useful in water will be useless on land because air and water refract light in a different way.

- Another problem is how and what the fish was able to eat on land. Certainly it could not have been able to eat berries from bushes or any other food, as it could not have been able to move. And the fish would not have gotten the same nutrition on dry land as the one to which it had gotten used in the water. Why would a fish even have gone to search for food on dry land? There would have been plenty of food in the water.

- Reproduction would certainly have been difficult, since two participants are needed instead of one. It is problematic to explain how they could have set their spawn and milt in the same place, because moving would have been difficult?


What about moving from land into sea? One presumption is that life did not move only from the sea onto the land, but also from the land into the sea. It has been theorized that the progenitors of whales were -- until they became water animals -- primitive hoofed animals. In the same way, it has been hypothesized that the progenitors of the ichthyosaurus and dolphin were -- until they moved into the water – animals living on dry land (The external structure of both of them resembles that of the present shark; mammals are deemed to be the progenitors of dolphins, but reptiles to be progenitors of ichthyosaurus).

   Regarding the presumption that life moved from the land towards the sea, there are also problems with that theory. One might ask why these animals would have moved into the sea; was there not enough room on dry land? Why would they have moved into a strange environment where it would have been difficult for them to survive and where they probably would have drowned?

   In addition, if we assume that whales are the descendants of these animals should they not have signs of land life from their progenitors or some kind of hoof-like vestige? Or do the ancestors of the whale, the ichthyosaurus, and the dolphin come from land after all? Only our presumption that evolution proceeded along the fish-frog-reptile-mammal chain will lead us to the conclusion that life moved from land towards the sea. We cannot find any convincing evidence to support it because fossil findings do not support such an idea. Instead, we observe that fossilized species appear nowadays as being separate.


COMPLEX organs. If we assume that everything was born from one single cell, one difficulty is to explain the abundance of species today. Why did not, for example, a simple cellular mass, bacterium, or moss cover the Earth instead of what we now can see: all kinds of colorful animals in the water, in the air, on the land and underground; and plentiful vegetation? It is difficult to explain this merely on the basis of a "simple" cell in the beginning.

   Of course, one can wonder why there still are mono-cellular organisms such as amoebas. Why is it that some of them changed into complicated organisms while others have remained unchanged and thrive nowadays as well?

  There is another problem in addition to the abundance of species. We find it in the existence of complex organs and complicated structures. Were they complex from the beginning? How was it possible for their host organism to survive with half-finished structures?

   Below, we are going to study some complicated structures. We will start with the digestive system and move onto other complex structures.


Digestive system. Firstly, if the digestive system was not complete from the beginning this would have led to many kinds of difficulties. The digestive system provides good proof that all organs should have been in complete condition, immediately. Otherwise, normal life would have been impossible. We need these digestive organs at every stage of the process. It would be impossible to stay alive. Evolutionists rarely take these aspects into consideration. They believe in evolutionary development but overlook several problems that would have followed if everything hadn’t been readily functional from the beginning.


- The first organ in the digestive system is the mouth. If it was not instantaneously ready, how did food get into the stomach? Would food not have remained outside and organisms died of hunger? We need our mouth not only for speech but to eat and drink. Without it we would perish in a few weeks.

- If the esophagus were not immediately ready, where would the food have gone? Would it have remained in the mouth? The consequence would have been starvation. The esophagus is absolutely necessary for the food to move elsewhere into the body.

- In addition to the esophagus, the stomach must also have been ready because where else would the food be digested? The stomach is the place in which food is broken down and from which its nutrients are absorbed for the body to use.

- If the previous organs were present but the vascular system was not ready this would have prevented the transportation of nutrients to other parts of the body. Again, the result would have been starvation.

- In addition to all the previous organs the final process in the digestive system, elimination of wastes through urination and defecation, must have been ready because if it were not the result would have been disastrous. We cannot survive for very long if all these important organs are not in order.


Breathing and circulation are the most important functions of the body. If the required organs were not ready immediately, this too would have prevented normal life:


 - If the trachea and the lungs were not ready, the consequence would have been lack of oxygen and suffocation or a quick death. We need both of them in order to breathe normally.

- The heart must have pumped right away, so that oxidized blood would have gotten to every cell of the body. Had it not been so, the consequence would again be quick death. The heart is the pumping station that moves blood through our veins, and it surely must have been in order from the very beginning.

- The blood and veins should have been ready, in order for the oxidized blood to get to every single cell of the body. If blood had stopped flowing into some part of the body, that body part would have become gangrenous.

- Blood would also be required to transport carbon dioxide and other waste products out of the way, and provide oxygen and nutrients. If this cleansing task had not immediately taken place, normal breathing would have not been possible.


Hands, feet, senses, and the reproductive system also should have been ready. Had they been defective the following difficulties would most likely have occurred:


 - If the hands and feet were not ready how was movement possible? Did living organisms stand in one place all the time and wait for food to drop into their mouths so that no movement was required? How was gathering of food and anything else possible if organisms just stood still? Usually, half-completed organs are of no use. Moreover, we should bear in mind that no half-finished hands, feet, or senses have been found in any fossils. All of the fossils have been perfectly finished. The same can be said about nature today. All animals and organisms have a completely finished form. They wouldn’t be able to stay alive in any other state. 


 - If the eyes were not ready, how was it possible to see, live and to search for food? Or was searching for food mere groping and fumbling around?

   Also, the formation of the eye by itself – and even a number of times in different species – would have been problematic. How could chance have known about the necessity of eyesight (or hearing, smell, taste, or touch), and how would a half-finished eye benefit anyone? Even Darwin had to admit that development of the eye alone is quite impossible:


The presumption that the eye with all its inimitable structures that focus images at different distances, regulate the amount of light, fix spherical and chromatic aberration (color aberration) could have been formed as a consequence of natural selection is, I do admit openly, absurd to a great extent. (...) The idea of an organ like the eye forming through natural selection is more than enough to confuse anyone. (24)


- As far as reproduction is concerned, how did it take place before the reproductive organs were formed? Should not the reproductive organs have been ready from the very beginning? Sexuality and reproduction must have been in working order in the first generation. Otherwise, it would have been impossible to get descendants, which would have led to extinction.

  What about compatible sex organs of the male and female, and their gametes, which are also compatible?

How could they have evolved separately from each other and in different individuals? Would this not have been impossible, because evolution would have had to occur in two individuals at the same time? Love and awakening of interest between different sexes is also a mystery. How could such a thing have developed from a single cell, which certainly did not have any sexual interests whatsoever? It is rather difficult to explain these things from an evolutionary perspective. Instead, everything seems to perfectly match with the creation model, according to which everything was created finished, including organs needed for reproduction.

   Extinction would have also been a threat if, for example, the womb, the birth canal, and guaranteed supply of food were not immediately ready. They are all necessary for the offspring to be born and survive. Life would end before it could even begin if these mechanisms and stages weren’t readily available. If not, extinction would quickly follow. It is quite a leap of faith to believe that all of these could have formed by themselves, and one should doubt whether this could be true.


Large systems. The size and complexity of physiological systems provide another mystery. How could they have formed gradually, over time? There are many important organs in the thorax (heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas, reproductive organs, stomach), and skull (eyes, nose, ears, brain, mouth. The functions of the mouth include drinking, eating, tasting, breathing and speech.)

   If some of these organs were only just forming – forming muscles, nerves, veins – would activity of all other organs not been prevented? All parts of the body are dependent on each other, are they not? So the mystery is that, if all these parts were not ready immediately then how could they have been formed later? If they were not ready then how was it possible for humans to stay alive? It seems creation does provide a more probable explanation, since it would make sense that animals and humans have possessed all their organs and bodily functions from the beginning. Otherwise, normal life would not have been possible.


Final statement. Above, we discussed the greatest problems of the evolution theory. We stated that the gaps are too big to be ignored. The biggest gap is between a living and a lifeless material, and researchers have not made any progress in the matter in the past century. Furthermore, there are gaps between different main groups because it has been impossible to find intermediate forms between them. Other gaps in and problems with the theory have been pointed out.

   What other alternatives can we propose to replace gradual development if it is not true? The answer would be, of course, that species were created fully functional from the beginning, as suggested by the creation model. This is the most rational conclusion we can make if we look at the evidence as is, instead of trying to adjust it to fit evolution. The misconstrued biases mentioned in the preface are the only thing standing in the way of people accepting this alternative.

   The conclusion is that it is very sensible to believe in the Creation as described in the beginning of the Bible. It is more sensible to believe in it than to believe Darwin’s theory that everything was born by itself, because it is more logical that everything has its maker. If Darwin’s theory can be proven, then people should produce the evidence. Otherwise, it remains an unproven theory. It is not a matter of fact but of a blind belief in a theory that cannot be proven.

   It is, naturally, also true that we cannot prove Creation because we cannot bring back past conditions, but at least it is more sensible to believe in it. It is more sensible because it is the only possible alternative to Darwinism, and people have not been able to produce evidence supporting it.

   We are going to look at a related quatation to this issua. The writer shows how people who believe in the theory of evolution try to hide behind their psychological barrier of infallibility or denigrate people who think otherwise while being unable to show any proof to support their view. This way, they move the focus away from the main issue, i.e. whether the theory of evolution is correct or not. This is quite common in modern society.


Let’s recap: if the theory of evolution were true, it would endure examination. Regardless of whether it endures examination or not, we have the right to study it to find out its worth.

   Nobody can demand us to accept any claims someone gives without assessing them. Nobody demands blind and grovelling admiration – this should be least true of all people who call themselves scientists.

   Therefore, it seems very suspicious that the people who defend the theory of evolution are offended when others discuss their theories and assumptions. They like to say that only ignorant and not enlightened people doubt the theory of evolution in the modern society. True science does not need to slur the opposition in this way. True science does not try to hide behind a psychological barrier of infallibility. What do the evolution theorists want, then?

   (...) We are not asking about the reasons of evolution or the assumptions on which it is based – we want facts. If somebody can prove in an experiment that life can be born from something inanimate, we would not want somebody to explain how this can be. If somebody could show even a single example of one species being evolved from another, we would have to accept it – even if nobody on earth could explain why the species changed. – This is what the evolution theorists have not been able to do: they cannot prove their claims true.

   Many Darwinist books state that people who are opposed of the theory of evolution reject the theory because of purely emotional reasons. This is not true, obviously. Even if we don’t like to think that we have evolved from apes and pigs, this is not why we do not accept the theory. Arguments against the theory of evolution are not about emotion, they are about science.

   We are not rejecting the theory of evolution because of its lack of rationalisation – even though one must note that there is no such rationalisation. Neither are we rejecting it because of emotional reasons and not even for ethical ones, at least not primarily. We are rejecting the theory of evolution because there is no proof to show that it is true.

   We want proof. (25)








1. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p. 187

2. Charles Darwin: The origin of species, vol 2, 6 th ed., p. 49 - Cit. in Evoluution romahdus (The Collapse of Evolution) by Scott M. Huse.

3. Heribert Nilsson: Synthetische artbildung, 1953, p. 1212 - Citation in Evoluutio - tieteen harha-askel by Mikko Tuuliranta.

4. Cit. in Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan by Kimmo Pälikkö and Markku Särelä, p. 19.

5. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, (Jakten på apemennesket), p. 94

6. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 153

7. Heribert Nilsson: Synthetische artbildung, 1953, p. 1212 - Citation in Evoluutio - tieteen harha-askel by Mikko Tuuliranta.

8. H. Enoch. : Evolution or creation, Union of evangelical students of India, Madras, 1965, p. 48 - Cit. in Evolutionismi - sattuman uskonto by Matti Leisola, p. 21.

9. G. Hardin. : Nature and man's fate, Rinehart Co., Inc., New York, 1959, p. 260 - Cit. in Evolutionismi - sattuman uskonto by Matti Leisola, p. 21..

10. L.H. Matthews.: The origin of Spaces (introduction) by Charles Darwin, J.M.Dent and sons, Ltd., London, 1971, p. 10 - Cit. in Evoluution romahdus [The Collapse of Evolution] by Scott M. Huse, p. 112

11. H. Enoch.: Evolution or creation, Unoin of evangelical students of India, Madras, 1965, s. 14,66 - Cit. in Evolutionismi - sattuman uskonto by Matti Leisola, p. 29.

12. Mikko Tuuliranta: Evoluutio - tieteen harha-askel?, p. 58

13. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, (Jakten på apemennesket), p. 72,73

14. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, (Jakten på apemennesket), p. 64

15. Michael Denton: ”Evolution – a theory in crisis”, 1985, 2. 260.

16. Cit. in Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?, Jeh. witnesses., p. 105.

17. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, (Jakten på apemennesket), p. 46

18. Cit. in Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?, Jeh. witnesses., p. 108.

19. Michael Denton: Evolution; A Theory in Crisis, p. 347

20. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu, p. 130

21. Cit. in, Tiede ja luominen by Harold G. Coffin, p. 33.

22. Siegfried Scherer and Reinhard Junker: Evoluutio, kriittinen analyysi (Evolution : ein kritisches Lehrbuch) p. 235

23. E.J.H.Corner, in Contemporary Botanical Thought, by Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley, p. 97

24. Shute, E., "Flaws in the Theory of Evolution", Craig Press, Nutley, New Jersey, 1961, pp. 127-128

25. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas [Jakten på apemennesket], p. 6,57

















Jesus is the way, the truth and the life





Grap to eternal life!


More on this topic:

Why has there not been an evolution of man? Did man evolve from ape-like primitives or was he created? Learn how evolutionists ’own discoveries refute the notion of human evolution

Imaginary perceptions. People believe that science has proved the birth of the universe and life by itself, as well as the theory of evolution. These perceptions are based on a lie

Looking into creation. Creation or the birth of the universe and life by itself and the idea of ​​evolution? Which view is true? The evidence clearly points to creation

Theistic evolution under inspection. Theistic evolution contradicts the Bible. In addition, practical evidence refutes the notion of theistic evolution

Conditions for life – coincidence? Fine-tuning in the universe and on earth clearly refers to God’s work of creation. Life is not born by chance

Questions about science. If we reject God’s work of creation and accept the theory of evolution with its millions of years, questions will arise to which it is impossible to give sensible answers

How did everything begin? We are repeatedly told about the Big Bang and the birth of celestial bodies and life itself. Read how deadlocked these views are

Darwin in the media. The theory of evolution with its millions of years is considered true in the media, although there is constant evidence that refutes this theory

Faith and science. What is science and what is faith?