2. The most convincing evidence supporting the theory of evolution
When talking about the theory of evolution, it usually
refers to the changing of species into other species. It
means that life has evolved from simple and primitive forms
of life towards increasingly complex structures. The complex
structures that are now found in nature have become what
they are today with the help of biological changes, which
have been maintained especially by mutations and natural
selection. It is believed that evolution has taken up to
hundreds of millions of years.
And what about the evidence for the theory of evolution?
As stated, evolutionary theorists have tried to find
evidence for their theory. These are mentioned both in
school textbooks and in standard evolution literature. They
also appear in nature programs.
The following things in particular appear repeatedly in
evolution literature. Evolutionists believe that they are
good evidence for evolution, but if you look more closely at
these evidences, you can find a lot to point out. They are
not very convincing evidence after all. The same has also
been admitted by a few evolutionists when they have studied
the topic in more detail.
•
Evolution series of horse
•
Archaeopteryx or lizard bird
•
Peppered moth and bacteria
•
Rudiments
•
Embryonic development
•
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 its 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. Such a
series exists, for example, about 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 finds, we can in no way conclude that they
would be direct descendants of one another or would be an
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 only the horse fossils had been found where there are
successive layers of soil, then it would make some sense to
assume that the horse evolved from forms like Eohippus.
However, the facts speak otherwise. The bones of the horse
fossil series were collected from different parts of the
world and arranged in an order showing 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. The horses had sometimes grown
bigger, sometimes smaller over 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.
• As for the first part of the development series, Eohippus,
it has been said that it resembles e.g. tapir and rhino as
much as horse. On the other hand, it has been said that the
eohippus would have been the rabbit or the rock badger,
which is the species companion of the current rabbits. Many
scientists are of the opinion that Eohippus has nothing to
do with horses. As for the other parts of the development
series, it has been said that they are all 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). It shows that Archeopteryx cannot be the ancestor of
birds, because there were already birds before it.
Similarly, remains of other birds have been discovered from
the same layers as those of the Archaeopteryx. In other
words, based on these finds, 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. Some birds have nails at
the tips of their wings (ostrich, turaco, and hoatz), some
have a sternum similar to that of a 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? Another
fundamental question, of course, is, where are the
intermediate forms of reptiles and birds in modern times?
Shouldn't they appear also now and not just in the past?
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:
• When there are millions of small air vesicles in the lungs
of reptiles, the lungs of birds consist of tubes. The fact
that there would be intermediate forms in which the lungs
would consist partially of air vesicles and partially of
tubes is incredible. It is unlikely that such intermediate
forms will remain alive.
• 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.
• Scales should have been replaced by feathers
• The exchange temperature changed to uniform temperature
•
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.
Of course, evolutionary theory requires this, but the
evidence in favour of it is flimsy. On the other hand, if
such changes have occurred in the past, they should also
occur in modern times. The problem is that nothing of the
kind has been detected.
Peppered moth and bacteria.
Next on the list is the peppered moth, whose dark and light
transformations and the survival of these transformations in
a different environment have often been considered an
excellent example of the realization of evolution.
However, there is one problem with the many changes in
peppered moths: They do not make it a new species. It is
still a butterfly, a peppered moth, both at the beginning
and at the end, and not, for example, a wasp or a worm. The
only change that takes place is in the mutual number of
transformations, but no new species has arisen. In the
introduction to the 1971 edition of The Origin of Species,
L. Harrison Matthews made the same simple point. He states
that the mutual relationship of different transformations
does not help in solving the evolutionary process. It does
not change the peppered moth (= Biston betularia) 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
betularia. (10)
Another similar example that has often been used as evidence
for evolution is resistance in bacteria. It has been thought
that when some resistant bacteria survive and their strains
increase, it proves evolution.
However, this is the same situation as in the case of
the peppered moth: the bacterium does not change into
another species but remains a bacterium, both at the
beginning and at the end. It is a question of a bacterium
that has better resistance, but it is still the same
species. It is the same thing as if some people have better
immunity against, for example, AIDS or influenza. These
people may not get those diseases, but that doesn't change
them into some other species.
Rudiments
are one of the things that have been used as evidence of
evolution. For example, the appendage of the cecum, tailbone
and other body parts may have been considered useless
remains.
However, many scientists do not agree with the former.
Many body parts that have been considered a remain of the
past have been found to have their own important function.
It has even been possible to show in practice that all the
180 organs that were once declared atrophied have their own
important part and function. Such an observation does not
point to the redundancy of these members, but to their
usefulness. Prof. Enoch wrote about the significance of
"rudiments":
At one time, it was claimed that there were about 180 organ
rudiments. With the increase in knowledge, the number of
organs considered rudiments has decreased. At one time, for
example, internal secretion glands were regarded as
rudiments. The human ear-moving muscles are necessary for
blood circulation, while 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 time of species
evolution. In reality, the coccyx is very important for
sitting, and I have not met many happy patients who have had
it removed because it was considered useless, perhaps
causing back pain. The importance of the appendix as a place
for the development of normal intestinal bacteria is
important for the newborn. At the age of a couple of years,
it will probably have completed its task and can be removed
without worry if it becomes inflamed. In children under the
age of two, it is quite rare for it to become inflamed. (12)
Using rudiments - if they really exist - as evidence of
evolution is questionable anyway, because it is not real
evolution but recession. 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
only partially finished. If there are a lot of rudiments, we
should also see just as many organs that are being formed
right now. Why don't we see them? Plain rudiments do not
provide proper evidence for evolution, because we would need
to see new organs evolving. However, there is no evidence
for that.
Embryonic development,
i.e. that the development stages of different animal and
human embryos resemble each other, has been used as a form
of evidence for evolution. At the same time, it has been
suggested that in the embryonic development of each
individual, the entire stages of species development are
re-examined - from the lowest to the highest forms of life.
For example, the "gill arches" of the human embryo have been
considered to be a remnant of the ancient fish stage. This
theory, largely derived from Ernst Haeckel's exaggerated and
distorted drawings, is often presented in biology textbooks.
However, the fact that we can see similarities between
different embryos is because they all start from a single
cell. The processes that lead to the specialization of cell
groups are approximately the same in all vertebrates. It
would rather be a surprise if there was nothing in common in
the early stages, or if each of the thousands of species had
its own form in embryonic development. You certainly
wouldn't expect something like this.
For example, the seeds of plants can resemble each other
a lot, but still some can become trees and some others.
Likewise, embryos, even if they look a little alike at
first, can become fish, chickens, cows, humans, or other
species. Their similarity in the beginning is no proof of
the supposed evolution, but is related to their stages of
growth. As adults, they become their own species and they
differ considerably from each other.
The following text refers to the same thing: using the
different shapes of the embryo as evidence of evolution. It
also talks about the importance of "gill arches" in the
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 "crevices", of which they so gladly speak as
"gill slits", are simply those furrows or arches from which
the ear cavity, chin, and neck will be formed. (13)
Similar structure or comparative anatomy.
When several animals have the same basic structure - e.g.
the grasping hand of a human, the spade-like palm of a mole,
the foot of a horse, the fin of a porpoise or the wing of a
bat - it has been considered evidence that evolution has
taken place from the same basic type. The similarity of the
structures is considered to prove that all species are
related to each other.
A good question, however, is what kind of limbs should
be, if not the current ones? A bat wouldn't be a bat and a
horse wouldn't be a horse if their limbs were different.
Also, if the limbs had been different, what good would they
have been? Would they have been more usable or would they
have become unusable? They could hardly have been any
better.
A similar structure does not therefore have to prove a
common descent, but only that the animals were created for a
similar world. Otherwise, they wouldn't even get along on
earth. It is questionable to consider their similarity as
evidence of evolution. Just as well we could also emphasize
differences between, for example, a human, a whale, a
butterfly, a snake and an elephant. Even though they have
some similarities, there are also major differences.
However, it is not difficult to find a set of organs that
are present in almost all the highest creatures. Such things
as the brain, nervous system, heart and blood circulation,
stomach and digestive organs, ears, eyes, legs, head - and a
whole host of other useful things - are more or less some
kind of shared biological property. But what kind of
reasoning do evolutionists use to make this fact "proof" for
the theory that we all originally descended from a creature
that had none of these? Because that little one-celled
animal from which everything began was missing all these
parts and organs!
(...) According to these absurd theories, the head of a
cod and the head of Einstein have the same origin; the other
of them would just be 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 similarity may have been used as a form of
evidence for evolution.
However, here too it is a matter of what is being
sought; are we looking for differences or similarities? It
is true that some species resemble each other in terms of
biochemical structure and have similarities, but that's how
it should be (According to research, even a whale and a
tiger, and a human and a rat should be close relatives based
on blood!). 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. It is impossible that it could be otherwise.
On the other hand, if we look for differences, we can
find them too. For example, a deep gap has been observed
between many monkey species in their biochemical structure,
even though they otherwise resemble each other. This should
not be possible if they were closely related to each other
and descended from the same stock. However, why are the
differences observed? Don't they prove that it is impossible
to draw large conclusions from the origin of all species on
grounds of their chemical structure? Molecular biology
researcher Michael Denton has stated about the differences
between different species:
The variation found at the molecular level points to a
well-ordered hierarchical system. Each class is separate and
unique at the molecular level, and no intermediate forms
connect these classes. The intermediate forms needed by
evolutionary biology have not been found in molecules any
better than in fossils. This new technique has only found
sibling relationships. At the molecular level, no organism
is "ancestral", "primitive" or "evolved" when compared to
its relatives. Nature adapts to the same form contrary to
the theory of development, which was already observed by
prominent researchers of comparative anatomy in the 19th
century. (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 advance development and create new species.
Several experiments have also been done on their effect,
especially with banana flies.
However, the use of mutations as drivers of evolution is
questionable. Experiments that have been carried out for
decades and where mutations have arisen do not show that
they are as important for evolution as has been assumed. At
least the following observations have been made that do not
support evolution:
Within certain limits.
First, it has been noticed that mutations always occur
within certain limits. They do not create new and
unprecedented structures, but bring about changes in already
existing organs. Usually, the changes that are observed are
relatively simple and insignificant. For example, banana
flies may have deformed wings and limbs and slight changes
in other organs, but no new and useful body parts.
Instead, experiments have found that crossing the limit
usually only leads to death and sterility, or species tend
to return to normal after a few generations. It is due to
the fact that heredity tends to keep the stock species
similar and the scale of variation is almost non-existent
over a longer period of time.
Many researchers also deny that mutations cause
large-scale changes. They refer to how mutations occur only
within certain limits. Let's take a look at some of their
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 change of organisms beyond the
limits of microevolution is not explained by known
mutations. (Siegfried Scherer ja Reinhard Junker, Evoluutio,
kriittinen analyysi, p. 69)
No new species.
Secondly, it is good to note that no new species have been
born through experiments. When 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 like that has been observed,
instead the banana fly has remained a banana fly all along.
It has been its own species all along and has not
experienced a transformation into some other organism.
Thus, the author of the book "Darwin Retried" (Norman
Macbeth, Darwin Retried, 1971, p. 33) has told about the
well-known geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt, and his
research. This well-known scientist stated that even a
thousand mutations in one individual would not have produced
a new species because the changes are so small. This shows
that mutations cannot advance evolution, even though this
has been assumed:
After observing mutations in banana flies for several years,
Goldschmidt gave up hope. He complained that the changes
were so hopelessly small that even if a thousand mutations
combined in one individual, a new species would still not
have been born. (16)
Natural selection.
In addition to mutations, natural selection, i.e. survival
of the fittest, has been proposed as another cause of
evolution. According to Darwin, this was the main reason
behind evolution. He believed that the survival of the best
adapted individuals could explain explain all of evolution.
However, this notion is problematic. The reason is
simple: natural selection cannot create anything new,
because it always selects only from what is old and ready.
It cannot give birth to any new species or create a new one
because mere survival cannot bring it about. It can only
preserve and select from already existing species.
It is true that some organism may be more suitable than
another and have a better chance of survival, but it is no
longer helpful in creating or changing that organism. It can
no longer change into another species if it happened to be
born as, for example, a lion. It will definitely remain a
lion until the end of its life, just like a giraffe and
other species will remain the same. Darwin's theory and
natural selection cannot therefore explain the emergence of
new species, because it selects from already existing
species and forms. It's strange that evolutionists haven't
thought more about this:
This is where Darwin's principle of explanation fails
decisively. Natural selection may be able to explain how the
best equipped survive, but it still cannot explain how the
best equipped emerge. Natural selection cannot produce new
characteristics, it can only select among existing
characteristics when the opportunity arises. 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 be able
to explain how some are destroyed, but not how some are
born. (17)
What about breeding, i.e. selection performed by humans? Has
it been possible to prove the birth of new species through
it?
However, this has the same problem as natural selection:
the lack of birth of new species. It is true that changes
and variation can occur e.g. in domestic animals - horses,
dogs and cats - but it has also been found that there are
certain limits that cannot be crossed, just like in
mutations. Breeding work, which has been carried out
regularly with animals for over 2000 years, has undoubtedly
shown that animals can only be bred within a species.
Animals and plants have not changed into other species as a
result, but heredity has tried to keep the parent species
separate.
We look at the quote about the limitations of breeding
(On Call, 3 July 1972, p. 8,9). It shows how breeding
experiments disprove the theory of evolution rather than
support it. There are limits that cannot be crossed. The
species do not change to another, although the change can be
seen:
Breeders usually find that after a few generations a limit
is reached in breeding beyond which no further progress is
possible and no new species has been formed --. Breeding
experiments would therefore seem to disprove the theory of
development rather than support it. (18)
4. Gaps in the theory of evolution
Evolutionary theory has several problems, many of which are
insurmountable. Some of them have been discussed in the
previous chapters, but in this chapter we will study some
areas for which it is difficult to find an explanation.
The problems that occur in the theory of evolution may
have been simply explained by the fact that time makes
everything possible and anything can happen over millions of
years.
It could be compared to a girl in a fairy tale kissing a
frog and suddenly it becomes a prince. It's just considered
a fairy tale. However, the same thing turns into science as
soon as enough time is allocated for it: 300 million years,
because in that time scientists believe that the frog turned
into a human. This is how evolutionists give time
supernatural properties, as it were. What would otherwise be
impossible becomes possible over time.
The following quote also shows how time is believed to
make everything possible, even if it is contrary to
practical observations. It is a question of the basic
assumption of evolution, the transformation of species into
others:
It is, of course, true that no one has been able to study
the gene pools of species that have long since disappeared,
and not even the emergence of a single species has been
directly observed - with the exception of some cases of
polyploidy. But evolutionary researchers have barely had a
hundred years at their disposal, and it can easily be
calculated that a million years pass before the birth of a
new species. 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. Evolutionary literature
has tried to find solutions to them, but most solutions move
in the realm of imagination:
•
Initial stages
•
Prokaryotes and eukaryotes
•
Multicellular organisms
•
Evolution of plants
•
From sea to land and from land to sea
•
Complex organs
Initial stages.
It was already stated earlier that the early stages of life
are a problem. There is still no connecting bridge between
living and non-living matter – there is still a clear gap.
The imagined jump from inanimate matter to living organisms
has been impossible to prove and it ignores e.g. Louis
Pasteur's versatile experiments, which showed that life can
only arise from life.
When the gap between the living and the non-living has
been found to be so large, other solutions have been
proposed. For example, the inventor of the structure of the
genetic molecule, the Nobel laureate Sir Francis Crick, and
the space researcher Sir Fred Hoyle have come to the
conclusion that life must have come into existence in space
and sailed from there to here.
The problem with their explanation is that it doesn't
solve the origin of life. It only moves it elsewhere,
further away. If it is assumed that life started
spontaneously by itself, it will not bring any new help to
solving the problem. We would still have to state that there
is a deep gap between living and non-living matter. It is
difficult to cross because no connecting bridge has been
found:
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 groupings have been made in relation to the
biota, the usual groupings are divisions into plants and
animals and divisions into vertebrates and invertebrates.
For most people, these are familiar concepts.
However, the classification into prokaryotes and
eukaryotes cells has been considered the most important
grouping.
Of these two cell types, eukaryotes are more complex and
are thought to have evolved from prokaryotes, which have
been considered the first organisms on earth. Prokaryotes
are thought to have existed on Earth for at least "2 billion
years" before the first eukaryotes appeared.
Huge differences can be observed between these two cell
types, both 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, i.e. eukaryotes are about 1000 times larger.
The problem with the previous two cell types is where are
their intermediate forms in the soil? If eukaryotes have
evolved from prokaryotes, there should be large amounts of
intermediate forms in the soil. There should have been at
least hundreds of millions of years for development, as has
been presented. The problem, however, is that the
intermediate forms are still missing and have not been
found. Where are they?
We are also faced with a more major problem: no
intermediate form can be found between the same cell types
even today. It would be likely that we could even find some
kind of intermediate forms, so that there would not be such
a sharp border between these two cell types. From the point
of view of evolutionary theory, it would be most natural for
there not to be such clear boundaries between different
groups, but the problem is precisely that the boundaries are
so clear and intermediate forms are still missing. The
problem of these two cell types is still unsolved:
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.
As the next step after the prokaryotic and eukaryotic stages
in the development of life, multicellular organisms should
have appeared, the emergence of which would have meant life
becoming more complexity.
However, the emergence of multicellularity has the same
problem as in the previous stages. The difficulties lie in
the fact that it has been difficult to find evidence that
single-celled protozoa sometime in the past suddenly started
to join together and form functioning entities. For theories
about their origin require that they were formed by the
joining of several cells together. This process is explained
in the following way: “after the cell splits in two, the
new cells thus born, the daughter cells, did not separate
from each other but remained together as a two-celled
organism. Two-celled could become three-celled or
four-celled, the number of cells that stayed together
increased to tens, hundreds, thousands... Different cells of
the same organism became specialized for different tasks..."
(Koululaisen uusi tietosanakirja, p. 772 ).
It must be stated that it cannot be proven whether
multicellular organisms were born in the manner described
above. Some researchers deny that it is possible. They also
state that multiple unicellular together does not make them
multicellular. They are still unicellular, but there are
just several of them together!
Secondly, it is good to note that multicellular
organisms have not been observed to arise from unicellular
organisms in nature in modern times, and only assumptions
about the evolution of life require such theories. One can
believe that this has happened, but no convincing material
has been found to support it.
The multicellular problem is described in the following
quotes. This area 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 high to
kilometers deep.
It is strange that all of the approximately one hundred
main group of the animal kingdom and several classes
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 main group just became extinct. (Gould, Wonderful
Life, pp. 57–60). (20)
So, what conclusions can be drawn when it comes to the
possible relationship between unicellular (Protozoa) and
multicellular (Metazoa)? The only sure thing is that we
don't know this kinship today. Almost every possible (as
well as many impossible) relationship has been suggested,
but the information at our disposal is insufficient to
justify us in arriving at any scientific conclusion
regarding this relationship. If we want, we can believe that
one of these theories is more correct, but we have no real
evidence. (G.A. Kerkut: Implications of Evolution, p.49)
(21)
The evolution of plants.
One of the problems and mysteries is the evolution of
plants. In general, it has been explained that they too
first developed in water, so that the first plants were
simple algae, from which other water plants and land plants
such as mosses, reeds, bushes, flowers and trees gradually
developed. It is believed that all of this took hundreds of
millions of years.
As for the evidence of the transfer of plants from the
sea onto land, it must be stated again that there is no
convincing evidence. There is only an assumption and belief
that it must have happened, but the matter cannot be known.
Of plants, just like of animals, it is difficult to find any
of the simpler stages of evolution preceding them in soil
deposits. Instead, it has been observed that all the main
groups of plants appear in the deposits suddenly and
completely ready. They have also remained separate since
then. This supports the concept of creation.
Nor does anyone know how complex photosynthesis came
about or how algae could have become a reed and then a tree
or bush. And if this has happened in the past, shouldn't the
same thing happen now, or has it been seen to happen?
Evidence of these events and their probability is still
completely lacking.
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 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 current, diverse
life on Earth is believed to be a result of this event.
However, if we study the matter and the idea that the
fish once crawled onto the land and turned into a land
animal, we face numerous problems. The following points can
be raised from them:
• One problem is breathing. The fish should have developed a
new respiratory system for itself, so that it could breathe
as easily through air as through water. It would have to
happen very quickly, because if it doesn't develop it within
a few hours, it will die immediately. Until now, it has been
difficult to explain how the gills of a fish can turn into
lungs in a short time.
• Movement of fish on land would have been a problem. It
would practically have been like a "fish on dry land" and
probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere. The tail or fins are
of little help in moving on land. You need legs for that.
With the help of its fins, it could have at most jumped into
the air, but it would not have been able to move forward.
• Fish's senses would have had to change both in function
and structure. Senses that work in water are not necessarily
useful on land. For example, an eye that is useful in water
may be useless on land because water and air refract light
differently.
• One problem is how the fish was able to eat and what it
ate on earth.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 while it was on earth, it would not
have received the same kind of nutrition as it was used to.
Why would it have even gone looking for food on the ground,
since there is enough of it even in water?
• Reproduction would have produced difficulties because it
always requires two fish and not just one. It is problematic
to explain how they could have laid their roe and their milt
in the same place, because moving would have been difficult.
What about moving from land to sea?
One assumption is that life did not only move from sea to
land, but also from land to sea. It has been assumed that
the ancestors of whales were primitive ungulates that lived
on land until they became aquatic animals. Similarly, it has
been assumed that the ancestors of the fish lizard and the
dolphin (Both of them resemble today's sharks in their
external structure. The ancestors of dolphins are considered
to be mammals; on the other hand, the ancestors of fish
lizards are considered to be reptiles) were animals that
lived on land until they moved to water.
As for the assumption that life would have moved from
the land to the sea, there are problems with that as well.
First, why would these animals have migrated to the sea;
wasn't there room in the country too? Why would they have
moved to an alien environment, where it would have been
difficult for them to survive and where they would probably
have drowned?
Also, if we assume that whales are descendants of these
animals, shouldn't they have signs of their ancestors' land
life or some sort of vestige of hooves? However, the fact is
that no hooves or remains of them are observed on whales,
even though some try to explain it that way. They are quite
well adapted to aquatic life. Of course, one can ask, does
the family tree of the whale, the dolphin and the fish
lizard come from land after all? Only the assumption that
development has gone in the form of fish - frog - reptile -
mammal can make one believe in the idea of life moving from
land to sea. We can't find any convincing material to
support it, because fossil finds do not support such a
notion. Instead, we observe that fossilized species appear
as being separate, as they do today.
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? This is
difficult to explain it on the basis of a "simple"
protocell.
Of course, one can ask why there are still single-celled
organisms such as amoebas? What is the reason that some of
them have developed into complex organisms, while others
have remained the same and are still doing just fine today?
In addition to the abundance of species in nature, there
is another problem. This problem is created by complicated
organs and complex structures and if they were not ready
immediately. How could you manage with half-finished
structures?
In the following, we will try to study some such complex
structures. The research starts with the digestive organs
and then we move on to other complex structures.
Digestive organs.
If it is assumed that the digestive organs were not ready
immediately, many kinds of problems would have followed. 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 them at
every stage, otherwise it would be impossible to stay alive.
Evolutionary theorists rarely consider such matters. They
believe that evolution has happened, but do not consider the
numerous problems that will follow if everything was not
ready immediately.
• The first step in the digestive system is the mouth. If it
wasn't ready right away, how did the food get inside? Would
it have been remained outside, so that we would have starved
to death? We need a mouth, not only for talking, but also
for eating and drinking. Otherwise, we would wither in a few
weeks.
• If the esophagus was not immediately ready, where would
the food have gone, or would it have remained in the mouth
instead of the stomach? Even in that case, the result would
have been starvation. The esophagus is necessary so that
food can move to other parts of the body.
• In addition to the esophagus, the stomach must be ready,
because where would the food be stored in that case? The
stomach is the place where food accumulates and is absorbed
for use by the body.
• Even if the previous steps had been in order, but the
blood vessels had not been ready right away, it would have
prevented the absorption of food into the bloodstream and
thereby to other parts of the body.Again, the result would
have been starvation.
• In addition to all the previous stages, the final stages
of digestion, i.e. urination and defecation, should also be
ready immediately, because if they weren't, things could go
bad even then. We could not live long if these important
functions were not in order.
Breathing and blood circulation
are the most important functions of the body. If they
weren't ready right away, that would also have prevented a
normal life:
• If the trachea and lungs were not immediately ready,
oxygen deficiency and suffocation, i.e. quick death, would
soon have followed. We need both of them so that normal
breathing is possible.
• The heart should have pumped immediately so that
oxygenated blood would have reached every cell of the body.
If this had not happened, a quick death would have resulted.
The heart is the power plant that maintains movement in our
blood vessels and it must be in good condition right from
the start.
• Blood and blood vessels had to be ready so that oxygenated
blood would have access to every single cell of the body. Or
if the blood had stopped coming to any part of the body, it
would have caused the death of that part.
The blood should have had another task, too: it should
have transported carbon dioxide and other waste materials
out of the way of new oxygen and nutrients. If this
cleansing task had not happened immediately, normal
breathing would also have been prevented.
Hands, feet, senses and reproductive organs
are also organs that should be ready immediately. If they
had been incomplete, the following difficulties would have
been encountered:
• 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? In
general, half-finished organs are not useful, they are
unusable. In addition, we should pay attention to the fact
that no half-finished hands, feet or senses have been found
in the fossils. They have always been found completely ready
and developed. We can observe the same by looking at
contemporary nature. All animals and living things are
completely ready. Otherwise they wouldn't even stay alive.
• If the eyes were not ready right away, how was it possible
to live and look for food before? Or was searching for food
mere groping and fumbling around?
Similarly, the formation of the eye itself - even many
times in different species - would have been problematic.
How could chance have known about the necessity of sight
(the same problem also applies to other senses such as
hearing, smell, taste and touch) and what is the use of a
half-finished eye that can't see anything yet? Even Darwin
had to admit that the development of the eye by itself is a
seemingly impossible idea:
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? Shouldn't the
reproductive organs have been ready from the start?
Sexuality and reproduction must work immediately during the
first generation, otherwise there will be no offspring. The
result is extinction.
What about the sex organs that match a dog and a female
and the gametes of both, which also match each other? How
could they develop separately and in different individuals?
Shouldn't it have been impossible, because the development
would have had to happen simultaneously in two individuals?
The awakening of love and interest between different sexes
is also a puzzle. How could such a thing have evolved from a
simple primordial cell that certainly had no sexual interest?
Such things are difficult to explain from the theory of
evolution. Instead, they fit the creation model where
everything was made ready, including the reproductive organs.
Extinction would also have threatened if the uterus,
birth canal and secured food supply had not been ready
immediately. All of them are needed so that offspring can be
born and live. Life couldn't even continue if these things
and the previous steps weren't ready right away. A quick
death would have resulted. The fact that all these parts
were born spontaneously and by themselves is, however, so
imaginative that there is reason to doubt its possibility.
Large entities.
The size and complexity of physiological systems provide
another mystery. For example, there are many important
organs in the middle body and similarly there are many
important organs in the head area (In the middle body are
the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas, reproductive
organs, stomach and hands. In skull are the eyes, nose,
ears, brain, mouth. The functions of the mouth include
drinking, eating, tasting, breathing and speech.)
If some of these organs were just forming - by forming
muscles, nerves and blood vessels, i.e. connections
elsewhere - wouldn't that have hindered the functioning of
other organs, since all parts of the body are dependent on
each other? 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 to
stay alive? A more likely explanation is that animals and
humans have had these parts at the same time and from the
beginning, i.e. through creation. Otherwise, normal life
could not have been possible.
Final statement.
The biggest problems of evolutionary theory have been
discussed above. It has been established that the gaps
between different groups are too large to be overcome. 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. Likewise, there are gaps between the different
main groups, because no intermediate forms have been found
between them. Other gaps and problems in the theory have
been brought up in the previous paragraphs.
So what is the alternative to the previous view, i.e.
gradual development, if it is not true? The answer is, of
course, that species were created fully functional from the
beginning, as suggested by the creation model. This is the
most reasonable option if the evidence is examined as it is
and not through evolutionary glasses. Only the false
preconceptions mentioned in the preface prevent a person
from accepting this option.
The conclusion from all the material is that it is very
reasonable to believe in the creation mentioned at the
beginning of the Bible. It is much more reasonable to
believe in that than in Darwin's theory and the birth of
everything by itself, because it is more consistent that
everything has its creator. Or if Darwin's theory is
scientific, the evidence for it should be presented.
Otherwise, it's just an unproven theory. It is not a
question of science, but of blind faith in something that
cannot be proven and for which no evidence can be found.
It is of course true that creation cannot be proven
either, because past conditions cannot be restored, but at
least it is more reasonable to believe in it. It makes more
sense, because it is the only possible alternative alongside
birth of life by itself and Darwinism, and evidence for them
has not yet been presented.
Let's look at a related quote that talks about the same
thing. The author strongly highlights how evolution scholars
try to hide behind the psychological facade of infallibility
or denigrate people who think otherwise while being unable
to show any proof to support their view. In this way, the
discussion moves away from the main issue, whether the
theory of evolution is correct or not. This is a common
attitude in today's society.
We repeat: If the theory of development is true, it will
stand up to scrutiny. And whether it tolerates it or not, we
still have a right to examine it and determine its value.
No one can demand that we uncritically accept the
arguments that are thrown forward. No man demands blind and
creeping admiration – least of all should a man who calls
himself a scientist demand it.
It therefore seems very suspicious when the proponents
of development theories are offended by the fact that their
theories and assumptions are being discussed. They like to
present the matter in such a way that only ignorant and
unenlightened people today doubt the doctrine of
development. But true science does not need to blackmail the
opposition in this way. Real science does not try to hide
behind a psychological facade of infallibility. So why do
development theorists want to?
...We don't ask the reasons for the development or the
assumptions of the development, but the facts. If it can be
experimentally proven that life arises from dead matter,
then we don't require someone to explain how it happens. 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. - But this is where development scholars have
failed until today: They cannot prove their claims.
In Darwinist works, you can quite often see the idea
presented that the opponents of the theory of evolution only
reject the theory of evolution for purely emotional reasons.
This is of course completely false. Even if it is not very
uplifting to think that we are descended from monkeys and
pigs, it is not the basis of our rejection. The arguments
against evolution are not emotional, but scientific.
We do not reject the theory of development because it
lacks developmental explanatory principles - although it
must be said that they are completely lacking today. We
don't reject it for emotional reasons either, not even
primarily for ethical reasons. We reject the theory of
evolution because it lacks evidence.
We ask for evidence. (25)
REFERENCES:
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
More on this topic:
Hundreds
of scientists with PhDs are skeptical of claims that random
mutations and natural selection explain the complexity of life
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 have the
impression that science has proved the birth of the universe
and life by itself, as well as the doctrine of evolution.
However, these images 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 points to God's work of
creation. Life did not arise by itself 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
