1. Do fossils prove evolution?

When evolutionary theorists have considered the theory of evolution to be a fact, they have of course tried to find evidence for it. 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.

As for the meaning of fossils, they are without a doubt the best starting point for judging whether evolution in the past is a fact. When we want to know whether species have changed in the past, the fossil record is the final and most important court. It is the only and best evidence for the possible evolution of species in history because it is the only available history of life that we have. If it is rejected, there is no other material left.

    But do the 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?

    The answer to the previous one is that they cannot be found. Different organisms have diverged as much from each other as they do today. The gaps between fossils are large and real and have been impossible to bridge.

    Even Darwin had to admit the same at his time, although he put his hope in the inadequacy of the finds so far. He wrote in his book "On the Origin of Species" about this topic and how the current nature consists of clearly defined species. We look at his comments and also the most recent comments on the same issue. They show that the gaps still exist, even though the fossil material is already complete enough (there are millions of fossils in museums):

Darwin: According to this theory, there must have been countless intermediate forms between species. Then why are they not found buried in the earth's crust? Why isn't all of nature in a state of chaos instead of consisting, as we see, of clearly defined species? Geological studies have not revealed the countless minor differences between past and present species that this theory requires. And this is the most obvious of the many objections that can be raised against it. However, the answer lies in the great inadequacy of the geological findings. (2) 

On the basis of paleobiological facts, it is not possible to draw up even a caricature of the evolution of some organism. The fossil material is now so complete that the absence of intermediate series cannot be attributed to the scarcity account of the data. The gaps are real and will never be filled. (Statement by Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson about 50 years ago)

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 finds 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 find 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 same 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 the fossils show? Above, there were statements by several experts about how the fossil record does not support gradual development. There is no evidence in the material that current life forms originated from the same primordial cell. In evolution literature, this idea is often described with an evolutionary tree, which should show the changes and branches from the original cell to the current species, but there is no practical evidence for this. The fossil record contradicts the evolutionary tree invented in the 19th century. This tree was invented by Ernst Haeckel, who has also become famous for his fetal image forgeries.

    What if, in spite of everything, we consider the theory of evolution to be true and believe that the current forms of life originated from the same primordial cell? What if we stick to this point of view and assume that we came from the first primitive cell that was in the sea? What kind of evidence should we see in the fossil record then? At least the following things should be fulfilled:

• We should see the beginnings of senses, arms, legs, or other body parts that are just developing

• In the lower strata we should see simple forms of life gradually becoming more complex

• We should see intermediate forms between the basic groups

So what are the practical findings? They show that the evidence is opposed to gradual development, due to e.g. for the following reasons:

• We don't see the beginnings of senses, hands, feet or other body parts that are just developing, even though the theory of evolution requires it. Instead, these body parts are ready and functional. Even Richard Dawkins, a noted atheist, admits that every species and every organism in every species that has been studied so far is good at what it does. Such an observation fits poorly with the theory of evolution, but well with 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 do not see simple forms of life in the lower strata that gradually become more complex. Instead, the evidence shows that life appeared in the strata suddenly, abundantly and fully developed. Evolution literature talks about the explosion of the Cambrian period, i.e. the appearance of multicellular life in the strata approx. 550 million years ago (according to the evolutionary scale) and no major changes have taken place since then.

    What makes these discoveries problematic is that there are no simpler ancestors beneath the fossils of the Cambrian period. Even trilobites with their complex eyes suddenly appear without any ancestors. If the evolutionary model were to hold true, simpler proto-forms should be found, but that has been impossible. The findings clearly support a creation model in which species were ready-made, complex and separate from the beginning. Several paleontologists have acknowledged that the Cambrian explosion does not fit well with the evolutionary model:

If evolution from simple to complex is true, then the ancestors of these Cambrian, fully developed organisms should be found; but they have not been found, and scientists admit that there is little chance of find them. Based on the facts alone, based on what has actually been found in the earth, the theory that the main groups of living things originated in a sudden event of creation is the most likely. (Harold g. Coffin, Evolution or Creation? Liberty, October 1975, p. 12) 

Biologists sometimes nullify or ignore the sudden appearance of animal life characteristic of the Cambrian period and its significant composition. However, recent paleontological research has led to the fact that this problem of sudden reproduction of organisms is increasingly difficult for everyone to ignore... (Scientific American, August 1964, pp. 34-36)

The fact remains, as every paleontologist knows, that most species, genera and tribes and almost all new groups larger than the tribal level suddenly appear in the fossil record, and the well-known, gradual series of transitional forms that follow each other absolutely seamlessly do not indicate their way up. (George Gaylord Simpson: The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)

• The third observation, which was already stated above, is the absence of intermediate forms between the basic groups. The Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson came to this conclusion decades ago:

On the basis of paleobiological facts, it is not possible to draw up even a caricature of the evolution of some organism. The fossil material is now so complete that the absence of intermediate series cannot be attributed to the scarcity account of the data. The gaps are real and will never be filled. (7) 

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