In my mind "living fossils", those organisms found as fossils and yet morphologically very similar to living organisms, are profound observations that present major problems for evolution. A fragile dragonfly unchanged over 200 million years-how? What about gene mutational load-evolution would suppose that by "natural selection" those weaker, debilitated and mutated dragonflies would perish, and that mutated dragonflies with supposed helpful mutations would have further "advanced" towards another form of life. But how does one explain the observed stasis-it argues directly against gene mutational load (which is observed) occurring over time. Of course, conjectures can be made about how isolated populations were preserved and did not mutate-but it is pure conjecture and not consistent with what is seen, and as a past event is non-testable. Again, conjecturing does not explain how these organisms were not affected by observed gene mutational load (seen currently) over supposed vast periods of time. Evolutionists make many assumptions that are non-testable but fit their worldview (not a theory). And it may not be stasis at all. There are many problems with dating the age of the earth (see geology section) and Jurassic dragonflies may not be 200 million years older that current ones. Compress the time and stasis is no longer stasis and the data has a more reasonable explanation.
Variation is yet another problem for evolutionists. There are wide morphological differences in many different life forms within a given group, yet no empirical data exists to demonstrate one life form progressively developing into another group of life forms-even with such wide variation occurring within groups. Accelerating mutation rates among "simple" life forms, like bacteria, does not produce new life forms only variation (much of it debilitating). Evolution is not demonstrated by variation. Yet variation, within a given group of life forms, can be an accepted part of a created design concept.