In order for the notion of universal common descent evolution to be true there needs to be a mechanism capable of producing the many gigabytes are complex specific information that is found throughout the DNA of all living things. No natural process has ever actually been demonstrated to be capable of accomplishing this task. The solution proposed by Charles Darwin and blindly accepted as workable by evolutionists to this day is called Natural Selection. The problem is that there is no real evidence that it really exists let alone that it is capable of what is subscribed to it.
The entire idea of Natural Selection as presented by Charles Darwin is intended to imply that the power of selective breeding occurs in nature. The entire idea is to claim that a natural process can do what human intelligently designed selective breeding can accomplish and much much much more. Part of the problem with this notion is that there is no evidence that selective breeding by humans would be capable of producing the variety of life that we have on earth today from a single-celled organism, let alone blind natural processes.
For example, if universal common descent through natural selection were true it should be possible by selective breeding of just horses to produce a Pegasus or at least a Unicorn. Neither of these has ever been done and for good reason, horses do not have even the basic genetics necessary to produce either functional wings or horns. There literally would be nothing to start with, but yet according to evolutionists, Natural Selection has produced wings four separate times.
Ultimately the problem is that by humans selective breeding has always started with the basic configuration already in place, but Natural Selection literally needs to start with nothing and produce from a single cell without pre-existing information such as found in a fertilized egg, every part of every organism that has ever existed on Earth. Now of course evolutionists will always throw in their magic wand of time. The presupposition is that given enough time anything can happen. They will point to the fact that improbable events do occur. While that is true the odds of an event occurring can be so small that there aren't enough possible events in the entire universe, even assuming the Big Bang, for them to have a reasonable chance of occurring. Such events are statistically impossible. This is the case with producing the information that universal common descent evolution requires.
The common explanation given by evolutionists is so-called Natural Selection acts as a filter to reduce the odds to manageable levels. They tend to use genetic algorithms as an example. Genetic algorithms are search algorithms that look for an answer based on specific criteria. The problem is that the best examples that they have actually included within the code, what is being looked for. In fact, the broader the criteria for fitness within a genetic algorithm the broader the results are going to be. One of the main things that evolutionists insist about the evolutionary process is that there is no intent, consequently, Natural Selection would have no real goal making it a very poor search algorithm.
At best Natural Selection helps organisms adapt to changes in their environment, it cannot be considered to have any goal beyond this. How's the result Natural Selection is way too broad to have any chance of producing complex structures such as wings, feet, reproductive systems, a bacterial flagellum, or any number of complex structures found in living things. This is because it is not trying to produce such things but at best finding the best existing configuration for the environment. This is not a mechanism they would be capable of turning a basic single-cell organism into the vast variety of single-cell and multicellular life that we have today. However, universal common descent is an absolute necessity open to an atheistic worldview because it is the only way within such a worldview to interpret the evidence that we have.
Help support these articles.
