Natural selection and mutation are the backbone of Darwinian evolution. The premise is that random mutations causes change and natural selection favors the good changes, even to the point of creating new life forms. In fact, many small changes are supposed to cause huge changes, like the change of a species. Once again, there’s a flaw in this type of thinking.
First of all, although micro-evolution is real and often takes place, small change does not imply large change. Micro-evolution is the idea that evolution does exist, but on a small scale—providing the variation we see in a species. However, finches cannot turn into parrots just because a finch’s beak size can change. Think about it. Even if mutations can change DNA, and even if natural selection can enhance it, it doesn’t explain the origins of completely new DNA. There may be changes to DNA, but how do those changes explain the origins of DNA?
There is another problem with thinking that random mutations and natural selection can cause macro-evolution arising from the complexity of DNA. DNA is far from random—it acts almost like a language in how it works to build organisms. It’s coded information, in other words. To change that coded information into different coded information that works is almost impossible. Imagine randomly rearranging the letters in a book such as Romeo and Juliet and getting Hamlet. The idea is absurd. But rearranging DNA so that it makes a completely new life form is even more absurd. The fact is, evolution cannot explain the arrival of completely new life forms or where DNA itself comes from.
What’s more, mutations to life forms are usually degenerate, not helpful. Mutations are destructive; thus, it’s much more probable that a mutated animal would be destroyed by natural selection, rather than being helped. Natural selection is blind; if new species were really created through mutations, that would require millions of helpful mutations. There is absolutely no possibility of that happening in light of the destructive nature of mutations.
Let’s take an example: the molecular motor that propels bacteria. If just one piece of this motor is removed, the motor will not work. What does this mean? It couldn’t have evolved step by step. For example, if one part of the motor had been created because of a mutation, it wouldn’t have worked. And thus, natural selection would have destroyed it, not aided it. Thus, that molecular motor couldn’t have been built. It would have been destroyed just as it began. Clearly, random mutations and natural selection can’t create new life forms.
And if random mutations and natural selection are the backbone of evolution, what does that say about evolution?
But there are still questions. For example, doesn’t evolution explain why so many of the animals are so similar? And what about the Galapagos Finches? Where do they come in? Why was seeing them the spark that lit the idea of Darwinism?
I’ll try to address these issues in the next article.