I have read many times about Darwin formulating his hypothesises from observing the variety within the finches on an island. However these ideas were already in his mind from work done by his father and grandfather. Darwin was looking for what he expected to see!
It would seem to me that there is absolutely nothing demonstrating the concept of natural selection (evolution) to be seen in this bird population! There were indeed continual adjustments being made to the bird population as a result of various external influences, mainly climate changes. So the birds with stronger beaks coped better in dry conditions and so produced stronger and more numerous offspring. And when the climate shifted again, then this advantage would no longer exist and the bird population would change again.
If Darwin formulated any of his theories based on the variety of the colours of the finches
then he did not understand basic genetics!
It is entirely possible for some genetic material to be lost during one of these periods. But there is absolutely no possibility of any new genetic material materialising out of nowhere so
that a finch suddenly becomes another species!
Who designed the DNA?
Darwin knew nothing about DNA. He knew nothing about what went on inside of a cell (he had enough trouble with irreducible mechanisms!) If had this knowledge
then he would never have been able to formulate his hypothesis. It really is as simple as that.
All living creatures are made up of billions of these cells, all obeying the instructions within them as to their purpose, and all knowing, somehow, their position within the body as a whole. It would be fascinating to think that there could be an external influence (external to each cell) that organises the cells themselves!
So we have a situation where there is a massive amount of information within the DNA in each cell.
This information is used to specify the purpose and function of each cell.
This huge library of data is not there by chance!
Even if one could rationally accept that the whole design of a cell with the DNA etc was the result
of random chance, then it impossible to see how each cell also knows it's purpose in the body in which
it is placed.
There are obviously control mechanisms so that all the cells don't turn into liver cells!
The same control mechanisms make sure that enough cells do turn into liver cells.
If these control mechanisms are external to the liver cells then we have to accept that another level
of design exists somewhere so that this control mechanism manages the growth of each creature OR that the DNA in each cell holds the whole design of living being it is part of.
And again a mechanism must exist to regulate what each cell becomes. In this case the cells would be able to communicate with each other and pass instructions to each other.
The Evolutionist has to explain how the cells and their DNA came to exist purely by chance because
they have decided in advance that their theories will not allow for any hint of design to
be present. Why? because that would infer the existence of a designer! I don't have that problem
because I believe in a designer.
The Evolutionist also has to explain how multiple components of, say, vision can appear by chance. The eyeball is extremely complex and effective. But there is also a connection to the brain. This connection has to evolve by random chance over the same period of time as the eyeball itself. Until both components are fully functioning the animal would be blind. Natural selection should, by definition, remove these useless components from the gene pool - unless natural selection knows that the end result of these developments would be beneficial! And don't forget that there is a third component also required. That is the ability of the brain to interpret the signal from the fully working eyes and make the correct decision based on what the animal wants to do.
The Evolutionist has decided in advance of attempting to analyse and understand life on earth that their theories will not allow for any hint of design to be present. Is that a genuine scientific approach to solving a problem? Would it be a rational approach for a scientist investigating how plants grow to exclude from the beginning of their research any considerations that sunlight might be part of the process?
The Bible says that the animals were created by God and that we were also created by God. Interestingly the Bible says that we were created with a more powerful brain and a higher intelligence than any human has now, and the fall from grace caused us to lose a lot of that intelligence and understanding.