Was Darwin right or wrong?
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 obviously 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!
Where did the design in the DNA come from?
Darwin knew nothing about DNA. He knew nothing about what went on inside of a cell. If he 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. Could there could be an external influence (external to each cell) that organises the cells within the growing creature? Or does each zygote (fertalised ovum) really know from within itself where every single cell that grows as part of the human body is programmed to to go?
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 from the mere existance of each cell how each cell also knows it's purpose in the body in which it is placed. Each cell clearly has its exact function programmed within itself or managed from some some system external to itself!
There is obviously some management of these mechanisms so that all the cells don't turn into, say, liver cells but 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 to manage the growth of each creature OR that the DNA in each cell holds the whole design of the living being it is part of and knows what it's role will be and when it is to be actioned.
The Evolutionist has to explain how the cells and DNA came to exist purely by chance because the Evolutionist has 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 all the components required for vision are are fully functioning then the animal would be blind.
Natural selection should, by definition, remove all useless (non-functioning) 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 another aspect to be considered. This is the ability of the brain to interpret the signal from the fully working vision and to react according to 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. If you want some support for this statement then consider those people such as avant syndromes and autistic disorders can exhibit amazing memory abilities