The Problem with Evolution.

Darwin's argument, as I understand it, is that individuals in a species exhibit variations and if these variations give an individual an advantage then there is a greater likelihood of those variations being carried to the next generation. In the course of time the effect is that a new species arises with unique features. This mechanism, we are told, has resulted, starting with a single celled creature, in the evolution of human eye with its ability to focus to infinity and read 6 point type. (Drawin's mechanism must also account for the existence of major and minor keys, the Heidelberg School and the sons of Fydor Pavlovich Karamazov - but that is perhaps a different topic.)

Only people who have never designed and constructed anything more complex than a vegie patch, could after examination, accept Darwin's hypothesis. There is simply not enough convergence in his mechanism. With random changes and the weak selection criterion which Darwin proposed, the second law of thermodynamics (a monkey playing with a set of oil paints is more likely to produce a grey slodge than a portrait of Basil Fawtly) is going to dominate.

Let's try an analogy. Starting with a simple text editor running under MSDOS, the plan is to develop the text editor into Microsoft Office by using the survival of the fittest mechanism. This is a trivial exercise in comparison to the biological events that Darwinists account for. We proceed by taking the text editor code and make completely unstructured random changes to it to produce 10,000 corrupted copies. We then run the 10,000 copies and select the version that is in some way closer to Microsoft Office. We repeat the procedure indefinitely. We need to allow for Microsoft Office requiring more complex hardware and operating system than the original text editor. That's the other part of the experiment, at the same time as the editor corrupter/selector is running, there will need to be an operating system corrupter/selector running and also a hardware modifier/selector in action. After all what's the point of evolving the human eye without evolving a body to support it and a brain to direct it?

Given a long time what would be the outcome of this exercise? I can't conceive that it would be anything other than a complete shambles, even though our selection system is more positive than the biological one and we don't even need a male and a female version of each new variation. The longer we ran the experiment the further away we would get from any sort of useable editor program. There would be no convergence.

The theory of evolution needs something better than a bland "survival of the fittest tag" for its justification; it requires either a rigorous analysis of the current hypothesis to prove convergence or a proposal for a new selection mechanism.