If evolution is defined as “something getting better over time”, of course, evolution is real. We witness such evolution in non-living things. Think of the many products we enjoy today which have evolved into faster, safer, and easier to use models than those of the past. Consider automobiles today as compared to the early models such as the Ford Model T. The “horseless carriage” of the 1920’s pales in comparison to any modern vehicle built today. It is fact to state that automobiles have evolved over time. However, it was not just time that improved the vehicles, it happened because of a purposeful injection of energy. No, evolution does not happen by itself. It requires an injection of expertise, design, technological advancements, research, and experience. We find evolution occurring where such advancements push products forward. Of course, evolution of non-biological products is far from a living organism. Do we find such evolution within biological organisms? It depends on how you define evolution…

Biological Evolution.
The evolution of living organisms makes a grand departure from those observed in non-living things. Evolution of biological organisms only has the injection of time as the hero for ‘change’. Of course, if evolution was defined merely as ‘change’ then yes, evolution is a fact. We can simply look at all the different varieties of dogs. We observe dogs breed and make more dogs. In fact, we find this as what we observe with all animals and all species. Cats breed more cats, viruses more viruses, bacteria more bacteria, monkeys more monkeys, and of course humans more humans. What we do not observe is a fish becoming a lizard or a frog. So, how does evolutionary ‘common descent’ of all life get answered for the so-called “molecules to man” evolution of all life on earth?

Abiogenesis: Emergence of Life from Chemicals.
Naturalism (by definition) always occurs due to purely naturalistic processes void of any influence of the supernatural (i.e. God). Therefore, the evolution of life must begin with life on earth originally emerging from non-living chemicals sometimes called chemical evolution or abiogenesis. Of course, chemicals emerging into life or life spontaneously emerging has never been observed. Chemicals have never been observed emerging into a living organism. However, naturalism proclaims in textbooks that such an event “must have” happened in the distant past many billions of years ago. Perhaps this first occurred within some form of “primordial soup” as thought by Charles Darwin. Other models have suggested perhaps heated sea vent, bubbles, ice crystals, mud, while others suggest that perhaps RNA ‘made itself’ and then made a cell. Or perhaps the proto cell was first then RNA. Either way, the reality is scientists confess that they just don’t know how life first emerged, but we are assured, life “found a way”. Many like to point out that the emergence of life has nothing to do with evolution. This makes no sense because naturalism either answers everything through naturalistic processes, including how life emerged, or it fails. Regardless, we are assured, life emerged from elements originally created in the Big Bang. These formed into molecules that over vast eons of time self-assembled, self-replicated, and self-regulated themselves all without purpose, direction, or design into the first living organism on earth. Wow!

Charles Darwin “Natural Selection”.
To move the ball forward, for the sake of evolution, we shall assume that the above described (miracle) as imagined by naturalistic processes actually happened. We find earth with its first self-replicating “simple” life forms. How does the mere injection of time (billions of years) cause evolution in the form of continually gaining complexity over generations? Remember, with non-living things, time was not the hero. It was energy, expertise, technology, design, and much more that caused non-living things to evolve. How does evolution answer this puzzle? How do living things get better with each generation by what Charles Darwin famously stated Natural Selection as “rejecting that which is bad, while preserving and adding up all that are good?”

Richard Dawkins “Blind Watchmaker”.
Richard Dawkins, the recently departed ardent atheist (and really hater of all things Christian), described this within his book “The Blind Watchmaker” that, “Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distant target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection…”. Finally, Dawkins stated, “In the case of living machinery", the designer is “unconscious natural selection, the blind watchmaker.”

Natural Selection The Blind Watchmaker.
The best argument for evolution which “rejects that which is bad, while preserving and adding up all that are good” within a naturalistic framework as defined by Richard Dawkins as the “blind watchmaker”, without goal, purpose, or design was coined by Charles Darwin as “Natural Selection”. These terms can be combined as an excellent definition of biological evolution. Darwin did not know of the operations of DNA as we do today, but he imagined these things occurring through heredity. He bred pigeons so he had ideas how artificial selection effected offspring. Richard Dawkins insisted that the complex living machinery we observe must never be associated with any designer or purpose. Evolution blindly (very gradually—so slowly we cannot observe it) modifies animals over eons of time turning fish into frogs and so one. But does Natural Selection work as The Blind Watchmaker moving the invisible hand of evolution forward? Are these claims regarding evolution and common descent of all species on earth viable and what we observe in science? Or, is Natural Selection best defined as pre-existing function of DNA?

Natural Selection.
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Natural Selection as, “a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment.” This has also been called survival of the fittest. We acknowledge that these are observable effects of DNA function. DNA is information that codes for living organisms to have variability during reproduction via structures called alleles. These alleles are designed to create variety and diversity within living organisms at reproduction.

Mutation.
It is vitally important to realize that evolutionists are very fond of the word “mutation”. Why? We believe it is because it invokes the ‘invisible hand’ of evolution. We also believe it is because the word ‘mutation’ really implies ‘error’. An error fits the analogy of the ‘blind watchmaker’ like a glove. One can imagine that through thousands of generations, errors accumulate by the ‘invisible hand of the blind watchmaker’ and biological organisms evolve and grow more complex with each generation...

Mutation Type 1: Hereditary Function of DNA.
Mutation Type 1 involves hereditary and modifications which occur during reproduction. It must be noted here that evolution, if it were to ever occur, must happen at reproduction. Such modifications allowed by DNA allele function are not “errors” at all. These are hereditary modifications allowed and limited by DNA allele function, design, and purpose. This is factual and not an opinion. DNA alleles have been proven that they allow diversify within the same species at reproduction. This is their function to provide diversity in offspring: it is not their function to generate errors. Actual errors at reproduction occur which are almost always detrimental to the living organism just like Mutation Type 2 below.

Mutation Type 2: Spontaneous or Environmental Error.
By contrast to DNA allele function, type 2 mutations (which are literally ‘errors’) are mutations which occur either randomly, spontaneously, or due to environmental conditions, such as smoking or exposure to the sun or due to a combination of these damaging factors. These type 2 mutations are completely different than type 1 (reproductive) and almost always are detrimental to the living organism.

Most cancer is caused by this Mutation Type 2.
John Hopkins University has identified that type 2 mutational errors cause most cancers. Cristian Tomasetti, assistant professor of biostatistics stated that these (mutational) copying mistakes are a “potent source of cancer mutations” and “2/3 of all cancers in humans are caused by these mistakes”.1

Type 1 and 2 both called mutations yet vastly different.
To consider the beneficial DNA allele function at reproduction (what we called Type 1) to this detrimental mutational error (Type 2) and use the same word to define both is absurd. We believe the primary interchangeable use of “mutation” is intentionally designed to be deceptive. By doing so, naturalism (evolution) artificially gains credibility by claiming even known DNA function as also belonging to a mutation that is spontaneous, random, and a mistake of nature. Thereby moving the invisible hand of evolution with this deceit. Scientists continue this despite fully knowing that heredity function of DNA alleles is pre-existing and not due to spontaneous, random, errors. And that Type 2 mutations are actually errors that are deadly or destructive. These clearly are two completely different phenomena within the field of biology, yet they share the same name. Therefore, it is our protest that heredity at reproduction should not be called a "mutation" but should be recognized for what it factually is: pre-existing heredity function of DNA alleles at reproduction.

Natural Selection and Mutation “bait and switch”.
Lastly, while modern biology distracts us by calling both functions of DNA mutation, despite the obvious and factually distinctly differing functions of these so-called mutations, here is where the bait and switch happens! Evolution appeals to the obvious and positive effects of DNA alleles at reproduction and proclaims that these ‘mutations’ (mixing in both types for good measure) are Darwin's Natural Selection, both observable and clearly a scientific fact! Which may be true for type 1 ‘mutation’ (DNA alleles at reproduction), which we agree offspring are indeed diversified at reproduction and such effects are both good and observable. We might even agree that this does seem to “add up those things which are good” in any given species of life. However, we must point out, that the second (detrimental) type 2 mutation which occurs outside of reproduction fails to move (evolve) anything forward. These type 2 mutations fail to “reject that which is bad” because they are in fact themselves what is “bad”. They conclude as cancers, sickness, disease, and death. Additionally, DNA, as it replicates, is constantly working NOT to “evolve”. It avoids mistakes through sophisticated self-monitoring, self-editing, self-correcting, and self-replicating processes and mechanisms. DNA works to always make identical copies of itself without any mutational errors. However, these mutational errors do accumulate over the generations (called “genetic entropy”) thereby failing to “reject that which is bad”. Therefore, this form of type 2 mutation weakens evolution. It fails to move the ‘invisible hand’ of the ‘blind watchmaker’ even one millimeter.

DNA function drives diversity and obstructs evolution.
DNA is an informational blueprint (instructions), written in code like computer programming, used by the cell to assemble every component of all living organisms on earth. We find natural selection true to the limits of pre-existing DNA function of alleles at reproduction- but no further. We find errors due to mutations outside of DNA allele function such as what we called type 2 mutations as detrimental and they fail to “reject that which is bad”. Such failure can especially be observed in the cases where people die of cancer. Such type 2 mutations (outside of reproduction) are almost (or perhaps always) detrimental to the living organism. Therefore, we find the ‘blind watchmaker’ of naturalism to be a modern-day mythology held together by threads of truth provided by pre-existing DNA function and not by common decent evolution. We find factually, that DNA function works to keep our species full of variety and diversity while attempting to limit and eliminate mutational errors. Thereby we find these scientific proofs largely disprove the concepts and conjecture of evolution based on actual scientific data.

1 https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/03/23/cancer-mutations-caused-by-random-dna-mistakes/