My Golf Balls Grew Eyes

Nature needs its checks and balances. Both William Paley’s and Charles Darwin’s accounts of the checks and balances in nature are extremely similar even to the inclusion of the slow breeding elephant, but their deductions vastly differ. Paley envisioned nature as mostly blissful, and perhaps the balance of nature as another indicator of design conveying the existence of a Creator God. In Darwin’s view, it was a means of the removal of the less suited in favour of the more adapted. This process he called, ‘Natural Selection’. Darwin sees the world in a continual struggle for existence leading to change; change even to the extent of new species replacing parental; survival of the fittest, thus evolution. It is obvious that in his worldview there is no heaven on earth. In this view, would the more brutal and not the meek inherit the earth?

Natural Selection - the Survival of the Fittest

Darwin:
“As man can produce, and certainly has produced, a great result by his methodical and unconscious means of selection, what may not natural selection effect? Man can act only on external and visible characters: Nature, if I may be allowed to personify the natural preservation or survival of the fittest, cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they are useful to any being. She can act on every internal organ, on every shade of constitutional difference, on the whole machinery of life. Man selects only for his own good: Nature only for that of the being which she tends …
We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long-past geological ages, that we see only that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were in order that any great amount of modification should be effected in a species, a variety when once formed must again, perhaps after a long interval of time, vary or present individual differences of the same favourable nature as before; and these must be again preserved, and so onwards step by step. Seeing that individual differences of the same kind perpetually recur, this can hardly be considered as an unwarrantable assumption. But whether it is true, we can judge only by seeing how far the hypothesis accords with and explains the general phenomena of nature. On the other hand, the ordinary belief that the amount of possible variation is a strictly limited quantity is likewise a simple assumption.” …
“In looking at many small points of difference between species, which, as far as our ignorance permits us to judge, seem quite unimportant, we must not forget that climate, food, &c., have no doubt produced some direct effect. It is also necessary to bear in mind that, owing natural selection, other modifications, often of the most unexpected nature, will ensue.” … (Darwin C. , 1872, pp. 62-67)
Charles Darwin’s Natural selection and survival of the fittest is not a complicated concept. In fact, it is rather simple. Species change and the best suited for the environments in which they find themselves survive — most if not all of the rest perish, and thus, there is change in a step-by-step or gradated fashion.
For ape-like creatures to evolve into humans by means of Darwinian evolution is problematic. With Darwinian evolution, each forward step has to be a favourable mutation and the new is to replace the former. Statistically there should be as many or more negative or harmful mutations as positive. (Keep in mind that with Darwinian evolution, an irreducibly complex ape like creature first has to be in existence to become human.) With Mendelian genetics, varieties change, not species and not in a gradated step by step fashion.
Charles Darwin’s assessment for change is wrong. As already indicated, hybrids are created by varieties of the same species crossing. Climate and food do not cause genetic change unless it induces a mutation. Darwin did not know genetics, or how co-related inheritance functioned. Correlation is traits inherited together and one does not impact the other. With genetics, change is only as far as nature allows (necessity does not create change). Darwin also states that, “She can act on every internal organ, on every shade of constitutional difference, on the whole machinery of life.” Darwin does not indicate where the internal organisms originate in the first place. Darwin’s theory is also problematic because each internal organ is very irreducibly complex; each organ works independently for the function of the whole entity; take away any essential internal organ and the entire creature doesn’t exist. (A human body needs its internal organs functioning for existence. Just ask anyone who is waiting on a kidney or heart transplant. Who survives without a heart of kidney or any other vital organ?)
There would have to be an enormous number of steps in the right direction with Darwinian evolution for one species to change into another. An organism is made up of many independent parts functioning for the purpose of the whole. For one species to evolve into another would entail changes in the heart, lungs, stomach, eyes, ears etc., and also the muscles and nervous system which controls these parts would have to change as well. With Darwinian evolution, there is a slow step by step change over immense time. There should be as many steps forward as backward Darwinian evolution is highly problematic.
What a creature is to become is determined at conception. Natural-selection does not modify and adapt the larva of an insect to a score of contingencies [possibilities] unless there is a somatic [body] mutation which would not be passed onto future generations. For any permanent hereditary change caused by a mutation, it has to occur in the sex-cells produced through meiosis; thus, modification in the adult would not change the larva. Natural selection or survival of the fittest cannot create. It can only select from what already exists…