I have no knowledge of the astronomical situation you mention so I’ll leave that for others. However, you strongly misstated the basic tenet of Darwinian Evolution. Rather, it is that random mutations occur. Many have little effect on the organism’s ability to function and survive. Many are damaging so those organisms tend to die out because they can’t function as well in the environment. Occasionally a mutation occurs which gives the organism an advantage that the others of its species don’t have it is more likely to survive and procreate. Over time, this particular mutation becomes distributed throughout the species. Since we are dealing with over a hundred billion days and probably millions of trillions of organisms over that time, the probability of positive mutations becomes very high. Of course, there were many more negative mutations, but they didn’t get passed on unless they were minor, or if they were recessive so showed up only when two of them occurred in one individual.
This is only a simple explanation. There are also cases where a change in the environment makes a formerly neutral mutation positive, or where a series of mutations over millions of years function together to benefit the individual more than the mere sum of them would predict.
I understand your point but you seem to misunderstand Darwin’s point.
Darwin said in his Recapitulation and Conclusion chapter the following:
“As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps.”
What about factual events? The mutations in species are consequences of changes in the internal and external environment of the organisms.
Millions of years, eh?
Lets say that you have species exposed to changes due to a combination of volcanic eruptions with earthquakes which change hills and zones of trees into plains. The species are affected by the physical and chemical exposure of the portents. Don’t think that species will become stronger than before, on the contrary, the hard consequences of finding food, the contamination of the land and water by several dead organisms, the forced change of diet and the breathing of fumes will cause to the pregnant females to deliver off-springs with possible birth defects and the off-springs will born weaker.
Lets say that a bird which used to fly lost its ability to do so because the wings were atrophied by the chemical exposure on his ancestors. This is found as a common effect in birds exposed to DDT which delivered very weak egg shells and their offspring were exposed to died in this stage due to the cracking of the egg shell.
Well, the bird cannot fly anymore, now this bird has to walk and run and swim only. As a physical compensation to the atrophied wings the organism of this bird acquires stronger legs. The scenario of the life of this bird depends of the quality of food and the amount of predators which survived the events as well. It is assumed that the predators might have suffered some mutations as well.
Where is the “favourable variation only” mentioned by Darwin? The bird found itself without useful wings… The bird is forced now to live on land all the time… If its diet was fish because it can catch it by flying over water, now that the river has changed its direction and the bird cannot fly, this bird will eat mice, fruit as a variable diet. The reproduction quantity might decrease by several reasons until it adapts to the new environment.
Look at humans exposed to radiation, children are born with birth defects (mutations) and the defects are passed generation to generation.
Are you going to tell me that these birth defects (mutations) are “positive”?
Read the articles about radiation in Russia causing mutations which are expected to last for several more generations. Where is the positive out-coming?
Show me the positive changes in humans in recent decades, if not the increase of obesity, asthma, diabetes, autism, and more, show me a notorious positive change in humans which is noticeable so I can believe in such theory. So far, today I can only see negative changes everywhere in every species. And I do not see any difference between today than yesterday, because records confirmed that nuclear chain reactions happened on earth long ago, residuals of such event are found in Africa as an example.
Having species exposed to such radiation, we won’t expect “positive changes” when today the changes are observed as negative.
From the report of the nuclear bombs in Japan, a minimum amount of people who were exposed to low radiation levels showed an increased longevity, this is less than 2% of the affected people who died or that still showing the negative effects of such exposure in their off-springs.
One thing is what evolutionists believe in base of their theory and a different scenario is what we witness today with the changes in the environment. For example, mention the species which are getting positive mutations due to the current changes in the world. So far, we are observing several species going into extinction, deformed frogs, extinction of birds, more diseases around, and negative mutations in the entire group of micro-organisms.
Lets see about micro-organisms. Some bacteria is stronger to drugs but weaker to their capabilities to perform former duties. As an example, a microbe which used to eat our sugars, by the effect of antibiotics used wrongly this microbe changed its diet and now eats our immune system cells…but it doesn’t eat our sugars anymore.
Do you call to that “positive mutations?”
Lets be more realistic. Instead of consulting the doctrines of the theory of evolution, why not review the changes in the species and name the changes with the most accurate definition which applies to each case, for example, the species disappears, we call to this: “extinction”. The species loose some capabilities and physical and functional characteristics, we call to this “degeneration”. The species changes its characteristics by other new ones, we call it “adaptation”. And so and so.
After you have made the review in this way, check how many “positive and negative” mutations you find in the species.
Again, today is not different than yesterday in this scenario, the changes still happening like they happened in former generations, so, if species changed before the species still changing today. You don’t need to wait a million years to notice the changes, right now we are witnessing the changes and nothing supports positive variations as Darwin proposed.
Please close your book of evolution and observe our real world. I’m not against your words but an impartial review on Darwin’s words clearly demonstrates that he was incorrect.