Do mutations drive forward evolutionary upgrades?
The primary problem with Darwin’s theory of evolution is not survival of the fittest, but arrival of the fittest. Darwin was never able to explain the origin of information needed to create new forms of life. Nor has anyone since the time of Darwin. Darwin’s natural selection can create nothing. Living organisms have the pre-programmed traits to do better or worse within various environments. Those with the traits to do better reproduce in larger numbers and eventually become the main population for that environment, while those who do worse end up dying off. Nothing “new” is created.
It is true that Darwin presented voluminous support for natural selection in Origin of Species, but “ironically never explains where any new species came from”. The best Darwin was able to do was refer to a vague force he called pangenesis, an idea indistinguishable to Lamarckism (the disproven belief that learned characteristics are passed onto offspring), e.g. if I developed a muscular right tennis arm, my children would be born with this trait.
The best that modern evolution believers have come up with for explaining “the arrival of the fittest” is the belief that random mistakes to the DNA code or mutations, drive the upward advancement of life. Yet, no evolutionist hopes that their baby is born with a new form of birth defect. That is exactly what a mutation is, a birth defect. If mutations drive evolution forward, why not hope for birth defects in your children? Whenever evolutionary beliefs run into the wall of reality, evolution loses; the inconsistencies of even the most ardent evolution believers become readily apparent.
(Source: Inspired Evidence – Dr. Jerry Bergman, The Darkside of Charles Darwin, Masterbooks 2011 pp.188)