What is the meaning of existence in light of evolution?

 

"Nothing in biology makes sense unless it is seen in the light of evolution." /Theodosius Dobzhansky/

This is a purely conceptual text, written from the perspective of evolutionary philosophy, and has nothing to do with the truth! Everything is explained in terms of this philosophy, explicitly ignoring the fact that nothing can evolve if the given organism is not genetically equipped to undergo microevolutionary changes.

Darwin's theory of evolution traces the current biological liwing world the back to a series of long-term microevolutionary steps. /From microbes to microbiologists over millions of years./ But it cannot trace this back because this series of steps leading to a strategic goal is alien to nature.

So this is the right wording: >Nothing in evolution makes sense if you don't look at it in the light of genetic background programming!<

In nature, there is a selection of those who are best able to adapt to a given environment, that is, the selection of the fittest, the aim of which is survival and not the achievement of some strategic goal. Evolution, which goes far beyond mere survival and results in the formation of completely new species over millions of years, exists only in the imagination, not in reality! Darwinian evolution can explain the variations within already existing species - not the existence of the original parent species.

New species allegedly produced by mutational changes and the very first initial species should not be confused, for initial varied and diverse species cannot be produced by mutational changes without species selection, by the survival of the best-adapted subjects from the spontaneous development of some ancient cell [LUCA] which cannot evolve by itself from inanimate elements.

No one has ever crossed a bridge with a heavy load on its back, the pillars of which consist of hypotheses, and abiogenesis is a bridge that carries the weight of the entire biological world, based only on credulity, on a theoretical level, without evidence. 

See: David Lynn Abel: Why is Abiogenesis Such a Tough Nut to Crack? - https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/why-is-abiogenesis-such-a-tough-nut-to-crack.html

“The theory of evolution ultimately aims to explain the “mystery of life”, the origin of living beings. Despite many important insights, the question of the beginning, the question of origins, remains unanswered.... – The origin of life is still an unsolved question. No one has yet succeeded in making a living thing out of a non-living thing, just as no one has yet succeeded in compiling a complete “evolutionary SCENARIO”. Such a “SCENARIO” would have to tell us the probable path of the organisation of matter from A to Z. This “SCENARIO” must satisfy a few conditions: it must be chemically convincing, it must be convincing in terms of evolutionary mechanisms, and it must be sufficiently plausible. We don't have such a “SCENARIO"... The fundamental problem is that the first evolutionary units could not have arisen through evolution, as they did not yet possess the necessary properties." /Eörs Szatmáry evolutionary biologist/ - http://www.c3.hu/~tillmann/konyvek/ezredvegi/szathmary.html

The emergence/variability of species that are called new and differ from their current form cannot be extrapolated to the initial emergence of the original species, because they do not originate from previously existing organisms—as is the case here—but from organisms that did not exist at all before. In fact, only the very first species can be called new species, because they had no species predecessors, nor could they have had any.

The principle of artificial selection could not be replicated by natural selection without intelligence to constantly exert the necessary direction and intensity of selection pressure on an ancient cell to ensure the complex structure of millions of species. In fact, with the constant changes in the environment, he even crossed her. So that this continuous improvement on the imaginary trunk tree of evolution is just a pseudoscientific fantasy. 

Evolution is simply the practical realization of a variety of adaptations to the existing natural environment, the legitimacy of which has been confirmed by natural selection. Evolution does nothing more than maintain a balance, through natural selection, among living organisms that already possess genetically based survivability from the outset. For if they could not survive, they could not be kept in balance.

The nature of Darwinism's pseudoscience

As for Darwin's evolution as phylogeny /LUCA – the hypothesis of the imaginary common ancestor of all living things/, it can be classified among the pseudosciences specifically because a previously non-existent living thing belonging to any species can only be bred from a neutral cell by purposeful and long-term species selection, while natural selection always selects those best suited to the environment for further reproduction. Otherwise, without a strategic goal for species specificity, completely blind. 

What did Charles Darwin say in his autobiography about the workings of natural selection? "... there is no more design in the workings of natural selection than in the direction the wind blows." What did Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking say about the same thing? "Natural selection is a blind watchmaker; blind because it does not foresee, because it does not plan for consequences, it has no goal in mind... biological evolution is basically a random wandering in the field of genetic possibilities." This is exactly the opposite of the process of human purposeful breeding. 

If this method were used in human breeding, what could humans breed aimlessly, pairing subjects randomly without striving for specific characteristics? 

The engineer should breed any new quality animal species (e.g. Holstein-Frieze cow) by selecting only the most adaptable cows that can be included in the breeding. Would you be successful? Go ahead, show us! So how did that very first stem cell, called Luca, evolve blindly and unguidedly to produce millions of different plant and animal species and eventually humans? Has natural selection /favouring adaptability/produced the same results as artificial selection /based on the conscious selection of the best breeders/? It can't even create a new subspecies, let alone a completely new species whose ancestral species didn't exist before! 

Just as it is impossible to breed Holstein-Friesian cows from cows with better adaptability (because this requires selection based on breed characteristics, which nature cannot do without consciousness), it is not possible to breed cows from stem cells of unknown origin, nor is it possible to breed any other type of organism using evolutionary mechanisms! Darwin's theory of evolution manipulates the microevolutionary adaptation of current species to prove the origin of species, but the origin of the very first species /basic types/ created by God has nothing to do with the microevolutionary adaptation of current species! 

Question: If Holstein-Friesian cows cannot be bred from the best-adapted cows, then how did natural selection manage to develop different, previously non-existent organisms with specific breed characteristics from the best-adapted stem cells /LUCA/? How did blind, mostly harmful mutation processes result in so many taxonomic families and special species, when natural selection has no other means than selecting those best adapted to the environment over those poorly adapted?! 

If you cannot answer, then you are proving the failure of Darwinian evolution and its obvious pseudoscience!

                                The influence of evolutionary philosophy 

 "People cannot bear the conviction that the universe and life are meaningless. In fact, that is what science tells us..." /Jerry Coyne, professor of biology, (2012), "The Odd Couple: Why Science and Religion Shouldn't Cohabitate," Speech to Glasgow Skeptics, December 21./ 

"The entire genetic program is in the service of DNA, not of man. We are only temporary stores of life-carrying molecules. In this case, the packaging is just for life to throw us away." /Rudi Westendorp, professor of gerontology in the Netherlands/ 

Absolutely meaningless blind forces meaninglessly create anatomical formulas that perform meaningful functions so that they disappear into meaninglessness! The society that grew up on Darwinism also questions the meaning of its own existence. This is what evolution does under the full protection of official academic science. 

The war against the Bible is the greatest mistake in the history of science. Instead of making humanity happier, the war against the law of Christ has caused a sharp increase in crime and greed. Faith in God is a restraining force, and evolution is a liberating force, for the unfolding of evil in human nature.

"God performed a miracle" seems like an unambitious, primitive, and lazy solution. I categorically reject the idea that those who resort to such solutions also want to impose moral obligations on me and everyone else.” - So it is no coincidence that atheists say yes to Darwinian evolution, because it gives them freedom to lead a liberal life of all kinds according to their own individual interests and value judgments. 

Darwin's genius in the field of biology resulted in this in terms of its moral impact on society:

“This is now our planet, run by humankind for humankind. We’ve not just ruined it. We’ve destroyed it.” – Sir David Attenborough - https://www.theceomagazine.com/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/attenborough-witness-statement/