Indeed! At one point Behe suggests that Darwinism can still explain microevolution even if it's ridiculous for macroevolution. I'm not done with his book yet, but I just don't see how even that could be true. His own compelling arguments are saying that nothing happens by chance. Even the slight changes would have to be engineered, I think. A different color, a different beak, etc. requires A LOT of changes due to irreducible complexity. So, just because one is more "suitable to a specific environment" or is better equipped to hide from its prey, that's not a sign of evolution. It could simply have been put there with a specific intent.
Just to add to that - Perry Marshall makes a great point (don't remember where he got it from) about "natural selection being blind". I reformulated it in my own words (see below). Point is: even if random mutation could somehow lead to something "beneficial", there's no way natural selection can "see" it and preserve it!
--
One of the favorite sentences Darwinians use is “this produced an advantage to the survival of the species and was therefore selected”. But think about it: how exactly does a small mutation, leading to a small improvement, help an organism survive? The problem here is that small improvements, or even large improvements to specific systems, don’t necessarily translate to survival or more offspring in any straight-forward way.
Imagine for example that by some evolutionary process, you improve your eyesight by 5%. What are the odds that
this will help you survive? It would require a very special situation where, let’s say, a tiger is about to eat you but thanks to the small improvement, you see it a second earlier than you would have without the improvement, and the situation was precisely such that
this difference of 5% in eyesight saved you. That’s an extremely unlikely scenario. What’s more, the small change in eyesight does nothing to protect you from freezing to death, breaking your leg and dying, or the uncountable other reasons you might not survive. So how, exactly, can natural selection “select” this mutation?
Or think of a giraffe: perhaps by some random mutation, the neck of one animal gets a tiny bit longer. Does this help it better reach its food? Maybe in some
very rare situations. But if it’s a weak fellow to boot, this won’t help. And again, this won’t help a bit against the myriad of other threats. How, then, should it “pass on its genes” better than other giraffes?
All we ever get from Darwinians is wild speculation, often using misleading language such as “giraffes needed to reach higher trees, therefore they evolved their long necks”, as if the collective mind of the giraffe-species somehow decided it would be a good idea to “evolve” a long neck. And perhaps that’s really how it happens, who knows? But of course, this isn’t at all what Darwinism proclaims.
There might be some cases where such scenarios could work, but you get the point: it’s not that a random mutation that produces something slightly beneficial in some way is somehow magically preserved or “selected”. A whole lot more needs to happen, and it is
incredibly unlikely. The signal of the tiny piece of new information is drowned out in a sea of noise: namely the vast majority of scenarios where this specific, tiny advantage doesn’t help one bit.
