Unbiased Science Doesn't Really Back Key Dogmas of Darwinian Evolution

[edu]

Quote from: http://www.vilnagaon.org/book/seti-proof.html

Science actually supports the existence of G-d. As evidence, I will quote from Rabbi Moshe Averick:

A major scientific project – the SETI Project – was recently downsized due to its lack of success. SETI stands for Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Scientists would scan the sky with radio-telescopes hoping to detect patterns of radio waves that would indicate an intelligent source. Imagine these SETI scientists detected the following Morse code radio transmission and could prove it came from a galaxy a million light years away: We inhabit a planet a million light years away from your Earth. We have been observing your civilization for centuries, from the time of what you call the Roman Empire. We have analyzed the chemical/molecular formula of your DNA and as a show of good faith we will transmit to you the chemical formula of a cure for cancer.” Would that not be undeniable evidence of an intelligent alien civilization?

Imagine further that the following exchange then takes place between two SETI scientists:

- “Hold on, stop the party! How do you know the source is an intelligent alien life form, maybe there is some naturalistic unguided process that is the source of these transmissions? ”

- (Incredulously) “What unguided, naturalistic process do you know of that can produce intelligible Morse code messages?!”

- “Aha! The Argument from Ignorance! Just because you don’t know, does that mean there must be an intelligent creative force behind these messages? After all, did you meet these aliens? Do you know who, where, or what they are?

Is the conclusion that these transmissions originated from an intelligent source an Argument from Ignorance or is it simply as obvious as 2+2=4? The simple truth is that we are not ignorant of how specified information – like Morse code messages – arises. The only known source of such information is creative, conscious, and intelligent activity. This has been confirmed by all human experience. The reason we conclude that these messages came from intelligent aliens is not just because we don’t know of any naturalistic process that could produce such specified information. It is because we know exactly how these types of messages are formed. That knowledge is so clear in our minds that we don’t even consider any other possibility. It is axiomatic that we have the ability to recognize intelligent causation. If not, what was the point of spending millions of dollars on the project in the first place? Similarly, when we conclude that the functional complexity and specified information (contained in the DNA) of the simplest living organisms is the result of intelligent causation, it is not out of ignorance; but from the clear knowledge that there is no other known source for such phenomena. Again, this knowledge is so clear that – absent compelling evidence to the contrary – it precludes the consideration of any other possibility. The failure of science in its attempts to discover a plausible naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is exactly the result we would expect from such an investigation!”

Rabbi Averick stresses that this point is not dependant on lack of belief or belief in Darwinian Evolution. This is due to the fact that “Darwinian Evolution cannot take place without a living, DNA-based self-replicating organism already in place. Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection are only operative from that point forward. Evolutionary theory does not even pretend to explain how the first living, DNA-based organisms originated”.

In case I haven’t made myself clear enough, I will quote from the non-religious, billionaire, Bill Gates, who is also a famous computer programmer and founder and former Chief Executive Officer of Microsoft (from his book, The Road Ahead), “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

As far as the odds of random chance producing a minimally complex cell, non-Jewish scientist, Stephen Meyer in his book, Signature in the Cell, page 216 writes:

“Since elementary particles can interact with each other only so many times per second (at most 1043), since there are a limited number (1080) of elementary particles  and since there has been a limited amount of time since the big bang (1017) there are a limited number of opportunities for any given event to occur in the history of the universe”...
By simply multiplying the 3 relevant factors 1043 X 1080 X 1017 we arrive at 10140 as the maximum total number of events that could have taken place in the entire observable universe.

    On page, 219 we learn that the probability of producing a minimally complex cell by chance alone is 1 chance in 1040,861. That is to say that 10140 maximum total number of events in the universe could in no realistic way account for our extremely, “lucky” result of the production of the first complex cell.
The truth of the matter you can make the odds for random luck producing a minimally complex cell much worse by considering the following issues raised by Ide Trotter, Ph.D. in a brief comment to one of Rabbi Moshe Averick's articles at http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/08/17/scientists-prove-again-that-life-is-the-result-of-intelligent-design/

This minimally complex cell needs a solution for the following problems:

1. Creation of the molecules of life
    2. Chirality – Left handed proteins and right handed carbohydrates
    3. Concentration- Impurities poison reactions
    4. Connection – Polymerization to biologically required size
    5. Code – Proteins, DNA, all biologically active molecules are coded
    6. Catalysis – Specific enzymes required in living systems
    7. Cyclicality – It takes the protein to make the protein
    8. Complex Coordination- Cells are highly integrated machines-networks of nested feedback systems

For a more elaborate and detailed presentation of some of the points I have raised so far, I suggest my readers, visit the following web sites:


(there is slight mistake on a minor point, concerning the Cambrian Explosion mentioned in the movie, see:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=639 for more accurate information on that point)
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/the-design-argument/

If G-d's Intervention in Nature is so Clear, Why Do Many Fail to See It?   

    When there are no moral consequences for deciding one way or another, the average person will readily admit, that a highly sophisticated piece of computer software was ultimately the product of someone who created the components and designed it. It did not come to be, by random accidental forces. However, when it comes to belief in G-d, because this has an impact on one’s moral behavior, many of these same individuals will latch on to very unlikely scientific explanations of certain things that we find in this world rather than admit to the existence of G-d. For example, when faced with the data, which suggests that this world had a definite beginning, and is finely tuned to allow for the development of vital elements that we need for survival, they will come up with wild theories of multiple universes, that have never been observed and contend our universe is the lucky universe that allows for development of vital elements. When confronted with the fact that even given all the known matter in the universe and tremendous amounts of time, the odds are way too low to realistically believe that complex life could have emerged out of non-living chemicals by natural or random forces, they will point to some minor successes in solving a small fraction of the problems involved in various lab experiments. In this sense, they are like the ancient Pharaoh of Egypt, who used the fact that his magicians were able to reproduce the first 2 Biblical plagues on a small scale to “prove” that the plagues were just magician tricks (Shmot/Exodus 7:22,23).

Is It Acceptable For Bible Believers to Use the Estimated Time from the "Big Bang As Part of An Argument for the Existence of A Supernatural Creator?

Scientist Stephen Meyer used the estimated time from the "Big Bang" to calculate the odds of producing a minimally complex cell by chance. The "Big Bang Theory" currently assumes the universe was created more than 13.8 billion years ago. The question arises is it acceptable that a Bible believing Jew makes use of data from the "Big Bang Theory", since when we count from the years of Adam, until our day, we arrive a number that is less than 6000? I deal with this issue in several articles that can be found on the home page of http://www.vilnagaon.org   

[edu]

http://www.vilnagaon.org/book/Adam_from_dust_and_the_theory_of_evolution.html#JunkDNA

What Are the 3 Strongest Proofs For Evolution and Are They Really So Strong?

Proof #1 The abundance of useless things in this world, such as, extinct species (Dinosaurs), Junk DNA and the appendix, proves that the created world is the way it is, due to evolution.
Proof #2 If we can sometimes observe evolutionary adaption of a species to new environmental conditions, this proves that one species can also evolve into a separate species.
Proof #3 The general similarity of the DNA in humans and others mammals prove they have a common ancestor.
Junk DNA

    Regarding proof #1 in general, Judaism takes the attitude of Pirkei Avot אל תהי בז לכל דבר, which means do not disparage, anything. Indeed the Midrash relates that King David once entertained the notion that 3 things in nature were useless and in the end all 3 things saved his life.
    Regarding extinct species, such as Dinosaurs, now that cloning technology is being developed, one day those species might be brought back into existence and serve as a direct benefit for man. Perhaps, G-d didn't want those species to be around in the early stages of human history, so he purposely, made those species become extinct temporarily. Or perhaps, the role of those extinct species was to give mankind certain spiritual lessons. See for example, what I have written elsewhere on the subject, What was G-d's Purpose in Creating and Destroying Worlds Before Our Current World?     
    As far as junk DNA is concerned, although a well-known atheist propagandist, once made the claim that most of the DNA in our bodies is junk DNA without purpose, a new study published in 2012 as quoted by the Wall Street Journal
( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443589304577633560336453228.html) claims otherwise:
The new insight is the product of Encode, or Encyclopedia of DNA Elements, a vast, multiyear project that aims to pin down the workings of the human genome in unprecedented detail.

Encode succeeded the Human Genome Project, which identified the 20,000 genes that underpin the blueprint of human biology. But scientists discovered that those 20,000 genes constituted less than 2% of the human genome. The task of Encode was to explore the remaining 98%—the so-called junk DNA—that lies between those genes and was thought to be a biological desert.

That desert, it turns out, is teeming with action. Almost 80% of the genome is biochemically active, a finding that surprised scientists.

In addition, large stretches of DNA that appeared to serve no functional purpose in fact contain about 400,000 regulators, known as enhancers, that help activate or silence genes, even though they sit far from the genes themselves.

    I found an even more recent discovery about DNA that makes the belief in junk DNA even more difficult. To quote David Klinghoffer at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/genome_composes080111.html
Researchers at our local powerhouse public university, the U. of Washington, have discovered that the genetic code composes not in one language but two ("Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code").

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

"For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made," said Stamatoyannopoulos. "Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture. These new findings highlight that DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways."

The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. The gene control instructions appear to help stabilize certain beneficial features of proteins and how they are made. [Emphasis added.]

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/genome_composes080111.html#sthash.kMRO0gfx.dpuf
    As far as the Appendix is concerned, newer studies have found uses for the appendix. According to an article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/ns/health-health_care/t/scientists-may-have-found-appendixs-purpose/#.UNi8q6xEW-0, the appendix "produces and protects good germs for your gut".

    "The function of the appendix seems related to the massive amount of bacteria populating the human digestive system, according to the study in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. There are more bacteria than human cells in the typical body. Most of it is good and helps digest food".

    Building on this idea, new research has shown that "Individuals without an appendix were four times more likely to have a recurrence of Clostridium difficile", a deadly pathogen often encountered in hospitals, particularly when patients must be treated by prolonged courses of antibiotics. (see: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/01/02/your-appendix-could-save-your-life/)

[edu]

http://www.vilnagaon.org/book/Adam_from_dust_and_the_theory_of_evolution.html#JunkDNA

Evolutionary Adaption of a Species to New Environmental Conditions

Regarding Proof #2, for evolution, namely, that we can sometimes observe evolutionary adaption of a species to new environmental conditions, one might wish to offer the following rebuttal. Proof that environment can affect some of the dominant characteristics displayed within an animal species is not proof for changes between different species.

To quote from Dr. Lee Spetner (B'Or Ha'Torah 17 (5768/2007) "

It took a maximum of seventeen years for a uniform population of finches to diverge into flocks of different shape and size of bills filling a variety of niches on a group of Pacific islands (S. Conant, "Saving Endangered Species by Translocation", BioScience, vol. 38 (1988) pp. 254-257 and S.L. Pimm, "Rapid Morphological Change in an Introduced Bird, "Trends in Evolution and Ecology, vol 3 (1988) pp. 290-291). The bill shapes, jaw muscles, and behavior of each type are adapted to their chosen niche. However, these changes could have occurred, they could not, in seventeen year or less, have occurred through random mutations and natural selection. Although this kind of observation is used to support molecules-to-man, it cannot lend such support without us having some knowledge of how these changes occurred. This experiment makes one skeptical about Darwin's story of the finches he found on the Galápagos Islands.

I suggested in my book that one way these rapid changes might have occurred is through environmental cues acting upon a built-in-capacity for change in the organism. The organism has to have the capability to respond to an environmental cue. In this way, populations can change very rapidly to adapt to new environmental conditions. Environmental cues are manifested in what is normally called stress. We know that stress causes the release of hormones that can trigger various responses in selective organs, tissues, and cells. These responses can be manifest in a change of phenotype during development, and if the hormones act on the genome, they can make heritable changes as well.

The evolution of cichlid fish has been the subject of much study. Some cichlid fishes have been reported to develop a crushing pharyngeal dentition when their diet includes snails, but a simple piercing dentition when it does not. The biochemical signals that effect this have not yet been deciphered. A gene, bmp4, has been found in other cichlid fishes, however, that when overexpressed results in morphological changes in the jaws. Moreover, the authors have demonstrated that bmp4 has the potential to alter the jaw structure that mimics adaptive variation among the fish species. We can see here more than a hint of how evolution can be driven by the environment through nonrandom genetic changes, be they mutations or genetic rearrangements.

There are now a great many other examples of rapid evolution that do not fit into the neo-Darwinian theory. I have already mentioned the controlled experiment that showed a rapid evolution of the finches in a species no more than seventeen years.

An example of even faster evolutionary change is an experiment on guppies. Guppies adapt differently in the presence of different predators. Guppies living with cichlid fish are smaller and mature earlier than those living with killifish. Guppies were taken from an environment containing cichlids and placed with killifish. The guppy population quickly changed to adapt to the new environment. The full change in the guppy population was observed as soon as the first samples were drawn, which was after only two years. Moreover, the changes have shown to be inheritable and are therefore of genetic origin. The presence of the predator seems to be the environmental cue that induced genetic changes in a large proportion of the population.

    In light of Dr. Spetner's article, one might wish to argue that evolution within a species does not necessarily indicate that evolution is also responsible for changing one species into another. It could be that each of the different species was directly created by G-d with evolutionary cues to allow for adaption to changing environments.

[edu]

http://www.vilnagaon.org/book/Adam_from_dust_and_the_theory_of_evolution.html#JunkDNA

Regarding the Similarity of the DNA in Humans and Other Mammals

Regarding Proof #3 for evolution between species, that the general similarity of the DNA in humans and others mammals prove they have a common ancestor. This proof is indeed stronger than the first two proofs but not as strong as it proponents make it.

A potential rebuttal to the view that the genetic similarities between man and other mammals prove common descent is that just as an efficient computer programmer reuses successful computer codes in different programs, so too, G-d might have wished to reuse successful genetic codes for different animal species. Furthermore, man has a great benefit from the fact that mammals such as mice, have similar DNA. Namely, by virtue of the fact that mice have somewhat similar DNA, we can perform medical experiments on them and learn valuable information from those tests to solve diseases that occur to man.

Another potential rebuttal is that recent scientific discoveries have shown that there are additional factors other than common descent that are used to explain genetic similarities between different animals. If even strong evolutionists admit that sometimes, similar genes do not always indicate a recent common ancestor, perhaps there are other factors at work to explain genetic similarities between man and other mammals.

As an example of another factor that leads to genetic similarities in different species, Ed Yong in a an online National Geographic article dated Jan. 1, 2013 entitled: How a quarter of the cow genome came from snakes, states:

Genomes are often described as recipe books for living things. If that’s the case, many of them badly need an editor. For example, around half of the human genome is made up of bits of DNA that have copied themselves and jumped around, creating vast tracts of repetitive sequences. The same is true for the cow genome, where one particular piece of DNA, known as BovB, has run amok. It’s there in its thousands. Around a quarter of a cow’s DNA is made of BovB sequences or their descendants.

BovB isn’t restricted to cows. If you look for it in other animals, as Ali Morton Walsh from the University of Adelaide did, you’ll find it in elephants, horses, and platypuses. It lurks among the DNA of skinks and geckos, pythons and seasnakes. It’s there in purple sea urchin, the silkworm and the zebrafish.

The obvious interpretation is that BovB was present in the ancestor of all of these animals, and stayed in their genomes as they diversified. If that’s the case, then closely related species should have more similar versions of BovB. The cow version should be very similar to that in sheep, slightly less similar to those in elephants and platypuses, and much less similar to those in snakes and lizards.

But not so. If you draw BovB’s family tree, it looks like you’ve entered a bizarre parallel universe where cows are more closely related to snakes than to elephants, and where one gecko is more closely related to horses than to other lizards.

This is because BovB isn’t neatly passed down from parent to offspring, as most pieces of animal DNA are. This jumping gene not only hops around genomes, but between them.

This type of “horizontal gene transfer” (HGT) is an everyday event for bacteria, which can quickly pick up important abilities from each other by swapping DNA. Such trades are supposedly much rarer among more complex living things, but every passing year brings new examples of HGT among animals. For example, in 2008, (now at the University of Utah) discovered a group of sequences that have jumped between several mammals, an anole lizard, and a frog. He called them Space Invaders.

The Space Invaders belong to a group of jumping genes called DNA transposons. They jump around by cutting themselves out of their surrounding DNA, and pasting themselves in somewhere new. They’re also relatively rare—they make up just 2 to 3 percent of our genome. BovB belongs to a different class of jumping genes called retrotransposons. They move through a copy-and-paste system rather than a cut-and-paste one, so that every jump produces in a new copy of the gene. For that reason, they spread like wildfire.

[edu]

http://www.vilnagaon.org/book/Adam_from_dust_and_the_theory_of_evolution.html#JunkDNA

A third potential rebuttal is that the commonly used argument used by hardcore evolutionists that the genetic similarity between chimpanzees and humans is close to 99% is incorrect or misleading. The claim made in the past that there is nearly a 99% similarity was based on a small and unrepresentative sample of Chimpanzee DNA. Today evolutionists readily admit at the very least that you have to knock the figure down close to 95% by including what is called indels. In a study by a group of scientists including Tatsuya Anzai of the Department of Genetic Information, Division of Molecular Life Science, Tokai University School of Medicine, we learn:
Once the indels are taken into account, the  above-observed 98.6% sequence identity drops to only 86.7% (substitution, 1.4%; indels, 11.9%). This indel-included 86.7% identity may be a better representation of whole-genome sequence similarity between the human and the chimpanzee, as confirmed by a recently published study comparing a number of fragmented chimpanzee sequences with their human counter- parts. (source:http://www.pnas.org/content/100/13/7708.full.pdf)

Non-Jewish scientists (who are members of a religion with an anti-evolutionary ideology), such as, Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D add the following additional objections.
    The chimp genome is 10 to 12 percent larger than the human genome. This by itself shows the 99% similarity between Chimp and Human DNA is misleading.
Since the original 2005 report for the chimpanzee (chimp) genome assembly (5X rough draft), an additional one-fold redundant coverage has been added. Using the new 6X chimpanzee assembly, a sequential comparison to the human genome was performed on an individual chromosome basis. The chimpanzee chromosomes, were sliced into new individual query files of varying string lengths and then queried against their human chromosome homolog using the BLASTN algorithm. Using this approach, queries could be optimized for each chromosome irrespective of gene/feature linear order. Non-DNA letters (gap filling ‘N’s) were stripped from the query data and excluded from the analyses. The definition of similarity for each chromosome was the amount (percent) of optimally aligned chimp DNA. This definition was considered to be conservative because it did not include the amount of human DNA absent in chimp nor did it include chimp DNA that was not aligned to the human genome assembly (unanchored sequence contigs).

For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. (source: http://designed-dna.org/blog/files/269f5ba93730e963bd54c1a139dd48f9-55.php)
      Jeffrey Tomkins, Jerry Bergman, and other anti-evolutionary scientists have also attacked another scientific foundation for the viewpoint that men, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Bonobos, and Orangutans descended from a common ancestor. Humans have only 46 chromosomes (23 from our father and 23 from our mother) while chimpanzees and the great apes have 48 (24 from the father and 24 from the mother). Pro-evolution scientists explain the difference in the amount of chromosomes in humans came about because there was a fusion of two small chimpanzee-like chromosomes (2A and 2B) that formed one stable chimera chromosome in humans (bringing down the number provided by each parent from 24 to 23). Anti-evolution scientists claim that a closer examination of the data totally disproves the theory of fusion. They claim that new data concerning the alleged point of fusion of the two small chimpanzee-like chromosomes (2A and 2B) disproves the notion that fusion took place.
 

See the article I have been quoting for additional evidence that
Unbiased Science Doesn't Really Back Key Dogmas of Darwinian Evolution

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

This is BS.
The concept of darwinian evolution does not require extra terrestrials.   You are disproving the alien abduction crowd, not the darwinists.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

This is not BS, it is BE:  BULLSEYE!

Easy to dismiss me without addressing my comment.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The mechanism by which evolution occurred is certainly up for scientific debate.  And there are different ideas proposed to explain HOW it may have happened.  (The Jewish explanation, not science, is obviously that God was behind this and directed it by hashgacha pratis - divine providence).  Scientists cannot exactly nail down the natural mechanism by which this occurred.

The FACTS that life on earth evolved and that there was common ancestry of living things, are not debated by any credible scientist.  Period.   Those advocating "intelligent design" are christian fundamentalists (so why should they be credible to a believing Jew in anything they claim?) Who let their dogmas dictate what they claim as "science" and who actually deny God's hashgacha pratis over the world.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The stuff edu posted is the same type of stuff from Jewish sites.  Also being influenced by atheism is just as bad as being influenced by Christian fundamentalism.

Regrettably, these "jewish sites" you refer to post the same nonsense because they are basically copying the approach and the content of the christian fundamentalist sites! (What a chillul Hashem).  Because they think that is the way to "disprove" eviolution and do kiruv on Jews.  Evolution does not need to be disproven (nor can it given the overwhelming evidence suggesting it occurred). 

Atheists do not accept the idea that Hashem has providence over the world and its history and development, so how did atheism influence my view?  I have never been an atheist in my life either if you're wondering.
Atheists are in the same boat with the "intelligent design" fanatics on that point.  They both deny Hashem's providence.  The christian fundamentalists altho agreeing on that concept, at least accept that God exists.  However, that's a different god!

[edu]

Kahane-Was-Right BT the type of Evolution that is pushed by the secular scientific world is that it is quite easy for life to develop out of non-life and then given enough amount of time and survival of the fittest you will end up automatically with life forms similar to what we see on Earth.
This brand of evolution is not really backed by the facts.

Does science back some type of change at least within  a species due to environment or other factors. It probably does.
But the reasons for the changes are not the reasons that Darwin imagined.
I will repeat a small part of the quotations, because maybe  the large size of the quotation made you ignore reading some of the fine details

To quote from Dr. Lee Spetner (B'Or Ha'Torah 17 (5768/2007) "

It took a maximum of seventeen years for a uniform population of finches to diverge into flocks of different shape and size of bills filling a variety of niches on a group of Pacific islands (S. Conant, "Saving Endangered Species by Translocation", BioScience, vol. 38 (1988) pp. 254-257 and S.L. Pimm, "Rapid Morphological Change in an Introduced Bird, "Trends in Evolution and Ecology, vol 3 (1988) pp. 290-291). The bill shapes, jaw muscles, and behavior of each type are adapted to their chosen niche. However, these changes could have occurred, they could not, in seventeen year or less, have occurred through random mutations and natural selection. Although this kind of observation is used to support molecules-to-man, it cannot lend such support without us having some knowledge of how these changes occurred. This experiment makes one skeptical about Darwin's story of the finches he found on the Galápagos Islands.

 

[muman613]

I DO NOT believe human life developed due to random mutation or any such nonsense. Jewish faith is emphatic that Human life is the ultimate goal of Hashem and his creation. Believing that life just magically happened because of random events is denying the Will of Hashem and also seems ridiculous. It would be like me expecting my computer to randomly write a complex software system, it NEVER happens. Or like throwing up a bunch of metal and expecting a 747 airplane to magically become assembled, it too NEVER happens.

Hashem guided every process of creation, never leaving anything to random events or chance.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Kahane-Was-Right BT the type of Evolution that is pushed by the secular scientific world is that it is quite easy for life to develop out of non-life and then given enough amount of time and survival of the fittest you will end up automatically with life forms similar to what we see on Earth.
This brand of evolution is not really backed by the facts. 

From what I can gather, you are disputing the mechanism by which life evolved and before that, how non-living matter turned into living matter.  But those are separate topics about which less is known.  The facts of common descent, speciation, evolution of life, etc are however, indisputable.   The fundamentalism spread on this site often tries to "discredit" the scientific reality that evolution took place and the evidence pointing undeniably to that fact.  I am clarifying that there is indeed scientific consensus that evolution took place.  Those who suggest the science is not conclusive or debatable are being disengenuous and/or delusional.  Your post and its title played into that theme.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I DO NOT believe human life developed due to random mutation or any such nonsense. Jewish faith is emphatic that Human life is the ultimate goal of Hashem and his creation. Believing that life just magically happened because of random events is denying the Will of Hashem and also seems ridiculous. It would be like me expecting my computer to randomly write a complex software system, it NEVER happens. Or like throwing up a bunch of metal and expecting a 747 airplane to magically become assembled, it too NEVER happens.

Hashem guided every process of creation, never leaving anything to random events or chance.

By saying it was random, you adopt the atheist point of view and reject it.  Who says the process was random?  No proof whatsoever to that idea.  My point is that Hashem could have chosen to put natural mechanisms in place which would evolve life, just as he put natural laws in place such as gravity, etc, and there is nothing wrong with that idea.