The Missing Link

   I saw a statement that made me realize just how committed some scientists are to the theory of evolution as an explanation of how things got here.  The Wikipedia entry under evolution characterized it:  "...the origin of species by natural selection is one of the most well understood and indisputable scientific principles there is."
   There is no question that something has happened over the earth's history which has resulted in the rich diversity of life that we see.  Given the complexity of living things, however, there is much room for questions about the process (if there is one) by which this life came to be.
   Consider the DNA molecule, for example.  The data storage capacity of DNA is absolutely staggering.  A child is conceived when two snippets of DNA, half from each parent, come together. The highly sensitive environment in the mother's womb which makes this union possible was already programmed in the DNA of both the father and mother years before this union took place.  That very same instruction set is also contained in the new baby's newly formed DNA.
   A supervisory instruction set is included in the first cell which directs the developing cell to differentiate into the various organs, bones, features, etc. at certain specific times.
  Go now thirty years later and multiple trillions (or more) cell divisions and you will find that even the finest nuances of the parental DNA are expressed in the now adult human, even to personality traits, propensities for body weight, vulnerability to some diseases, artistic abilities, interest, and a huge number of other characteristics including hair color, facial features, foot size, etc.  All the while, the original cell no longer exists.
   Now the theory of evolution by natural selection explanation of how things got here asks one to believe that this level of sophistication is the result of some "natural" process that somehow appeared out of nowhere.
   The language of this "scientific" discourse has been so severely defined  that no common sense person could hope to understand what is meant.  For example, one cannot say that "the robin flies south in the winter in order to escape the cold and snow."  That statement implies that the robin had some sort of "knowledge" about the coming winter and the shortage of food.  Rather, the statement is changed to say "the robin flies south in the winter and thereby avoids the cold winter.  Collectively, therefore, only those robins who flew south survived and that behavior is now programmed into their DNA.
   Consider the folly of this torture of language:  In order for this behavior to have become expressed due to natural selection and survival of the fittest, that instruction set would have had to have been there first!
  I plead with you seekers.  The term "natural" is code name for no-outside-agency in the explanation of how things got here.
   Keep in mind that there is absolutely no evidence of one species morphing into another.  Species differ by billions of instruction sets, not just a few as they would have you believe.