To protect and preserve

DNA and its accompanying mechanisms are clearly built to prevent change, to stay the same at all cost. The DNA doesn't just sit naked in the nucleus. It's protected by histones, which split DNA into connected links, protect it from damage, and control its condensation. On a higher level, the DNA is divided into chromosomes, which once again have mechanisms to prevent DNA from corruption. The end sequences of chromosomes are called telomeres and they serve the purpose of a buffer zone, protecting the chromosome DNA from getting damaged at its edges.

When the DNA starts to decondensate for the purpose of replication, the double helix is split into two and each of the strands starts being replicated by DNA polymerase. The polymerase does not just blindly create a complementary chain of DNA, it has a mechanism to control whether the correct nucleotides (smallest units of DNA) are present. If they aren't, the nucleotide is thrown out.

And the show still isn't over. After replication ends there is yet another set of mechanisms that control whether the DNA has been correctly replicated and folded. Topoisomerases control and repair any distortions and loops in the DNA. Nucleotide and base excision repairs once again control and fix any damage.

What I am illustrating here is that the whole mechanism is designed to combat change, which is the supposed driving force of the alleged biological evolution. Notwithstanding that most mutations are either outright damaging or neutral.

What is even more ironic, however, is that the process of small, random mutations slowly changing the genome relies on DNA replication with its elaborate repair mechanisms to begin with. Without these mechanisms, every tenth or so nucleotide would be paired wrongly, therefore the information in the DNA would immediately degenerate and fall apart into nonsense.

How did a completely random and uncontrolled chemical process build a sophisticated network of information based on a coding language (the genetic code with its specific nucleotides etc.) with a whole system designed to control and repair any deviations from the code (not unlike grammar in language or syntax in programming)? Nobody knows, but most biologists will swear up and down that they know it was created by random events. Don't ask them about the specifics though, or they may start to blush.

Sex

As a short addendum, I may add that on the macroscopic level, the division of species into two genders defies any Darwinian explanation and explicitly acts against any change in the species. In an asexual cell that simply creates clones of itself, any mutation will be preserved and passed on to future generations. When it comes to sexually reproducing organisms, there will always be alternative alleles inherited from one of the parents that can mitigate and essentially silence a damaged allele inherited from the other parent. Therefore any idea of new complex systems arising randomly (new organs and so on) by distinct parts unintentionally complementing each other is a thousandfold more unfeasible than in a simple asexual organism.

Yet again, we see in sexuality a system that acts against change. It tries to preserve the species as it is.

While some people may think, especially in the modern world, that sexuality is constructed to bring in "new DNA" this is blatantly false to anyone who possesses some understanding of biology. What it is constructed to do is to bring in the undamaged, original DNA. So yes, if you live in a small community that has an endemic disease in it, it's beneficial to bring in new blood. Not because the foreigner has some kind of a new "super" DNA, but because he carries the original, undamaged allele, whereas your tribe has, through devolution and damage, acquired a mutated one.

I may also briefly mention that animals, humans included, prefer to mate with partners of the same stock, who are not their immediate family but also not too distant. Even in the forsaken land of the USA, most marriages are between people of the same race. The mythological idea of divine incest makes perfect sense from a genetical point of view if we accept that the first, pure humans possessed no diseases in their DNA.

The God of gaps?

The atheist front of biologists, headed by Dawkins, likes to bring up the idea that those who oppose the theory of biological evolution do so only by relying on gaps in knowledge.

"We do not know how this could have arisen, therefore God did it."

While there are certainly religious people who think like this, Dawkins does not realize the irony of his statements. The entire evolutionary biology is based on gaps. Dawkins and his followers essentially say this:

"We do not know how this could have arisen, but since we are materialists, it must have been chance."

He nor any other biologist in the world can construct a sequence of mutations and events that would lead to the creation of complex biological systems, some of which I have described above. Neither is there a fossil record showing slow changes over time. Species appear and disappear suddenly from the fossil record. Animals as we know them with their organs and Baupläne, appeared out of nowhere during the Cambrian explosion.

And dare I mention the fact that sequencing of genomes has complicated the supposed evolutionary relationships between species? So much so that in current biology, there is talk of a web of life or a bush of life rather than a "tree of life".

In biology, the C-value paradox designates the conundrum of there being no relationship between the genome size and the complexity of the organism. This is another direct contradiction to the Darwinian theory. The evolutionary expectation is that as the genome of the organism grows (how it could even grow is another mystery by the way), there is more and more space for random mutations. The larger the DNA, the bigger the chance for new random mutations to occur. Therefore you would expect more complex organisms to have way larger genomes that enabled the complex organs to arise by chance. Yet this is not what we see. There are simple single-celled organisms that have larger genomes than humans. Is this not in line with the ancient idea of divine forces acting upon and shaping matter as they see fit?

Conclusion

The idea of biological evolution does not hold up. Neither does the idea of the static creation, upheld by many Abrahamists. Really, the Aryan, pagan idea of there being various subtle forces and beings affecting matter throughout ages explains biological findings the best.

I hope you have taken something from my tangent.