No, it doesn't.
You are arguing about a strawman. WE are talking about evolution.
You need to read about evolution from actual sources, and not creationist propaganda.
Not that you'll read this with any intent of learning anything, but evolution is simply the offspring inheriting genes.
If the genes are passed on, its because they didn't cause the parent to not pass on genes.
If the genes were for a useful trait, then that trait was passed on, either as an expressed, dormant/recessive or epigenetic gene, etc, then the offspring possessed it.
If the offspring pass that gene onto THEIR offspring, then THOSE offspring carry it, and so forth.
So, when a critter, say something that looks like a 3' tall pig, as a species, is finding that being in the water is resulting in more offspring, because there was more food/fewer predators, the off spring that are able to swim better /not get eaten, will tend to produce more offspring.
Those that inherit perhaps carried on the larger size that discouraged predators and perhaps webbed feet, etc. Even the occasional human is born with webbed fingers or toes, etc.
As those traits are passed on, just as taller parents tend to have taller kids, etc, the kids of the taller kids are in turn still taller. The webbed digits will similarly be more webbed, etc.
If longer fingers and toes, because they then in turn increase the area of webbing, which in turn increases the ease of swimming (as flippers do for a diver, etc), then those with longer fingers and toes pass on the genes, and, their offspring tend to therefore also have longer digits, just as the taller kids mate and even taller kids, and so forth.
After MILLIONS OF YEARS of this, there still might be some of the original 3' pig-like things squealing about, but there might also be some 30' whale, or manatee or dolphin-like things swimming about.
So, evolution is simply what happens when you breed critters in an environment that has either penalized or rewarded their descendants for the genes they had.
When you go back to the even earlier periods, to fossils so deep in the sediment that they represent the first life forms to (finally) leave traces, you ONLY see very primitive life forms.
That's all that was around that far back. As we go up in the fossils, we see PROGRESSIVELY more complexity and features, etc...that did not exist before.
We SEE that as we get higher in the sediment, we see this process continue, and still more new critters are evolving.
So, we go from a very simple beginning, to progressive evidence of new things evolving over a very long period of time.
When genetic data became available, that provided even more evidence that agreed with the fossils, showing that some critter's ancestors were completely different critters descendants..
...so a coral or jelly fish's relationship to a star fish, to a man becomes known, and so forth.
That data also allowed some insights into previously unknown critter's metabolism, as with the genes that allowed certain chemical processes, comes the realization that they HAD the capacity, to for example, metabolize the sulfur from boiling hot volcanic vents on the sea floor, and other exciting discoveries.
So, the phyla evolved from earlier versions, as what genes were passed on, WERE passed on.
THAT is closer to what evolution is. What you said it is, is not even relevant...its propaganda designed to create a strawman...by the earlier catholic church no less.
I first read that as '3" tail', then re-read it after wondering "what the heck does that have to do with the price of tea in China?".
The point is that, ESPECIALLY in the Cambrian, we SEE, in the fossils, the beginnings of additional phyla developing. This reflects the periods BEFORE the Cambrian, where we see the earlier stages of what appeared in the Cambrian, and so forth.
As history continues, we see critters with one only one tissue type, then two, then three, digestion with one opening for ingress/egress, then one opening for each, nerves, then coatings to protect the nerves, then cartilage or bone to protect the nerves, then spinal columns, fish with no jaws, then, with jaws, with cartilage and no bone, and then more bones, and so forth.
The ones with jaws NEVER EVER EVER appear earlier than the one's w/o jaws...all of the above developments, which in turn lead to new phyla, progressed, over time...and, that is reflected in the fossil records.
It would be impossible to see the fossil record, objectively, without the god did it glasses, and NOT see the obvious progression of features appearing as they evolved.
Take off the god-goggles man!
"Yet we attribute that which might as well been constructed and design by a far more intelligent and advanced race to accidents with no direction."
No, we don't.
Although the theory of evolution proposes no direction or pre-conceived goal it absolutely does not attribute complexity to accidents. At the heart of evolutionary theory is the idea of natural selection. This process of selection is not driven by chance but by the environment and the properties of the entity within it.
If anyone tells you that complex biological beings evolved by chance they don't know what they're talking about.
"Yet a mindless journey in happenstance..."
Michael, I know you are a creationist but could I ask you one thing? Could you stop representing the theory of evolution as being that of happenstance or chance or randomness? It's no wonder you find it far-fetched. No matter how many times you are told you just keep saying this. Why is that? Is it a central part of your opposition to it so you cannot let it go?
No-one thinks that evolution happens by chance.
OK, Michael, I think I see what you're getting at, Since evolution works from random mutations (most of which are not favorable and get weeded out, a few of which are beneficial and likely get to reproduce), there IS INDEED no way to guarantee that a mutation will happen to order. It won't happen WHEN you want it to, and when it does, it won't be the mutation you want, if you have a specific one in mind.
But *some* mutation WILL happen. Evolution as a process WILL have something to work with.
But that's the point. Evolution isn't striving for some goal someone or something has in mind. If your criticism amounts to "but there's no way evolution could have been guaranteed to come up with Homo sapiens" you're right...but you'd be assuming Someone started the process with the goal of producing Homo sapiens in particular. No, no, and again NO, evolutionary theory does not claim that WE were an inevitable result of evolution. It claims that we happened to be the result, but it could just as easily have been something else specifically that is quite different, pick from a near infinity of possibilities. SOMETHING will develop. The odds of any particular thing developing are near zero, but something will develop.
It's like the lotto; someone will eventually win the jackpot, but the chances it will be you are vanishingly small. When Job Lowe finally does win it, it will be wrong to think he was the only person who had a chance, in retrospect; his odds were just as crappy as yours were.