An interesting point I thought to raise here and perhaps see other views.

I've studied evolutionary theory for many years and one point has always stuck out for me.

We generally know how genetics works, and anyone upon applying a basic level of critical evaluation can get an idea as to what would be required, genetically, to substantiate and give credence to the idea of universal common descent as defined by evolutionary theory.

In order to properly understand my point, the overall evolutionary narrative needs to come into view - going from a macroscopic, bacteria sized UCA all the way to present day biodiversity.

Random mutations are contingencies that alter pre-existing genetics, it is fairly obvious that modern evolutionary theory has morphed this mechanism into a convenient stop-gap. But even if we were to look at more critical / stable genes, such as hox genes - and the kind of effects that results from mutations, it is clear that mutations are not only limited in their utility to the Darwinian narrative but also in many cases destructive to it.

In short, I fail to see how Darwinian evolution is even genetically possible, given the evidence that is presently on hand. It is like asking a man to build a life sized replica of the Empire State building without any tools, to put forward a meager analogy in comparison..

If I am wrong in some way, do you care to bring any arguments forward?