An atom has plenty to occupy it just going about its business being what it is. It is not thinking about becoming something else unless it is tinkered with. If the nucleus is bombarded with radiation it may start to decay (the entire nuclear industry is based upon such nuclear changes). If electrons are added or taken away, the atom's resulting imbalance will cause it to seek out ways to restore balance by combining with other atoms that may have too many or too few electrons (the entire chemical industry is based upon this). But such things are just normal social behavior of atom machines and are what they must do to keep running and be happy. We cannot get overly enthusiastic, implying evolution, and construe from this behavior that an atom wants to become part of a novel, painting, computer, or amoeba.
The same machine principles apply to proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, organelles, cells, and organisms. They are all machines with trillions of moving parts. Their goal is to stay running and keep their parts together. Homeostasis is their desire, not transmutation (evolution). A protein machine does not want to become a muscle machine, a lipid machine does not want to become a bilipid cell membrane machine, and a bacteria machine does not want to become a bottlenose dolphin machine. Anything less or more than what they are is bad news for living machines and their components, not good news. Such is the way of machines. Ask any mechanic or serviceman.
Unfortunately, evolutionists have put themselves in the untenable position of depending on things becoming more or less than they are, as well as hoping that damage to machines (mutations) will provide the novelty so they can become better machines. Hundreds of thousands of scientific papers have been written on biological topics. Not one has ever explained with plausible detail how any biological machine, process, or feature came piecemeal into existence by chance, natural law, and evolution. Behe commented regarding biological machines:
"...if these things cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution, how has the scientific community regarded these phenomena of the past forty years? A good place to look for an answer to that question is in the Journal of Molecular Evolution. JME is a journal that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and is edited by prominent figures in the field...In the past ten years JME has published 886 papers... There were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures... This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers can be found that discuss detailed models... in any journal whatsoever. This means that when we infer that complex biochemical systems were designed, we are contradicting no experimental result, we are in conflict with no experimental study."
To read more on this topic and on many more relevant topics, please click the link below
Solving The Big Questions As If Thinking Matters