It may seem that way but it is very relevant. Clete, yourself, and Spetner need to examine suppositions about chance and what is impossible.
So what?
So what?
Please do.
It's always very amusing when someone as clearly ignorant as yourself makes statements like that.
Mutations are damage. You think that damage is progress.
Mutations are often deleterious. However, they can also be neutral or beneficial. Additionally, Neutral mutations can become beneficial when the environment changes.
| * Blyth Institute Research on Mutation By Design: Bob Enyart interviews Jonathan Bartlett, the layman who founded the Blyth Institute (.org) after spending years researching the nature of mutations to understand the genetic disease that tragically took the lives of his two young children. It turns out that while many mutations are random and apparently neutral or often harmful, our body itself intentionally induces a large percentage of mutations and targets them often at miniscule segments of the DNA with beneficial and needed results. . . . * Frequent Beneficial Targeted Antibody Mutations: The antibodies in our white blood cells have millions of different designs that enable them to attach to and destroy millions of different kinds of germs. When a harmful microbe enters the body, one that our immune system has never encountered before, we may need a customized antibody to attack it. To get this new antibody, a small section of the DNA has to be changed, i.e. mutated, to attack this the new germ. But of the three billion base pairs in human DNA, new antibodies would appear only if a mutation happened in a tiny section of 600 base pairs. This "variable region" codes only for the part of the antibody that attaches to the germ. Thankfully, that specific part of our DNA has frequent mutations, at a rate far more than the average. And the neighboring antibody segment also has 600 base pairs (which are like rungs on the DNA ladder). That "constant region" forms the other half of the antibody. We DO NOT want that part mutated, because mutations there would likely harm the immune system. But wonderfully, the mutations DO occur very frequently in variable region, where they tend to be beneficial, and NOT in the constant region, where some might be neutral but where most would likely be harmful or even lethal. * Evolutionists Deny Virtual Tautology: Many evolutionists cannot admit the obvious about all this, that: because there is a much higher incidence of mutations occurring where they are needed, therefore this is happening, not by random chance, but intentionally. By design. Yet, even though this is virtually a tautology, they deny it. This high-frequency mutating at a targeted miniscule region of DNA cannot be happening randomly, as neo-Darwinism would suggest. For, if all that mutation were random, it would be happening throughout the DNA molecule. But this intensity of mutation is happening just where it's most needed, and that is the opposite of random. Yet, many atheists cannot acknowledge this, because fear stops them: the fear of seeing evidence for the Designer. |
Random does not lead to design.
Excellent!Adaptation of an organism to its environment is well within its design spec.
Here's the problem:
* Blyth Institute Research on Mutation By Design: Bob Enyart interviews Jonathan Bartlett, the layman who founded the Blyth Institute (.org) after spending years researching the nature of mutations to understand the genetic disease that tragically took the lives of his two young children. It turns out that while many mutations are random and apparently neutral or often harmful, our body itself intentionally induces a large percentage of mutations and targets them often at miniscule segments of the DNA with beneficial and needed results.
. . .
* Frequent Beneficial Targeted Antibody Mutations: The antibodies in our white blood cells have millions of different designs that enable them to attach to and destroy millions of different kinds of germs. When a harmful microbe enters the body, one that our immune system has never encountered before, we may need a customized antibody to attack it. To get this new antibody, a small section of the DNA has to be changed, i.e. mutated, to attack this the new germ. But of the three billion base pairs in human DNA, new antibodies would appear only if a mutation happened in a tiny section of 600 base pairs. This "variable region" codes only for the part of the antibody that attaches to the germ. Thankfully, that specific part of our DNA has frequent mutations, at a rate far more than the average. And the neighboring antibody segment also has 600 base pairs (which are like rungs on the DNA ladder). That "constant region" forms the other half of the antibody. We DO NOT want that part mutated, because mutations there would likely harm the immune system. But wonderfully, the mutations DO occur very frequently in variable region, where they tend to be beneficial, and NOT in the constant region, where some might be neutral but where most would likely be harmful or even lethal.
* Evolutionists Deny Virtual Tautology: Many evolutionists cannot admit the obvious about all this, that: because there is a much higher incidence of mutations occurring where they are needed, therefore this is happening, not by random chance, but intentionally. By design. Yet, even though this is virtually a tautology, they deny it. This high-frequency mutating at a targeted miniscule region of DNA cannot be happening randomly, as neo-Darwinism would suggest. For, if all that mutation were random, it would be happening throughout the DNA molecule. But this intensity of mutation is happening just where it's most needed, and that is the opposite of random. Yet, many atheists cannot acknowledge this, because fear stops them: the fear of seeing evidence for the Designer.
Random mutations are almost always harmful, or at best neutral.
But the human body can introduce new mutations in NEEDED areas (ie, not random) that are beneficial.
These mutations are by design, an error correcting mechanism that cannot be explained away by evolutionists or naturalistic means.
Natural selection is not random; it is systematic.
Epigenics involves dimmer switches on genes rather than mutations of genes. The dimmer switches can be passed to offspring. These are adaptive measures that are rather mechanical, not evidence of a designer. Harsh conditions trigger a variety of dimmer settings, and only the changes that are helpful give a reproductive advantage.
Mutations, according to YOUR theory, are random.
One point of random input into a system does not mean the whole system is random.
Mutations and novel characteristic combinations result in different structures.
Please describe these non-random mutations of yours.
The input of the environment is not random. Drought conditions mean less seeds for finches. Competitive pressures increase for survival and reproductive success. Beak size follows whatever is now the most efficient in the current environment. An enzyme mutation that allows more nutrients to be derived from rotting seeds could give those with the mutation a reproductive advantage. Both genetics and epigenetics are at play.
Environmental pressures are not what causes random mutations.
They do trigger epigenetic changes that create variety.
We see in the lab that single celled algae bind together in the face of a predator. They act in tandem to metabolize and reproduce. One conglomeration has continued for for years despite removal of the predator. It took single cell life 1.5 billion years to become multicellular life. Random forces had time to make that change.
Again that is just variation within existing types. No pathway from goo to you.
Again, random forces do NOT have creative power no matter the time involved.
Pure fantasy.
Only when it's complete. Like the way it started at creation.
All the other details in this discussion are just so much noise. This is the critical point upon which evolution fails. There is simply no way, no matter how long a period of time is allotted, for a random process to create anything but meaningless noise. There simply is no such thing as random information or at least not meaningful information. The two are opposites. If a system contains meaningful information then it is not random, by definition.
This explains the idea. There are basically 3 changes that make Lenski's cit+ bacteria. This creates a subset within the DNA. The bottom line being, cit+ bacteria are less fit outside the experimental conditions because it didn't make new citrate processing machinery, it broke existing machineryto take advantage of the experimental conditions.