No mutations are clearly part of the process. What is being stated here is that major changes do not occur, simply as a result of random mutations themselves, but due to environmental pressures.
So wait, you are saying random mutations are part of the process but that large macro changes occur based on environmental pressures as well, gee well hasn't this already been covered? Have you seen one of these massive changes occur through the scientific process of experiment and the observable? Has there been one example where a single genetic mutation has produced new information for new beneficial structure in the genome of the organism? I understand that this was a “long” process but the resources and technology is available. So far, evolutionists have done a bunch of misleading simulations through computer programs, which have been proven to be a predictive, pre-programmed environment where the conclusion will lead to the obvious of the one who programmed it. They overlook nearly all the intelligence, in fact some seem to have trouble swallowing this word “intelligence” as though it doesn't belong in science or more generally, it doesn't belong in the dictionary. It looks like many seem to be on complete opposite sides of the triangle here.
Myselft, I'm having trouble defining this word evolution depending on the context and form its used, especially when its used to refer to how the space shuttle came about? The term Evolution (as defined by modern Darwinists) to me, is a lazy way of saying a long process of change instead of a long process of intelligent input to produce a very specific, complex and purposeful structure (the output).
Because...
A long span of time can go by where various mutations collect and the diversity of a population increases. By the time a stressor (selective force) appears, the population will have some diversity to work with.
For instance from a single ancestral dog we are able to combine existing genes through breeding, into novel forms never found in the wild such as a dalmation. Perhaps a few mutations occurred somewhere along the line of breeding, but many of the traits existed in the parent population. Only in a combination which did not result in the desired look.
Now you might want to equate genes to computer programs as you seem to like to do at times. The problem is that genes are not like computer code. You can take the genes from a Chihuahua and that of a Great Dane and you get a viable puppy, albeit a mutt...
Bgood, I am sure you probably had no problem before in saying DNA is a code, but now when I compare computer code embedded in software, you say… no its not a code anymore (perhaps this implies too much of the IDT theory for you?). Richard Dawkins for some very odd reason (since you don't agree with him on this) believes that DNA resembles computer code and it can be defined as a type of digitally encoded computer language. What have you of this?..what is the point of going circular about this? You believe this code generated from the unguided, its a biological code, but nevertheless its still a code, that abides by a set of conditions of input variables and output variables. The input variables can be energy and the output can be a motion, what is the problem you are seeing here that I don't seem to understand?
Another thread I showed an example to how not, or, xor, xnor, and gates, and how 1-bit storage units based on latches, d-latches (made out of flip-flops built from gates) ALU's (arithmetic logic units) etc...the basis of computer engineering for circuitry applications, the basis for building CPU processors, memory storage (NVRAM, RAM, ROM, FLASH) and the basis for mostly all of modern switching technologies, all its foundation of the transistor (NPN,PNP types). What do you think about this implementation of the biological to the technological, why is there such similarities in function and structure in DNA/RNA (the transcriptional logic) to the function of these simple silicone semi-conductor based transistors that take the simple function of reacting (opening or closing) according to the polarity of the electrical current (electrons) flowing through it, more technically, flowing accross conjunction point of the transisitor. You do see the reasons for why and how there to be explicit similarities right, which should be compared too, you do see benefits in this right, apart from transcribing it to the IDT's???
The minute ID is introduced, it is a molecular machine. The minute Darwinists start defining it, its a blob of goo that looks like a machine????
If you recombine the code for Windows 95 with the code for Windows 98 in a similar manor, you get a run time error.
lol
Not a great analogy right?
Similar to electronics, you can combine the components of an industrial strength microwave with that of one in a college dorm room, and you get a public health hazard.
heh
As for new information, if I take an image file and duplicate it in size, it is new information. Even if, the result is the same picture one on top of the other. The picture occurring twice is different from the single picture. If I make modification to random point in the image, it is even more different.
Same with lets say, memory chips, I simply add more flipflops and we have more memory. Now we have more information as well, even though it's not new information, it is new in the fact that it is a new combination of information. In electronics the new combination of information is relatively simple, die to the simplicity of the mechanics. These components are rigid and do not serve multiple purposes in the product.
In biology however the components are flexible, and serve indeterminate functions, governed by the laws which are the subject of organic chemistry. In other words the complexities of the platform on which these components are expected to run are drastically different.
Well, the "systems" themseleves aren't all that differant, you are looking at the software still from the view point of the entire system itself (entire operating system).
Depending on if you are referring to combining code through genetic engineering or simply reproduction, obviously, through natural reproduction, you cannot combine genes of a horse with a cockroache and expect to get a horseroache. Essentially, that is the same way it works with computer code, windows 95 and 98 aren't all that differant, the language involved programming for the system architecture itself including the kernel of the OS's has not changed. C programming for example, which came after assembly language was the programming language of choice for building OS's, software and now implemenations of it or extended versions of it such as C++, Java are more widely used, nevertheless the syntax has changed a bit, but writing the code itself has not really changed at all. A for loop is still a for loop, a pointer is still a pointer, an if statement is still an if statement etc... The point is, that all it takes is some sort of compiler that an OS can then use to execute the code. So the answer is, yes, it is possible to recombine the code with Windows 95 with 98, given that ---> You have something else (other code) that makes this possible and flexible enough that would allow you to do such a thing. The purpose of this example I'm assuming is that you can read and write and essentially have a fully functional operating system, based on both versions. Since DNA is designed to be recombined with other DNA within the same species, and since Windows 95 code and 98 code was not designed for this task but it could be, the logic here of DNA code and computer code being incomparable is inconsistent, because DNA contains the code to have the ability to be combined, essentially when there is this type of advanced code, in my belief, it is part of the act of purpose. (sort of like that assembly line example I stated to you previously)