The changes still involve random chance, but like the crossing over example I gave above that occurs during normal cell division, the random changes are the result of normal, controlled, cellular processes, not accidental mistakes. And because of that mutations are also a more common place event and not the "rare" accidental events we once thought.
You fail to acknowledge that "NORMAL PROCESSES" are controlled by the code that drives the functions, you cannot ignore the information driving the processes by saying they will act out of the process to perform new processes and that be considered normal.
Actually, no. Not "controlled." The "code" is not like a central control center "boss" that directs or runs the the show. The cell is a self-referential, interdependent autopoietic system that is both affected by the environment and responds to the environment. The "code" has instructions to make molecular machines needed to run different cellular processes. But those cellular processes, in turn, *regulate* and *direct* how that is done and how that "code" is processed and edited. You need both integrated, functioning systems (and added ones) existing and working together at the same time. The logic of the system is autopoietic, self-referential (*think "circle" with no "start" or "end" and no head "control" center running the show). That is one of the reasons why the origin of life is so difficult. All the chicken-or-egg problems created by such interdependency.
But once again....Once you have a cell....Once you have such an integrated system... The normal functioning of those cells includes processes that enable and cause random, genetic tinkering in non-essential regions of the genome without harming the organism. Such tinkering often occurs in response to different environmental stressors (although, that is not the only way).
Actually, no. Not "controlled." The "code" is not like a central control center "boss" that directs or runs the the show. The cell is a self-referential, interdependent autopoietic system that is both affected by the environment and responds to the environment. The "code" has instructions to make molecular machines needed to run different cellular processes. But those cellular processes, in turn, *regulate* and *direct* how that is done and how that "code" is processed and edited. You need both integrated, functioning systems (and added ones) existing and working together at the same time. The logic of the system is autopoietic, self-referential (*think "circle" with no "start" or "end" and no head "control" center running the show). That is one of the reasons why the origin of life is so difficult. All the chicken-or-egg problems created by such interdependency.
But once again....Once you have a cell....Once you have such an integrated system... The normal functioning of those cells includes processes that enable and cause random, genetic tinkering in non-essential regions of the genome without harming the organism. Such tinkering often occurs in response to different environmental stressors (although, that is not the only way).
It is all driven by information normalizing processes, breaking processes takes it out of normality, not self-improvement.
Who said anything about "breaking processes"? And as I said, there is no clear "top-down" control center independently running or directing the show." It is all interdependent. "Code" is used to make molecular machines in response to molecular machines that "tell" it to do so and when, where, and how.
*But again, the bottom line is once you have all that (cells), then everything I'm say is true. You get evolutionary change. You get genome restructuring and physical changes in organisms as a result of normal cellular functioning, not accidents.
Who said anything about "breaking processes"? And as I said, there is no clear "top-down" control center independently running or directing the show." It is all interdependent. "Code" is used to make molecular machines in response to molecular machines that "tell" it to do so and when, where, and how.
*But again, the bottom line is once you have all that (cells), then everything I'm say is true. You get evolutionary change. You get genome restructuring and physical changes in organisms as a result of normal cellular functioning, not accidents.
Do you believe it is a bottom-up, not a top-down that can recognize errors, that can recognize when things are starting to go sideways? From the bottom-up it will always be an after-the-fact can something react, and then only after something is checked out to see the outcome if something goes right or wrong, while top-down and recognize the possibilities and take actions that deal with them.
Like I said, there's no top or bottom, no start or end. Instead it's like a circle with no clear beginning. The cell is a self-referential, autopoietic system that forms a causal loop with no beginning or end; which is why it's difficult to conceive of a way to naturally assemble such a thing from scratch (even in theory).
*And to answer your question, no, the "code" is not capable of recognizing errors. It is the molecular machines in cells that recognize and correct errors.
*But back to evolution: in short, cells have 'built-in' 'evolvability' processes that enable "code" writing, and "code" editing, and "code" correcting, and "code" sharing, and so on.
No top or bottom, start or end, just nature at work, this is your stance? Built into the systems are cells that can read, write, edit, correct, and share and these are the building blocks of life. For traffic to flow correctly the drivers of cars must understand what stop signs are for and obey them, they need to be able to read, comprehend, and obey the laws, but cells reacting you say nature, are you a Pantheist?
What are you not understanding? Cells, wherever and however they came to be (and it seems that God would have to create the first cell) are here now and they have the ability to evolve.
So you claim. This is saying it is evolving (and has been from a common ancestor) because it is evolving.
No, so we OBSERVE. We OBSERVE genome restructuring and physical changes in organisms due to cellular processes that include symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, hybrid speciation, and natural genetic engineering, especially the action of mobile genetic elements. We OBSERVE these processes happening today in real-time. We OBSERVE it happening right before our eyes, including the instantaneous creation of new species by polyploidy in a single generation or single mating; chromosome and whole genome duplication in a single step; leg bones with musculature appearing in a fish fin in a single step; insect appendages swapping physical location on the body in a single step; 'jumping genes' and horizontal DNA transfer between different "kinds" in a single step; large scale chromosome and genome restructuring (with no harm to the organism) in a single step.
Evolution does not take as long as people once thought.
No, so we OBSERVE. We OBSERVE genome restructuring and physical changes in organisms due to cellular processes that include symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, hybrid speciation, and natural genetic engineering, especially the action of mobile genetic elements. We OBSERVE these processes happening today in real-time. We OBSERVE it happening right before our eyes, including the instantaneous creation of new species by polyploidy in a single generation or single mating; chromosome and whole genome duplication in a single step; leg bones with musculature appearing in a fish fin in a single step; insect appendages swapping physical location on the body in a single step; 'jumping genes' and horizontal DNA transfer between different "kinds" in a single step; large scale chromosome and genome restructuring (with no harm to the organism) in a single step.
Evolution does not take as long as people once thought.
You do not observe common ancestors you infer it as it fits what you observe in the here and now, do you not? I'm telling you, that systems driven by instructions don't just happen, they are set up to do what they were programmed to do, normally that is what they do, abnormally they break they do not improve over time.
Actually we do. Not in all cases, but yes, in some, so you can't make these blanket statements. And in the cases that a common ancestor is inferred, so what? Logical inference is a valid form of reasoning that you use yourself to infer an intelligent designer and that you posted an entire OP about a forensic investigator inferring the existence of God from evidence 'in the box' (In fact, *inference* is all you've got). You can't have it both ways: if inference is not a valid form of reasoning, then it's not valid for you to use either.
And I'm getting really wearied by your continual rehashing of points that we already agree on with respect to the origin of these mechanisms, while still failing to address the fact that those mechanisms are here now and that we OBSERVE evolutionary change as a result of these mechanisms.
Wearied, but I suppose not too surprised, because you have to reject any evidence offered you as a matter of course in order to maintain your views. So once again we arrive at the impasse of you insisting evolution is impossible, me offering up volumes of evidence that demonstrate otherwise, and you ignoring that evidence so you can keep on insisting that evolution is impossible. So I guess that's that.
*But do at least stop asking people to *prove it* if you're going to be unwilling to take a serious look at evidence offered in response. It's just a waste of everyone's time.
YOU OFFER NO EVIDENCE you offer your opinion on things when you look at them in the here and now with observation, and you come to a conclusion that you take as factual. What they do is seem to make sense if they occurred this way not that, whatever this way is or that, with respect to the details on how they could behave the way you think, your views are lacking.
I've given you numerous professional peer reviewed articles, including comprehensive reviews with citations to nearly 500 rigorous, empircal scientific studies that document ALL these OBSERVATIONS to which I refer. OBSERVATIONS of evolution happening before our eyes in the REAL WORLD. Volumes of documented, scientific studies in papers that I have now given you probably a dozen times by now over the years, and that I just recently gave you again that explains the evolutionary change observed to occur by "symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, hybrid speciation, and natural genetic engineering, especially the action of mobile DNA elements" in the context of this very conversation. And I again lamented how you don't read what I give you. In response, you read the abstract which I appreciated because that's the first time I believe you've done that. The paper is technical but I've offered multiple times to walk through and explain. But you just continue to ignore it and the hundreds of documented studies it refers to.<sigh>
Your "critique" above doesn't even make sense to me and shows no evidence that you have taken the time to at least attempt to understand anything about "symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, hybrid speciation, and natural genetic engineering, especially the action of mobile DNA."
"YOU OFFER NO EVIDENCE you offer your opinion": Well, then if you ever eat a seedless watermelon, or strawberries or salmon make sure that you ignore the evidence of instantaneous speciation by polyploidy that you're holding in your hand.
(So when we observe instantaneous speciation happen by polyploidy--which applies to over one third of all plants---when a plant becomes instantaneously incompatible reproductively with the other plants it used to be able to cross pollinate and sexually reproduce with. And when we can observes this before and after by simply counting the number of chromosomes under the microscope and observe plants doubling their genomes in a single generation or single mating, then I suppose that's just our opinion and our imagination that the plant had X number of chromosomes and then suddenly now has double (2X) times the chromosomes. Scientists are just imagining all that or don't know how to count.)
Do you realize that I've been agreeing that the processes in place work, and I have explained why they work, and what happens when they no longer act as they are supposed to.
So all this time you've been agreeing that there are normal cellular mechanisms in place that result in evolutionary change?
No, I have said processes in play must have started with all of the functions coded into the very first life, and if those also had in them the ability to alter life to adapt and change those abilities to change would have also had to be coded in the first life at first, making the evolutionary change even more incredible than even the creation story as is.
There's a difference between accidental "random chance," and biologically controlled "random chance" with natural genetic tinkering in non-essential and non-coding regions of the genome while protecting essential parts of the genome from such tinkering
I agree biological control alterations must be coded into the processes, or they are not controlled.