Your god Fails To Perform - Hate Mail

YOUR SNARK CAN BE answered very simply by citing something that the eminent expert in cellular biology, James Shaprio said in a recently posted lecture on Youtube.  The title given to the lecture is "How Biology Brings Cognition Into Evolution."  It comes very early in the lecture but I'll recommend you listen to the whole thing several times, James Shapiro is always worth listening to and trying to understand.   Maybe I'll transcribe more of it someday.   This is only the beginning of why just repeating "random chance" doesn't cut it. 

By "cognition" I mean action based in knowledge.

How does cellular and genome modification occur in evolution?  which is my specialty. And the fact is that it occurs organically (biologically) it doesn't occur randomly!  It's not accidents, it's not physics, it's biology. And we'll see that as we go on.

Random mutation cannot explain evolutionary variation.  If we assumed an impossibly high mutation rate a positive variation of one-percent, which is orders of magnitude too high and we're just looking at random mutations in the genome, in the DNA, to make a sequence of ten base-pairs would have a probability of one in ten to the twenty.  It would take one in the twenty generations to make a sequence of ten base-pairs. And one can't build a genome on that basis.

We know that in organismal reproduction 99.9 percent of all incorporation errors in the DNA are removed by replication proof-reading systems, which are biological systems.  They scan the DNA, they detect changes in the double helix and they detect mis-pairing  and they remove the newly incorporated incorrect nucleotide. So, that's cognition in action in reproduction.

And also, more than 99 percent of the "spontaneous" mutations that occur, so-called spontaneous mutations it turns out are enzymatically induced by various kinds of mutated polymerases or enzymes which modify the bases in the DNA and when those functions are removed we see a drop in so-called spontaneous mutation rate.  

So biology is central to genome change.  

I'm giving you that quote for several reasons, first is that one of the finest of living experts in this area has said "random mutation" can't do what it is claimed to do in the conventional neo-Drainist (and, in fact, the old-fashioned Darwinist) doctrine must depend on it doing for their theories to work.  It's clearly mathematically impossible to explain evolution in those terms.  On top of that there is the resistance to allowing those "spontaneous" imaginary random mutations to be passed on except in the most rare of instances and that even a large number of those will be caused by irregularities in the cellular chemistry which, when removed, the rate of such "spontaneous mutations" drop.

In this the specific type of "random chance" which the old-line materialist claims inserted wherever the materialist has no explanation is the mutation rate.  'RANDOM CHANCE' being one of the many atheist gods of the gaps used in exactly the same way that atheists accuse religious believers of using God.  Only as "random chance" can be known not to work and the more than slight implication of James Shapiro that the very cellular mechanisms that regulate the replication of DNA is cognitive in nature, attributing that to God is a lot more intelligent than empowering numbers to do what Shapiro has demonstrated they can't do.  If, as he says, that is controlled by biology and not "physics" then it is clearly not controlled by probability mathematics.  

If "DNA" can't do what neo-Darwinism insisted it had to do to produce the enormous evolutionary diversity that we know arose, when some of the necessary physical mechanisms needed to do what you guys insist it does do in that case, when it has a far longer time-scale to do it in, the idea that it can account for the instantaneous experience of having new ideas and immediately putting those into use, keeping in mind the rather good provisional definition of "cognition" given by James Shapiro, "action based in knowledge," there's not nearly enough time for DNA to do anything to produce physical structures in our brains to give rise to those ideas, those units of cognition because DNA is entirely too slow to account for the speed with which we think, though in your case perhaps that takes longer.