No, THEY dont..
Which is why they are laughed at by the scientific community, and also why they never submit any of their alleged work for peer review..
Oh good grief..
Mutations are commonplace.. They happen ALL THE TIME...
They are almost NEVER fatal..
Geez..
Oh, and neither Meyer or Berlinski is a biologist..
Berlinski has a math degree and Meyer's BS is in earth science.
My being smarter than either of them is not the issue.. (although i probably am.. lol)
The issue here is, "are their claims correct."
In that regard , EVERY science organization, journal and PhD university ALL say that they are wrong..
So even if somehow "i'm" not smarter than they are,
there are still 1000s of scientists who specialize in these very complex sciences
who ARE..
And they ALL say Meyer and Berlinski have their heads up their own rectums on this issue..
Its not a matter of what i "want".. Its a matter of what IS..
Mutations can be quite harmful in some circumstances.. They can lead to some pretty nasty diseases..
But life wouldn't survive on earth without them..
Mutation is one of several mechanisms which allow species to adapt to abrupt changes in environments.
If novel mutations didn't spring up from time to time, there would be no way for existing life to cope during times of severe duress, (ie: volcanic eruptions, comet strikes, ice ages, etc etc,
Mutation alters the DNA code which can at times modify a trait to help an offspring survive.
I answered the question. The answer is "it depends on the mutation"..
lol
A mutation is NOT always a loss of information..
The benefit or negative effect of a specific mutation will vary based on the environment in which that mutation occurs.
Simply put, if i'm an organism with fur, and i obtain a mutation that changes my fur color to white during an ice age, such a mutation may prove VERY beneficial..
As I mentioned in another thread, "First, all Christians are creationists, so using it pejoratively so generally is falling into the atheist/secular trap.
However, if you do not accept Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1-3, then you really need to explain yourself, as you would sound much like atheist Stephen Hawking, "What need then for a Creator?"
Unfortunately, truth and court are not synonymous, as judges also are not experts in all the fields. They must rely on authorities, so the way cases are presented do matter.
Sometimes vital information is suppressed or disallowed, which is how OJ got away with murder.
Other times, one side presents its case poorly. Or both.
In any case, deep time does not prove evolutionism, but that wasn't on trial.
And anyone imagining atheists are making only honest to God arguments are not paying close enough attention to all that's going on.
OK, that's at least twice "selected for" has been mentioned as part of the proposed paradigm, but that indicates design, guidance.
However, the observation seems to apply only to the point *after* DNA and its associated elements exist, which is precisely what is not involved *before* they exist, which is the real issue.
To resolve the issue, answers are needed for these kinds of questions.
Precisely what is going on? What is doing the selecting?
What is it selecting for?
How does it know what to select for?
Where did it come from?
How did it know to be there?
What kind of timing was required? What kind of environment was required?
Etc.
If I understand the discussion from the Hoover Institution linked in my signature, things have to be just so and timing and environment are not really involved.
That is the reason that Darwin is discarded forever and ever world without end.
The only question is how long it will take Americans do face the facts.