... If the organism restricts itself to a single gene, then it is NO LONGER RANDOM.
So your definition of random is exclusive to a uniform distribution over the entire genome? I can't have random numbers with a normal distribution? Or a Poisson distribution?
Congratulations on redefining 'random' in order to better your own argument. This is getting to be a common trend with you. Yeesh. Have you even read a single biology/math textbook?
For the lurkers, here's a simple example. If I have the numbers [1][2][3][4][5] and I flip a coin randomly to change number 4 to either 6 or 8, guess what? The new sequence is random. It may have a narrow distribution, but because the new sequence isn't deterministic (i.e. you can't predict what it will be), it's random.
Where do you base the idea that this pattern _originates_ from natural selection? ... It is not consistent with natural selection being able to _build_ such a restricting mechanism.
Natural selection does not originate or build anything. It acts on existing diversity. You're clearly showing your unfamiliarity with evolutionary theory.
it is the cell actively reconfiguring itself ... Let's say I need a new gene
This implies intelligence (as does the entirety of the rest of your ridiculous post). This has not been demonstrated and should not be a part of your assertions.
Cells do not have an 'idea' about how they want to change. They do not 'plan' new phenotypes.
Genomic change is random through recombination or mutation. Natural selection acts on those changes. It is observed that nature is reactive, not proactive. This is consistent with evolutionary theory.
Really, why am I bothering to discuss this at all with you? If you're willing to redefine "random" to suit your purposes, there doesn't seem much hope in expecting a rational criticism of evolution from you.
Also, Dembski? No.
"So your definition of random is exclusive to a uniform distribution over the entire genome? I can't have random numbers with a normal distribution? Or a Poisson distribution?"
The distribution is not as important as the lack of teleology involved. If the cell is _directing_ the mutation it is no longer random, it is _directed_.
"Congratulations on redefining 'random' in order to better your own argument. This is getting to be a common trend with you. Yeesh. Have you even read a single biology/math textbook?"
I'm not redefining random. There is nothing random about changing a specific gene, even if there is randomness within the change. For example, if I have a search algorithm, there is no algorithmic difference between searching through an unordered 10-item list sequentially and searching through it randomly. The difference is that, in biology, randomizing it makes it more likely that one of the organisms will make the right choice. However, there is a big difference between searching a specific list in a random order, and searching a random area of memory in a random order to do a random change. The former is a part of a programmed algorithm, the latter is what Darwinists say is going on. Note that it is just as algorithmic to search non-deterministically as it is to do so deterministically. That is different from a completely random change.
"Natural selection does not originate or build anything. It acts on existing diversity. You're clearly showing your unfamiliarity with evolutionary theory."
Then you should alter your wording to reflect that.
"This implies intelligence"
No, it doesn't. It simply implies programming.
"Cells do not have an 'idea' about how they want to change. They do not 'plan' new phenotypes."
The evidence indicates otherwise. As I pointed out in the article, in specific stresses, E. Coli switches on a mutagenic form of DNA polymerase to modify specific genes. That's "having an idea".
"Genomic change is random through recombination or mutation."
It's amazing you keep this up in the face of evidence otherwise.