Funny. Real funny. If your cells were changing that fast it would kill you in short order. Chaos does not beget order. Adaptation is real. Traits exist in populations. Place pressure on a population that favors a trait and it will become more prevalent in the population. It is really just another way of saying "natural selection" but because I am not in your club and don't wear a funny hat, you don't recognize it.
We know what happened; we're just filling in the details.
Really? You have traced the actual incremental changes from one species to another at the genetic level? You have identified all the transitional forms between two species? You have worked out the evolutionary path for biochemical processes in the cell and repeated them?
Once you figure out what is in those gaps, those "miracles" will disappear.
You can't fill in the gaps. You haven't argued with Behe, you just voted him off your island. Every time you post something and I point out a problem with it, the issue is not the flaw in the example, but I am just not smart enough to get it. At least with my faith I don't have to leap across gaping logic chasms that you evolutionists need to cross.
Most DNA mutations are completely invisible, because most DNA is junk.
It takes a special kind of arrogance to dismiss anything beyond your understanding as trash. It is the mistake you "priesthood" scientists make again and again because your "science" is not true science, it is religion. How many times has "science" dismissed what it doesn't understand only to discover the truth later? As real science unravels more and more, we find that the things we sought to ignore were the richest ground of all for discovery.
Inquisitiveness drives science. A real scientist does not disregard what he doesn't understand, he studies it. Evolutionist throw away what they don't understand because it threatens their faith.
I also suspect that your strong objection to science is not because of the science at all--you object because young earth creationist charlatans (who want your money) convinced you that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
That is your straw man, not mine. I dislike religious belief wrapped in scientific trappings, which is one of the reasons I have no tolerance for evolution.
"Adaptation" is a young-earth creationist invention, which resembles evolution just enough so that they can fool their target audience into thinking that whatever they hear about evolution can be explained away as "adaptation". The charlatans know perfectly well that their target audience does not have the scientific training to be able to evaluate anything they say.
The reason you survive despite the countless mutations that constantly happen in every one of your cells, is that you have extensive and redundant DNA repair mechanisms. Those mechanisms are not 100% accurate, however, which is why people tend to get diseases like cancer as they get older and more mutations accumulate.
When you go out in the sunlight, UV rays cause a very specific kind of DNA damage called "pyrimidine-pyrimidine dimers." You have an enzyme that exists for no other purpose than to fix that kind of damage. Sometimes, when that enzyme removes the damaged DNA, the wrong nucleotides are put into the gap, changing the DNA sequence at that position. That's a mutation, and it can lead to cancer. That's why experts recommend against allowing yourself to get sunburned (more damage = more chances to mess up the repair and introduce mutations).
There are children who have mutations in the gene that encodes that repair enzyme. When they are exposed to sunlight, their cells cannot repair the DNA damage, and they develop lesions wherever the sunlight touched them. They must spend their lives in artificial light, and can never go outside during the day. This disease is called xeroderma pigmentosum. Most of these children do not live to adulthood.
Populations only gain and lose traits because of DNA mutations. Genetic drift--the major component of evolution--happens because of the cumulative effect of gain and loss of traits over time.
Really? You have traced the actual incremental changes from one species to another at the genetic level? You have identified all the transitional forms between two species? You have worked out the evolutionary path for biochemical processes in the cell and repeated them?
The whole problem with "transitional forms" is that, short of tracing a family tree all the way back to the first common ancestor of all life, it is impossible to identify every transitional form. Any time a transition between A and B is found, then there must be a transition between A and A.5, and another between A.5 and B. So that's a young-earth creationist red herring, devised for the purpose of convincing scientifically naive people that there's a huge flaw in evolutionary theory, because there are always more transitional forms to be found.
Much of what we know about science is arrived at through indirect means. That's true of any science, not just biology. One of the most powerful tools we have for working out evolutionary paths is through phylogenetic analysis. Take the taxonomic tree of any particular group of organisms you want, preferably one where all of the members of the group have been extensively researched. Look at the fossil record to see the evolutionary relationships between the members of that group. Now, choose a couple of genes, any two that you want. I wouldn't choose more than that, because this kind of analysis is very time consuming. Download the DNA sequence for each of those genes from every species in your selected group from Genbank. Format those sequences in a text file, and upload them into ClustalW (just Google "ClustalW" for the program; it's on a mainframe server and does not install on your computer). Tell it to make phylogenetic trees from the sequences. Compare those trees and the taxonomic trees; you will see that they are nearly identical. This result only happens because of the way evolution works--if mutation A occurred in population 1, but not 2, then only descendents of population 1 will have that mutation. If population 1 splits into 1.1 and 1.2, and 1.1 develops mutation B, then only populations descended from 1.1 will have both mutations A and B; populations from 1.2 will only have A, and populations from 2 will have neither. And so on. And yes, to answer your question, I have done several of these analyses. I've given you enough information to do that kind of analysis yourself.
You can't fill in the gaps. You haven't argued with Behe, you just voted him off your island. Every time you post something and I point out a problem with it, the issue is not the flaw in the example, but I am just not smart enough to get it. At least with my faith I don't have to leap across gaping logic chasms that you evolutionists need to cross.
As I've already pointed out, Behe's history speaks for itself. His PubMed record is clear--not much research, certainly nothing that would prove evolution does not happen--and a pretty undistinguished career as a professor. Your defense of him seems emotion-based; it certainly isn't based on his C.V.
The reason that I have rejected your explanation of every single "problem" you have "pointed out" is that the very way you "point out" such "flaws" makes it clear that you do not have any formal scientific training. DNA mutation, for instance, is such a basic and common process that it's discussed even in introductory biology classes; when you to try to deny that DNA mutation even happens, I am as dumbfounded as if you were seriously trying to deny that the square root of 16 is 4.
It takes a special kind of arrogance to dismiss anything beyond your understanding as trash. It is the mistake you "priesthood" scientists make again and again because your "science" is not true science, it is religion. How many times has "science" dismissed what it doesn't understand only to discover the truth later? As real science unravels more and more, we find that the things we sought to ignore were the richest ground of all for discovery.
Beyond my understanding? Are you referring to my calling most DNA "junk"? Well--considering that most DNA exists to fill space, and that the sequence of space-filling DNA is pretty much irrelevant--the scientific term "junk DNA" is apt, and I see no reason to avoid its use.
I do not, as you assert, claim to be part of a "priesthood"--no scientist does. If we were so jealous of our knowledge, no scientist would bother taking the time to try to educate people and get them interested in science, and we wouldn't make such an effort to publish our findings so that they are accessible to everyone. If you perceive that we are somehow hiding knowledge, it isn't because we haven't made it available. It's because you refuse to believe any fact that contradicts your belief that life, the universe, and everything were created out of nothing ~6,000 years ago.
I will be honest: I think it is horrible that some people are so emotionally attached to the belief that either Genesis is literal, or God does not exist. There is no reason to believe that religion and science are mutually exclusive--even the Pope says they aren't. Most religious people accept the scientific idea that the earth is spherical and revolves around the sun; most religious people accept the scientific theory that many diseases are caused by germs and are not the will of God. If you can accept those unbiblical views, then why not accept the scientific view of evolution?
BTW, if scientists like me--who spend years studying chemistry, physics, mathematics, and biology, and doing hundreds of experiments while earning our PhDs--don't do "real science", then who does?