I never said such a thing in the context of this discussion. I wasn’t trying to refute ID here. I was simply trying to point out that certain changes can be made and the organism can often tolerate them. We hadnt gotten into ID yet.
You were speaking in absolutes before, and I found it irritating (there are few, if any, absolutes in biology). I am really not trying to give you a hard time Gore. I just want you to acknowledge that the genome (the “program” as you like to say) can handle some changes. There are many examples both in nature and in the lab which should make this abundantly clear and we can get into specifics if we can both agree on this principle. Are you with me so far?
In post#1774 I said:"It is more than complex, it is completely interrelated. You cannot shotgun your way with random mutations to create such a way of doing things. The authors call this whole developmental process a "program"." This was in reference to your attempt at rebuttal to my post#1754 in which I showed a summary of the human developmental process. The scientist who wrote the article called it a program. And indeed I agree with that and I also posit with certainty that a program cannot be changed at random. The proof is quite easy as I said, take any program go around changing bits and bytes on it at random and see if it works better. Now the relevance of this to your statements is that as I said, a new gene has to be connected to the rest of the organism. A new gene would not be included in the developmental program. It would require reprogramming of the developmental program. To reprogram it by random means is totally absurd. So your new gene would never be useful, would never be connected until it became part of the developmental program. That's why evolution is absolutely impossible.