Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

The information is stored in the DNA when the individual reproduces. That's it. Once the mutation occurs, it is either lost (the individual dies before it can reproduce) or it is preserved (the individual reproduces). Why is this a mystery to you?

How else do you model intelligence? There is nothing else. Nothing else in the universe has creative intelligence. I can't create intelligence in something that has none. I couldn't even program a computer to go beyond a couple simple improvements in evolution without a programmer having to come in and make adjustments.

Random mutations on the other hand are easy to model. We know how many genes there are, we know how many combinations there. We know which combinations can be mutated to and which ones can't. It's a numbers game.
Natural selection is easy to model. We could be the selector. Let a computer provide the random mutation, and we'll decide if its worth keeping. Even if we through our intelligence in it I bet we couldn't make something macro evolve.

Why not? I bet it would survive? Looks like a pattern?I went to college for engineering. I learned to build off of previous engineer's work. I didn't need to stress test an I beam anymore, some body already did it and recorded the data in chatrs, which are similar to DNA as information systems. The only difference is, life has living blueprints that are stored in a living factory that looks like it was built to self repilicate.

In the end you are saying that the two forms of evolution are different, and I agree. The thing is though we are not discussing whether evolution happened or not. We are discussing whether random mutations can suffice in providing enough new information correctly for natural selection to lead to macro evolution. So far the only evidence I have been given is that evolution happened. I know it happened. I know it happened in cars, phones, computers, and biology. My question is how. I provided a model of an intelligence providing the correct information for major macro evolution. You stated yourself there is a huge evolutionary jump for a rotor dialer and a walky talky to a i phone and it took a lot of intelligence to do that. Can you provide me a model of random mutations providing the right information to cause macroevolution through natural selection. Or how about from a rotor dialer and a walky talkie to a cordless house phone. (You need to be more specific when you use the word 'evolution', we both agree it happened.) I thought progressive tweeking is the definition of innovation. Could you just provide a model of random mutations doing what you claim they can?

But how does the dna know when to pull that information out and put it where it needs to be later. More random stuff?

Far from being rare, mutations are common. Whether or not they provide an advantage in reproduction determines whether or not they get preserved in the genetic code. Your ignorance is, sadly, not unexpected. You obviously know very little about the evolutionary process, and especially the importance and mechanics of natural selection. You really shouldn't shoot your mouth off when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Jesus wept, now you're anthropomorphizing DNA. DNA doesn't "know" anything. Changes which enhance reproductive success get preserved, those which don't, disappear.

Not exactly so.
1) Crystals are very orderly and they form in nature.
2) Gravity sorts things by density, and so concentrates like materials.
Light gases in the upper atmosphere, heavier gasses down below.
Low density sediments at the top, high density sediments at the bottom.
3) Complex molecules form in the presence of electricity (amino acids).

DNA doesn't "pull anything out " to use it. If a gene is present (and dominant) it's expressed. Meaning the trait is in the individual. Period. That's it. if it helps the organism survive, it is preserved (in the next generation). if it doesn't it will be gone.

Brian,
I think maybe some of the other posters here are right. Go read a book.

Mutations are not rare. The right mutations at the right time in the right order is very rare. Can you show me a model where randomly generated information can provide the necessary information for natural selection to produce macroevolution?

And computers can sort names alphabetically. All those things you gave are example of systems that are place doing what they have always done. They are not evolving to higher complexity. Some people might say it looks like somebody designed those systems to do just what you are observing them doing.

Computers don't count. They were designed and built by people.
My response was to Leadfoot who stated that in nature, the trend is always toward disorder.

That is exactly my point. It takes more decision making than that for a new organ system to evolve. That's why nobody can build a model to replicate it. Either DNA has a built in decision maker or somebody is monkeying with system from outside.

I want you to notice that you have not put forth any real arguments. Just more repetitions of what you said here. Nor have you put forth any counter arguments to what I've argued.

CI is representative of your approach - 'ID is all hokey pokey'.

The decision maker is natural selection.

What would be the point? In ther first place, you make statements from authority for which we have no reason to assume that you possess any authority on the subject. You're just puking up Discovery Institute propaganda.

But more than that, you seem not to understand the process of natural selection. You're captured by the theist's assumption that everything has a purpose, that everything happens for a reason. Once again, tediously, it seems that you need to have the process explained to you. Any change in the DNA code which produces a reproductive advantage will be preserved in the genome, any which don't provide the advantage will not (or will be ignored in the process of reproduction). Talking about "right time" and "right order" is meaningless. If it works, it gets preserved. If it doesn't it gets ignored. All mammoth had hair. Some had long, heavy hairs. That provided no reproductive advantage, but it didn't hurt them, either. When massive glaciation took over the poles (the so-called ice ages), those mammoth with long, heavy hairs (now called woolly mammoth) had a distinct advantage going into periglacial regions. The conditions were destructive of forests, so the regions near the glaciers became vast grasslands. Woolly mammoth thrived, and successfully reproduced. The same can be said about quite a few species, such as the megaceros (modern elk are their descendants), woolly rhinoceros--and predators on them, such as cave lions, dirk-tooth tigers, saber-tooth tigers. The predators were attracted by the grazing animals, who were attracted by the vast grass lands. Those species are gone now, or have lesser descendants, because the conditions in which they had thrived are gone.

There was no purpose, it was a matter of chance. In fact, I'm going to say random, because you act as though that were a curse word.

Show me the evidence that your first statement is true. Show me you can make a new organ system without doing it in order, at the right time, and at the right place, with the right type of tissue etc. . .

brian, you really need to think this thru more carefully. I think you fear your belief in God is being challenged by scientific fact. It is possible to believe in science as well as a God.......some people find that to be a conflict they can't accept. I personally find it impossible that methuselah lived to be 900, but if that gives you comfort....God bless. It doesn't bother me one way or another, I'm not shocked, pleased or unhappy about the accuracy of Methuselah's age.....Try thinking of it this way, scientists work feverishly testing and proving theories to better understand this world we live in......there is nothing stopping you from believing it's God who inspires mankind to better understand our existence. Or you can continue to beat you head against the ground in a fury at perceived slights against religion. But that's my take, I doubt you would get so lathered up if it was simply you didn't understand what the other people have been patiently trying to explain to you. It seems more like a ridged belief system that keeps you from even entertaining a notion you might not know everything.

Just saying!

You're not paying attention. Just another one trick donkey I guess.