Yes, change can equal loss- when some of the proteins get scrambled you generally end up with a change from unhelpful information to different unhelpful information. Sometimes you get negative changes and rarer still are the positive ones.
I like the word loss because that is what is happening.
How so? The proteins that make up DNA get mixed around- the vast majority of these aren’t doing anything substantive anyway, so no harm no foul. Sometimes they end up in an order that makes them do something. It can be good, it can be bad.
In the case of not being to breed it is a loss of capability. They can no longer breed. That is a loss of function.
They can still breed, but breeding only works with organisms that have a certain degree of similarity- if they couldn’t breed, they’d die out.
Only if you can show scientific evidence of an alternative mechanism. What scientific evidence do you have for the existence of any designers? What evidence do you have that your proposed designers have the knowledge and ability to make organisms like eukaryotes? When did these designers operate? How did these designers adjust DNA to their liking?
Please indicate what properties of your proposed designers make it what you “expect” to see. In some cases designers re-use systems, like the cytochrome C present in all eykaryotes. In other cases, such as wings and eyes, they make use of different designs to accomplish the same purpose.
DNA is a chemical, not a language.
No, it can be just a change. For example one group breeds in summer while the other group breeds in spring. Because they breed at different times they do not interbreed, yet both have the required amount of information to tell them when to breed. What information has been lost as opposed to changed?
The DNA molecule is a chemical operated by the language of the DNA code.
During what season did they normally breed?
If we take a specific example then Chrysopa carnea breeds in summer and Chrysopa downesi breeds in spring. Given that the area inhabited by C. downesi is entirely within the area inhabited by C. carnea it is probable that C. carnea is the older of the two species from which C. downesi is derived.
You’re welcome, Donsnow! Someday I’ll finish reading those two volumes.StAnastasia - Thank you for your response.
I would submit, that it was the Darwinian concept regarding descent of species that scientists 300 or 400 years from now may have labeled a “Nineteenth Century creation myth.”
If what you say about the provisional nature of the data contained in science is true, then evolution has not “passed it’s trial”. Anything as shaky as the different theories of evolution, led by Darwin’s disproven uniformatarian philosophy, will be “on trial”, for a long, long time. To think otherwise strikes me as hubris.
Shaky? The ID side has lost the debate on every conceivable level.
They actually have 2 gods - “Random” and “Hubris.”
I don’t believe either of those statements. Because the TOE divides the hairs of species so finely doesn’t make them true. I think some of that TOE smacks of semantics.
So two groups that can’t breed together can be members of the same species? Then what’s a species?
I’m not on the ID side. I’ve already stated my objection to that philosophy. ID leaves a big gap for any intelligence. I stand by my belief it was the mind of the Christ, before His incarnation as Jesus.
They actually have 2 gods - “Random” and “Hubris.”
