That is a bare assertion with nothing to back it up.
It is not an assertion. I have done experiments with sequences and without knowing where you are going they drift into oblivion. Go on to Weasel works and play with them yourself.Weasel Ware Evolution Simulation - The Evolutionary Informatics Lab
Those are not DNA sequences, and you are not testing for function.
Creationists, including ID proponents, have constructed a badly flawed logical model of evolution. The problems that you are finding are problems with that model. They are not problems with evolution itself.
This is why it is so important to look at the direct empirical support for evolution.
They are sequences and under the same combinatorial mathematical constraint as DNA, exons and Introns and proteins.
This is what Richard Dawkins used to try an simulation cumulative selection.
Where do you demonstrate this?
T, this is generally accepted math. A sequence is represented by N^L
where N is the number of elements and L is the length. This is why Dawkins used the english language to simulate protein evolution using a target sequence.
-in the english language we have 27 possible lower case letters
-in DNA we have 4 possible nucleotides
-in proteins we have 20 possible amino acids
-in computer code we have 2 possible states
How do you determine which sequences have function? Do you start with functional sequence and then add mutations and selection? How does your simulation mimic the functional space in DNA, RNA, and proteins?
I think you should already know the answer to your questions.
The empirical evidence shows a limit to functional space which falsifies your mechanism or any other evolutionary mechanism that is non deterministic due to length of DNA and protein sequences and evidence of limited functional space.
Yet more bare assertions.
How is that a fact, Bill?
Which empirical evidence, precisely?
Which cells have you been studying, and what do you mean by “fairly intensively”?
Nope. I suggest you look at the empirical work by Giuseppe Puccio at UD where he has shown preservation over deep time of proteins despite large changes to DNA sequences.
That disproves your claims. You are claiming that these sequences will become garbage in short order.
Preservation is evidence of limited functional space. The larger the amount of non functional space the more unlikely natural selection can find it.
You mistake the center of an adaptive peak for the entire area in which selection can operate. All mutation has to do is hit a place in functional space from which there is a selectable path to the peak. Measuring the peak doesn’t tell you how big that place is.
What we often observe is the “wild type” as in the Hayashi experiment. If there is all these adaptive peaks to get stuck in how is the “wild type” consistently observed?
How through random change do we find a sequence that can perform a secondary fold of 2500 amino acids to even get natural selection started?
The peak and valley diagrams ignore the enormous amount of sequence space that actually exists. How do you visually display a second mountain that may exist beyond the size of the universe away from the first mountain?
You find more ways to say “I don’t understand the science therefore the science must be wrong!” than anyone I know.
Generally, “the wild type” is a set of genotypes all close to the same peak. Change the environment, change the peak. Whatever do you think this shows?
What makes you think a secondary fold of 2500 amino acids is necessary to get selection started?
Of course, there isn’t anything beyond the size of the universe, so your suggestion is nonsense.
It’s a reasonable assumption. Make your case that a non folded 2500 AA protein has biological function.
This is exactly why a visual representation of the possible combinations of a long sequence is nonsense.