DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[pocaracas]

Misinformed?  Nope sorry. Most mutations are disadvantageous.  To suggest that there were strings of advantageous mutations over millions/billions of years that led to an increase of complexity in information, primarily in the reproductive system is asinine.  Usually mutations are viewed as malignant or benign.  Your claim of neck lengths changing from mutations isn't even in the ballpark of being realistic.  If you go and make a baby, the you and the woman you have a child with are going to be the determining factor of the child's genetics.  There may be variations based on things like nutrition.  For example, muscle growth and bone development.  That is what we observe in the natural world.  In other words, if a baby looks like the mail man, and someone doesn't work for the post office, they're probably not the daddy.   But feel free to demonstrate "slight mutations" causing a positive genetic change that makes an organism more functional.  That, of course, means proving the genetic information before, that the original trait/function wasn't there in the male or female, and suddenly appeared in the offspring making its form advantageous to that of both parents.  If you even start with a single cell, we'll call it "A", it's only going to split into more As. Unless something is added, it will be a continuous chain of the same.  If you want A with B as a new function, it needs to get B somehow to be AB, of course without turning an A into a B and managing to kill itself.

Yes, misinformed!
And you're still at it!

You're confusing gradual change with the sudden change you want to imply evolution deals with.
Each gradual change confers a bit of an advantage, enough for it to remain in the gene pool.

Take, for example, folds of skin between the limbs that enable a bit of gliding by squirrels... Those squirrels with the most skin manage to evade predators a bit more efficiently than those with less, because they don't spend so much time on the ground, where they're more vulnerable. Within a few generations, within the population where the trait of a bit more skin first appeared, it will be on most of the population.
Another common example of gradual change is the eye.... a system that baffled even Darwin, for he though, like you, that it had to have appeared with all the present day components in place, through a very very very very unlikely and fortuitous mutation..... but it turns out that such strong dependence on luck is not necessary:

---

Each of these stages of the evolution provide an advantage over the previous stage. And, some are enough to survive in certain habitats, so we still see these stages in several living creatures.

---

Of course, there's also the ability to breed. For some reason, the red hair trait bloomed in Ireland, but never caught on elsewhere. So you see the Irish population with a high prevalence of this trait. Is it because in Ireland it gives you a survival advantage?... perhaps it's just that people there end up finding it beautiful, a sign of health (but not really), perhaps... and so the trait spreads.
Northern Europe has a higher prevalence of blue eyes and blonde hair than southern Europe. In spite of the lightly colored ones being typically more appeasing to the eye, those traits would not work very well in an environment with strong sun light, it seems.
Of course, hair and eye (and skin) color are not enough to bring the population to a stage where it's a different species, but it shows you how populations can drift into preferring certain traits in certain environments. Add more generations and many other differing traits and you should end up with a different species.
humanity should never get to such a stage, unless we propagate through space, because of worldwide travel. we are all mingling, now. This is a prediction based on the theory, see?

Additionally, even "consensus" doesn't mean fact.  Back in the day, the consensus was that the earth was flat in orientation.  Was the consensus correct?  Either something is or isn't, and if something can't be observed in any way, shape, or form, then no reason to assume it is.

hmmm.... is that an argument against accepting the existence of a divine entity that created the world and the Universe?

Haven't watched the movie idiocracy.  IQ also isn't static and only partially involves genetics.  I could test my IQ, wait a week and do some study, and get a higher (or lower) score the following week.  It would have little or nothing to do with my genetics, but willing to try and raise my score.   It's nothing more than assessment based on a bell curve.  If you are within one standard deviation you are normal. Originally it was set at 100, so you wanted to be between 85-115.  Even over time that baseline has improved, so IQ tests are being developed differently.  Has nothing to do with evolution, but rather improving critical thinking skills.  I worked with the mentally retarded population for awhile, as it was also used for assessing function.  If you fall below two standard deviations, you end up with that classification.  Even then, I would swear some of my clients were "smart as a whip", because what they did know they applied well to get what they needed.

The point wasn't the IQ measurement... the point was the selection of a particular trait that results in that trait becoming the norm.
In the case of the movie, the selection happened simply because smarter people devote more time into themselves and less into having children, while the opposite happens with those with lower IQs.

(Typing intermission - Dog was sitting behind me in chair, started to heave, so pushed his head over the side so he would miss me.  Now have to clean the floor

Hehe... I don't even count the intermissions I take

No problem with background information.  What I do have a problem with is trying to apply newly established information to add credibility to something that was already debunked.  Then you get someone saying "AH HA, see I was right all along."  To me that is idiotic.  If a statement/hypothesis was wrong, then decorating it with something else doesn't suddenly make it right.  Also, radiological information doesn't support evolution for multiple reasons.  First, it attempts to date formation of matter, not actual matter.  Assuming the conservation of mass has always been relevant, then all matter would be the same age.  However, when something is newly formed from that same pre-existing matter, we try to further assess when it was formed.  But the fact that is was newly formed into something else highlights the overall error is trying to use it to support evolution.  That same matter can be altered and repurposed, and if it can be now, then it could have been in the past.  As far as your question about me "accepting quantum mechanics" I'll say what I usually say.  I don't usually accept or decline things that are generic or broadly defined.  If I say "yep" then I subject myself to everything that might be wrong associated with it.  If I say "nope" then I get refuted on the basis on those things that are correct.  That's why I look at individual points, so I can assess them individually and decide my position.

Can you enlighten me and tell me what new information is being used to add credibility to what has been debunked? And also let me know what is the thing that's been debunked, please.

As far as the bit about the blue eyes, did you mean "recessive."  If not, maybe clarify because I don't deal with genetics every day.  But if you did mean "recessive", then that's still preexisting genetic information.  Same as things like red hair.  You're still more likely to end up with brown hair or brown eyes because they are dominant, but that doesn't mean you will.

Yes, recessive, that's the word!!

Lastly, what "large chunks" of info do you think I'm missing?  My statements are never meant to be exhaustive.  If they were, you would be reading books.  But you might find that tormenting, so this is about as much as you'll ever get.

Large chunks of background information that would allow you not to have such mistaken ideas about what evolution actually says.
Perhaps you'd accept to read a college level textbook that doesn't go into so much detail as journal papers do?...