ID guys have no fucking idea how biology and mutation work. Like, absolutely and literally no idea. This is a serious issue because one of their hypothesis' pillars is based on how it's mathematically impossible for the "best" mutations to arise in the given time.
This is wrong not from a mathematical perspective but from a biological one
>the entire population starts genetically homogeneous>the entire population is expected to fix a certain allele>alleles always produce a working/functional protein>mutations happen on a fixed constant all over the genome in all individuals>mutations can only be insertions and deletions (indels), ignoring what >>11775232 posted>there are "good" and "bad" mutations. The good ones are the ones you "expect to see": more efficient enzymes, bad ones are truncated proteins>the selective pressure of the environment is ignoredFirst of all, any population is not genetically homogeneous, it already "starts" with a varying number of alleles for all the species' possible genes and non-coding sequences. Genes are translated into protein which do the work, while non-coding sequences, formerly called junk DNA, are much less understood but are at least known to give more meaning to the coding sequence due to network interactions. Keep in mind in Eukaryotes much more genomic content is non-coding that coding.
Mutations are not good or bad per se but their meaning depends on the current selective pressures: you can have a very high efficiency enzyme that burns through fat that gives you advantage in generating energy, this is very advantageous for rapid movement, in cold it becomes a serious disadvantage as the organism doesn't have both enough protection and energy storage.
Even their analogy is wrong: if you were to recreate a Mozart aria, you need to be him living in the 18th century. However, if the goal is to just create a symphony, you can do it after having studied musical theory with enough time to try.
