The copying error, in these cases, makes new DNA. So we have something "new" -- DNA that did not exist before.
Apparently you do not understand the difference between a new sequencing code and new DNA.
What you are saying is that the new DNA has the same alleles as the old DNA. And that is true. However, the "old" alleles still exist, so the cell/organism still has the function of those alleles. So, when mutations change the alleles in the new DNA, it does not disrupt the original DNA and the function.
You mean when the DNA is copied into a different order, it does things the old DNA didn't do, but has no new alleles. The code is simply written differently, the instructions have changed, but the DNA has not. It is not new DNA. DNA has billions of sequnces, that can exist in billions of different orders, that change hair color, eye color, etc, but that chimp DNA will always be chimp DNA and will never change into human DNA.
Take the Coelacanth for example. It is the same today as it was 400 million of years ago, despite the fact that the climate has changed, which should of made natural selection evolve it into something else. It didn't bother to adapt to changing climate conditions, nor evolve into anything else.
In their book The Myths of Evolution, Ian Tattersall and Miles Eldredge, both well-known paleontologists, described how the stasis in the fossil record conflicted with the assumptions of Darwinism:
"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record . . . That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, . . . prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search . . . One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwins predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperors new clothes; everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwins predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.
There are countless examples of this stability. For instance, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains 5-million-year-old fossil beds going back to the first periods of mammals. The fossil record here is so rich that paleontologists expected to find transitional forms in the fossils there that would demonstrate the evolutionary process. Yet their hopes were all in vain. It was realized that the species they suggested had evolved from one another in fact all appeared in the same periods. It was seen that The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism.
picture1: Above, a roughly 135-million-yearold Echinoderm (starfish) fossil, and a living specimen.
picture 2: 355 to 295-million- year-old spider fossils, right, and a present-day spider.
picture 3: Unchanged for 50 million years, the bat is another piece of evidence that undermines the theory of evolution. The well-known evolutionist scientist Jeff Hecht expresses this fact thus: . . . the origins of bats have been a puzzle. : Even the earliest bat fossils, from about 50 million years ago, have wings that closely resemble those of modern bats.203.197
picture4: A 140-million-year-old horseshoe crab and a living present-day specimen.
picture5: Below, an approximately 210- million-year-old boned fish fossil, and a present-day specimen.
Picture6:Left, a 300-millionyear- old Trionyx (tortoise) fossil, and a present-day tortoise
picture7: Above, an approximately 300- million-year-old water scorpion fossil from the Later Carboniferous Period, and a present-day specimen
picture 8: Below, a crab fossil approximately 55 to 35 millions year old, , and a present-day crab
It is the same with every living creature also found in the fossil record, no change over millions of years, despite the fact they went through an extinction event and an ice age.
The same with plants:
picture1: Above, Pecopteris miltani, a plant which lived 290 to 365 million years ago. A similar present- day plant called Dryopteris filix-mas.
picture2: A 350-million-yearold fossil of the marsh plant Asterophyllites grandis and a similar present- day plant
picture3: The present-day tree known as Cryptomenia japonica is identical to its 300-millionyear- old fossil counterpart..
picture4: Above, a fossil of the presentday oak tree Quercus hispanica which grew some 145 million years ago.
picture5: Alepthopteris A roughly 350-million- yea- old fossil and a present-day specimen
Again, no change at all. The originals that were to be replaced by natural selection still exist, alongside the variations.
Not genetics nor the fossil record back up evolutionary theory.