Why haven't we observed mutations of new body parts?

Hi I am new to this forum and thought I'd give my two cents on this issue. Although most likely the original poster is a creationist, not all critics of evolution are creaionists. I happen to be of the few who are skeptical of both neo-Darwinism AND intelligent design. I for one do not believe that either side can adequately explain the great question of our origins. I don't necessarily have a problem with the notion that organisms have evolved over time, rather, I have a problem with the MECHANISM proposed by Darwinists. Despite what many of you Darwinists claim, the mechanism of evolution is NOT securely founded. Natural selection acting on random variation caused by genetic mutations cannot possibly account for the complexity and diversity of life on Earth. Many claim that the natural selection of mutations is a sufficient mechanism by which organism can evolve from lower forms, and acquire new features that did not exist in lower forms. However, such a mechanism falls very short when it comes time to explain the emergence of many complex features such as new body plans (most notably the differences among the animal phyla), the emergence of bone structure, novel organs, etc. The evidence shows that mutations do not produce the kind of genetic variation necessary for the appearance of these novel organismal features. Even if they did, how do we account for many of the delicate, finely-tuned processes that exist at the biochemical level? (such as cellular respiration, mitosis, the Kreb's Cycle, etc.)? Obviously these processes can't come about by natural selection of mutations, since "cellular respiration" doesn't have anything to "mutate", if you catch my drift. How can variation of biochemical processes come about? Obviously something is missing here. It really seems to me that most Darwinists fail to understand the implications of many of their claims. So am I saying that God did it? Not by any means! I think the there is a higher probability that there are naturalistic explanations that can account for life than a supernatural creator having done it. However, it seems that right now we simply don't have it all figured yet, despite claims to the contrary by many close-minded Darwinists."Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism, which claims they do." - Lynn Margulis

"Descent with modification and natural selection."Sounds good and all, but you have to remember that "modification" comes from selecting variation, which comes from mutations, according to Darwinism. After all, mutation is the ultimate source of variation for natural selection to act, right? So at the biochemical level, this mechanism would fail. Organic molecules and enzymes can't "mutate" because they don't host a genome."Claims of 'we don't ahve the real answers' deserves little attention the absense of alternative proposals"Well, like you mentioned, there are in fact alternative proposals besides creationism. I brought up Lyn Margulis to illusrate that there are many manstream scientists who are not creationists yet do not embrace Darwinism because of the evidence. Fred Hoyle was a staunch atheist, yet knew that selection and mutation alone could not possibly account for the complexity of life, which is why he forulated his own theory of evolution: that novel genetic material is inserted into the genomes of organisms by viruses from outer space. As far fetched as it sounds, his theory is in fact compatible with the evidence. Lynn Margulis was highly skeptical of evolution and laughed out of conferences for advocating her theory of symbiogenesis. Today, her endosymbiotic theory of the origin of eukaryotic cells is now almost universally accepted. So maybe it isn't always a bad thing to question a theory. No doubt about it, many Darwinists do in fact believe they have it ALL figured out. wouldn't you agree that some Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins use evolution inappropriately? After reading several of his books, I would have to say he is not really all that interested in the science behind it. Rather, it seems to me that his agenda is to use evolutionary theory first and foremost as a weapon against religion. Not that I'm defending religion in any way, shape, or form, but this is not the purpose of science. I've always felt that science is the the pursuit of truth and explanation about the natural world.

Alright well thanks for your input and feedback on my ideas. I'm only 20 and obviously not nearly as well read as you guys are in matters pertaining to evolutionary biology. I've just been very intrigued by questions about our origins ever since taking some freshmen biology classes in college. Although I might have come off sounding like it, I am not a creationist or IDist. I simply believe that perhaps there is much more than what we currently know. And I have to admit to Percy that the cosmic ancestry website that he mentioned is what got me to thinking that there might be a third alternative to Darwinism and Creationism. Not necessarily panspermia, but maybe something we haven't yet discovered. Who knows.TylerEdited by tyler111215, : Typo

"I'd suggest going the next step and taking a higher-level genetics or biochemistry class if you're interested. It's a lot harder to learn this stuff on your own, trust me."Well this is precisely what I will be doing in the next two to three years during my undergraduate studies. I am a biology major and love absolutely love biology. Unfortunately the only bioloy classes I have under my belt are Gen. I & II, Plant Morphology, Natural Vertebrate History, Biogeography, and Genetics I. So obviously I stil have a quite a bit to learn. However, I have stumped several of my PhD Biology professors with some of the questions I have brought up on this forum, mostly regarding the mechanism(s) of evolution and the Cambrian Explosion. It sometimes seems like they don't know much more than what they've been taught in their graduate textbooks. I'm just a very curious and inquisitive person who always takes what anyone tells me with a grin of salt. I hope to be able to contribute to some of the fascinating discussions on this board as I learn and grow during my studies in the biological sciences. Perhaps I shouldn't have but into this thread, but the whole idea of "how" evolution works has been a big interest of mine.
Thank you,TylerEdited by tyler111215, : Typo again