Ok -- I am not the expert here.. Just convince me here.. What mutations have been observed that have resulted in physical changes for higher order animals (mammals, birds etc). Nothing drastic, just something that implies or suggests further evolutionary change.
How about this? (Note how real scientists use the word "microevolution": to refer to the scale of time over which the evolution happens.)
Now perhaps I have missed the point of your question, and you mean to ask who observed the original mutations, when they happened --- the actual original chromosomal errors. In that case, no-one, 'cos no-one was looking. No-one notices a tiny change in the genotype or phenotype from parent to child (the phenotype aspect of this being concealed by sexual recombination). What we are able to see, then, is the effect of the cumulative action of natural selection on small changes which we simply aren't in a position to notice.
Now, the point at which warning bells should have gone off in your head was this:
Think about what you just read about the toes on each horse. The more modern horse has no more toes; it has a hoof. I thought in evolution you gained faculties not loose them. I guess then in evolution you have to loose something to gain something?
The man who wrote that extraordinary passage draws it to our attention in bold red type. It is at this point, O ye of skepticfaith, that you should have realized that you were reading a website about evolution written by a man who doesn't know what the theory of evolution is --- and gone and found a better website.
Let's look at a bit more of his bold red ink.
He quotes poor George Gaylord Simpson, who never did him any harm, as saying: "The uniform continuous transformation of the hyracotherium (Eohippus) into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature." And so he did.
But then our amazing creationist declares:
In other words what he is really saying, the evolution of the horse did not happen at all!
Now of course this is not what he's saying in other words. This is obvious for two reasons.
First, from reading the passage, where the emphasis is on "uniform continuous".
And second ...
Well, this is the bit where you should have realized that the author of this website has COMPLETELY LOST HIS FREAKING MARBLES ...
He says that Simpson says that the horse didn't evolve.
AND he says that Simpson is one of the "top evolutionists in the world".
IS HE MENTAL?
Excuse me, but these statements can't both be true. I just stare from one to the other and think "how the heck did he write that?"
A brief point about the question of ribs: rib number is quite variable even in within species. Humans are mildly variable: 12 pairs is typical, but 11 and 13 are not freakishly uncommon --- I've had a quick look for exact figures, but I can't find any right now.
You know what, for the past 4,000 years or so, we have not observed mutations making wings. And, genetics won't permit it.
Of course the laws of genetics do not permit us to observe this in 4000 years. Hence, since the theory of evolution consists of the laws of genetics and the law of natural selection, the theory of evolution does not predict that we will observe this over 4000 years. Hence a failure to make such an observation does not tend to falsify the theory of evolution.
Did you see what I just did there? It's called "the scientific method".
Show me how it can! Go on. Show me how random, 99.9% harmful mutations can make a wing on a non winged creature over time. I challenge you!
By natural selection culling out the harmful ones, but favoring those which would be beneficial to a creature which, through its habits of life, has need to be aerodynamic.
Please! Don't tell me that we wouldn't expect to see at least SOME evolution in 4,000 years!
Of course I did not tell you that. I told you that we would not see a flightles clade aquire wings in 4000 years.
Why are you begging me not to say something I didn't say and never will?
Evolutionist, "Folks, we haven't seen evolution throughout our entire existence, but um, trust me on this one, it did happen, when no one was there to see it. Just trust me."
But no "evolutionist" has ever said that.
Which is why you had to make it up.
No-one has ever said that, have they? Ever.
You made it up.
Woah! Stop right there. What was that! Tell me, in what part of that did the reptile aquire the neccessary info to start evolving wings! Remember, the reptile doesn't have genetic code for wings or evolving them, so a filter (natural selection) would be of no use!
As I have pointed out to you, if a species by its habits of life would be favored by being more aerodynamic, then natural selction will favor this.
Reason with me, since when did air filters start adding nitrogen or something to our air? What you would need is not a filter, nor errors, nor isolation, you would need GENETIC CODE INFORMATION INCREASES, but there is NO process to describe how this is even possible!
I hope that your fellow creationists will tap you on the shoulder at this point. Uh, "air filters adding nitrogen or something to our air?"
We can't move on to algebra if we don't even have our addition and multiplication learned. Sorry, I can't ask you something more difficult until you give me a plausible explanation for my simple questions. First simple, then difficult.
Right. Until you can learn the basics of the theory of evolution, you're never going to understand the hard questions. Start with the easy stuff, then see if you can catch up with scientists who've won the Nobel Prize.