A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

Neither Faith, nor any creationist ignores mutations; they exist, that's accepted. You say there's evidence for "mutation out there", as if creationists deny the reality of mutations.What you mean to say is that mutations are a sufficient mechanism to cause evolution, leading to all the diversity of life we see today.This, however, is not so clear at all. You say there is evidence for this. But consider the scope of your claim. This goes beyond the mere speculation of a supposed beneficial mutation or even the accumulation of such mutations. This flat out requires that mutations lead to the formation of novel organs (I'll ignore body plans or increased complexity or information and any such arguments so we don't get bogged down there in this thread).We're not talking about about mere reproductive advantage or increased survival which the supposed beneficial mutations are thought to confer. We're talking about fundamental physiological changes. Where has this ever been observed (at all, much less as a result of mutational mechanisms)?Darwinianism has long over-valued mutation as a mechanism for change, DESPITE the absolute absence of evidence.

Yes, I see your point. But Faith is merely trying to establish the first point which is that normal speciation events result in stasis or loss of genetic information. Since the veracity of this concept is denied by most here, it is hardly possible to proceed to the second question - namely whether mutation is a sufficient mechanism to overcome the prior loss.That, I believe, is the focus of Faith's argument.On the other hand, I believe that the mutations can be looked at independently of the first concept (genetic loss). The question is whether or not mutation is a sufficient mechanism to account for all the diversity we see today.The problem with this thesis lies in its ambiguity. Evos say that mutation is sufficient to account for all diversity, Creationists say otherwise.The problem is that Evos don't seem to consider any criteria that would confirm such "upward" evolution. Creationists, for their part, have not been able to pin down specific criteria for what mutations can and can't account. The dividing line has been drawn in terms of complexity, or information, or body plans, or organs.Body plans are intuitive (to me anyway) but can't be defined precisely (now, at any rate).Information gain seems to head in the right direction but is not a perfect criterion either - since strictly certain mutations do add information, that is, they increase the physical number of nucleotides present in the genome.Complexity deals with the high degree of organization seen in the genome.Organs refers to the vast physiological differences between organs of the same function in organisms of different species (e.g. the drosophilia eye vs the human eye).Without delving deeper right now into each of these four delineating criteria, let me just say that it seems to me the organs and the information criteria pose the most significant hurdle to the mutational mechanism.Regardless of which criteria is best, it has been the evolutionists mode to couch the mutational mechanism in terms of "achieving all the diversity we see today" utterly ignoring the vast proccesses inherent in evolving a lineage from the primordial soup to the most complex creatures extant today.To be fair, many Evo scientists recognize the need to actually factually validate the lofty claims of the potency of mutations. This has lead to significant genetic research, especially of the Hox genes, wherein the hope of validating the mutational mechanism lies...The claims of the potency of the mutational mechanism are vast and audacious. Only in the last 5 + years has significant genetic research into these claims been undertaken. Early returns make me skeptical that such claims will be validated. Regardless, to religiously ascribe the Scientific Seal of Certainty while much research remains to be done, and current research casts shadows not brighter light on the theory, is to misrepresent the reality of it all..

My first point is that whether or not creationists have identified the proper criteria, the evolutionist can not assume that none exists.My second point is to establish at least one criteria that evolution has not been observed to account for. Organs and by implication the genes behind the organs. For example, the drosophilia eye and the human eye are composed of very different genetic makeups. Can mutations lead from one to the other? It has never been shown to occur. As I pointed out, many scientists are hopeful that Hox genes will provide such evidence. I believe it is largely based on Hox genes that Biochemist Michael Denton recanted his anti-evolutionist stance. I am skeptical that Hox genes will play the savior to the mutational mechanism, but we'll see. To date, however, optimism is the only support the mutational mechanism has as to accounting for the transition of one type of gene into another.That is a serious missing link in the mutational change, without which, darwinian evolution
can not be understood to have occured.

I used the example of the drosophilia eye vs the human eye:A. to contrast organs that would be accepted as being different.B. because to date, little to no contrastive studies have been done comparing closer relations - say chimps and humans. Keep in mind the state of genetics; We have only recently finished cataloguing the human genome. We have mapped the genomes of certain other species but the VAST majority of species' genomes are so far unmapped, and information on the genomes of those species that have been mapped is not readily available...When such comparative studies are available, studying the transition of oranismal genetics will be possible. For now, we have to make to with what we have available.The fact the drophilia and humans do not share a direct lineage is irrelevant, because the point in question is whether mutations CAN account for the transition of one species organ into another - not whether historically they did. This is a laboratory-testable proposition. To date, it has not happend.

In fact, that's not how I am looking at it. I don't feel like restating myself everytime I'm misrepresented, so I may not continue to respond since I'd just be repeating myself unnecessarily.I never mentioned spontaneous organ generation. I merely asked whether mutations are capable of novel organ generation - obviously over 3 billion years according to ToE. The question is not the time, it's the mechanism. Is it up to the task?

So I suppose you'd claim that any two species which possess cleary distinct organs (with the same function) belong to separate and divergent lineages thus being non-subjectable to experimentation because they lack viable evolutionary routes between them.And Evolution is falsifiable?

This is an oft repeated concept that needs to be understood. Before something has to be denied, the affirmative must be established.You can tell me, for example, that you've created gold from straw. Would I stop what I'm doing and go prove the opposite? Of course not; I'd keep doing what I'm doing because in the absence of any proof from you, it's just a say so story.The assertation has been made that novel organs can and are generated by mutational mechanisms. If you're wondering where this assertation has been made, it is inherent in the darwinian understanding of mutations accounting for all of life's diversity. (This is an example of how darwinianism fails to properly understand the scope of its claims). Until this asseration has been heavily supported, it would be ridiculous to establish a barrier to this proccess - there is no 'proccess' for which a barrier is required...As to the vid I'll take a lookEdited by mjfloresta, : Orthography

So, do you have any examples of species that possess clearly distinct organs who could possess a viable evolutionary route between them?If not, your theory is unfalsifiable.If yes, then we can finally test the mutational mechanism.

Describe this route to me; This is an observed genetic phenomenon? Or a speculative description...Let me give you an example; Scientists have replaced the mouse hox gene controlling eye-development with the drosophilia hox gene controlling eye development. The hox genes controlling eye development between these two species are virtually identical. As a result, eye development in the mouse proceeded normally under the direction of the drosophilia hox gene.That's scientific verification.Proposing historical pathways and developments that can't be tested in any way is worthless.

There's a cliche I haven't heard before. Care to show some of this proof?

You stated that there is much evidence for mutations producing novel organs. What evidence are you talking about?

What i'm hearing is that horizontal pathways don't exist because the species are separate by lineage. But vertical pathways can only be proposed historically but not tested empirically.
And yet, mutation is unreservedly hailed as the 'proven' mechanism accounting for all of life's variation.Do I know what HOX genes are? no, actually I just put three random letters together hoping to randomly arrive at a meaning (hey, this sounds like a familiar concept!!).

None of these evidence of transition or generation of organs

There's a big difference between a species and a kind, according to creationism. The distinction is vital because if you're asking about God creating a new kind, then yes that is empirically untestable. If you're talking about the generation of new species then that should be observable (it is).Would you mind specifying precisely what you feel should be falsifiable in Creationism?

I was asking you to specify what test you mean, not go off you planned line of argument.If you would pose the test question exactly as you want it answered, i will do so..