The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

Contextually, I was using "mutation" to refer to substantial changes in the DNA. What you are calling mutation here, I would regard as "variation" but If you want to score points, that's OK with me. The major issue at hand is that substantial DNA mutations are typically harmfull to the organisms survival - a point conceded by others on this thread.

You don't get to just redefine words, though. Mutation refers to alterations in DNA, not just large ones, and frankly, it's a little dishonest to only be selectively referring to certain things to make your case seem stronger than it is if you phrase it accurately. The vast majority of mutations that happen are smaller ones, and the dramatic evolutionary examples are accretions of multiple small mutations over successive generations, not single-step large mutations.

What this is, is that you're pointing to a vanishingly small minority of cases, ignoring the majority that directly contradict your point, and then asserting that the minority is what counts. I have no idea why you think that's okay.

Of all the major mutations that would substantially change human DNA, the trend is overwhelmingly negative. Here is a list of just some of them;

Substantial changes aren't the only ones described within evolution. They aren't even the main form of mutation within evolution; you're literally ignoring the driving force mechanism of the theory in your quest to discredit it. You are aware that evolution as mainstream science understands it most often concerns itself with small changes adding up over long time spans and not large changes in short ones, yes? Or is this another area of evolution you haven't bothered to study before deciding it's wrong?

In terms of positive changes that mutations have brought to humanity, I don't doubt that there are some. But I would argue that they are more subtle than radical. How many gene mutations radically changed humanity for the better?

Why do you think radical changes are the most important thing, when they account for a vanishingly small percentage of evolutionary changes that, in a non-apex species without the benefit of modern medicine, would have been selected out of the population? Why are you pretending that the rarest expression of evolution is its main component?

"Repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation." So if this is the case, how was the theory of evolution tested and observed? Did anyone observe one species turn into another species, ever?

Yes, actually. Oh, did you think I'd have to say no? Guess you didn't do any research there, either.

Start at 5.0 here. This is a lengthy list of speciation events- that is, one species evolving into another- and I need to warn you in advance: if you look at this list and then come back to me and scoff that it's "microevolution," or "well, they're still fruit flies," or some shit like that, I'm going to demand that, when you do that, you show me the mainstream, peer reviewed, scientific literature that mentions microevolution as a meaningful distinction from evolution in general, or that suggests that evolution is fruit flies turning into something completely different in one generation.

If you intend to read my link and then come back at me with a misrepresentation of evolution, you're going to be discredited for it. You have been warned.