The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

If you consider minor variations, eg eye colour or shoe size to be mutations, then you are correct.

So if I consider mutations to be what the definition of mutation states, then I'm correct? I'm very glad to be that kind of correct, and I'm a little worried that you seem to think it's okay to begin talking about evolution by redefining basic terms of the subject to better suit your rejection of it, rather than using the standard terms.

That wasn't the kind of mutation that I was referring to.

It's the kind of mutation that evolution refers to. Why are you using something different and expecting it to stick?

Given that the context of the discussion concerns the ever increasing complexity of life, and in particular the transition of one species into another entirely different one, the scale of mutations required to do this is massive.

That, or the quantity of mutations need to be large. Or hell, not even that: small mutations that intensify over time would eventually become these big, massive mutations, without ever mutating a whole lot in a single generation. Like, say you have an ancient giraffe with a short neck, and one has a minor mutation that means its neck is longer and it can feed off of higher branches. If that's a survival advantage such that it gets passed on, then the genes for that longer neck are already present, and having a slightly longer neck is also an advantage that would get passed down. But then in that second generation, the genes for the longer neck are already present and can be built on, generation by generation, inch by inch, until eventually you have a modern giraffe. At no point in that process do you have a huge mutation, you just have a series of small-yet-advantageous ones accumulating over time, but the end result is still a dramatic difference.

Evolution is a series of small steps, not singular giant ones. Stop assuming the end result is just step one.

How does a fish turn its fins into legs? That would require a great deal of rewriting of the genes that code for that part of the body, not to mention having to create new code to produce the necessary nerve and blood supply and the requisite muscles to support walking. All of these mutations are big! And you have to have a stack of them to make the the transition successful.

They aren't big mutations if they happen gradually. If you've got a fish whose fins slightly mutate to better allow it to propel along the bottom of its body of water, then you've got a fish better capable of catching food, and better capable of surviving. So say the next generation modulates the fin just a little more to go along the lakebed even faster. And the third generation does so too. Each mutation is advantageous, but they aren't enormous either, they're just small changes accumulating, one atop the other. The nerves and blood supply don't have to mutate instantaneously for walking, they only need to add a little here and a little there to supply the slightly different fin structure, until, one generation, what you have is a fish with fins that can allow it to traverse the land. Maybe there's better food up there, and so its little forays to the surface serve it well, and that trait passes down. The next generation can better travel on the shore, and oh, maybe one of the spawn can gain a minute amount of oxygen from air rather than water, so it can stay up there a bit longer. And that mutation is advantageous too, so it and the walking fin can be passed down through that fish, little by little, gradually increasing in function, until you have an amphibious fish, many generations out from its initial ancestor, who can walk on land.

Big changes are the result, but results don't always come from single steps.

So how much research into evolution did you do before you decided it was wrong?