Thoughts

[downbeatplumb]

Oh for fucks sake.

Mostly mutations are not beneficial or even have much of an effect but when they do there are processes that act on them making them.

A really potent positive mutation is fairly rare which was why initially it was slow, but these days evolution is mainly repurposing stuff that already exists. like the bones in the ear were once the jaw bones of plated fish.

https://www.livescience.com/558-human-ea...gills.html

 I'm supposing you have some real evidence other than an article that says it supposes that happened.

GC

I'm glad you asked that because there is the fossil record of which is replete with transitionary fossils showing all the stages.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_05

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...y_ossicles

Notice the Wikipedia contained a list of the fossil evidence and the berkely one showed clear illustrations of the stages.

---

Nor does neo-Darwinism account for the massive number of mutations required just to implement an opportunistic re-purposing of an existing feature. I'm not saying that it cannot happen, just that "chance-in-the-gaps" isn't even close to being plausible.

How many mutations are required in order to be deemed "plausible"?

---

For every transitional found, according to creationists you create two missing ones either side. They are a simple folk, unlearned in the ways of science.