How do you know God isn't dead?

[Statler Waldorf]

A series of books written thousands of years ago by people who copied down tales passed down by word of mouth by superstitious illiterates for centuries who insisted that the earth was made in a week when their technological mastery was such that they could reliably date absolutely nothing in the entire world is obviously of more use than all this modern fancy pants science, which is obviously nothing more than a giant humanist conspiracy to discredit the word of God and lead the good sheep astray to the waiting clutches of Satan. [/thread]

Straw-man fallacy.

Yet "never" manages to happen quite frequently and with very little in the way of impetus.

Nope, neutral mutations have never been observed to increase genetic information or lead to a novel feature in a population of organisms, no more smoke and mirrors- your theory is dead.

Until you can adequately describe what a mutation "must be" - in order to be passed on or become fixed in a population I won't be moving any further. The correct answer to this - is that it must be non-deleterious. Full stop.

Nope, it must become fixed in the entire population through genetic drift, and as I correctly pointed out you do not have enough trials in order to originate any new functional genes through neutral mutation and then fix them in a population; it’s a ridiculous notion and you should know better.

You see, this is very simple. If we have before us a population whose members are spread out unevenly (by genetic makeup) on the right and left sides of some defined area...and I annihilate either side while leaving the other intact - this is an example of genetic drift....and those traits carried unevenly by one side of the area or another will become fixed in the remaining population due to my less than genetically equivalent destruction of the available sources of heredity on other side (not that my intervention seems to be required...but if we're dealing with a sufficiently large population it sure helps to speed the process along). The genes themselves offered nothing in this exchange - neither those advantageous or neutral mutations that may exist in the remaining population are at play - and yet both may become fixed (or lost) going forward. Genetic drift is, simply put, the effect of chance on allele frequency.

As I correctly pointed out you do not have the appropriate number of trials for neutral mutations to affect the genetic makeup of your hypothetical population so this scenario could never arise. Not only that but believing all the genetic diversity we see today was a result of animals uniformly spreading themselves out according to their genetic makeup in order for an isolation event to separate them is quite hilarious.

Which is probably why it hasn't been suggested. Which leads me to ask why you've spent so much time arguing against it?

When you’re arguing for mutations that are by definition selectively neutral all that is left are mathematical probabilities, and they do not favor your position in the slightest. There’s a reason Dawkins rejects this type of overemphasis on neutral mutations, the math does not add up.

That model would be what? "The Creationist Model of Things I'd Rather Argue Against Than Modern Synthesis"?

You’re not arguing for Modern Synthesis, you’re arguing for the Neutral Model of Evolution, the two are not synonymous, learn your theory.