You know those experiments where scientists bombarded fruit flies with radiation and produced monstrosities that had legs growing out of their heads? Or extra sets of non-functioning wings? Even if we disregard the obvious fact that these genetic monsters would be totally incapable of survival in the real world (and hence no help to the evolutionistic model), it needs to be pointed out that at no time were scientists able to "mutate" a feature that did not already exist in the fly's genetic code.
Your examples of mutations are good examples of the kind of changes that lead to what is commonly called micro-evolution. In the thousands, maybe millions, of generations of laboratory experiments with bacteria, algae, etc., there have never been produced any new characteristics that either weren't already residing in the gene pool, or that weren't a subset mutation of the information in that gene pool.
Did you just say what I think you said?
You take thousands, maybe millions, of generations of observed experiments where in no case did any new features, characteristics or organs or organisms develop that weren't already present in the gene pool, and make a grandiose statement concluding that that process is the mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution "over time," without the least little bit of scientific proof. And then you ask me to prove why it can't happen?
I'll tell you what, Epp. You show how you can extrapolate backwards a billion years in time, and prove it. Then, we'll have something to work on disproving. I can't even begin to disprove something that has no correlation to the real world and that resides solely in an evolutionist's fanciful imagination.
Again, you need to learn and understand the difference between today's observable operational science, and historical science. Evolutionists have no qualms about crossing the border at will to interpret historical scientific evidence using current operational science observations -- but it aint honest to do that, and it aint good science.
I have been reading the posts on this issue and I see a problem that is very common in creation/evolution debates. That is clarification of what theory of evolution is to be debated. This is important since it will prevent misunderstandings as to what is be presented. There are 6 theories of evolution:
1. Cosmic - this covers the Big Bang to the generating of hydrogen gas that came into existence.
2. Chemical - this covers the other gases, increasing molecular and chemical order and their complexity over long a period of time.
3. Star and Planets - this covers gravity, angular momentum, magnetism, radiation, and other forces fusing to form stars and planets.
4. Organic - other wise known as abiogenesis, i.e., life from non-life to replicating of evolved life.
5. Macroevolution - this is the kinds of life splitting off and increasing in complexity through random processes over a long period of time. That is the single-celled life form evolving into a multicellular life form to a marine organism to a fish etc.
6. Microevolution - this covers structured changes within pre-existing kinds of life, such as, heredity and variation.
A majority of creationists accept number 6 microevolution also called adaptive variation (this is what my zoology and ecology professor called it) because it is observable. Example dog breeders use adaptive variation to produce a dog with the desired traits, however, the end result is that you still have a dog as an end product.
Creationists (with the exception of theist evolutionists) do not hold or believe in the other 5 theories because they have not been observed nor can they be tested or falsified.
I would suggest this thread pick the theory it would like to debate and stick to that theory until another one is chosen. This would go a long way in clearing up the confusion I see in this debate thread.