That is not how I understand mutation and natural selection works. How does your example translate into a real life example? My understanding is that most mutations are both recessive and mildly negative. These kinds of mutations would not be selected selectively as your heavy marble analogy suggests.
I see the bad mutation as dying off and in most cases quickly. A bit like the marbles, 10 of the same type always get to the bottom and from there we pick one and decide what colour to paint it.
But in general I have difficulty with macro evolution.
I don't have a single view as such on any of this topic. For example, I don't completely discount the creationist/early earth view. However, I tend to view each option in isolation. For example, my view is that if start with the creationist/early earth view then worrying about finding evidence that supports the Ark or whatever is irrelevant because once you assume God not only exists but is fully involved then applying our logic is futile. In fact I see the creationists/early earthers trying to argue how the animals fitted on the Ark (such as the dinosaurs were babies and therefore small) being not only futil but weakening the story.
The bad design argument implicitly states that design is detectable. If so than I.D. is a valid POV. Second, how do we know it is a bad design.
Just the pain and agony animals need to go through to exist suggests the design has a few problems.
As well, if we are God's number one pet then why do we have all the insects that pests, disease etc. On the other hand we can say if there is ID then the Bible is true and the Adam and Eve eating the wromg fruit caused the problem as God said something like ....childbirth will be a big deal and your crops will be full of weeds etc...
The whole thing is very diffiuclt because it depends so much on your starting point. For example, if you started at the back of the Bible looking to see if the Bible made sense and there was a God then you would throw the Bible in the bin very quickly. But if start and Genesis amnd with the premise that God exists and you are only reading the Bible to learn his word then the Ark, parting of the seas etc and etc are not an issue.
To be 100% straight with you my view as the "most likely" literally changes each week or month. However, my views tend to remain much the same within an option, such as my views on evolutution.
My most common view is there are two or more God or gods involved. THe first one is what started the universe, cold be the pre Big Bang. Could be pre Big Bang is some really weird thing but whatever it is it has no realtionship with us, it just laid down the natutal laws for this universe. My second god or gods (and this could be the Bible god) is not unlimited horsepower. Could even be limited to our solar system. I often feel if we had another sense in addition to sight, hearing etc then the answers would be obvious. Imagine a very advanced group of aliens arrive on earth and they have never had the sense of sight. They would never be able to work out why these extinct humans fill structure of steel and concrete with very weak inserts, the windows. TV sets and computer monitors would be a complete puzzle to them.
Actually, if God of the Bible is limited in horsepower then things fit in a little better. He would need to tempt us to see what we do. Since He would not have all knowing knowledge then the trip to Hell or Heaven would not be pre destined.
I believe the Day in Genesis 1 is not a literal day. How could a literal day happen without a sun or a moon which happens ~ day 4. In day 7 God rested. God does not need to rest, He is all omnipotent. I also believe God transcends time, He sees the beginning and the end. So what is a day to a being where time is irrelevant?
How much this type of thing stems from translation issues?
I believe that the evidence points to an old Earth. I have a tough time with idea that God created the world with the appearance of age. It sounds deceptive.
But He created Adam and Eve as adults. On the other hand if He is a limited God then he had to work with what was here but He arrived on the scene 6000 years ago.
One of the reasons I often think of a limited God is because of our situation and the chimpanzee. That bit extra we have over the chimp manifests in a way where the actual gap between us and the chimp is bigger than the gap between a chimp and a retarded ant. God might simply be a representative of a very advanced race of aliens.
Let me ask you a question. You have old earth mixed in with creationist and hence God. Is your god the Bible god. Is your belief in a god pushed along at all by a desire to have a god.
With your creationuist part of the equation do you see that as a hands on deal or just god or God kick starting life off and letting nature takes its course.
As you can see I am all over the place with the whole topic, blowing around like a feather in the breeze