This approach is useful, but not the full issue. In this thread, I would like to have a civil debate on what happens if Mutations and Natural Selection each do what the ToE claims they do.
1. Mutations: Assume these cause the number of varieties within a group to increase each generation, with the varieties on average being worse adapted than the original group, but some being better. This includes creating varieties with simple features that a previous generation didn't possess, or more complex versions of simple features they did.
2. Natural selection: Assume this causes the number of varieties within a group to decrease each generation, increasing the average and minimum fitness values of the group.
Given these assumptions, would you say that evolution was possible or impossible?
First and foremost, you need to correct your poll to separate micro and macro evolution. Micro-evolution isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a problem because itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s simply adaptation within a species. Macro-evolution is a myth and fairytale. When you make this distinction, I can vote! Otherwise, you have done nothing more than stack the argument in your favor, with no chance of an honest and civil debate.
Having said that; mutations have never changed one thing into another, therefore mutations are nothing more than positive or negative adaption (most likely negative).
Therefore, noÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Macro-evolution is imposable.