Mutations Cannot Produce the Type of Change Necessary for Darwinian Evolution

I'm sorry you don't like my usage of Darwinian/neo-Darwinian evolution. Maybe I should just say "the idea that all life descends from a common ancestor." I believe you understand what I mean; what's with the semantics? You say, "Darwin didn't even make a conjecture that there was a tree of life (although that was likely due to fear of religious backlash)." This is incorrect. "Charles Darwin was the first person to draw a Tree of Life that showed that all species on Earth are related and that they evolved from a common ancestor" (http://www.nhm.ac.uk...). You say, "When have I ever said mutations are not important for Darwinian evolution?" Upon re-reading your round-two response, I realize that you never said or implied mutations are not important for Darwinian evolution. I probably said that because I felt like you weren't understanding my argument and the "evolution" I was referring to. You say, "Again, Darwin never defined evolution in terms of a tree of life." Again you are wrong. "The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during former years may represent the long succession of extinct species. At each period of growth all the growing twigs have tried to branch out on all sides, and to overtop and kill the surrounding twigs and branches, in the same manner as species and groups of species have at all times overmastered other species in the great battle for life. The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was young, budding twigs; and this connection of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups. Of the many twigs which flourished when the tree was a mere bush, only two or three, now grown into great branches, yet survive and bear the other branches; so with the species which lived during long-past geological periods, very few have left living and modified descendants. From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off; and these fallen branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only in a fossil state. As we here and there see a thin straggling branch springing from a fork low down in a tree, and which by some chance has been favoured and is still alive on its summit, so we occasionally see an animal like the Ornithorhynchus or Lepidosiren, which in some small degree connects by its affinities two large branches of life, and which has apparently been saved from fatal competition by having inhabited a protected station. As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever-branching and beautiful ramifications" (Darwin, Charles.1872. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. 6th ed., London: John Murray. p 104-05). I don't think we are going to agree on a definition for information. For the sake of getting somewhere in this debate, I will, for this debate, concede that information is "the value of the output of processes," and therefore "any mutation which is beneficial to an organism's gene perpetuation can be said to have added information." This still doesn't change the nature of the argument I posited itself. I will reiterate my argument within the context of "the idea that all life descends from a common ancestor" and your definition of information in my last paragraph of this round. I said, "You might argue that Darwin's theory has nothing to do with information because it has nothing to do with mutations," and you say, "This is a straw man. I never said this." I said "might" as in "hypothetically, you might argue." Darwin's theory was not concerned with genetic mutations because he has no idea about genetics. His main thesis was about natural selection and the idea that successive, slight modifications over vast eons of time could allow a fish to become a reptile, a reptile to become a mammal, etc. So I said you "might" argue that his theory has nothing to do with information because it really had nothing to do with genetic mutations. You say, "The fact of the matter is, evolution does care about supposed adding of information, it cares about changes in allele frequencies and that is it." I assume you meant "doesn't care?" Well, here we are again with this word "evolution." I believe you are using an equivocation fallacy. If evolution only involved changes in allele frequencies, then I would have no problem with it. In fact, all of the mechanisms for evolution are realities, including mutations. My contention arises when one attempts to say "all organisms have developed from a common ancestor" based on these mechanisms. We can demonstrate that Chihuahuas, Great Dane's and Akitas are all related, not simply based on their homologous genomes but because these canine species developed as a result of man-made selection. We can see selection in action when we bred animals, but never do we see animals changing from one kind to another. Uh oh, another word to argue about, "kind." The reason we don't see this type of change is not time. Evolutionists have said we do not see evolution in action because it takes a lot of time. Of course they would be referring to the definition of evolution I intended to discuss here, that all life forms descend from a common ancestor. The real reason we do not see the types of changes that will change a fish into a reptile is that the mechanism which introduces new information or structures (i.e. fins to legs) is unable to produce such changes. All examples of mutations to date have not demonstrated the ability to introduce new structures or "information" previously not there. So to reiterate my argument without referring to information and in the context of evolution being "all organisms have descended from a common ancestor," I posit that genetic mutations, beneficial or otherwise, are not able to give organisms the new structures which evolution requires. Consider just a few of the drastic changes a dinosaur would have to go through in order to become a bird: a whole new skeletal system, a whole new lung system, and feathers would have to be developed. These changes are not possible for mutations to make. All observable examples of changes within organisms can be classified as micro-evolution. To give evidence of micro-evolution or speciation and then hypothetically extrapolate backwards is not evidence for the possibility of macro changes. I would like you to do two things for me if you will: please explain how changes in allele frequencies can change a dinosaur into a bird, and please provide one demonstrable example of a mutation(s) which can provide a new, previously unknown structure. Consider a fish that finds its way into a predominately green coral reef. It would be beneficial for it to transform into a green colored fish. But this particular fish does not have the genetic ability to become green. The only hope for him, in an evolutionist view, is for a mutation to give rise to new chromatophores in the fish's scales which produce green pigment. But mutations cannot do this as they only work to delete, scramble, or recombine the letters of an organisms genome. No amount of mutational change can enable an organism to produce new genetic instructions which are not already in its genome (http://creation.com...)