Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

You are saying that random mutations would provide the solution to the organism's requirements.Not, in those exact words, but yes. Random mutation can and does result in beneficial traits. Although most mutations, neither help nor harm a particular individual."It has been estimated that in humans and other mammals, uncorrected errors occur at the rate of about 1 in every 50 million (5 x 107) nucleotides added to the chain. But with 6 x 109 base pairs in a human cell, that mean that each new cell contains some 120 new mutations. "Source:http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html Given the fact that they are random, they would not provide the solution to whatever problem may be present.Given the how frequently mutations occur, they absolutely can. Perhaps the problem is that you are looking at it retroactively. If you see the given solution as the only possible solution, this might lend you to believe that it is much more improbable than it actually is. But in Nature we see that there are many different solutions to the same problem.You also assume that mutations occur in a sequence that compliments each preceding phase, which eliminates the notion of any randomness.No, harmful mutations do occur and quite frequently I might say so, but they are eliminated from the gene-pool by natural selection. So that the positive mutations are simply better represented.Like most of your arguments, this has more to do with your lack of understanding, than it does with any real holes in evolution.You will find that there are corrective mechanisms in place to eliminate the problems associated with mutations.If you read the except I gave above, It states that uncorrected errors occur at a rate of 1 in every 50 million nucleotides added. If replication errors were never corrected, the rate would be even greater.If it does not have a function that exists properly with the system in question than it could indeed be harmful or at least a useless expenditure of resources.We are talking about the usefulness of traits before a system has developed.That is assuming that the wing could form partially. You also ignore the utterly critical fact that not every stage of development would have a use.No, that is the matter of dispute. You state it as a fact, but are incapable of supporting such an assumption with any known and agreed upon facts. You state it as if the fact that you said it, makes it true.Conceivably there are many structures which provide benefits to varying degrees, at all "stages". Consider the horn(s) of a rhinoceros. http://www.flickr.com/photos/17903031@N00/5103205247/ It requires the metabolism to ensure that it receives the proper level of nutrition to sustain flight, in addition to a musculoskeletal system and vascular system that provide it with the locomotive capabilities to use wingsYou're just stating the obvious here. Yes, birds need wings to fly, they need to be light enough to fly, they need to be strong enough to fly. All of these traits can and have developed to lessor degrees before actual flight, these are the reasons why specific species were able to maintain flight."Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"-Charles Darwin, 1859I felt we were lacking some quote mines, in this discussion. When someone appears to be saying something against what we historically know them to believe, this is a quote mine.Had you have quoted the whole statement you would have seen that Darwin was stating this was a common argument against his theory of evolution, which he later goes on to refute. Full quote:Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?He then answers this very question...On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossiliferous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides. These contingencies will concur only rarely, and after enormously long intervals. Whilst the bed of the sea is stationary or is rising, or when very little sediment is being deposited, there will be blanks in our geological history. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been made only at intervals of time immensely remote.Once again, that ignores the crucial steps that would necessarily have to occur in between each stage of ocular development, as such an assembly is quite intricate.Yes, and such intricacy provides no adversity for evolutionary theory, as millions of years of trial and error could have resulted in this intricacy. The human personality and mental development is quite advanced, much more so than any other organisms on Earth. That is indisputable, as neuroscience proves. As we are aware that other life forms have established forms of communication, it would be reasonable to suggest that the early humans would have as well. In fact, that is a belief held by the evolutionary community. As such, having developed a reasonable form of communication and development, why would there be any need to develop beyond that?So because YOU cannot think of a reason for humans to need a more complex and articulate form of speech, It couldn't have possibly evolved that way?Better speech and thus better and clearer communication, allows a much greater capacity to cooperate. This has innumerable evolutionary advantages. Our ability to survive as a species has been entirely contingent on our ability to cooperate effectively.You will find that numerous organisms have established forms of communication. As they are capable of recognizing all of these problems, why would there be any need to develop emotions, which can actually hinder effective reactions to issues?It can, but they can also help. Love, promotes bonding and cooperation. Anger helps to make decisions quickly and to promotes the ability to fight. Fear, is a defensive emotion that guides us to escape dangerous situations.If you really wanted to know more, you could do your own research.There is no evidence that demonstrates the sizeable number of organisms that must have (according to evolutionary theory) experienced random, useless mutations which were genetically rectified in subsequent generations.All individuals posses harmful mutations to some degree, most of which are very minor. This is not always apparent from outside appearances. Those with the greater disadvantages are more quickly eliminated from the gene-pool, and because the fossilization process is incredibly rare we are mostly going to see the most prominent species. Even so, whether a species is poorly adapted, is entirely dependent on it's environment.So if you are expecting to see something too outlandish, you will probably be disappointed.I am not suggesting that the mechanism that you describe above is what actually exists. However, there are enzymes that conduct the processes that occur in gene expression.There are enzymes....so what? What could you possibly tell me about enzymes that disproves evolution? Go ahead, I'm listening.