But we don't see things producing the same things. We see reproduction with variation.Within the species only, where it was designed to stay.
Now it is trivially the case that enough mutations will turn any genotype into any other genotype.Mutations are changes in the genes that belong to the particular species. Mutations do not create new genes, which would be the minimum task for evolving a new species from an old. Not to mention that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious -- there is a long long list of genetic diseases which are the known result of mutation, while the whole idea that mutations ever produced anything useful to any organism is only an article of faith, an assumption.
Obviously we do not see, in our own lifetimes, the quantities of evolution which (given the rate at which mutations occur) must necessarily take millions of years. But we do see exactly what we would see if this had occurred, in terms of morphology and genetics and embryology and biogeography and the fossil record and behavioral ecology and so forth. The inference is as clear as, for example, inferring that a man with a bullet in him, and an entry wound in a corresponding position, and power burns on his clothing around the wound, and a smoking gun lying next to him, has been shot. We don't need to have seen it. We see the evidence. Now if someone wanted to assert that the man had been struck down by a miraculous act of God, he would also have to assert that God had deceitfully covered his tracks to make it look like an ordinary shooting.If it were that clear we'd all see it. But contrary to Dr. A's sense of certainty, the evidence fits the creationist assumptions better. 1) There are distinct species, which even evolutionists have to recognize (this is acknowledged by Darwin and by Jerry Coyne at least), that have never been anything but those distinct species; it is only theory/faith/fantasy that they were or could be anything else. 2) We don't see mutations doing what the theory says they are supposed to do because the genetic structure is built into the organism and did not evolve, which is what the creation model assumes. What we do see is the deterioration of the genetic structure brought about by mutations, which are mistakes, not any kind of engine that could drive evolution but an agent of the breakdown of the built-in genetic code as the Fall works its death in every species.
This piece of fantasizing by Dr. A is on that thread that introduces the video interview with David Berlinski on the preposterously nonscientific character of evolutionism. Others on that thread have offered their own fantasies in answer to Dr. Berlinski. Really pretty funny some of it.
Berlinksi muses that the changes required to turn, say, a cow into a whale are mathematically impossible, and our intrepid evos simply answer with the typical mode of fantasizing that evolutionism is known for, as if their simple ability to imagine a sequence makes it reality. Dawkins does this kind of thinking all the time, and they call that stuff Science. Hey instead of a cow, they offer, picture a land mammal that already looks sort of like an aquatic beast, then you can imagine it evolving into a whale easier than a cow could. I don't know, ask Berlinski how many structural changes he thinks evolution would have to accomplish between the -- what is it, an otter or a weasel or what? -- and the whale and whether THAT is any more mathematically possible than the cow.
On that same thread, and in fact in Dr. A's post, another article of the evo faith is asserted, that transitional types are quite sufficiently demonstrated to answer all the objections on that account. But Darwin recognized that a superabundance of transitionals should be seen in the fossil record if evolution were true and his lame answer was only that the fossil record is incomplete. But the fact is that the fossil record shows distinct species with variations among them just as today's living creatures do. This is such an easily recognizable fact that Stephen Jay Gould and others felt it necessary to postulate genetic LEAPS from one species to another instead of the infinitesimally small gradations originally expected. There is no such evidence, there is no evidence of the transitional types that evolution requires despite the assertions of such as Dr. A.