Every reproductive event containing evolution is just equivocation with the term, "evolution", in that way you can claim adaptation, a change in allele frequencies in gene pools, is the event of evolution.
There is no direct logically sound argument that shows this, they can only claim that this type of, "evolution" leads to macro-evolution, by pointing to tenuous inductions of fragmentary historical evidence. As you say, mutations are not largely favourable and the accumulation of them leads to error catastrophe.
Refuting Evolution 2 chapter 5: Argument: Some mutations are beneficial - creation.com
CMI writes:
. Consequently, all the deleterious mutations in the rest of the genome have to be eliminated by the death of the unfit. Selective mutations in the target duplicate gene are extremely rareit might represent only 1 part in 30,000 of the genome of an animal. The larger the genome, the bigger the problem, because the larger the genome, the lower the mutation rate that the creature can sustain without error catastrophe; as a result, it takes even longer for any mutation to occur, let alone a desirable one, in the duplicated gene. There just has not been enough time for such a naturalistic process to account for the amount of genetic information that we see in living things.
So there are qualified scientists that are telling us we don't have to conflate adaptation with macro evolution, we are quite reasonable to deny the claim that it leads to that.
The tremendous design-diversity in the billions of species on earth, the almost limitless imagination of them, is down to design, when we look at the anatomy, because each anatomy shows us the contingency-plans for the engineering problems we see.
For example when we look at the cartilage between bones, imagine it was not there, all of that friction, now what about the problem of long-bones and their development, the solution is growth plates. But you need immense
thought-capability with the cartilage between bones for example, because it still needs to be lubricated or it won't function. There can also not be any blood vessels in cartilage because the joints, the pressure would burst them, so you have to invent something perfect like cartilage, which can later turn to bone, which solves growth problems. But also, if the cartilage between joints was smooth on the surface, it wouldn't be able to self-lubricate. It has a particular surface that allows the lubricant to cover the surface area. Moreover, bones such as our bones, are spongey, yet this structure actually makes the stronger than solid bone, despite being lighter. Now all of these things need to be thought through, in order to be solved. This is only a very basic few problems with having bones as a chassis. Also notice, our chassis begins as nothing, becomes cartilagee and then becomes the correct bone, in the correct place for the function of the bone, in the correct way, in the design plan. Show me a car designer that can come up with a solid chassis that can create itself.
These are only some basic design-elements involved in the anatomy, I have NOT gone into detail pertaining to how incredible the design is, I have only touched the surface.
™ Version 4.2
