Extent of Mutational Capability

I've always thought of this question as being the wrong way around. We must go from knowledge and facts firstly. Known facts. It is a known fact that specified complexity, contingency planning, information, etc..comes from intelligent design. That isn't an argument I am arguing, it is a fact, so when we confront the usual elements of design in life, it is special-pleading fallacy to treat life differently.So factually speaking, only intelligent designers have the ability to design designed things, according to 100% knowledge.With that in mind, your question puts the burden-of-proof on the wrong people. Instead of saying, "is there a limit to evolution", the correct logical question is this; "is there any reason to believe a non-intelligent process can come up with the most marvellous designs on the planet? Is there any reason to believe that evolution is an omnipotent, omniscient, UNLIMITED, creative force?"I would accept evolution could do such things if there was a shred of evidence in the lab that actually shown that evolution can create a new anatomy/organ. So in a way, it's all down to opinion and choice. Those with faith in evolution believe it could have happened.For example, if you were to ask me about my claim of being the greatest fist-fighter on earth, at the very least you might expect me to show some evidence of this that is equivalent to what such a claim entails.If I am the best chef on earth, it would be reasonable to expect me to cook a world class meal that experts could judge.Logically, this is a small portion, a sample, of the whole. For example, if a cake has x,y, and z ingredients, then I would expect the same ingredients within a portion of the cake.In the same way, because evolution is supposed to have invented hearts, lungs full bodies with complete moving chassis' (skeletons) and everything else, including all of the correct materials, such as enamel for teeth instead of wood, and bones for hands instead of blubber, then I expect to see a portion of macro-evolution's abilities, by seeing in the lab, it invent an organ or a new anatomy in a fruit fly or a bacteria.The "little adds up to a lot" argument of micro evolution, is a false argument, and even if you argue it isn't, I remain of the opinion it is false and nobody can convince me otherwise, so I don't care if people disagree because I always know what I am talking about. The fact is adding up a general stasis in the fossil record, doesn't add up to macro.For example, if we take a jellyfish that is 500 million years old, and compare it to a modern one which is identical, obviously if we add up such micro-evolution, we don't get macro. Nor is there ever any indication of change within the fossil counterpart, beyond superficial change, IMHO. For example we might find a giant platypus or nautiloid or croc, but they are giant, but anatomically not really any different beyond superficiality.By majority of the evidence, we don't see bats or turtles or bunnies or starfish or apes, evolving, we see them stay the same. (I don't refer to human evolution with apes, but the things which would have had to evolve into apes, quadruped progenitors that are completely absent/fictional).So where do we see the slow gradation of micro-accumulation? Only in evo-textbooks, and coming out of the mouths of evolutionists.So in my opinion, the question isn't, "have we any reason to believe there is a barrier to evolution?" as though it has proven itself to invent lungs, brains and eyes. The true question is; "is there a reason to believe evolution is an unlimited, creative designer with more brains than things with brains despite it having no intelligence, because we borrow it's designs when our brains can't come up with the answer? (biomimetics)"THAT is the correct logical question, whether all the evolutionists here protest it or not, Watson. My answer is, that it is an insult to God's intelligence to pretend evolution would have such abilities of intelligence. It breaks the law of non-contradiction for a non-intelligence being more intelligent than intelligence.No silly person can convince me that the designs I see in nature, created themselves because a fool came up with the idea, and all of the atheists jumped on that idea because it was the intellectual fodderizer of their atheism. It's obvious, that God created the universe. Obvious. I mean it's the answer that sits under your nose. Just go and look at a butterfly or a tree, if you can convince yourself it is not miraculous, you have some fundamental and sinful defect of the heart and need to seek the healing of that stone thing that could light a match. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.