A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

You're looking at it wrong. The DNA is already organized. Mutation is just a re- organization.You're asking the equivalent of, "How can the letters in a sentence be re-arranged to form a different sentence?" Very easily. Very naturally.

And some of them don't. Unless you can guarantee that EVERY mutation will be selected out - and of course you can't - you can't prevent evolution.

A variation in the genome IS a change in the genome.

Yup.

It's actually a triple play: rodent to ungulate to whale.The problem with trying to breed that change is that we don't know all of the steps along the way. If you walk from New York to San Francisco, we know you stopped at Detroit and Chicago and St. Louis and Denver because we have time-stamped pictures of you in each of those places. But we don't know the exact route that you took from New York to Detroit or from St. Louis to Denver, etc. We do know that you went from New York to San Francisco.

Do you understand the difference between "rare" and "non-existent"? You seem to keep saying that evolution by beneficial mutation is "impossible" when the truth is that even you understand that it's rare. I think everybody here agrees that it's rare but like lottery wins, it does happen..

So you haven't even looked at the evidence that was presented but you're perfectly ready to declare that there is none.

Creationism doesn't require genetics at all. For that matter, it doesn't even require biology.I read a story once about a man who found a snake in his bathtub. Every time he got into the tub, the snake would be there but when he let the water out, it was gone. Finally, after many tries, he managed to catch it and kill it. When he took it to a lab to have it dissected, it had no internal organs, no internal structure at all.It turned out that it was created by his imagination; since he didn't know anything about the internals of a snake, he couldn't imagine them or create them.That's creationism all over - no need for internal organs at all. God did it.

It is interesting that you want to leave God out of creationism (and out of the Flood too, for that matter). But what's the point of your crank ideas if God and miracles are not involved?

But you keep admiting that you can't explain the scientific facts. And now you're saying that you don't even have to explain the scientific facts. That's as unscientific as you could possibly get. Why make that distinction? Why have God do the miracle of creation, then stop doing miracles, then at some later date presumably start doing miracles again?Your attempts at "explanations" are laughably, pitifully bad, full of contradictions and ignorance. Why not just let your God do a miracle here or there?

You are terrifically confused, but aggressively sure you are right about what you're wrong about. The facts are relevant, period. If you have no explanation of the facts, you have no explanation. You can't just handwave away the facts that you can't explain. But it isn't, because you refuse to even try to explain the natural events. I, for one, know very little about evolution; I am certainly not "enveloped" in it. I'm more or less at the stage where Darwin was when he said to himself, "The Bible story doesn't explain this."I criticize creationism on it's own lack of merit, not because I'm married to evolution. Creationists are the ones who are making the Bible story into a bigger mess than it needs to be.

Facts do not "derive from" the ToE. Facts are observations of reality. You have it backwards. If you your model can not explain the facts, it is your model that is irrelevant. You do if you want to be taken seriously scientifically.With this latest tactic of yours, you are divorcing yourself entirely from any pretense of being scientific.

What would be an incentive for you to learn? Telling you you're right?

Everybody needs to learn more. You, in particular, have admitted many times that there are questions you can't answer. Or you just don't respond. That's not a sign that you're learning anything.