Except for the fact that polyploidy is not looked upon as a viable option to create the complexity of life today.
Except, of course, for the fact that it is. We've actually encouraged polyploidy events to create new species of plants and it was a driving force in the evolution of most flowering plants and even some animals.
You know, your assertions would probably have more of an effect if they weren't nearly always completely wrong.
In the case of the beneficial mutation assertion, delving deeper into the mechanisms at play we find that beneficial outcomes do not automatically surmount to the type of pattern which would be required to create complex structures.
We've already observed beneficial mutations occurring, and we've already observed neutral mutations that are then co-opted into later beneficial mutations. And we've observed these mutations result in new traits which allow certain populations to out-reproduce populations without these novel traits. That is all the ToE requires.
Merely superficial compared to the in depth study showing that loss of function mutations dominate adaptation and a gain-of-function mutation would be an attempt at balancing the mounting deficit being created by loss-of-function mutation.
Curiously, the people who actually study this (you know, those pesky biologists and such) completely disagree. In fact, they not only postulate but have also documented this thing called natural selection which promotes the rare beneficial mutation and discourages harmful mutations.
Evolution is not simply adaptation; evolution is not simply selection - evolution is the process of adaptation
and selection. Until you can understand the theory you will be unable to coherently criticize it.
So while Darwinists have cited beneficial mutations as the mechanism responsible for the creation of life today, what they have done is confined the proposed mechanism to a definition which outlines an inconsequential phenomena thus diminishing and ultimately casting out that explanation.
That would be complete baloney. Mutations shuffle nucleotide sequences, on a genetic level the only difference between one organism and another is the sequence of nucleotides in their dna. Proposing that the mechanism responsible for varying genomes is the thing we observe varying dna is hardly "inconsequential".
It's the same thing with speciation. Though it revolves around the definition of a mechanism which supposedly contributes to the complexity of life , by attributing it to a phenomenon like polyploidy, which does practically nothing in terms of adaptation-mutation-increase in complexity,
I suggest you re-read my post as you seem to think that polyploidy is not a form of mutation, being able to spread more rapidly is not a beneficial adaptation, and that doubling the chromosomes of an organism is not an increase in complexity. Needless to say, this isn't exactly an unstoppable steam-roller of logic you're driving.
speciation, which now means a change where practically nothing happens, can be relegated by definition.
If you don't like the meaning of a certain word then stop using it.
Lurker