Mutations within a given species isn't what we commonly refer to when we speak of Evolution.
Sorry, you've been misled. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time. If you don't even know what it is, how do you expect to be able to fight it?
We have not observed one species evolving into another species.
You've been misled about that, too. Even your fellow creationists know better. From "Answers in Genesis":
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species.1 According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859, Darwin set out to demolish this widespread view.
Darwin showed how the fixity of species ran counter to all the evidence he had been collecting for twenty years. His book managed to convince most scientists that species were not fixed or unchangeable. In the process, the church was proved wrong, with tragic consequences.
Do Species Change?
From the Institute for Creation Research:
Reproductive isolation can occur in a number of ways and result in speciation from one kind of animal through events that isolate one variation (species) from another. Many of these isolation events have been identified and are described as behavioral isolation, ecological isolation, and geographical isolation, to name a few.
Speciation and the Animals on the Ark
Mutations within a given species do not prove the kind of macro-evolution that I am referring to.
No, that's wrong. As you now realize, even your fellow YE creationists know better. You seem to be as ignorant of creationism as you are of science.
Or possibly, you've confused the causes of evolution, such as mutation and natural selection, with evolution. Or confused consequences of evolution,such as common descent, with evolution.
No, I am not confusing anything at all. The mutations we observe have to do with adapting to an particular environment. Horses have changed over millennia, but they are still horses.
No, that's wrong, too. Hyracotherium isn't a horse. It lacks pretty much everything that separates horses from other ungulates today, and yet it's part of a long chain of gradual changes that lead to horses. That's why Dr. Wise, your fellow YE creationist, says that it's part of the "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
(thinks individual organisms evolve)
Barbarian explains:
Individuals don't evolve populations evolve.
Populations are made up of individuals .
You still don't get it. No individual organism evolves. Only populations evolve.
Barbarian observes:
It is true that things like the evolution of the vertebrate or cephalopod eye, or DNA demonstrate the immense wisdom of a Creator wise and powerful enough to make a world in which such things come about in fulfillment of His will. And in doing so, it brings glory to the Creator.
Yep. Most YE creationists are unwilling to let God be that wise and powerful, but He's not obligated to have the limitations you'd like to put on Him.
Evolution as presented by evolutionists occurs without anyone, any personality to help it along.
Pretty much like gravity, or weather or other natural phenomena. Your problem, is you can't see how God can use nature to do His will. But again, He's not constrained by your expectations.
(Barbarian shows the origins of YE creationism)
Ellen White (1827-1915) was a prophetess whose writings have been widely translated. She experienced the “Great Disappointment” on October 22, 1844, when Jesus failed to appear as predicted by William Miller, the leader of her sect. Shortly after, she began receiving visions and was soon at the heart of a new branch ofChristianity that now boasts more than 14 million followers in 200 countries. Her literary output exceeded 5,000 articles and 40 books. Among White’s influential writings is Patriarchs and Prophets in her series “Conflict of the Ages,” first published in1890. In this text White offers an expanded vision of Bible stories such as the Genesis creation accounts, the Fall, and Noah’s great flood. In a curious twist of history, modern young-earth creationism can be traced to her visionary expansion of the Genesis flood narrative. The Origin of Flood Geology By mid-nineteenthcentury, when White’s visions began, geologists, almost all of them Bible-believing Christians, had concluded that Noah’s flood was confined to the mid-East. Its effects had been largely erased over time. This interpretation of the story, which Hebrew scholars have determined is a faithful interpretation of Genesis, was uncontroversial and accepted by most educated Christians.
...
White’s interpretation of the biblical narratives attracted little interest outside Adventist circles, but within the Adventist tradition her writings acquired a stature comparable to Scripture. Her interpretation of the Flood became widely known outside Adventistcircles through the writings of George McCready Price (1870-1963). A self-taught geologist with limited education beyond high school, Price was a gifted writer, amateur scientist, and tireless crusader in the cause of anti-evolution. His 723-page The New Geology,2published in 1923, was catapulted into relevance by William Jennings Bryan, who prosecuted John Scopes at the famous trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. But even Bryan, the most important anti-evolutionist of the first half of the twentiethcentury was not a young-earth creationist, seeing no reason to interpret the Genesis creation account as taking place over a literal seven-day week. Because these creationist ideas were basically limited to Seventh-day Adventist biblical interpretation, most Christians outside that group paid no attention to them, and many were fine with the idea that evolution was simply God’s method of creation. A few decades later, however, all this would change when respected fundamentalist scholars John Whitcomb and HenryMorris joined forces to move Price’s ideas from Adventism to mainstream Evangelicalism. They co-authored The Genesis Flood, the book that launched the modern creationist movement and convinced millions of Christians to accept White’s vision of earth history. But what is not widely known, because the authors of The Genesis Flood left it out of their book, is that the arguments in the book are really just Price’s arguments, updated to provide a more scientific presentation.
https://biologos.org/files/modules/giberson-scholarly-essay-1-1.pdf
I am not buying your "documentation."
Doesn't matter. Reality isn't subject to your denial.
