Evidence for macro-evolution

[sfs]

The selected random mutations in dogs highlight the point about degradation through mutation, mutations destroy functions- a poodle has floppy ears because the specific genes needed to keep them erect ( more advantageous in the wild) have been damaged.
Similarly you need to take it to the groomer because the genes regulating hair length were destroyed (and this would kill the dog in the wild)

Some functional mutations damage genes or their expression. Others don't. For example, in dog breeds, mutations that change the number or content of tandem repeats make big contributions to the morphology of different breeds (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0408118101), but most of these mutations don't cause the degradation of anything. They just change function.

In other words, your claim that functional mutations in evolution always degrade function is simply wrong.

 

[sfs]

mutations destroy a previously specified function.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they create a new function. Ignoring that reality won't make it go away.

I suppose you could measure it by the length of the sequence required for a specific protein for example. A modest one may be hundreds of nucleotides long with a precise arrangement required to meet its function, or any function for that matter. And we can quantify the mathematic probability of such a thing ever being created by random mutation, it ain't good.

Yeah, that's wrong, too. Random mutations can be observed to generate new functions at quite a respectable rate, we can observe closely related genes with different functions and reconstruct their origin in a gene duplication event as well as the mutations that led to a new function, and we can also identify the mutations that caused nonfunctional sequence to become functional in some species.

All of which is to say that we have very good evidence that random mutations can create new genes, can generate new molecular functions for existing or duplicated genes, and can generate new, markedly diverged phenotypes. So what exactly is it that you think mutations can't do?