Atheist Evolutionists, how does random mutations followed by natural selection bring about complexity in dependable organ systems?

I'd just like to say that mutations are bad. They are mistakes in the DNA. They are hailed as just one the mechanisms behind Macroevolution. We as Young Earth Creationists believe that mutations are generally bad, because they are, they can and do cause bad things to happen like illnesses and disorders.

So, whilst atheists hail mutations, which are harmful, as this great and magnificent thing, in actuality they are very bad as they are literally mistakes in one's DNA. So, you could say that evolutionists believe that we evolved from mistakes, or at least one of the mechanisms behind our supposed evolutionary past was due to a harmful and often very, very bad mistake.

how does asking the wrong people to explain something you don't want to believe in help you. the following may might

1) atheist = has seen no proof of god

2) scientist = person qualified in the investigation of natural phenomena

3) evolutionist scientist = qualified in the theory of evolution

not all 1 are 2 and 3

not all 2 or 3 are 1

4) theist = person with invisible friend

some 4 are 2 and 3 but not 1

i'm sure there are far too many concepts there for you but the simple answer is

most 1 and some 4 got educated

you fall in to group 5

You could go to a library and find out.

Or you could ask biology questions of people who aren't biologists, and smugly enjoy your deliberate deceit when they don't have an answer that satisfies you.

Are you forgetting the fish-lizard species of amphibians?

"but there are no fossils to show this" Why do you presume that? You obviously haven't looked. May I suggest you read "The Story of Life in 25 Fossils" by Donald R Prothero. In his chapter "Fish out of Water: The origin of amphibians" he explains the evolution of air breathing amphibians with lungs from fish that extracted oxygen through their gills. The complete process is there in the fossils.

The line that led to ray finned fish emerged about 500 million years ago. There is a complete line-up of fossils over the next 150 million years showing the development of amphibians with lungs and legs from fish with neither. The fossils, in order, are Coelacanth, lungfish, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Elginerpeton, Ventastega, Metaxygnathus, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Icthyostega, Hynerpeton, Greerpeton and then amphibians. Tiktaalik was predicted and when rocks of the right age, between 380 and 363 million years old on Ellesmere Island in Canada were examined, Tiktaalik was discovered fitting neatly in before Acanthostega.

Read Prothero, it is a fascinating book and easy to read.

Watch this -

evolution in action.

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/mudskipp...

Easy.

Naturally occurring mutations have such a small impact on the physiology of any particular individual that function and operation of organs and systems is not affected.

About the same level of change as the difference between you and your father.

There is no such thing as a step-change from gills to lungs.

Such a change would occur by almost immeasurable changes over millions of generations.

Oh, and you are lying about there not being any fossils with both gills and lungs.

http://inhabitat.com/ancient-human-sized-fish-brea...

The transformation of gills to air breathing lungs happens even sometimes in ONE species lifetime. Take the newt and the frog. They are born with gills and later develop lungs. It's not that hard to imagine.

Also, this has nothing to do with atheism.