(i) we DO have a 'historical record', in the mtDNA of some families. Canidae, which has been used extensively in this thread, is an example of this record, & the sequence of events in the micro evolution of the variety we see today. Perhaps some specific canid traits have been lost to extinction, as in other genetic 'families', but there were still enough to produce the wide variety of canids we see today.
(ii)Speculation that mutation 'creates' genetic variability, such as within canidae, is flawed. There were too many traits in too short a time, for mutation & time to have 'created' them. The study i posted earlier stated this clearly. AND, there is NO RECORD of any traits being 'created' by mutation.. that is merely asserted. The slight variations from adaptation from e.coli & other bacteria are unique to bacteria, & their distinct genetic makeup.. a circular strand of dna, & even then, all you have are e.coli. They are not becoming anything else, even after millions of generations. They are clearly LOCKED into a genetic pattern. They can vary WITHIN the parameters of their DNA, but they do not add genes, add chromosome pairs, or become different organisms.
(iii)Mutations do not do as you believe. They are not the mechanism for 'creating' new genes. They merely alter old ones, & not for the better, for the most part. It is only in certain organisms, such as e.coli that have a broader adaptability in their environment. Others, such as saber toothed cats, or wooly mammoths, lacked this adaptability, & went extinct. In fact, the entire record of extinction is the story of DEvolution, not evolution. As traits became narrowed in the family tree, those that could not adapt to changing environmental pressures died off. If they lacked the adaptability to use existing traits necessary to survive, they died. They did not conjure up new traits, or mutate themselves at will.
Time & mutation is an imaginary process for 'creating' traits. This cannot be observed or repeated, yet it is hailed as the source of life & the origin of species.
The 'accumulated small changes add up to big ones' is the central flaw of evolution. It is assumed, not observed, & the science of genetics is making that assumption seem crazier every day.
It is the very first point of the OP, & this flaw has not been addressed, but ignored & reasserted. That is not a scientific argument, but a political one, where bluff & propaganda is used to promote a mythical belief.
- - - Updated - - -False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.
But i cannot see the ToE lasting for much longer. It has been the defacto naturalistic view for over 100 yrs, usurping spontaneous generation, which lasted for centuries, as the naturalistic 'theory' of origins. The hard science of genetics is a big nail in the coffin, for the ToE.. it is coasting on 19th century arguments & charts, that do not reflect the current knowledge about genetics, & it completely depends on logical fallacies for it support. There is NO SCIENCE to back the ToE, as the 'origin of species'.
It DOES matter to me, 'what the truth is'. As a theist, i do not care WHAT the mechanism 'was' or 'is' for HOW living things came about. Scientists for centuries have sought to understand 'what God hath wrought', & have peered deeply into the inner workings of God's creation, searching for a glimpse into the divine Cause. If it was evolution, fine.. i would accept that as the mechanism, just as i accept newton's theory of gravity, the attractions of mass, relativity, & quantum physics. But i see the holes & numerous serious flaws in the ToE, & cannot accept it as a valid explanation for origins. I don't know HOW it happened, either, & i am a seeker for this mystery. Maybe, some real mechanism will be discovered, that demonstrates the ability to change genetic structure, or create new genes, or add chromosomes.. but that seems unlikely, unless there is an event based change, or we go to the '2001 space odyssey' theory, with special beamed rays affecting the changes in short time periods. There are a lot of different imaginations about origins.. one or more might even have truth, or partial truth to them. But as science, we have methodology to adhere to. We cannot blend imagination with facts, & declare them the same.
It is merely wishful thinking, masked in statistical probability. But to calculate probability, you have to have some parameters to go by. Something that is observably impossible cannot be calculated, as a probability. It would not matter how many times you jumped up & down, to reach the moon. Unless you can show this as a physical, objective possibility, declaring, 'if you do it over enough time, anything is possible!' still cannot make the impossible, possible. It is an appeal to magic, as you noted.4. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.
Canidae, which was examined earlier in this thread, is different. I have not heard of any canids not able to reproduce with each other. Foxes, coyotes, wolves, dingos, etc.. all are canids, carry the mtDNA to show a common ancestor, & they have not locked themselves out in reproductive isolation. Why? I don't think we know, yet. It could be that we will discover 'why?', someday, as continued advances in genetics helps us explain the nature of living things. But for now, we don't know why some felids or equids can become reproductively isolated. Some fruit flies have been followed & branched out in trees until some strains have become reproductively isolated from other strains. It is possible that this could happen with humans, too, but for now, we remain the same species, able to reproduce with all other human 'strains'.
But to label a reproductively isolated child branch a 'new species!' is a bit of poetic license. It is only by definition. Most of the time, the new 'species' is just a variation of the old one, but narrowed down to such restrictive trait choices that it has lost the ability to procreate with distant cousins. They have the same genetic makeup, the same chromosome pairs, & share MOST of the same morphology. IOW, you have 'micro' evolution within the family tree branches, such as with canids, felids, equids, etc. But there is nothing to indicate 'macro' evolution between such trees. We can follow the mtDNA in each tree, but there is nothing to indicate any descendancy or ancestry between the various trees.. there is nothing to indicate a common ancestor with canids & felids, for example, other than an imaginative drawing.
So you don't really have 'mixed species'. You have some family trees branching out to reproductive isolation from other branches, & some sterile offspring if those branches are bred. it indicates descendancy, & the genetic architecture is nearly identical. But you cannot put a canid & a felid together.. they will fight like cats & dogs.