“In lay terms, the changes that occur in a given species are sometimes called "micro evolution". There is no debate about micro evolution. Those changes to a species involve just rearranging the existing DNA in that species.”
>>It can sometimes also take the form of adding new DNA to that species, as the result of a gene duplication or insertion mutation, for example.
“The real evolution debate is about something else entirely: how is new DNA created from scratch, especially complex DNA such as is needed for some species ears, eyes, reproductive organs, etc.?”
>>There is no such debate other than in the minds of creationists, since natural mechanisms capable of resulting in the creation of new DNA not only are known to exist but are known to have been operative in creating new biological systems. The clotting cascade, for example, is the result of the duplication and subsequent mutations of previously existing gene homologs.
“It is the nature of such organs that they don't work at all until they are fully evolved, so how is such new DNA created?”
>>No, it isn’t the nature of such organs that they don’t work at all until fully evolved—you’re making the mistake of presuming that organs as they exist could never have existed in any form other than they currently display.
The eye is a good example of how intermediate stages, each functional but functioning different, each conferring increased fitness compared to no vision at all, could lead to a complex organ as the result of discrete evolutionary changes over time. See Don Lindsay’s summary at <link>
“If it is created through random chance, through accidental defects in the original DNA, how can random variations account for complex structures in higher species?”
>>First, evolution argues that organs AREN’T created through random chance, since selection with respect to environment operates in a non-random manner. Second, why are you characterizing an alteration in pre-existing DNA as a defect, rather than simply a change? Consider the receptor mutation that conferred a resistance to Bubonic plague and now confers resistance to AIDS—by what standard is that a defect, rather than an improvement?
“The complexitiy and sheer volume of DNA in say, a human, dwarfs that of many less complex species.”
>>Perhaps-did you have a point? Complexity doesn’t argue against evolution.
“Modern science has not identified any process by which such new DNA can be created by chance, or how a gene pool can be expanded through natural selection.”
>>Yes, science has. Gene duplication, as I’ve mentioned, will increase the size of the genome, and subsequent mutation of the duplicated gene may result in an allele that confers increased fitness, and if that increase is sufficiently great natural selection would then act to conserve that change. In a few generations the gene pool of the all members of that population may exhibit that expansion. This has been directly observed, by the way, in populations such as the Flavobacterium K-172, where a point insertion mutation increased the size of the genome by one thymidine base pair (resulting in the expression of a novel protein capable of digesting nylon).
“This is the "macro-evolution" debate.”
>>Again, there is no genuine debate. The mechanisms that result in evolutionary change at or below the level of the species are sufficient to explain evolutionary change at higher taxa. In fact, macro-evolution has been directly observed in populations of living organisms in the form of speciation events—new species populations arising by descent from previously existing ones.
“Secularists take on "faith" that such DNA must be created naturally, because their definition of science requires natural explanations for all phenomena observed in nature.”
>>No faith is necessary, since we have seen it happen and understand the mechanisms that result in the creation of new genetic alleles.
“Religious people take on "faith" that such complex DNA must be divinely created.”
>>That’s the first really accurate statement in your post.
