Conflicts with the Belief in Common Ancestry: Mutation

Is mutation the mechanism for gene creation, speciation, and common ancestry?

Mutation.  This is the Great White Hope, that the belief in common ancestry rides on.

The belief:
Random mutations have produced all the variety and complexity we see today, beginning with a single cell.

This phenomenon has never been observed, cannot be repeated in rigorous laboratory conditions, flies in the face of observable science, yet is pitched as 'settled science!'

Does mutation 'create' genes?

No. It alters them, some neutral, and others deleteriously.   But there is no way a mutated gene can be called a 'New!' gene.  This is like wrecking your car, and calling it a 'New Car!'

E Coli

I reviewed the groundbreaking study that allegedly 'proves!' common ancestry here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/debatecreation/comments/ei3l8x/ecoli_proves_common_ancestry_studies_reviewed/

The ability to digest citrates, and mutate, does NOT indicate speciation, nor macro evolution.  It is an adaptation that ecoli was able to do, from inherent genetic abilities.  There is no indication of 'new genes!', or structural changes in the genome.   Ecoli remained ecoli, after over 66,000 generations, only adapting to micro climate conditions.   It is not proof, or evidence of, common ancestry.

Mutation is not the engine of gene creation like so many believe.  It is a deleterious process, that creates nothing.  The complex  features in living things cannot be explained by mutation..  the leap from a single celled amoeba to even a bacteria is untraceable and unexplainable by mutation.  The eye, flight, warm blood..  and countless variety in living organisms have no indication or evidence of being *caused* by mutation. There is nothing observable or repeatable, to compel a conclusion of mutation as an engine of increasing complexity.   It is a belief, with no empirical evidence.

The unbased belief in 'Mutation!' could not be the engine for common ancestry. There is no evidence that mutation caused legs, eyes, hearing, wings, warm bloodedness, or any trait or feature in living things. That is believed, only. Observation tells us that mutations are neutral, at best, or deleterious to the organism. It is not a creative power for complexity.

The sci fi imaginations of x-men, or other mutation based themes, project the possibility of this as an explanation for complexity, but there is no evidence that it can, much less did, happen.

An adaptation, or variety, is something that is ALREADY THERE, in the parent stock, and is 'selected', by human or natural means, to survive.

A mutation only alters an existing trait, (or gene, exactly). It is not a selective process, but a deleterious one, that degrades the organism in almost every case.

Ecoli, adapting to digest citrates, is not evidence for common ancestry. It only shows the adaptability of this unique organism. It is not becoming anything else, or changing its genomic architecture.  It is still ecoli.

The belief in common ancestry completely relies on the wishful thinking of mutation,  as the engine for complexity and variability.  There is  no credible evidence of 'gene creation!' in any study to date. Mutations are not, 'new genes!' Selection, acting on existing variability, does not indicate new genes. Traits, variability, fantastically complex features.. hearing, seeing, flight, intelligence.. almost every trait known in the animal and plant kingdom have no empirical source. The belief in mutation, as a mechanism of increasing complexity has no scientific basis.   It is a religious belief, only.