You may pontificate all you want but just give us ONE scenario
Since you are still unable to provide just ONE genetic scenario that articulates how mutations continuously build on each other to make more complex materials, we'll assume you haven't got a clue.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
I assumed a greater understanding of genetics, mutations and evolution on your part, that is why my illustration does not make sense to you.
I will try to clear up a couple of issues for you, however please understand that it is not my job to make creationists understand basic science. And it gets frustrating when people would rather remain ignorant than learn. I am happy to discuss these issues with people who bring with them a desire to learn. I get frustrated with people who don't understand the basics of the theory, then claim that the theory does not make sense and must be fallacious.
Yes, getting any useful mutation IS like winning the genetic lottery. It may seem to you like winning the lotter is not very probable, but in fact many people do indeed win the lotter EVERY DAY. The fact that winning the lottery is unlikely does not mean that it doesn't happen. It does happen. Every day. The process of evolution is very slow. But do yourself a favor and find out how many people have won the lottery in just the last 10 years. And then consider that the earth is several billion years old.
As for the "sticker" scenario, what you have presented is not in any way related to what I have presented. Getting a sticker stuck in your toe is not a phenomenon that is analogous to the action of mechanically gated ion channels. In fact, they are so unrelated that I don't really know where to begin this. In my scenario I assumed that a signaling apparatus was already in place. I assumed that membrane potentials already existed. I assumed that a mechanism for signal transduction already existed. I assumed that neurotransmitters already existed. I thought it was pretty clear that I was presenting a possible EVOLUTIONARY scenario, not an ORIGINS scenario. In fact, I wrote, "What did these mechanically gated ion channels originally evolve from? I'm not sure that answer is known yet." There is certainly a wealth of scientific knowledge relating to the most primitive sensing devices in much less complex organisms than humans, so feel free to spend some time with PubMed. The original series of questions that Julie presented related to (1) what the first sensing device was and (2, 3, and 4) how this primitive device evolved into an ear. I said that I don't know the answer to the first question (although it is a tremendously interesting question), and that the following 3 questions demonstrated a severe lack of understanding of the basics of evolution, which is why I presented the scenario that I did. For the tenth or so time, I did not present that scenario as fact; reread my post. Or maybe read it for the first time, as the case may be. I presented it as an illustration to demonstrate some basics, which Julie still refuses to comprehend.
"The last point that shows a lack of the basic fundmentals of evolutionary process is that even if your scenario happened, there is absolutely no mechanism for rebuilding your "sensor" in future generations."
Here is where I assumed a basic knowledge of genetics and evolution. You have confused germ line mutation with somatic mutation. Please just go to Wikipedia and read the entry for "mutation". I never implied that the changes I described would occur over the course of a single lifetime, and this fact is too obvious to require mention to anyone with even a cursory understanding of evolution, which I assumed on your part on on Julie's part. She is, after all, running a website in which evolution is the sole subject. There are a variety of mechanisms for germ line mutation. Surprise me and read up and tell ME something I don't already know.
As for your comment, "I give you much credit for the attempt", don't flatter yourself, I don't need your patronage. My proposal did not start with arrogance. However, people who refuse to learn or acknowledge their lack of understanding bother me. And you are only fooling yourself if you think that religion does not thrive on ignorance. Furthermore, while some great scholars may have believed in god (however you define that), very, very very few (i.e. think about your lottery analogy) believe that the theory of evolution is wrong.