Your ability to point out such details as these is much appreciated. Isn't "evolution by mutation" a fabrication to hide the fact that no living creature has yet to be observed "evolving?" I'm not sure whether to count it as sad or comical to see so many things fabricated to fit a theory.
I know what's comical. The fact that you think it's a simple thing to "observe" evolution. That a big sign will pop up and let us know... Or how about the fact that you think evolution is so comical but you follow a theory that has no evidence and was created 2,000 years ago by wandering desert nomads without degrees from Ivy league institutions.
Another fan of proof by repetition? Of course things have been observed evolving, as most creationists have by now acceded to, while claiming that macro-evolution has not been directly observed, which is true, but not devastating as arguments go. No one's ever see a star go through all the stages of stellar evolution--do you reject astronomy on that basis? No one's ever seen a continent drift--do you reject modern geology on that basis?
Indeed it is. The complexity and interrelatedness of organisms speaks against transformation by mutations.