Quote:

However you don't need the peppered moth to prove mutations. Besides nature examples like the cave fish that's definitely a mutation, both harmful and helpful mutations have been observed a thousand times in the laboratory, and it would be absurd to deny them.

Right, it is absurd to deny them, and the example you gave is a perfect example indeed. What happens is that a virus is normally able to attach itself to a cell receptor, ribosome or other type of organelle. A mutation will misshape the ribosome so that the virus can no longer attach itself--hence the cells can coexist with the virus, they develop immunity.

However, beneficial mutation does not equal creative mutation. Your example would be better if it showed that a cell other than e.coli had evolved, but as it stands there were just small shifts in the folding patterns of proteins does not constitute the generation of a new type of functionality. Simply put: neutrality does not equal functionality.

There has never been anything new created via mutation, only mishapen monstrosities have been produced. It is only a good cooincidence that these monstrosities will not carry virii because of their twisted shapes. In the vast majority of cases, mutation is found to harm the organisms it resides in.

Quote:

- it's justified to mention this effect in school books as evidence for evolution.


I think both creationists and evolutionists need to think OUTSIDE the box on this one. In my opinion neither creation NOR evolution should be taught in high schools. The reason is that it is such a vast subject with such far reaching consequences. IE, a high school student is a little young to be faced with the big questions of God and origins in high school and shouldnt be given more than the most basic overview of creation vs. evolution. There are plenty of subjects that can be studied within biology, chemistry and physics that do not need to drag evolutionary or creationistic theories into the fray.

About the peppered moth: it was a farce anyway. Common logic dictates that the moths couldnt have gotten eaten during the day anyway, moths are nocturnal and noone really knows where they go during the day. Thus birds would not have eaten them because birds hunt in the day, thus natural selection wouldnt have occured. The camoflauge of dark dirty trees or lighter ones wouldnt have mattered at night time either.

The birds that were filmed eating these moths were eating moths which were placed on the trees by experimenters. They even had to place the moths on the hoods of cars to warm them out of their groggy states. For one documentary the moths had to be pinned to the trees..