Quote:

I don't have the study off hand, but its been suggested that even in typical circumstances, the gray moths are only slightly less fit than the light moths. So it stands to reason that they could have existed before the melanic explosion



I also don't have the study off hand; according to what I've read both the "Aa" and "AA" moths are dark grey. But even if the "Aa" moths were a lighter gray, it would still have been a selection disadvantage. Remember that the color change happened within decades, so the selection pressure must be very high. Therefore it is very unlikely that gray moths existed all the time before the industrial revolution (except for a few that were created from time to time by a mutation).

Quote:

3). Peppered moths existed as predominantly light (non-melanic) before the industrial revolution. After the revolution, soot built up on the bark of trees causing the lighter moths to become easy prey for birds. Shortly after the soot began to appear, a melanic phenotype began to quickly become dominant. This is excellent evidence of natural selection in action.


The third example is the best way to present it.



While I seldom have reason to agree to you in this discussion, here you're right: Of the three examples you've presented this is the best.

Quote:

There's little to no information on exactly what's happening (evolutionists are more excited about discrediting creationists), and since this would be the lone example of new data being written, its safe to assume that it isn't the lone example...that it isn't the exception, but rather that its part of the rule.



It is your presupposition that the peppered moth is a lone example of new data being written (or not). Science says: It is one of many examples.

But I think we're back to square one meanwhile. It all comes down to the a basic disagreement on mutations. We both agree that mutations exist, and that they change, duplicate, insert, or skip nucleotide sequences in a random way.

Sciences says: Mutations can remove or create features. For probability reasons, a mutation is much more likely to remove a feature than to create a new feature.

Creationism says: Mutations can only remove features. The few beneficial mutations that we can observe in our lifetime or in a lab aren't real mutations and must be explained otherwise.

I think this is the basic point where faith enters the discussion. If you admit that mutations change the nucleotid sequence, then there is no logical reason for denying that they can add new features. The only logical reason I can imagine is saving creationism.

Consider the following example. You have a book, and are copying, adding, removing, and changing letters at random. In most cases the modifications will make a sentence unreadable (a feature disappears). However in a few cases a sentence will get a new meaning (a new feature is created).

Somewhere in the middle of this thread I estimated the probability for this - thus the time of 100,000 years for the developing of a major new feature. This time depends only on two factors: the mutation rate and the required length of the new nucleotide sequence.

There is no mechanism in nature that filters out "beneficial" mutations. We do not know yet exactly which nucleotid sequences in the DNA are responsible for which features. But we do know how the DNA is built and how mutations work. It all comes down to basic math.

By denying the possibility of beneficial mutations, you don't reject only evolution - you reject also mathematics.