First of all you dont know what your talking about on the peppered moth issue, there were no observations made there for natural selection, genetic shifting, mutation or otherwise. I already pointed the utter stupidity of the "observations" to begin with. If your familiar with the study at all, youd know that the moths were placed there by experimenters during the day, as the moths naturally found other places to go during the night. The moths were too groggy to use their real survival mechanism which was to simply fly away. And there were not owls or bats feeding on them in the experiments as phemox said, they were normal birds. So the whole experiment was a joke to begin with.

Quote:

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



We deny nothing, you deny the nose on your face it it would help prove God doesnt exist, this is because you cannot imagine yourself accountable to a higher being, and you think yourself to be a God.

Quote:

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.



Do you not know the meaning of the English word "beneficial"? the mutation we observe is beneficial because it allows bacteria to coexist with virus. A mutation needs to create a NEW PROTEIN to give you positive, creative mutation. Show me a new protein, one with completely new funtionality. Then you have the beginnings of evolution. The second example you showed was just an existing protein which mutated.

Its amazing how little you understand about these processes, and how lost you people become without a verbatim talkorigins link support you.

Quote:

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) or create an unreadable new sentence (nothing happens). However in a few cases a sentence will get a new meaning (a new feature is created).


Dream on, whos rejecting math now? The chances for a monkey typeing just one correct 9 letter word, "evolution" would be 9^26 (with 9 letter in "evolution and 26 letters in the alphabet) How many trillion attempts would it take the monkey to make one word is a lot. Secondly, if the monkey were to try to make a specific sentence 100 characters long you would need like 100^26. Even if you had a billion monkeys typeing one letter per second you could never come up with such a sentence in a million years.

Quote:

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.



You estimated wrong. The new feature(whatever thats supposed to be) would also depend upon the lifespans of the creatures which are interbreeding, You might have signs showing that evolution took 100,000 years between species which live to be 20 years old, but how about drosphilia melanogaster, how about gypsy moths, it would be easy to approximate the same period of 100000 years into a microcosm of species which live for very short periods.

Goldschmidt bred over a million generations of gypsy moths only to come up with more gypsy moths. Obviously, in the light of these experiments, evolution cannot occur gradually, protein by protein, molecule by molecule given the relatively SHORT time period between major types of creatures.

Quote:

If you believe in creationism, you have to conclude that nature here fixed one of God's flaws in the human design.

The only flaw in God's design is that He hasnt made a mechanism to exterminate all those who disagree with me. (Just kidding) As a matter of fact it is a good thing I am not God...