Quote:

---

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:

---

We have estimated the fitness of insularia, compared with the other two morphs, for several data sets. As a rule its fitness lies between that of carbonaria and typical, but nearer to typical and sometimes very close to it.[...]The results suggest that insularia may continue polymorphic while carbonaria is likely to disappear.

Quote:

---

Wait a minute! Isn't that exactly what I said probably happened? I believe that black moths existed at creation (much like the many other UK moths) and that selection pressure probably drove them out. However, its likely that melanic moths were 'hidden' in intermediate insularia moths. I'm not saying this proves that I'm right. It just proves that its a likely conclusion to make.

Furthermore, I still am waiting to hear a different explanation besides loss of control over its melanic pattern. Because even if I'm wrong, I'm still probably right.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00360.x

Quote:

---

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.

---

All creationists ask for is a bit of fairness.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Actually, my real conclusion on the possibility of mutation is that it didn't even have to right anything new. Its probable that it mutated towards black without the need to write new information. I can't back this up, but why would it have to write melanic data, when it already has melanic data? It is peppered after all.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Yeah, that's where we're at.

Quote:

---

The few beneficial mutations that we can observe in our lifetime or in a lab aren't real mutations and must be explained otherwise.

---

We would say that they are mutations, but we would say that when you understand exactly what is being affected, you realize why even beneficial mutations have nothing to do with evolution. Maybe 'dead end' evolution. Sometimes bad things can happen for good purposes. If it becomes harder for the cell membrane to transport materials, the germ might not take in antibiotics, but it will have a harder time attaining the material it needs to survive. Which normally would make it less fit. And once it becomes immune, then in general it makes it less fit. Of course, it doesn't kill it outright, so future generations are able to survive and thrive. But on the genetic level, nothing new was written. All modern examples of beneficial mutations fall under this general definition. Except maybe that one you quoted, but I haven't had time to digest it very well.

Quote:

---

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.

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). However in a few cases a sentence will get a new meaning (a new feature is created).

---

Now we're starting to get into what is quickly becoming my home terf. However, I'm not going to bother debating you on this just yet. But, its not just the probability of a beneficial mutation occuring that is a problem. There are other huge hurdles it must overcome.

Quote:

---

certainly not creationists, most of whom dont know even basic science methods.

---

This is coming from the person who referenced the logical pothole that the first single celled organisms lived off cell 'power plants' that themselves lived symbiotically with larger creatures or whatever nonsense that was. Leave the discussion to the adults.

Quote:

---

This is because DNA/genetic research clearly shows a relationship between the various species of lifeforms on Earth. So if we deny that they ARE in fact related, we must then reject all the genetic data and analysis. This is a tall order.

---

No we don't. But the matter of DNA similarity is merely coincidental to creation. Monkeys have 90% or so DNA in common with us (depending on who you ask), yet they only have 29% of their proteins in common with us. So, if this non-coding DNA has so much in common with us, then I'm really not concerned because what explains our dissimilarities is the coding DNA.

But again, if you write three different programs in c-script that require a similar algorithm that might do slightly different things, chances are most of the code is going to look the same for that algorithm in spite of the small differences. But you created it, so why do you automatically assume that similarity invokes evolution? Well...let's not even get down that road...

Quote:

---

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

---

I'll have to pick this apart later. Doesn't really concern me.

Quote:

---

that they distribute special 'creationist math' books in church.

---

Creationism and evolution aren't discussed in church.

Until later, I'm probably done for the night.