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.



You have a point here. I just want to make the following objection:

The fitness of insularia was estimated in recent years after the decrease of industrial pollution. The trees are brighter, but probably not so bright as they were before, due to rest pollution. Therefore it is quite likely that the fitness of insularia is now higher than it was before the industrial revolution.

Anyway, I won't insist of the peppered moth being a proof for a beneficial mutation (at least unless I happen to find some study with some other information). So let's that be just a proof of natural selection.

Quote:

But, its not just the probability of a beneficial mutation occuring that is a problem. There are other huge hurdles it must overcome.



Yes, this is the essential question: which hurdles?

Creationism requires some hurdles to prevent beneficial mutations, otherwise probability would dictate that they happen. So what hurdles should that be?

Quote:

What is worrisome is that, somehow the loss of HDLs is being considered evolution, or at least proof that creation is flawed. Our bodies are able to regularly take in anti-oxidants. We hardly need mutations to take advantage of them, and really if we were taking in anti-oxidants like we should be, coupled with our original better programming of the ability to make HDLs we would be better off. Now these people, instead of having the potential of a 'one-two punch' of anti-oxidants and HDLs, just have anti-oxidants. Great. Let's bring on some more evolution!



If I understand you right, you're denying that the mutation is beneficial because anti-oxidants, rather than produced in the body as through this mutation, can also be eaten.

I don't think that members of that mutated family would agree to you. The body-produced antioxidant is obviously a lot more effective than having HDLs plus eating dietary supplements. Besides, even today, and certainly in the past, people had to eat what they get, and be glad that they get anything. You are not seriously telling me that cave dwellers 30,000 years ago, with an average life span of 18 years, lived on a healthy diet with antioxidants?

But even this is beside the point. What we have here is a new feature - just what creationists think can't ever happen. A modified apoA-I protein, unknown before, comes into existence - adding a new allele to the human gene pool. It's not the loss of the HDL producing proteine that matters here. HDL is unnecessary when you have that mutation. It's the fact that this is definitely a mutation - not a gene shift - that has an observable and positive effect on the species and increases the gene pool information.

It is estimated that organisms like humans accumulate between one and six effective mutations per replication. Most lead to the loss of some proteines, but some, as you see, lead to the creation of something completely new.