Quote:

Color change is along the same lines. They don't have the new color preprogrammed into them either. When flies lose pigment, its because the data that they derive their coloration from gets corrupted in much the same way as their eyes so they lose pigment.



The peppered moths actually gained pigment and did not lose it. And we do not know yet what exactly happens in their DNA - you seem to know more than all the scientists. Can you then explain what you mean with "corrupted" as opposed to "modified"?

Quote:

This is one example where it was a mutation (of preexisting DNA) actually. The bacteria Staphylococcus aureus already has an enzyme that can break down penecillin even if it isn't resistant. In this case, it became immune because a few mutants lost the ability to control the amount of enzyme produced. It was already in their data to limit this enzyme but that data either became corrupted or disappeared through mutation. However, it did not gain the ability out of nowhere. So this enzyme is over produced (at least more than normal), thus allowing it to survive a dose of penicillin.



This is only half true. Staphylococcus aureus originally did not produce that enzyme. It aquired the genes from another species, Staphylococcus sciuri. But the original form of these genes don't cause penicillin resistance either. In Staphylococcus aureus the aquired genes mutated into a new penicillin resistant form that didn't exist before. Only that mutated form then produced the enzyme in sufficient quantities.

Quote:

Mutation is the achilles heal of evolution. No one debates that it exists, but the problem is this question, "How useful is it for evolution?" Experimentation has showed that its only useful in damaging the order of DNA or at best being genetically neutral. You can write an equation to prove me wrong, but instead of using math I can show that 100% of the time it does not cause evolution of any kind.



Don't you see the obvious logical flaw in this statement?

Large scale mutations can't happen in a lab. In experiments you'll always get only small mutations unless you wait several thousand years. The conclusion that "mutation is only useful in damaging the order of DNA" is just wrong. A mutation is the less frequent the more nucleotides it affects. This is the reason why the development of an eye needs hundred thousands of years, while a mutation causing the loss of an eye happens within decades.

The more complex a mutation is, the more time it needs to happen - this is simple math. It has nothing to do with any fundamental difference between a "good" and a "bad" mutation that you seem to assume. The laws of probability don't care about whether a mutation is good or bad.

Well, we could go on and on with this. I see that you've firmly made up your mind that mutations are generally bad and 'good' mutations won't happen. And I'm afraid no one will be able drag you into a lab and show you beneficial mutations in action.