Why haven't we observed mutations of new body parts?

As feathers (instead of scales) on the front leg or an arm. Because it was an arm, not a stump. Aside from being an arm, feathers on the arm would also help regulate internal temperature. Small, incremental mutations that on a large scale proved better suited to the environment.Next question please.

Careful there. I think IC in its most useful definition would actually imply some vital subset of parts that is fully and completely interdependent, not that the whole machine is fully interdependent. Your particular argument is something of a straw man.

Granted, but it's still bad form to attack a strawman with a strawman. Except in flash cartoons. To which the "savvy" creationist would immediately pounce and say "AHA! But a computer is designed by an intelligent designer, and you invalidate your original argument, QED." And completely ignore the scenario with which you immediately follow up your statement.Perhaps the arguments for evolution are themselves irreducibly complex to some people, which would make IC really an argument from incredulity/ignorance.Edited by bernerbits, : Clarifying some stuff.Edited by bernerbits, : hmmmmmmm

I dunno. Most creationists seem to have one or two pet defenses that they feel are invulnerable, and when they feel they are losing ground on one defense they switch to the other.(Granted, from what I have seen these defenses are built on fallacy, ignorance, deception, and/or misdirection and I have yet to see a creationist argument that is truly supportive of their position as a scientific one.)If you continue to debate (most) creationists from a rational perspective you will continue to be frustrated as they dance around claiming victory simply because they successfully made you chase your own tail trying to clarify this or that finer scientific concept in the name of intellectual honesty. If you give up they will claim victory because they got the last word in.I'm hoping there are some creationists on here that will give me some *real* food for thought. Failing that, people who can help me expand my debate skills on the subject.

Well no, you can still fetch a decent penny on eBay for 'em.I actually was wondering about Behe's famous mousetrap example. Not too hard to conjure that up, actually. It could have started accidentally with a pit, then a pit covered with leaves, then a pit covered with leaves and bait, then a pit covered with leaves and bait with a trap door, then an upside-down version of a pit with bait and leaves (a box trap), then a spring-loaded cage with bait, then a spring-loaded cage with just the door and the floor. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that was pretty close.Of course, any number of examples to the creationist is just that, an example. Not proof. Not evidence. Just meaningless contrived deception.Edited by bernerbits, : My verbiage smells of elderberries.

Me either, but many of these guys will claim victory for the smallest logical fallacy committed.