The Creation/Evolution dividing line

This is incorrect. Darwin just accepted that something was inherited. He had no idea at all of the mechanism and Mendel did his work after Darwin published. Mendel's work was ignored and/or not noticed then for some decades.

quote:

---

Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process.

---

Mutation certainly can be considered to be the "driving force of evolution" (with NS the steering I guess ). In addtion, "according to Mendel's work" is out of place here. Mendel never considered the possibility of mutation. You're not totall wrong here but it seems a bit muddled. You skipped over the example given. I don't think we know if offspring could result from a human-chimp breeding. Any volunteers?

quote:

---

All of the mutations are harmful or harmless, none of them produce a more successful fruit fly, exactly as predicted by the creation model.

---

You missed the main point: It is demonstarably incorrect that all mutations are harmful or neutral (which is what he meant I think). (LOL, of course they are all harmful or harmless ). The correct statment is that most are harmful or neutral (It may be that "most" are neutral in fact,but I don't know how to measure that) and some are beneficial. The "some" that are beneficial is all that it takes.

Now that we have the topic moved to one of my favourite subjects I'll just have to jump in. However, it is odd to pick one of many equivalent characteristics that doesn't fossilize all that well. However, others have, above, shown that we still have a few clues left in existing animals.As noted breasts don't seem to be a huge leap from what "primitive" mammals have. When we add that to the transitionals with characteristics that do fossilize you will have to struggle to come up with a reason why we wouldn't accept the transition from reptile to mammal-like to mammal.I'm glad you have suggested that this is a "kind" transition. Since it is one for which we have reasonable fossilzed transitionals.