Are Creationists Trying to Stop “Sound Science Education”?

[Patrick]

This from Ken Ham may be worth of discussion here at PS because of two points that Ken makes. Are these points true from an evolutionary science standpoint?

Are Creationists Trying to Stop “Sound Science Education”?

[John_Harshman]

You know how to tell if Ken Ham is lying, right?

[AllenWitmerMiller (Retired Professor & Minister.)]

(Even while remaining within the spirit of Peaceful Science, I will admit that I love the classics, John. )

[T_aquaticus]

From the article:

1. Natural selection and mutations are said to be the driving forces of evolution. And yet neither of these observable processes can account for the brand-new traits that need to be gained to turn molecules into a man over time. There’s no known naturalistic process that can create brand-new traits. Such processes only act on the genetic diversity already present. That’s a huge, insurmountable challenge to evolution!

My favorite counter-example is the emergence of a new coat color trait in pocket mice which was caused by mutation in the mc1r gene:

The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

If they are looking for the mutations that led to humans, then all they need to do is compare the human genome with that of other apes. The differences are the very mutations they are looking for.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@T_aquaticus

If they are looking for the mutations that led to humans, then all they need to do is compare the human genome with that of other apes. The differences are the very mutations they are looking for.

One would think that this would be the focus of creationist research.