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?
You know how to tell if Ken Ham is lying, right?
(Even while remaining within the spirit of Peaceful Science, I will admit that I love the classics, John. )
From the article:
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:
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.