First post!

1. I have read many times in this forum that the argument against evolution that states that there have never been any positive mutations observed is a bad one. I have yet to read, however, any reason for this arguement being bad. I could understand completely if it had been called untrue, but it has been called "bad." Despite the many time I have seen this arguement called "bad" I have never seen any logical reason given for its "bad"ness. Is it fallacious? Does it not address the issue being discussed? In what way is it bad? 2. It has been stated many times on this forum that this article disproves the arguement of creationists that no positive mutation has ever been observed. Upon careful reading of the article it is clear that this is not true. The article states the large mutations have now been observed not beneficial ones. The arguement of creationists that the article refuted was that there was no way for major changes in body structure to come about without the simultaeneous mutation of many different genes. The article no where states that the observed mutation was in any way beneficial to the crustacean in question.