Answers in Denial

Just addressing a few points from this post at Answers in Genesis- http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp

1"The modern evolutionist believes that new traits come about by chance, by random changes in genes called “mutations,” and not by use and disuse."
-This is false as while mutations are random, their continuation in the genome occurs by natural selection.

2"Don’t make any mistakes here. Mutations are real; they’re something we observe; they do make changes in traits. But the question remains: do they produce evolutionary changes? Do they really produce new traits? Do they really help to explain that postulated change from molecules to man, or fish to philosopher?"
-The definition of evolution is "the change in frequency of genes within a population over time." Unless Parker has an alternative mechanism for this, when he has already stated that this is what mutations do; then he is creating a strawman argument here.

(1) Mathematical challenges.
3"The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 10^7 x 10^7, or 10^14.So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion (10^21). Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations."
-He contradicts himself on an earlier point he made about flu virus. The flu virus mutates more readily than some other viruses. Why? Well, try not to think about it. Of course we know that the virus responds to our immune system through natural selection. Comparing this to smallpox is another strawman, in order for a irus to persist it must become less virulent or it cannot itself reproduce. See Ewald (1983). Host-Parasite Relations, Vectors, and the Evolution of Disease Severity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics Vol. 14: 465-485

4"Bacteria can be made antibiotic resistant by mutation, but biologist Novick calls such forms “evolutionary cripples.” The mutation typically damages a growth factor, so that the mutationally crippled bacteria can scarcely survive outside the lab. The antibiotic resistance carried by plasmids results from enzymes produced to break down the antibiotic. Such bacteria do not have their growth crippled by mutation. Their resistance is by design."
-This is a lie, where is the evidence of design? We have experimental evidence of evolution from bacteria, the E.coli long term project shows exactly what happens to a genome over time http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

5"The only question was, could mutations serve as the basis—with natural selection—as a mechanism for evolutionary change? The answer of the mathematicians: no. Just plain no!"
-Based on what? The idea that one mutation occurs only after 10^7 cell divisions have occurred. Not a reasonable model, and being an argument occurring in the 60's one which predated and hence could not incorporate the theory of punctuated equilibrium which shows how evolution can occur more rapidly under certain environmental pressures... as confirmed by the E.coli data. Further the argument was based on computer models, as was his next quote from Denton (a creationist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton ) using technology only available in the early 80s. By the end of the 80s Dawkins using better technology showed how this assumption was false (see his book "The Blind Watchmaker")

(2) Upward or downward?
6"Almost every mutation we know is identified by the disease or abnormality that it causes."
-This is the result of a scientific principle called observation selection bias. We don't look for a disease caused by a mutation because we have found a mutation, we look for a mutation causing a disease when we have found a disease. You could have mutations and nobody would know because it hasn't caused you to become ill. The next dozen or so paragraphs can all be disregarded for this reason.

7"The gene for sickle-cell anemia has built up to high levels in certain African populations, not because it is “beneficial” in some abstract sense, but simply because the death rate from anemia in those areas is less than the death rate from malaria. Natural selection is a “blind” process that automatically accumulates genes for short-term survival, even if it reduces the long-term survival of the species."
-Any trait which allows an individual to survive long enough to reproduce is beneficial in terms of natural selection, despite whatever emotive arguments are used surrounding the nature of the mutation. Parker here is playing on the ignorance of his audience, who do not understand that in evolutionary terms "benefit" refers to the genome and not the individual.

8"Furthermore, when the frequency of the sickle-cell gene reaches 18%, natural selection for it “stops.” That’s the point at which the death rates from sickle-cell anemia and malaria balance, demonstrating conclusively that sickle-cell anemia is not a suitable model for the continuous genetic expansion that evolutionists seek."
-Actually, it isn't. The benefit in this case is that the Plasmodium bacteria (Parker assumes his audience is too dumb to understand anything other than "germs" when referring to this pathogen) doesn't only infest children, preventing them from reproducing. The death rate from malaria also includes adults who have already reproduced, and their contribution to the gene pool lives on. The proportion of sickle cell is relative to the proportion of kids dying from malaria before they have a chance to reproduce.

9"“Would you please give us some examples of beneficial mutations?” After an uncomfortably long pause, the professor finally replied, “I can’t think of any right now, but there must be hundreds of them.” He did not come back to the next class with a list—but, to his credit, he didn’t try to use sickle-cell anemia to illustrate helpful mutations."
-This story is probably another lie. Hox genes occur in higher concentrations in humans than in invertebrates, meaning if you get a harmful mutation in one, there are still three genes which may allow you to form eyes which work as they should. A creationist would argue that this is not a mutation, in that it occurs in all humans and isn't new in some humans (ie they just move the goal post). Well what about the ability to produce the enzyme which digests milk sugar (lactase), allowing people to consume milk beyond infancy and hence dairy products in adulthood? This is estimated to have arisen around 7000 years ago, and only occurs in about 25% of the global human population. Some peoples in remote regions such as nomadic Mongols in the Gobi desert would struggle to survive without dairy.

10"If early evolutionists had known what we know now about mutations, it’s most unlikely that mutations would ever have been proposed as the pathway to evolutionary progress."
-On the contrary, our understanding of mutations validates them.

(3) Mutations point back to creation.
11"mutations are only changes in genes that already exist."
-The old strawman argument, we exist so there must have been a creator. See descriptions of some of the abundant evidence against design in Dawkins book "The greatest show on earth".

12"To make evolution happen—or even to make evolution a scientific theory—evolutionists need some kind of “genetic script writer” to increase the quantity and quality of genetic information. Mutations are just “typographic errors” that occur as genetic script is copied. Mutations have no ability to compose genetic sentences, and thus no ability to make evolution happen at all."
-Again, the E.coli project is evidence against this. Basically the evidence for evolution at the cellular level is so strong, today's creationist must accept it as fact but deny that it can go on to drive speciation. But they cannot explain why, only they fall back on this circular reasoning of "if god didn't do it then what created the genome" etc. It is merely a way for them to sew the seeds of doubt in the minds of the vulnerable, which is their only reason for arguing against science in the first place.