And how is that? Specifics, please. TalkOrigins references current writings on the subject of evolution and biogenesis; they are a one-stop shop for the state-of-the-art in these subjects. To top it off, if they can, they link the original works from which they draw to allow the reader to peruse the source. ICR and AIG do not do this, as much of their "work" is drawn from out-of-context quotations, and it will not do to have the casual reader discover such.
Once again, cite a specific case wherein TalkOrigins lied.
I do want to make one comment now, though.
Mutation is common; hence antibiotic-resistant bacteria; hence pesticide-resistant insects; hence a new strain of cancer-resistant mouse.
Mutation is indeed common but it is uniformly destructive of genetic information. Useful new information, which I assume you would agree is absolutely necessary, is not created. Reference Not By Chance by Lee Spetner. He shows that bacterial resistance occurs as a result of the destruction of genetic information that reduces the overall hardiness of the bacteria. In the techinical sense, I suppose, this is new information in that it changes the old but we're hardly talking about the extremely lengthy and self-consistent code required to create a new organ. And there is no evidence that the recent cancer-resistant mouse developed its resistance via mutation. The point is that the variation could have been resident in the mouse's genetic code all along. There is much such seemingly useless code in all species, as I'm sure you're aware.