Problem with mutations is that they cannot occur fast enough to achieve what the evolutionists say they achieve. For example, lacking all other proof, the evos have resorted to calling the building of resistance to chemicals, and medicines by viruses and pests as evolution when clearly it does not prove any such thing. Let's look at the situation in a logical manner. The dead do not reproduce, so clearly the viruses and pests killed by these medicines and chemicals are not the source of the genes which have become resistant to these medicines and chemicals. The source of the genes for the resistant strains of these creatures must therefore be found in the creatures that were not killed by these chemicals and medicines. Since these creatures managed to survive the medicines and chemicals there was no mutation required for their successors to be resistant to these medicines and chemicals. All they needed was normal reproduction!
It's not clear whether or not this is true. I tend to think it isn't... if mutagenesis is exclusively random.
But that in itself doesn't disprove evolution.
Creationists will have to do better than transitional hair-splitting to pose a serious challenge to the evolutionary explanation for the fossil record and the radiologic clocks.
