To answer your questions first you must understand the differences between Evolution and evolution. They both share the same word but are completely different. Evolution is the Darwin-spawned idea that one "kind" can mutate into another "kind". The lower-cased evolution is speaking of the mutation of one kind to another type of the same kind. What do I mean? Dogs for example. We have German Shepherds, Poodles, Golden Retrievers and all sorts of different TYPES. But they are all the same KIND. Cats and dogs are different KINDS but not the same TYPE. Lower-cased evolution is merely the change of types. Upper-cased evolution is the change between kinds.
That being aside, I can now focus on the moth issue. The English Peppered Moth does evolve, but it does so in it's own kind. It does not go outside of it's kind, it only reproduces different types. Much like African Americans, Orientals, and Caucasians are to the human race, so are the light and dark moths to the moth category. We have, indeed, found living proof of different types of these moths, but we have yet to find a transitional section from another animal into this moth.
This is not evolution, since not new information has arisen. Given a pre-existing gene pool, different combinations of the genes arise through sexual reproduction and some of those may be better able to survive. So natural selection can account for the formation of different TYPES, but cannot account for the origin of moths or finches. With the peppered moths, even were we to grant the truth of the story, all it would show is that natural selection changed the ratios of black and peppered forms. They were already present in the population, so nothing new was produced. And more recently, the whole story has been shown to be based on faked photos of moths glued on to tree trunks—the moths almost never rest there in real life.
Junk DNA:
We would expect the DNA between humans and the kinds of animals to be similar yet different. For example, the ENCODE Pilot Project found that the protein coding regions of DNA (genes) are more likely to be conserved among mammalian species than the regulatory regions (typically found in the non-coding DNA) controlling the production of the protein. It seems reasonable that God would use the same proteins (workhorses of the cell) among organisms but regulate them differently depending on the organism. Much like an artist would use the same paint colors on two different pieces of canvas but use them differently to make completely different paintings. It is also possible that the non-coding DNA among mammals was more similar at one time (part of God’s original design) but has since degenerated as a result of the Fall. A future research effort should be made to compare non-coding DNA within a kind (e.g.. tiger, lion, domestic cat within the cat kind) and between kinds (e.g., cat kind vs. dog kind). My guess is that non-coding DNA will be more similar within a kind than between kinds. "Junk" DNA only strengthens the Adam and Eve story that there was, indeed, a fall of man, and sin entering the world.
Vestigial Structures:
Almost every secular biology textbook today includes a section on vestigial structures—structures that are supposed remnants from ancestors that have lost their original function or capacity. This teaching is based on an assumption that is then passed off as science, an assumption that the ancestry and function of the structure is known. But using observational science, it is impossible to identify exact ancestors or even the exact function of structures because observational science deals only with things that are observable in the present.
This figure shows the supposed vestigial pelvis of a whale. Even though it has a clear reproductive function, evolutionists call it a left-over from a time when whales walked on land. The caption under the figure says that the pelvic bones “show structural change over time.” A bone itself cannot show structural change—that change must be inferred from the assumed ancestors and assumed ancestral function. This is a textbook example of assumption passing as fact.
Homologous Structures:
The discovery of the fossil “Tiktaalik” has been one of the most-widely picked up pro-evolution media stories since the (in)famous 1996 claim—eventually shown to be false—that life had been found in a meteorite from Mars.
The reports say that the skeletons (supposedly 375 million years old and up to nine feet long) have fish characteristics such as fins and a gill, but also characteristics that, according to the Times, “anticipate the emergence of land animals—and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs … .” The word “anticipate” is one of the cautionary words being used about this creature once the reader gets passed the sensational headlines, and when you read other tentative wording, then it’s realized the find is not as firm as evolutionists would lead you to believe.
In its above-the-fold story, the NY Times clearly went out of its way to allege that creationists might now be running scared because of this discovery. For example: “the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life”; some scientists, the Times reported, say that “this should undercut the creationists’ argument that there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind”; and, quoting an evolutionist, “What more do we need from the fossil record to show that the creationists are flatly wrong?”
While
Answers in Genesis scientist Dr. David Menton (Ph.D., Brown University) is conducting a careful study of this fossil, we have these preliminary comments:
There is a fish called a “coelacanth” found in the same geological system as this new fossil (the coelacanth just so happens to be alive today, which surprised evolutionists, who believed it had died out many millions of years ago), and the coelacanth has the same kind of lobe fins as Tiktaalik. These fins were once thought to enable the coelacanth to walk on the ocean floor. It was eventually determined, however, that the coelacanth used those lobe fins for better maneuvering through the water, and not for walking.
The bones in the fins for both the coelacanth and the new fossil are embedded in the muscle, and are not attached to the axial skeleton (which you would have in a reptile or an amphibian—necessary for weight-bearing appendages).
Tiktaalik, like other fish, possesses similar bones (called “homologous structures”) to other vertebrates, such as the amphibians. But just because you can find similar structures in different creatures does not mean evolution is true. The platypus, for example, has features of birds, reptiles and mammals. Common structures would be expected across the animal kingdom for optimum design. Because evolutionists need transitional forms, they interpret homologous structures through the lens of their own evolutionary viewpoint. This has been done many, many times—and many, many times, the supposed transitional forms have been discarded.
Answers in Genesis has consistently demonstrated that fossil creatures are essentially the same (stasis), or have degenerated (lost information, the opposite of what evolution requires). This is predicted in the creation model (animals reproducing “after their kind”- Genesis 1:24–25).
Atavisms:
I'm currently doing research on this, I will dispute it shortly...
The way embryos develop:
Last year in China, geologists discovered fossilized animal embryos, which evolutionists believe to be 600 million years old. One would logically assume that if evolution were true, modern embryos, after hundreds of millions of years of evolution, would be very different from those found in China.
The China embryos, however, appear to be identical to those of animals living today.
Because evolutionist researchers are committed to their belief in a very old geologic column, they automatically assume the embryos found in China are hundreds of millions of years old. The most logical and defend-able explanation, however, is that these fossils were formed quickly and catastrophically, most likely during the Flood of Noah’s time 4,300 years ago.
Embryos is merely the growth of a egg into a creature. All throughout history it has been the same as it is today (except for the few mutations, which tend to make the creature worse-off), this is not a reasonable argument.
Any others?