I have often stated that when you cannot grasp basic science but want to wear the uniform, become a doctor. The alternative is to become a creationist but everyone already knows they're idiots.
Both use science without ever truly understanding it, the difference is that doctors are less inclined to deny scientific advances. Not that doctors are all intelligent or better than creationists, just those in countries where religion is not an acceptable reason for allowing a patient to suffer and die, like they are allowed to do in the USA.
The creationists keep reciting the same tired, debunked, and ignorant arguments that use to be hilarious. Now they are just sad and pitiful. The reason is because none of them seem to have learned anything after 1983.
That was the last year any respectable scientists ever claimed that mutations are all detrimental. The reason being, we have discovered many mutations in many species that have resulted in them being more fit for their environment, including us.
In 1998 they discovered a specific sequence of genes responsible for HIV resistance in some human populations. In 1997 we discovered that blue eye and blond hair is caused by a rare mutation in the human genome, rare because it is even less likely to pass to offspring.
From the discovery of nylonase to algae capable of absorbing toxic waste produced only by humans, the list of recently discovered genetic mutations with hugely beneficial effects is continually growing.
So the creationists attempt to dismiss these by calling them adaptation instead of evolution, which is just sad. Adaptation is the result of natural selection acting on the phenomenon of evolution, in other words, adaptation is the result of evolution.
But here's a challenge to creationists, I have no reward to offer other than to agree with you should you succeed in this task. Provide evidence of any species willfully altering their genetic make up, resulting in a specific adaptation to a specific and known environmental change.
Now this challenge is twofold, though I doubt you will succeed at either step. I know creationists have a problem with sequential problem solving and the very definition of evidence, so I will describe the two steps more clearly.
The first step requires you provide evidence, meaning facts that require no interpretation which suggest the phenomenon. The word "phenomenon" is really a catch all in science, it describes and event, occurrence, object, person, fact, law, or basically any noun that is within our reality.
Thus you must show how the organism is aware of the change and able to discern what the change is and what is required to better fit the change. If you cannot present evidence suggesting this, you cannot have failed the challenge, without this recognition there can be no intent and thus no possible way the organism can adapt without random mutations.
Now, given the unlikely event that you have succeeded at the first step, the second step is one that biology has proven cannot occur a very long time ago, but I grant the benefit of doubt. You must provide evidence than any organism can alter their DNA at will, and that the changes will affect the organism immediately, prior to their demise.
Now the catch, you must also provide evidence that the theory of evolution does not, in any way, predict this phenomenon. I know none of you will ever succeed at this challenge, as it requires you to study actual science before presenting anything, and the catch means you must study the theory of evolution completely, or you will miss the explanation.
Should a creationist take this challenge and succeed, I will concede that the theory of evolution is incomplete. The fun fact is this: it does not mean your religious myths are any more correct as there are many such myths just as credible and other scientific explanations that are far more credible than creationism.