Peppered moths, sigh, no, they don't show evolution.
Right, we know that. However, the observations DO quite clearly show how natural selection acting on variations in a population can change the frequency of alleles in that population. In "real time", no less. Which, of course, is the topic of this thread. Anyone who tries to claim the observations show something else is creating a strawman.
A- the peppered moths stayed moths, they didn't evolve into flies or butterflies
Well, duh. They didn't even speciate. What's your point?
B- There was no genetic code added to the pepper moths, which evolution would require.
This is bizarre. You need to dig up one of the myriad threads on "information" and defend this contention there.
C- Macroevolution was NOT observed, the moths didn't evolve any new organs or tissues, all that happened was a color change, a variation within a kind.
Again, duh. And again, yet another strawman of evolution.
I think you have a couple of options here: 1) learn something about the subject you are attempting vainly to criticize - because your insistence on things like "genetic code increasing" and the old canard about a chicken from a lizard's egg that part C indicates, shows you know very little about what the ToE actually says; 2) Open a thread to defend the general basis - in detail - any given one of the three contentions you've made here, because all of your assertions are evidently based on misunderstanding some of the very basic concepts of biology and evolution. Of course, you could surprise us...
Edited by Quetzal, : changed experiment to observation in the first sentence