Re: "Monkeys make men." -- Do You Know Who Said That?
There are plenty of people who possess the knowledge that I possess. There are plenty who know more about this subject than I do. You happen to not fit into either one of those groups.
If Huxley wrote that monkeys (modern monkeys, as we know them) turn into men, he was wrong. And if Darwin said that monkeys turn into men, he was wrong. But my guess is they didn't say quite that (in context). My guess is they both wrote that monkeys and men are descendants of a common ancestor, an ape-like creature. This is a subtle, but extremely important distinction. However your assertion that monkeys turn into men, and Julie's challenges to "evolve" a mouse into a bat, and the entire message that is presented graphically on the billboard show that you do not understand this fundamental point.
You maintained for a long time that all DNA mutations create nonfunctional, "corrupted" DNA. You have since recanted on this, admitting that mutations in fact USUALLY are detrimental, but not always.
More recently you suggested that no mechanism exists for adding DNA code to an existing genome. ("I repeat, alteration of the DNA code, whether by radiation, chemical, diet or other environmenmtal factors, CANNOT CREATIVELY ADD CODE" - your caps.) Now you appear to be recanting on that too, since you acknowledge the existence of transposons, which are in fact pieces of DNA code that add to an existing genome.
So John, to answer your question, "IS transposition EVER beneficial?" The answer is yes.
"we have identified an adaptive transposable element insertion, which truncates a gene and apparently generates a functional protein in the process. The insertion of this transposable element confers increased resistance to an organophosphate pesticide and has spread in D. melanogaster recently."
Aminetzach et. al., Science, 2005 (309) 764.
Look it up yourself.