Replies

That's called MICROEVOLUTION, and nobody denies it. What people DO deny (because it's a bunch of BS) is MACROEVOLUTION, which is what the "theory of evolution" is about.
Real experts are on record that the two are separate, and that microevolution cannot generate macroevolution:
"The paleontologists have convinced me small changes do not accumulate."
Francisco Ayala, Ph.d Assoc Professor of Genetics, U of California "Evolutionary theory under fire" Science, Nov 21, 1980. p 883-887

It took me a while to find that quote in context. For one thing, the author of the article is Roger Lewin, and it was published in volume 210. Knowing those facts would have helped find the article. Whenever anti-science charlatans quote some evolutionary biologist as saying something that "shows" they do not "genuinely accept" evolution, the quote is almost certainly taken out of context. In many cases, the quote isn't only out of context, it has been edited in such a fashion that it seems to be saying exactly opposite of what the quotee actually said. In this case, the article was about a conference in which a concept about evolution that had been proposed in the 1940s was being challenged. In other words, the conference was about refining the theory to better fit the evidence. And the theory has been refined more since 1980.

Dr. Ayala's full quote as presented in the article is this: "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate." (He was actually mistaken on that point; small and large changes do occur; we now recognize that evolution both progresses by genetic drift and by punctuated equilibrium.) Anyway, the full article is here, although accessing it may require membership in AAAS.

Dr. Ayala has published many articles on evolutionary biology since the 1960s; he does not doubt the validity of the theory.

"People are misled into believing that since microevolution is a reality..." (Remainder of quote omitted to save space.)

    Darrel Kautz, Creationist Researcher
    The Origin of Living Things, 1988, p. 6

I really don't need to spend much time on this. From what I could tell through Google, Darrel Kautz is not a life scientist and has no scientific training.

"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction..." (Remainder of quote omitted to save space.)

    Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics
    Teilardism and the New Religion
    Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1988, p. 5

Google reveals that Wolfgang Smith is also not a life scientist, and, even though he has worked closely with scientists, it was within the field of aerospacial engineering, about as removed from life sciences as a scientist can be. Doctor of Mathematics Smith's attempt to refute the keystone theory of biology is as credible as Doctor of Life Sciences exDemMom's attempt to refute the theory of relativity which is central to physics. (Except that Dr. exDemMom realizes her understanding of physics is mostly at the undergraduate level, and would never challenge relativity.)

In the cases of both Kautz and Smith, it isn't really necessary to refute, point by point, their misrepresentations of life science. Neither of them demonstrated any comprehension of the subject from the get-go. Anyone who wants to credibly challenge a theory must start by thoroughly comprehending it.

Anyone who wants to credibly challenge a theory must start by thoroughly comprehending it.

The key word is "credibly".

Although, comprehension is a close second.

The conflict is not with religion; the conflict is between mathematics, often called the queen of the sciences, and evolution which ought to be called the knave or joker of the sciences. Evolution is basically an ideological doctrine masquerading as a science theory. It requires an endless series of probabilistic miracles and posits that you should view your neighbor as a meat byproduct of random processes, rather than as a fellow child of God.

In real life, our living world is based on information and an information code more complex than C++, Java, or any other information system which man has yet devised:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s