Scientists continue to show test cases that go against Darwinian Evolution

[gabriel]

"Pagel said "really goes against the grain" for scientists who
have a Darwinian view of evolution. The model that provided the
best fit for the data is surprisingly incompatible with the idea
that speciation is a result of many small small events, Pagel
said."

www.physorg.com/news179737267.html

www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/12/19/news-to-note-12192009#one

Evolution is thought to progress slowly, step by step, the
accumulation of hundreds of millions of years� worth of small
changes. Or is it?

The standard story of evolution goes something like this:
populations of species live and die. Every so often, an
individual or individuals in a population change in some way�due
to a genetic mutation, for instance�that allows them to survive
and reproduce better than other individuals. Hence nature
�selects� the more successful individuals while its competitors
die out. Over hundreds of millions of years, these small changes
accumulate into big changes, with new, more complex species
evolving and replacing their less-successful ancestors. The
complex species on earth today�most of which appear to be
designed (evolutionists would acknowledge)�owe their complexity
to millions of years of small changes in their ancestors.

New research from the University of Reading, published in the
journal Nature, challenges this stereotypical view. Scientists
studied 101 groups of plant and animal species and
reconstructions of their evolutionary lineages. They then
compared the reconstructions with four hypothesized models of
speciation. A slow-and-gradual model fit only eight percent of
the trees, while a model ascribing evolution to sudden, rare
events fit eighty percent. The PhysOrg report continues:

The work suggests that natural selection may not be the cause of
speciation, which [one of the scientists] said �really goes
against the grain� for scientists who have a Darwinian view of
evolution. The model that provided the best fit for the data is
surprisingly incompatible with the idea that speciation is a
result of many small events[.]

Granted, these scientists are still working within the
evolutionary framework, and their reconstructions of evolutionary
trees are obviously affected by this bias. However, their
conclusion comports well with the creation framework if the more
prominent evolutionary events are considered separate acts of
creation. Within the resulting kinds, then, speciation (distinct
from molecules-to-man evolution) likely proceeded quite rapidly
after the Flood (against the backdrop of major ecological and
environmental changes). Even today, speciation can happen
quickly�see Rapid Speciation (Video). The research thus fits well
with the creationist viewpoint even while challenging standard
Darwinian ideas.