"Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"

What differs in the genetics and heridity mechanisms between those that say life evolves after special creation or ID and those that say life evolved from one single life form that spontaneously generated all on it's own?Isn't the science the exact same for all the models? And so wouldn't her research work for a creationist model talking of evolution within a kind just as much as a evolutionist model insisting on evolution from as a yet determined single life form that came into being from chemicals all on it's own?

So you are not going to answer? Let me try again.Small "evolution" is incorporated into creationist and ID models. Since they adopt the scientifically relevant and observed aspect of evolution needed to do work in science, the facts of reproduction, etc,...creationist models work just as well for your wife's work as evo models.

Nah, you can do that, please. Define kind, and while you are at it, define species, random, and vestigal.

Ramoss, I am discussing the different models out there because I have bothered to learn what others believe and the science behind their claims.I suggest you do the same.

Sorry shraf. Please define kind, will, randomness, etc,....If you cannot, then why are you mentioning these terms?On "kind", I have defined it before for you and you still bring it up. If you don't want to learn, why should I repeat it for you. Kinds refer to the theoritical life form groupings stemming from the first created life forms. Barimonology is the study of kinds.Even though I am not a YECer, I find evo criticism laughable in criticizing imprecision in determining and measuring for kinds, defining kinds, when evos have the same problem with randomness, and even at times with "species."As such, I don't consider your post and you worthy of paying much attention to since you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge the reality of these issues.

It's an interesting claim in the paper. I am not sure why it did not or is not getting more responses and comments. Sorry for my part in taking the thread off-topic.

nwr, can you explain what the paper is talking about when the authors say: You guys seem fond of claiming they are talking about PE, but they do not believe they are reiterating Punctuated Equilibrium.Can you explain that?