Well, I was a little off. They don't shout "microevolution;" rather, they say there are too many assumptions. Here's a link to AiG's "rebuttal" to the louse article:
Hairless hokum
From that article:
quote:
Here is the convoluted reasoning that led to the ‘72,000 year’ date for the first appearance of clothes.
Assume that chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor about five million years ago.
Analyze the genetic codes of modern lice on chimpanzees and humans. Compare the differences (about 170).
Assume that these differences are due to mutations.
Assume that these took place gradually at about the same rate over those assumed five million years (this gives an average of 1 mutation per 30,000 years).
Analyze the genetic code of modern body lice, which are merely a subspecies of head lice. Compare the differences (only about 2 or 3).
Assume that the differences between head lice and body lice are caused by mutations.
Assume that these mutations also occurred at the exact same rate as the others, i.e. one mutation per 30,000 years. Thus it is concluded that the body lice colonized human clothes about 72,000 years ago.
Of course, they neglect to mention that there are excellent reasons for each of these assumptions--but that's par for the course for AiG.
™ Version 4.2