You really need to stop quoting things out of context.
The full article is available online, there's no excuse for this kind of shenanigan.
oh brother, here we go again. Thanks for the "FULL" article; Ahhh, where do you suppose I got it from initially?
First, genetic change is random.
Begging The Question Fallacy: where'd you get Genes?? Start Here...
Second, genetic change is gradual.
Begging The Question Fallacy: SEE Above
Third, following genetic change
Begging The Question Fallacy. SEE: above, above.
natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population.
Reification Fallacy: "Natural Selection is a "CONCEPT" i.e., "Non-Physical". It doesn't: lead, dance the hootchy cootchy, smile, swim, play cards, run, dream, direct, eat, drive, make bread boxes, stumble, read, see, hear, taste, predict, ad nauseam.
If you consider natural selection "Physical", then please post it's: Chemical Formula/Structure, Dimensions (L/W/H), and Location...?
I'll leave it as an exercise to you to actually read the specifics of how and to what degree those things were disproved
Doesn't something have to "Proved" first to then avail the opportunity to be "Disproved" ??
So before you go in detail about the Rib Eye Steak, please establish the existence of the cow first. (SEE: first response.)
but I'll spoil for you that nowhere in that article does it say that mutations and natural selection don't happen, just that they don't happen in the specific ways that the modern synthesis held they did.
Ergo... it's a Rescue Hypothesis (Quintessential Characteristic of Pseudo-Science) in a feeble attempt to save the previous fairytale, right? Thanks for pointing that out.
Is it now gonna be the "Modern--Modern Synthesis" ?? And 'synthesis' of exactly what, pray tell....?