Then you read wrong, or you consult wrong sources.
Nothing in science is undeniable: not heliocentrism, not the existnce of atoms, not evolution.
But the ammount of evidence, both through observation as through lab experiments is huge. And coming from very different methods.
So if anyone can deny the ToE and be taken seriously, that person (or group) will come with a very massive amount of counter evidence. Provide that evidence --through observation and experiments, and the ToE will be denied.
1) Which -- if true-- would not deny the ToE
2) really? Having read some literature about this subject, I haven't found anything the like. But if you have reliable sources, please provide them...
Nope, "science" has not. Some scientists may have done this, not "science".
If you have reliable sources, please provide them.
are you actually calling koonin a liar about the tree of life concept?
it's you, sir, that needs to do the double take.
science already knows that natural selection is not enough to bring about the diversity of life that we see.
macroevolution IS NOT lots of microevolution.
and you may be surprised to learn that the gene IS NOT the fundemental inheritance carrier.
but, if you must have some respected sources, crunch on this:
The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.
Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection 16, 17. And, with pan-adaptationism, gone forever is the notion of evolutionary progress that undoubtedly is central to the traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit.
The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone.
so, what does the above mean?
it basically means that all the alledged evidence that says evolution happened by darwinism is practically worthless.
evolution is not adaptive nor is it gradual.
hang on tight buddy, 'cause the modern synthesis is going down.
did you also know that macroevolution has not been formally demonstrated?
iow, science has no conclusive evidence (fossils included) that says one lifeform came from another.
yes, i do indeed have respected sources that blasts darwinism completely out of the water.
let's see what a cornell university biology teacher has to say:
I would say that Dr. Koonin's essays on where evolutionary biology is today are quite close to the the mark. The concept of natural selection as the foundation of evolutionary change has been largely superseded, mostly through the work of Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, and others, who have shown both theoretically and empirically that natural selection has little or no effect on the vast majority of the genomes of most living organisms.
this is NOT to say evolution is wrong, but it DOES say evolution as you know it is wrong.
IOW, all the evidence that supports darwinism is basically worthless.
let me take this time to define some things:
evolution, the naturalist explanation, whatever it turns out to be.
darwinism AKA the modern synthesis, evolution as it is being taught to our children.
it's time, it's time you take a hard look at your pet theory and say "the emeror has no clothes".