[Coyoteman]

The missing predictability means that macro / micro evolution is still not understood as a science. Evolution is still largely guesswork, actually fact-based science fiction, wrongly regarded as a solid science.

Actually, the theory of evolution does not change because of this research.

It is the details that are being filled in.

And we can expect a lot more such details to be filled in, or corrected, in the coming months and years. I think its exciting!

[samtheman]

You are right, Coyoteman. This does not invalidate the mountains of data that support the theory of evolution; it just adds to that mountain... and brings further into focus the full shape of that theory.

[Amendment10]

It is the details that are being filled in.

The problem is that the integrity of macroevolution ideas hinges on the unknown details. That's why I've been waiting for evolutionists to cough up the DNA mutation timeline for the last decade, a timeline that shows how single-cell organism DNA can be mutated in stages into human DNA.

In the meanwhile, as I've said before, until macroevolution ideas can be verified with the consistent results of repeatable, scientific-method based experiments, such ideas remain fact-based science fiction.