Fascinating -- please present your evidence for this amazing assertion, and you're a shoe-in for the next Nobel Prize. Or... maybe you're just stating your prejudices as if they were facts.
Doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen, just means that Darwins view of the mechanism was wrong.
In what way, exactly? It has been tested thousands of different ways, in hundreds of thousands of experiments and observations over the past several hundred years, and oddly enough the results of the experiments certainlys eem to back Darwin, and fail to match your conclusion. Please explain.
It means just what I said. Small changes don't get the job done. Large scale changes are required, chromosmal mutations et al. That's my opinion and I think you would agree with it if you gave it some thought rather than jump to defensive conclusions.
As to the evidence against Darwinian gradualism, you might read Gould, who developed the PunkEek theory because he candidly recognized there was no evidence in support of gradualism. When change occurs in organisms it occurs quickly and directly, without need for random mutation, many mutations of an organism and the good old "battle for survival of the fittest."
We know that change occurs, what is often referred to as the "fact" of evolution. What we don't yet know is the change agent. I think we are in for some interesting surprises in the future as we unravel the secrets of the genome and the other structures and mechanisms that work with it and on it.
Well, good night to you.