I honestly don’t understand that argument: “has never denied the power of natural selection...it is what accounts for speciation...what we deny is it’s ability to created new species”.
If I understand correctly, natural selection accounts for speciation (defined as the development of new species), but doesn’t account for its ability in the involvement of development of new species?
Argh! I just don’t get it. I have never understood the anti-evolution argument.
Speciation is the process of developing subspecies - not new species. A very simple example would be long haired dogs in cold climates and short haired dogs in hot climates...both descended from the same ancestors. The ancestors had dominant and recessive genes for both long and short hair. But over time, long haired dogs don’t survive in hot climates; short haired dogs don’t survive in cold climates. That is natural selection: no new bio information is developed; information for one or the other is lost. That is a very important part of the intelligent design theories.