How so? Evolutionary theory is constantly changing and constantly being critiqued by scientists. While they don't dispute the general concept of evolution, it is the details where the controversies lie. An entire theory that has managed to explain thousands of facts for over a hundred years and grounded in solid evidence is not rejected easily.
The mere problem is - there is no other available, scientific theory at the moment except evolution on this matter.
What are you talking about? There have been numerous experiments in speciation. Are you being selectively blind?
>>The mere problem is - there is no other available, scientific theory at the moment except evolution on this matter<<
Boy, you nailed it there. The problem is that this is a binary problem. There are two categories into which all theories fall:
1. A species, as it currently exists got there by accident.
2. A species, as it currently exitst, got there by being designed that way by "someone".
Everything falls into one of the two beliefs. The name for all beliefs that fall in to number one is "evolution". To many, studying number one is considered science and studying number two is anything but. I disagree with that position.
To put it bluntly, number one, as discussed by some proponents, is not always science and number two, as discussed by some proponents, is not always religion.
And believing something was designed does not slow down research. In fact, if a thing WAS designed, research based on that belief would be the most fruitful.
Here's proof: http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/Tu-4.html
More ignorant than blind, I think. I was under the impression that, had anyone successfully demonstrated macroevolution in the laboratory, surely the proof would have been trotted out for everyone to see. Then again, I confess that I don't subscribe to a single peer-review journal, so I suppose I can't blame anyone for that but myself.
So if I may ask, what experiments have been done, and what were the results? Could you point me to some resources?
There are current observations of speciation. Evolution is not really a laboratory science.
Well, that's certainly true. It's also true of Aristotle's spontaneous generation...eels growing from horsehairs and so forth. After all, the eels had to come from somewhere, didn't they?
A good model is good, it's true, but it's only a model. It still remains to be proven or disproven.