UNDER CONSTRUCTION
DRAFT COPY

Fundamental Creationist Misunderstanding of Five Major Misconceptions of Evolution
(a rebuttal of Timothy Wallace's Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions of Evolution in the True.Origin Archive)

 © 1999-2000 by John Hoppner All Rights Reserved [Last modified: December 1, 2000]

Mr. Wallace begins with the unscientific statement that
“Evolution has never been observed.” — Back —

Mr. Wallace purposely overcomplicates the whole notion of evolutionary change by telling us that, “Isaak here conveniently fails to mention whether by ’change in a gene pool over time’ he means exactly that (i.e., genetic variation, which is often called “micro-evolution’), or whether he means “macro-evolution’—which is something entirely different.”  Mr. Isaak clearly means both, and those terms are not entirely different.

Evolution or Variation?
 

 The postulation of “macro-evolution” (i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits) is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of exisiting [sic] and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code. Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them.

His erroneous redefinition of micro- and macro-evolution will be addressed later. Here he also has added a new restriction to his definition of genetic variation. Mainstream science does not recognize this definition, so for him to use it here is nothing more than an attempt to build an evolutionary strawman based on his own terminology. Mr. Isaak reminded us in the beginning of his essay how creationists argue against their own misconceptions. This holds true with Mr. Wallace with these genetics definitions. They are not recognized by the mainstream scientists that he wishes to refute, so he is only refuting himself (arguing with his own deception). We will see why his arguments are invalid in the remainder of this essay. He does not clarify what actually is observed and what is not. We will see that what he is doing is trying to make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution where there is none.
 

Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as required for “macro-evolution”); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits.

Lets look at Mr. Wallace's definitions taken from his own Glossary of Terms:

genetic variation:
changes that take place within a population of organisms as a result of the genetic mixing that occurs through reproduction; trait variations (e.g., brown or blue eyes) appear and disappear from generation to generation through varying recombinations of dominant and recessive genetic instructions—not to be confused with mutation.
[but in the earlier paragraph he added: “genetic variation (i.e., 'micro-evolution'), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of exisiting [sic] and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code”.]
mutation:
an error in the duplication of genetic information during cell duplication; the resulting effect can range from neutral and harmless (e.g., mole or benign growth) to fatal (e.g., cancerous tumor, birth defect or genetic disease); general chances of occurrance [sic] are 1 in 1,000,000; only affects offspring if the new mutation takes place within the reproductive cell-producing organs, through which the erroneous code may be passed on. Not to be confused with genetic variation.
[Mr. Wallace fails to include the fact that there are also (rare, but real) beneficial mutations, and that a neutral mutation can also become either beneficial or fatal depending on the change in the environmental selection pressures. Even a harmful mutation (i.e.. sickle cell anemia) can become beneficial depending on the environment.]
gene pool:
the available genetic trait variables within a population of organisms, containing all the trait variations (e.g., brown or blue eyes) that could possibly be manifested in the offspring of that population through reproduction.
[and in his paragraph above he also adds: “the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither 'new' traits, nor qualitative 'changes' in the gene pool (as required for 'macro-evolution'); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool”]
micro- and macro-evolution:
1) microevolution—the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting [sic] potential variations within a gene pool (or population of organisms) are manifested or suppressed among members of that gene pool over a series of generations. Essentially a synonym for genetic variation. Often erroneously extrapolated (through semantic redefinition) to “prove” the possibility of “macro evolution”; 2) macroevolution—the theoretical concept that biological evolution takes place on a large enough scale to cause organisms to mutate over time into completely different organisms via the addition of entirely new organs and structural features, via the creation of entirely new genetic information.
[What he is explaining is HIS definition of evolution. NOWHERE  in mainstream science does it say that new genetic information is required for evolution. “New” organs and features can also evolve by “loss” of information too. He is the one using “semantic redefinition” to “prove” his argument. The reader should be aware that it is mainstream science he is arguing against, he should use mainstream science terminology and definitions. Macro-evolution essentially is just micro-evolution over a much longer period of time]

Throughout Mr. Wallace's essay and in many other creationist essays are the logical fallacies of ambiguity.  I have created a page with links to many online dictionaries and glossaries to help avoid this type of confusion with the scientific terminology: Dictionaries & Glossaries

The following definitions are from the Bio Tech Life Science Dictionary:

[genetic] variation - Differences in the frequency of genes and traits among individual organisms within a population.
mutation - A heritable change in DNA sequence resulting from mutagens. Various types of mutations include frame-shift mutations, missense mutations, and nonsense mutations.
gene pool - The total sum of genetic information present in a population at any given moment
microevolution - Evolution on a molecular level (changes within DNA, i.e. mutations), an individual organism level (DNA recombination, chromosomal mutations, reproduction, natural selection, etc.), and a population level (genetic drifts, phyletic shifts, founder effects, etc.).
macroevolution - Evolution on a species level (speciation and extinction) and at higher taxonomic classifications (appearance and disappearance of [genera], families, orders, etc.).
Nowhere in these definitions are the distinctions that Mr. Wallace makes about "potential traits" and "qualitative changes". I could not find definitions for these terms in any of the dictionaries. You can see from these definitions that micro-evolution  and macro-evolution are evolution. With the correct terminology we can see that  the greater the genetic variation, the greater the opportunity for evolution. We will see why Mr. Wallace if purposefully trying to be unclear in the remainder of this essay. Any attempt for understanding is undermined by this evasive behavior of trying to confuse the terminology.
 
Evolutionists have no basis for extrapolating the concept of genetic variation into Isaak’s claim that a particular “rate” of genetic variation “is all that is required to produce [(macro-)evolution] from a common ancestor.” Isaak wants to believe simply because a population’s existing gene pool will yield a variety of genetic variations, that over time these organisms will therefore also “evolve” into new and different kinds of organisms. This is wishful thinking, a statement of faith—not science, and the facts of genetic science simply don’t agree with Isaak’s story.

Actually there is a sound scientific basis for extrapolating macro-evolution from micro-evolution. It will be presented near the end of this essay. We will see that it is the facts of science that simply don't agree with Mr. Wallace. Creationists finally admit that there is heritable change in the DNA of organisms (micro-evolution). The evidence shows that this change does not have fixed boundaries. Over vast amounts of time, these changes cumulate within the genome of an organism and are expressed. This is called macroevolution. It is not belief, wishful thinking, or faith. Its an observed fact that does agree with genetic science. (The facts just don't agree with Mr. Wallace's distorted definitions)
 

As for Isaak’s “example” of insects and pesticide resistance, this author knows of no work in genetics that has conclusively shown such changes to be anything more than the natural adaptive variation (described above) arising from the existing genetic potential already present in the population’s existing pool. [See also “Superbugs: Not Super After All”.] Again, adaptive (and even non-adaptive) variations abound in the natural world, but they are not the genuine gene pool “change” required by true evolutionary theory.

This author knows of no work in genetics that shows that these changes must only arise from existing “genetic potential" I do know of plenty of work done that shows conclusively that there are changes that are the results of “new" information:

Mr. Wallace continually brings in new terms without clarification: “natural adaptive variation", “existing genetic potential", “genuine gene pool 'change’" and "true evolutionary theory". Definitions were not found in Mr. Wallace's glossary. I couldn't find explanations of these terms in mainstream scientific literature, and cannot address them. By being vague with selected words in quotes, and/or adding adjectives to the terminology here, he has the advantage to switch his point or argument when confronted with a contradiction.

His link to “Superbugs" by Carl Wieland is just as full of misconceptions and misleading as Mr. Wallace's essay such as:

He too, builds an evolutionary strawman with his misconceptions, tears it down, and concludes that all genotypes selected were from loss of information already in the bacteria when they were created. The question I would have is: Why can't we just use antibiotics and select these bacteria out of existence?

Dobzhansky’s Fruit Flies
 

Isaak continues: “The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild...” He then directs us to:
  1. the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky et al. (involving the deliberate, radiation-induced mutation of fruit flies in the laboratory), and
  2. the “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ in the talk.origins archives.
As for Dobzhansky’s fruit fly experiments, it should be pointed out that an example of a laboratory-induced physiological change in a specimen—even though it involves genetic change—can hardly be considered proof that NATURAL evolution occurs, since the change did not take place without the deliberate, intelligence-driven activity of man.

Another misconception of science and evolution. When something is demonstrated to occur in the lab, that means that it can occur. Now Mr. Wallace is imposing another restriction to the experimental testing of evolution, that it must occur naturally. So what he is telling us is that test tube babies are really not real human beings because they were not conceived naturally? Is he saying that most identified carcinogens are at this point safe, because they were artificially tested on other animals instead of naturally on humans? Does he then admit that his definition of "artificial evolution" (which would fulfill mainstream science's definition of evolution) occurs, despite his objection in another section that it violates the second law of thermodynamics?" Is Mr. Wallace willing to at least narrow his unsubstantiated assertion that its just "NATURAL evolution" that is the myth, and agree that genetic change does happen, and is observed?

Furthermore, would Mr. Wallace or any other creationist care to propose an experiment that would test his hypothesis that speciation in the context of "natural evolution" cannot occur? Dobzhansky and many others since have shown by experimentation that "natural evolution" can.
 

Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify (in a broad sense) as evolution (“micro-evolution”), does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organism—an increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information).

Now it seems he will admit that there is mutational change, but that is still not enough based on his definitions Again this demonstrates Mr. Wallace's misconception of evolution. Evolution does not require progressive change, all it requires is change. This is Mr. Wallace's evolutionary strawman based on misinformation, that he feels he is ready to tear down...
 

In Dobzhansky’s work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings... In the end, however, they were all ... fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes on the organism’s offspring. Nearly all of the changes were detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over other fruit flies.

Wallace is correct that in the end they were all fruit flies. But the point is that there were populations of different species that arose from that changes of one single species. By the scientific definition of species, these were new species observed. The point of the research was not to try and accumulate those changes to cause a complete change into a new "kind" of organism. Scientists agree that this type of change takes an enormous amount of time and those desired results would not happen in ones lifetime. To try and cause that type of profound change is futile because of those time constraints. Dobzhansky was trying to understand how genetics work in evolution.

So Mr. Wallace can at least admit that there was change that was not detrimental. But his statement that none of them resulted in an advantage again shows his misconceptions. The environments of all those flies were controlled. Had the experiment continued further, testing those changes against changing environments, it would reveal advantages or disadvantages. That was not the point in Dobzhansky’s research or Isaak's essay.  His point was that change required for evolution was observed.

here is a link to fruit fly mutations  Group Gehring Biozentrum

The “Observed Instances FAQ”
 

As for the “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ (the reading of which is encouraged by this writer), after one goes to the trouble of digesting all the preliminary verbiage, all the “speciation” examples given fall into one of two categories:
  1. “new” species that are “new” to man, but whose “newness” remains equivocal in light of observed genetic “variation” vs. genetic “change” (as discussed above), and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.
  2. “new” species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new “species” remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.

I think at this point Mr. Wallace would agree but won't admit that there are living organisms that have changes in there DNA that can be observed (but he will call it “artificial change"). Again with his vague terminology it is hard refute what he is saying. Its not because it is unrefutable, its because it doesn't make any sense.

Lets look a the first category that begs these questions:

and the second category: The reason I ask these questions is that the examples given by Mr. Isaak are accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists. (I base that on a reading of the science journals that Mr. Wallace's misquotes came from) These examples do qualify as observed instances of speciation, and as evidence of evolution. This evidence is accepted by the mainstream scientists that "scientific" creationists wish to align themselves with. The problem is that Mr. Wallace cannot give a clear definition and stick with it. We see he adds all these limitations and slight changes to their meaning as the information is presented.

He should go back to the FAQ and try to "redigest" section 2 on species definitions. (I fixed the link in his quote on this page) He may also try this link too - What is a Species, and What is Not?

He then may want to read these links to save him the trouble of redefining terms a third time:
Mutations - Biology text book explanation of mutations. By Dr. John Kimball
Master control genes in development and evolution -
Some More Observed Speciation Events - From the talkorigins archives
 

In neither of the above examples cited by Isaak was the natural (i.e., unaided) generation of a new species accomplished or observed, in which an unequivocally “new” trait was obtained (i.e., new genetic information created) and carried forward within a population of organisms. In other words, these are not examples of macro-evolutionary speciation—they are examples of human discovery and/or genetic manipulation and/or natural genetic recombination. They serve to confirm the observable nature of genetic variation, while saying absolutely nothing in support of Darwinian “macro-evolution,” which postulates not just variations within a type of organism but the emergence of entirely new organisms.

Does that mean they qualify as examples of micro-evolution at least? Or would it be disqualified too because its not "natural micro-evolution"? Mainstream science says the cumulating of these changes with time can result into macro-evolution.

This again is a  major misconception of evolution by Mr. Wallace. Lets first look at Darwinian evolution and gradual change. Using the example of horse evolution that has an excellent fossil record, lets take pictures of each of the species in that lineage that we have a record of. Next (If I had the software and hardware, I would actually do this) using a morph program, create a morphing sequence of one picture to the next showing the gradual change of each. This is the observed morphological change we would see by Darwinian evolution if the fossil record were perfect. What Mr. Wallace or any other creationist needs to do, is show at which point in those transitions that a "new" organism has emerged. (when it crossed from "one kind" to another "kind").  Next Mr. Wallace needs to explain how, despite this example of what Darwinian evolution is, that "just variations within a type of organism" does not contribute to "the emergence of an entirely new organisms."
 

Definitions of “species” and (therefore) “speciation” remain many and varied, and by most modern definitions, certain changes within organism populations do indeed qualify as “speciation events”—yet even after many decades of study, there remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened or could happen.

Mr. Wallace must have mistaken "species" for "created kind" as having many and varied definitions. He does admit here that "certain changes within organism populations do indeed qualify as 'speciation events'". But he uses his strawman definition of evolution to say that it still is no evidence. His definition of macro-evolution is to see one organism completely change into another organism without the benefit of a long time (i.e. millions of years). He seems to suggest that it is supposed to happen in real time, (i.e. with our lifetime). If that is the case, of course he is right to refute that wrong definition.

Bold Claims vs. Empirical Science
 

Even so, Isaak insists that “it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn’t been observed. Evidence isn’t limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.”

As we will see, this statement by Mr. Isaak is quite correct.
 

Isaak’s impressive confidence seems to be based in part on his inability to differentiate between “observing” an event and “interpreting evidence” to support a hypothesized event. Even so, the empirical data largely fails to support his claims. The fact is, evolution has NOT been observed, and its chief proponents don’t deny this. Furthermore, contrary to Isaak’s assertion, evolution’s predictions regarding the fossil record, anatomy, genetics, and biogeography have NOT been verified with “overwhelming” support, contrary to Isaak’s bold claims, but are more often challenged by the facts, as we shall see.

Actually we shall see overwhelming support, but Mr. Wallace is distorting that support for his own unverified assertions

Seeing the actual change of one species to a completely morphological different species will never happen in our lifetimes. Evolution requires these changes to happen over extremely long periods of type. This is what the chief proponents don't deny. Lets look at the facts:

Fossil Record
The fact is, if one takes the fossil record and and instead of looking at change in single lineages, one considers the record as a whole, evolution is observed. This observation was carefully recorded by Darwin:  The Origin of Species: Chapter 10 .  If one observes in the whole fossil record of the main animal groups, rather than single lineages, over geological time you find microfossils before multicellular invertebrates, and invertebrates before vertebrates. In the case of vertebrates: fish before amphibians, amphibians before reptiles, reptiles before mammals. In the case of mammals you find apes appearing before humans.
These remains of the life history of our earth are NOT interpreted, they are OBSERVED.

These links are interpretations based on the above observations and other evidence:
 Lecture1
  Plant Fossil Record
 Learning from the Fossil Record
 Fossil Record

Anatomy
The fact is, looking at the anatomy of the species of all life on earth, we can classify them into a hierarchy based on homology (a structure that has similar origin, but does not have to have similar function). Examples are:

There is also the fact that almost all species of vertebrates have embryo's that are almost indistinguishable from each other in the early stages. They all have their hearts, main arteries, nervous system, tails, and neck region built on the same plan. As the animals grow, the regions become more distinctive and the animals become more physiologically different in that some features are built on more than others. Human embryos even show clefts in the same area where fish embryos later develop gills.

This evidence that there are shared common traits is NOT interpreted, it is OBSERVED

These links are interpretations based on the above observations and other evidence:
 ZO-315 -- Comparative Anatomy
 Comparative Anatomy Home Page
   The Elements of Comparative Anatomy (1864)
 COMPARATIVE
 VEGAN-STRAIGHT-EDGE - Comparative Anatomy & Taxonomy
 Comparative Anatomy
 Comparative Mammalian Brain Collections: Michigan State University
http://hyperion.advanced.org/19926/text/tour/22.htm
 Comparative Anatomy
 Comparative Anatomy
 

Genetics
The fact is, if one looks to genetics, specifically to the genetic code, one finds that every life form is built from a code found in DNA. The bases that make up the DNA are all the same for all living organisms. These bases are the same in humans as in algae as in a mushroom.  A  three base code, in any sequence of those four bases will produce a code for the same amino acid in whatever organism we find them in. The sequence of bases for the protein Cytochrome C is more similar among invertebrates and vertebrates than plants. The similarity is also greater between mammals and reptiles than invertebrates. The similarity is greater between humans and apes than with monkeys.  These similarities among other proteins show pattern of divergence remarkably consistent with what is found in the fossil record. Also comparison of psuedogenes among organisms shows this same pattern of similarity.

These similarities and patterns in the DNA of organisms are NOT interpreted, they are OBSERVED.

These links are interpretations based on the above observations and other evidence:
Master control genes in development and evolution - by W.J. Gehring
Compelling Data for Common Descent from Matching Redundant DNA Sequences - by Steve Hinrichs
Sequences and Common Descent - by Wesley R. Elsberry
 

Biogeography
The fact is, if one looks at biogeography, the distribution of all species of earth in their native ecological setting, we again see a pattern of diversity. We see that that certain fossils are found only in certain regions. We find that certain species are also found in certain regions. We also find that those fossils show similar morphological features of the present species in those areas, but not in any other area. We find in isolated locations animals that have unique features found no where else. We find in some locations where there are islands, that some of the same kinds of animals found on the mainland, are found on the islands, but they are different species. An example of this is Darwin's finches found on the Galapagos Islands. The records of fossils and present population counts show that at different times in geologic time different species appeared and show a radiation of diversity over time. Some show more than others. These islands have different animals with different niches. As with mainlands, geographical barriers such as mountains create similar isolated areas.

This pattern of distribution and diversification of species in both the fossil record and present animal populations is NOT interpreted, it is OBSERVED

These links are interpretations based on the above observations and other evidence:
 In The Wild SPOTLIGHT
 Biogeography
 THEORY OF ISLAND BIOGEOGRAPHY
 Journal of Biogeography Aims and Scope
 UCSB Biogeography Lab Home Page
 

And in fact, using Isaak’s own logic in fairness to the Creationists whom he wishes to discredit, one can just as easily (and much more accurately) state: “It would be wrong to say that creation hasn’t been observed. Evidence isn’t limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Creationism makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and .”

Then what are those observations that these predictions are made from? Are they visual observations of nature, or from what I suspect is a literal interpretation of the Bible? Why not present this information to support creationism instead of attacking evolution? I could not find any credible information about it anywhere, but Mr. Wallace assures us it is out there somewhere.

Next are only two sources he offers in support and are a far cry from his assertions of  "predictions verified many times over" and "overwhelming observations supporting Creationism".
 

There is an abundance of material, published by evolutionists and non-evolutionists alike, affirming that Isaak’s claims regarding genetics and “observed” evolution are based more in dogmatic “interpretation” than in a scientific, objective approach to empirical data. Two balanced, objective, scientific treatments of the subject by non-Creationists are:
- Denton, M. Evolution: A Theory In Crisis. Adler & Adler, Bethesda, MD. 1985. ISBN 0-917561-05-8
- Behe, M. J. Darwin’s Black Box. The Free Press, New York, NY. 1996. ISBN 0-684-82754-9

Its interesting that Mr. Wallace doesnt not use these two resources as support for his young earth creation hypothesis.

These two resources of Mr. Wallace do seem to address all the theoretical problems and issues of research into the fact of evolution. But rather than offer better scientific solutions, Behe looks to the supernatural in intelligent design as an explanation for what appears at the moment to be unexplainable. Meanwhile, the scientific community will continue with the reliably proven and productive scientific methodology to look for answers. Here are some links to reviews:

A Biochemist's Response to "The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" - A review for Bios magazine by biochemist Dr. David Ussery of the the Institute of Biotechnology, Danish Technical University. Comprehensive, updated, and lots of links.
Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" - A review by scientist Don Lindsay. This link also provides links to other reviews of Behe's book.
Behe critiqued - By Jonathon Woolf
Discussion about Irreducible Complexity - A critique by scientist Tom Schnieder.
American Scientist's Review - Review by scientist Robert Dorit of Yale University for the science journal American Scientist.

I have not had the opportunity to read Denton's book yet, but here are some reviews by others:
A Critique of Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" - A critique by Mark Vuletic.
Michael Denton - Evolution: A Theory In Crisis - A review by rpcman.
"Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" by Michael Denton - A review by scientist Don Lindsay. This link also provides links to other reviews of Denton's book.
 
 

[The part Wallace quoted is in black, parts omitted or discrepant are in red]
"The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequencies.  Changes above the species level—involving the origin of new species and establishment of higher taxonomic patterns—are known as macroevolution.  The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.  At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution: the two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap. The issues with which participants wrestled fell into three major areas: the tempo of evolution, the mode of evolutionary change, and the constraints on the physical form of new organisms." [Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire, Science, Vol. 210, November 21, 1980, p. 883 (my bold)]

This is a research news article on what was reported by Lewin as a historic conference that challenges the forty year long dominance of the Modern Synthesis.  Mr. Wallace wants to mislead the reader with the title into thinking that evolution as a whole is in question. You can see from the last part of the quote that he left out, what was "under fire" was the question about the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species and the evolutionary relationships between species. Another question was if microevolution and macroevolution are really that distinct. More specifically, the Modern Synthesis theory proposed in 1942, which says evolution moves at a steady pace with small changes. The problem with that theory is that the fossil record shows periods where species do not change for long periods of time. Lewin discusses different theories of the scientists that attended the conference to try to explain that aspect of the fossil record. This is a prime example of where a debate of punctuated equilibrium vs. gradual change is distorted by creationists. Although Lewin, with the quote in context totally disagrees with Mr. Wallace, it is a news article, and offers no data, no empirical evidence.

We can see why Mr. Wallace had to resort to a misquote for his conclusion to his rebuttal about observing evolution. His game of semantic confusion failed to give any clarification to what would qualify in his terminology of what would be an observation of evolution. The only evidence he presented that evolution is not observed is that he has never seen it.

So he has never observed any organism "naturally" evolving from a species into a "new" species, with "new" new traits. Of course we have never observed gravity, only its effects. We have never seen an electron, but based on its effects we assume they exist. In the case of a creationists definition of evolution where you have an organism change into a completely genetically, morphologically different organism within an enormous amount of time (of which they also say doesn't exist) has not been observed. However, the effects and evidence of those changes have.