Evolution in pieces.

Dunno if these are different ones, but you might look at An Evolved Circuit or Evolutionary Electronics: Sussex University

I don't know exactly what you mean by "change occurred", but I was reading a relevant passage in "The Creationists" recently. As late as the 1940's many creationsists, notably George MacReady Price (the founder of "Flood geology") insisted that there had been no speciation since Eden and "kind" is the same as "species"."The Creationists", Ronald Numbers, University of California Press, 1992, pg 127, discussing the conflicts in the Deluge Geology Society (DGS) between Price and others:"Ironically, the recent publication of the biological part of Clark's manuscript under the title Genes and Genesis (1940) had pushed Price into doing just that. In his book Clark defended limited Darwinian natural selectionwithin genera, families, and even ordersagainst the "extreme creationism" of those who insisted that God had created every species." {emphasis added - JRF}ibid, pg 129:"Clark was not alone among DGS members in pushing for greater acceptance of microevolution within the originally created kinds. In the early 1940s another university-trained Price protege, Frank Lewis Marsh (1899-1992) {inventor of the term "baramin" - JRF}, joined Clark in advocating post-Edenic speciation. ... While teaching at an Adventist school in the Chicago area, Marsh took advanced work in biology at the University of Chicago and obtained an M. S. in zoology from Northwestern University in 1935, specializing in animal ecology. Later, after joining the faculty of Union College in Lincoln, he completed a Ph.D. in botany at the University of Nebraska in 1940, where he wrote his dissertation on plant ecology and became the first Adventist to earn a doctoral degree in biology. While attending these secular universities, he resisted the impulse to challenge his professors on the issue of evolution, telling himself that he 'was there to learn what they had to offer,' not to convert them to his way of thinking.Like Clark, Marsh never deviated from a literal, recent creation and universal flood, but the more he learned, the more he questioned the notion that all species had originated by separate creative acts. {emphasis added - JRF} Zoologists, he noted, had identified thousands of species of dry-land animals alone, yet Adam had been able to name all of them in a single day. Thus it seemed unreasonable to equate the Genesis kinds with the multitudinous species of the twentieth century. {emphasis added - JRF} Besides, as he once explained to Price, his close association with evolutionists over the years had given him 'an understanding of their way of thinking' and a confidence in their taxonomic work that Price could never appreciate. 'You have never rolled up your sleeves and worked as one of their crowd on various research projects as I have," he reminded the self-taught geologist.'"

No, you haven't, at least not in this thread. Reference or a reference to your previous reference, please.

I'm not sure exactly what Crashfrog asked for, but the definition you offer as a creationist definition of "kinds" would be rejected by many creationists¹ and, more importantly, is far less definite than that which we define as useful ourselves. The "evolutionist" definition² of species is operational; it defines a test that, in theory, can be applied by anyone to determine if two organisms are the same species or not. It may be difficult or impractical to apply the test, but the test exists. "Groupings that are 'microevolutionarily' distinct" is not operational, since "mcroevolutionarily distinct" is an undefined term."Evolutionists" have been begging creationists for an operational definiton of "kind" for years, and it has not been forthcoming.About all we've got is:1. Mankind is a separate kind.2. There are few enough kinds to fit them all on the Ark.-------------
¹"Microevolutionarily distinct" sounds suspiciously like the Bological Species Concept, and is likely to lead to there being far too many kinds to fit on anybody's Ark.²Yeah, I know there are several definitions of "species", useful in different areas. I'm talking Biological Species Concept (BSC) here.

Some believe in continents whirling like drunken skaters, at fantastic speeds, with people on them ... and the people never thought it unusual enough to leave any record, nor did the rocks retain any trace of this other than the standard evidence for plate tectonics. Center for Scientific Creation. Googling "hydroplate" and digging up the many refutations of this silliness is left as an exercise for the reader.A Google search on "catastrophic plate tectonics" is good for a few laughs, too. John Baumgardner's the man for that one. A pretty interesting theory, with few flaws other than requiring vaporizing all the oceans and probably a good bit of the rocks without affecting life ;-). There was a lot of discussion of CPT here just before I showed up, much of it with a guy using the handle True Creation, who's now shown up on the Theology Web message board (at least I think it's the same guy). Well, the more intelligent ones claim to interpret the same data differently .. and are careful never to specify how they inerpret this data differently.

That's not an example of what he asked for. He didn't ask for an example of something that's un-proven; all of science is un-proven. He asked for an explanation of why "simple changes in DNA could not have caused it."