Science One of the recent issues of Science Magazine touts "Evolution in Action" as its breakthrough of the year.  However, as Casey Luskin at the Center for Science and Culture points out, the evidence that Science puts forth should really be named Microevolution in Action.   He reviews the three main pieces of evidence used in the Science article, and briefly discusses how none are evidence for macroevolution, and as usual, the reader has to make the big leap of faith from this evidence to make macroevolution a reality.  My favorite lines:

…these small scale changes, even after long periods of time, wrongly excite evolutionists into thinking they can extrapolate to believe that new body plans and functions can arise due to Neo-Darwinian processes.

In conclusion, the evidence presented in this article supports microevolution—a process denied by no design theorist

Nor by any creationist – it’s merely adaptation via gene rearrangement, differential expressio, transfer, or loss.  No new genetic information is being created here via mutation – and assuming macroevolution is true based on this information is not science, but merely conjecture.  And the politics of science, of which Science is just one pawn.