non-Darwinian evolution and "the biggest gaps remaining in the evolutionary hypothesis"

Also, from LewRockwell.com this morning, here's a long piece by Bill Sardi on the worldview battle centered around Darwinism (Evolution, not evolution) and various forms of Creationism.

If you're interested in that question, you'll probably enjoy the article. Here, I want to provide just a few excerpts. For example, Sardi refers to...

...an overlooked paper published in Science magazine in 1969 by Jack Lester King and Thomas H. Jukes, then at the University of California at Berkeley. The paper, entitled "Non-Darwinian evolution," proposed that evolution at the molecular level is being driven by random mutations and genetic drift and not by natural selection (heritable traits which become more common in successive generations) and that a great deal of the gene mutations over many generations occur in junk DNA which produce no observable changes. (Science 1969; 164: 788–89) This paper has stood without correction for 40 years.

Does anyone know if King & Jukes have been answered-- or whether Sardi is wrong in his inference about their work?

Sardi also asks about "the biggest gaps remaining in the evolutionary hypothesis" and provides some interesting quotes:

Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, says "the most profound unsolved problem in biology is the origin of life itself." Chris Stinger of the department of paleontology at the Natural History Museum, London, says "we still don’t know what the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees looked like."

In its January 24, 2009 issue, New Scientist magazine’s cover-story headline screamed loudly: "Darwin Was Wrong." Their report centered on the realization that Darwin’s tree of life drawings have no substantiation.

"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," said Eric Babteste, evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris. "The tree of life, one of the iconic concepts of evolution, has turned out to be a figment of our imagination," says science journalist Graham Lawton. "If you don’t have a tree of life, what does it mean for evolutionary biology?" asks Bapteste.