Kostya, Demarquis was describing Ham's position, not his.
We use principles central to evolution to predict how viruses will adapt to medication and how ecologies shift in response to environmental pressures and a bunch of other stuff.
Ham says that as long as mutation or natural selection or anything else to do with evolution can be directly observed, it's micro
evolution is the kind that you have to infer from evidence based on testable models, and that is the kind that Ham rejects.
Of course, anyone who knows anything about biology or science knows that this distinction (between "microevolution" and "macroevolution") is entirely bogus - much as is the distinction between "historical" and "observational" science. It is a piece of rhetoric designed to confuse ignorant and gullible lay people, with zero basis in real science.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.