Perhaps the evidence for the vast scope of Darwin’s theory really isn’t as strong as biologists over the years have been telling each other.
Their review pretty much completely misses the mark. Nonetheless, it is a good illustration of how sincere-yet-perplexed professional evolutionary biologists view the data.
As I’m writing this I’ve been reacquainting myself with physicist Marcelo Gleiser, who just won the year’s prestigious, $1.5 million Templeton Prize.
Professor Lenski’s contrasting of the frequency versus importance of evolutionary changes is misconceived and his illustrations are inapt.
Computer methods of analyzing mutations are widely used because they are generally accurate. They do not suddenly lose their accuracy when I cite them.