Two theorists have created a stir in evolutionary circles, claiming that Darwinian phylogeny efforts (tree-building) cannot be constrained to one “best” answer.
Are there rumblings of discontent? Is it getting safer to question the claims of conventional neo-Darwinism?
Finches on another island “would leave even Charles Darwin scratching his head.” But do they “help solve an evolutionary puzzle”?
Evolutionists put a lot of effort into studying the small questions while sweeping on to the grand fallacy.
Some organisms cause harm, but are well designed nonetheless. Here’s a second example.