According to this article, the “theory of evolution itself is evolving”. Which, when you think about it for more than a half second, makes one wonder why Darwinists insist that evolution “isn’t just a guess or a hypothesis but a widely accepted explanation of natural events supported by the best available evidence”. After all, a theory that is still evolving is also one that is less than settled. This probably accounts for the willingness of the Darwinian hegemony to be increasingly dependent on court rulings, rather than scientific consensus, to validate and enforce its increasingly untenable claims within the scientific and educational communities. Considering that the major tenants of Darwinian evolution are now being abandoned quicker than a jackrabbit running from the nose of a shotgun, it’s surprising that any credible scientist would make the statement that "we understand evolution pretty well”.
The truth is that aside from court enforced obeisance to evolutionary theory and Darwinian hegemony in the scientific community, evolutionary theory is still little more than speculation and it is certainly not understood. Consider, for example, the abandonment of Darwin’s Tree of Life which roots, branches, and limbs are as still unconnected today as they were in 1859 even after more than a hundred and fifty years of frenetic research. On the other hand, the newer “web or bush” model now favored by evolutionists eliminates the pesky need to link evolution to something resembling proof because, as the article points out, it allows for a blurring of the “sharp lines between species”. In other words, the need to demonstrate descent by small incremental changes occurring continuously over long periods of time is, under the new model, unnecessary. Evolution is so because it is said to be so, not because it is scientific, intelligent, or rational.