If "sometimes it pays to be a weakling," what does that mean for 154 years of Darwinian teaching about survival of the fittest? What does it mean, further, when sexual selection doesn't work?
How many show-stoppers does it take to stop a show? With Darwinism, the show goes on despite multiple falsifications. The trick is to imagine solutions that don't require evidence.
Planetary scientists have figured out that the geysers of Enceladus vary during its orbit, but seem oddly silent about the question of how long the little moon could remain so active.
When completely unrelated animals or plants display the same engineering solution, is it reasonable to assume a blind, unguided process of selection achieved improbable outcomes multiple times? Is calling it "convergent evolution" meaningful? Here are three examples.
Starfish are found to have "primitive" image-forming eyes on the tips of their arms. Do these represent links between simple and complex eyes? Some reporters seem to think so.