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.
The idea that honeycombs in beehives self-assemble is as old as Darwin. A new study claims to reinforce the idea, yet honeybees are not just bystanders in the process.
Compare two countries: in one, when their hegemony is threatened, evolutionists plead for academic freedom. In another, they deny it to those who want a chance to debate evolution.
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.
Anything "could" happen. Shouldn't science deal with what does happen and what did happen? The "could" word is rampant in astrobiology literature and origin-of-life studies.
Science news sites are talking about the evolution of human throwing, but it's mostly speculation based on prior faith in Darwinism. The real story is good design in the human shoulder.
News sites are celebrating a "spectacular" new record for fossil DNA, claiming horse genes found in permafrost are 700,000 years old, placing the common ancestor two million years earlier than thought.