Like any theory, it explains a lot.
Saying that we do not understand a particular example only means we do not understand a particular example.
It does not invalidate Darwinian theory.
‘It does not invalidate Darwinian theory.’
on this forum, less than that invalidates Darwin...
The YECers do not understand science nor what a Scientific Theory is.
They think it “Guess->Hypothesis->Theory”
Of course that is not science at all (and if it was then AGW would qualify which it does not for the same reason YEC does not).
It is sad that these ignoramuses come here from time to time to give liberals ammunition.
The same could apply to Christianity, Creationism and the like.
Because one cannot explain certain facets, or allows those things to confuse him, does not make them untrue or not understandable.
And Christianity and Creationism explain a lot.
A theory has to be proven. A theory can be something interesting; however, it is not necessarily true by its very nature.
Some things just evolve to a point where they no longer need to evolve anymore to fit their needs. A non-living example of this theory would be the modern revolver pistol. While the size, color and shape may change now and then, the basic most productive and functional form has now been reached and will not need to evolve anymore from this point on. I think it is the same with everything, if there are no challenges and no need to adapt any further the adaptation stops.
Somehow, they seem to believe that every time the theory of evolution is challenged to account for something that it bolsters the arguement for Creation.