Would you believe it if he posted it or linked it?
If you're really interested, looking it up for yourself is the only way to be sure you're not getting second hand interpretations or misinterpretions, oddball opinions, or utterly bogus crap. Look for multiple sources and, if you have time, compare how the descriptions and analysis change over time to reflect how new information or conflicting interpretations lead to better science (scientists love to argue/dispute even the most obvious physical evidence and the simplest of conclusions and that process leads to a better understanding for all concerned and better science - that's how peer review works). Note how even RWP (just a few posts ago) has to compare results by hand before he believes someone else's program!
Please don't expect ml/nj to peel his own grapes. He is the self confessed kid who goes up to a professor after class, asks a question calculated to get a "gee, I don't know", then spends the rest of his life congratulating himself on being so much smarter than the teacher. See post #161.
I guess you missed it. The Great Scientist finally did provide a link, and I commented on it in #507. The linked source talked about instantaneous evolution. Just like Darwin, huh!
You guys are so full of it that you do not seem to recognize that you are presenting arguments that contradict your own assertions.
ML/NJ