“You’ve said nothing that wasn’t reported by the scientists themselves.”
Perhaps it was acknowledged by responsible scientists, but it certainly was NOT acknowledged by the popular advocates of evolution. You will never see them acknowledge the problems or weaknesses of the methods they use to support their pet hypothesis.
“You will never see them acknowledge the problems or weaknesses of the methods they use to support their pet hypothesis.”
If that were true, we’d be stuck with what Darwin wrote. The theory of evolution is constantly changing in detail but the core theory has never been disproven. It has been fleshed out tremendously and continues to be.
I agree that popular science articles often blur important distinctions between fact, theory and hypothesis.
Particularly annoying to me: they also like to call ancient creatures "human" when in reality those were just distantly related hominids.
As for average DNA mutation rates, those are relatively easy to calculate, but near impossible to confirm.
Indeed, such data-points as we do confirm for long-term mutation rates often contradict other data-points from other sources.
So the significance of this particular article is that it provides a possible explanation for why mutation rates seem so unpredictable.