[Aquinasfan]

I'm sorry. The artist's drawings clearly show the woodpecker's tongue moving around its head. There is little doubt that the artist worked hard in creating these illustrations.

But the following questions arise. Does this constitute "science"? And, does a mechanism exist making such morphological changes possible?

The problem with evolutionary theory boils down to the following. Either evolution happened gradually or in giant leaps.

The former theory contradicts the fossil record, which overwhelmingly shows stasis in species. (No illustrations here. The fossil record is factual.)

On the other hand, if evolution happened in giant leaps, a plausible mechanism for explaining such change must be provided. There is none.

[Ichneumon]

But the following questions arise. Does this constitute "science"?

Yes it does.

And, does a mechanism exist making such morphological changes possible?

Yes.

The problem with evolutionary theory boils down to the following. Either evolution happened gradually or in giant leaps.

You left out "small leaps", along with a number of other possibilities.

The former theory contradicts the fossil record,

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

In a word, "no".

which overwhelmingly shows stasis in species.

This is *grossly* misleading. The only question is whether you actually believed you were giving a fair description of the fossil record, or whether you were aware of the magnitude of your misrepresentation. That is not a rhetorical question, I expect an answer.

(No illustrations here.

No sources or citations either, I notice.

The fossil record is factual.)

The fossil record is factual, pretty much by definition. Your description of it, however, is not.