Been there, done that, *still* haven't seen the actual behavior you describe.
I can recall one about an ant species simultaneously evolving all around the world. There was a peer-reviewed science article that showed that a particular ant species had not "spread" but had evolved concurrently in multiple locations.
Um, your memory and/or reading comprehension of that study and subsequent discussion are poor.
First, you have the study exactly backwards. Actually, the prior scientific presumption (admitted to be such, for lack of sufficient fossil evidence to make a firm conclusion) for a long time was that "old world" army ants and "new world" army ants had evolved separately on their own continents (through convergent evolution). The recent study actually examined new evidence and made a very good case that in fact, all modern types of army ants instead had descended from a single original army ant species (which itself had split off from earlier non-army ant species). Here's the reconstructed family tree:
The species in bold type are army ant species, the non-bold species are non-army ant species.
This had the Evolutionists scratching their heads (but not questioning their core beliefs).
No, actually, it didn't have the "Evolutionists scratching their heads", because the findings of the recent study are actually an even *better* fit for classic evolutionary theory than was the prior presumption about the origins of army ants.
Thus there was no "head scratching" by evolutionists on the threads which discussed that study, so I'm wondering just how you managed to "remember" some having occurred.
Nor should it have caused any evolutionists to "question their core beliefs", because the discovery itself, *and* the mass of related data uncovered during the study, very nicely *further confirms* evolution. For details, see my lengthy post about that study in post #1703 of that thread.
Ironically, that study was introduced to the thread by a creationist who had read only a poorly written press release about the study and mistakenly believed he could use it to undercut evolution. Wrong again.
Creationists on the thread suggested that perhaps God had something to do with it. You should have read the shouts of derisive laughter!
I find nothing like that in either FR thread which discussed that study. They are here and here. The former thread was begun to discuss a different study, but the army ant study was introduced on the first page and discussed at length in various places in the thread.
If your memory of those threads is as flawed as your memory of the study's results, perhaps that explains things.
This pattern repeats on any Creationist thread on FR (and elsewhere).
You have yet to offer a single example, much less establish a "pattern".
Some fly in the ointment which perhaps does not completely refute Evoltuionary Theory, but which poses a problem for it ... someone says maybe there is a God ... Evos start swearing and laughing at the poor dumb schmuck.
So you say. Care to try again to support it?
I have never once seen anyone on any FR thread "start swearing and laughing at the poor dumb schmuck" for offering God as a possibility. Never. You might want to support that broad accusation, or retract it.
I have seen people get laughed at for offerring goofy "disproofs" of science without knowing enough about it to succeed at the attempt, but that's quite different.
And lord knows I've seen several FR creationists laugh at evolutionists as "poor dumb schmucks" simply *for* their belief in the process of evolution. And yes, I *will* give specific examples if you want to see them.