I think the ox of evolution is dead :-)
Could be, Trib. It all seems to hang on the problem of whether people are willing to concede that evolution seems to be something that happens within species; and that grander claims -- to the effect that macroevolution actually occurs -- may not be as well founded as the general public imagines today.
That is, the doctrine that holds the production of a novel species from an already existent other in response to changing physical environmental conditions/constraints, while generally held to be true "among us advanced, enlightened moderns" -- seems to have been found somewhat lacking in explanatory power in more recent times.
I don't think the ox of evolution is dead; he just needs to be placed into the proper overall perspective, which at the end of the day may be the one that abandons the idea of macroevolution altogether.
For certainly we must say that macroevolution depends for its truth on a congeries of developments that have never been directly observed acting together by a single human being, dead or alive.
And so the entire theory of macroevolution seems to rest on observations which are -- rather paradoxically -- "unobservable" in principle.
But I guess we'll have to wait on further research in order to further qualify these issues....
Stay tuned! Thank you so very much for writing!