How can you claim to have anything of value to add to these discussions if, after all this time, you're *still* unclear on the distinction between the fact of evolution and the theories about how it proceeds in specific instances?
Hint: Evolution is slow in some instances, not so slow in others, depending on the circumstances. This article addresses some particular types of circumstances which affect the tempo and mode of evolutionary change. There's no contradiction with prior research.
This article is nothing more than wild speculation
It's based on a great deal of work, which puts it far beyond "wild speculation". It may or may not turn out to hold water when further investigated, but your desperate creationist habit of trying to hand-wave away all research and considered conclusions based on a thorough examination of the real-world evidence as "nothing more than wild speculation" just makes you guys look goofy. Sorry, but "wild speculation" is what *creationists* do when they make up things based on their total ignorance of actual biology and then mistake their presumptions for established facts. For example, like *you* did here when you made wildly incorrect assumptions about how biology "must" work... Now *that* was "wild speculation"!
presented in an attempt to overcome the obvious weaknesses of the many theories of evolution speculated about by others.
And what exactly would those "obvious weaknesses" be? Be specific, let's see if you have any clue what you're talking about. Be sure not to repeat any of these other long debunked creationist canards about the "weaknesses" in evolutionary biology.
If anything, this article casts further doubt on evolution.
It doesn't, but your post casts further doubt on your ability to keep up with technical discussions.
Is there some new definition of speculation for which I am unaware?