Two species of passion-vine butterflies share the same wing patterns and coloring, which some scientists believe provide “some of the most striking examples of adaptation by natural selection.”¹ But specifically how these patterns emerged through natural selection has not been worked out in detail.

A new Smithsonian exhibit will feature fleshed-out faces “of our earliest human ancestors.”¹ Fossil evidence was combined with evolutionary beliefs to depict how these seven creatures may have looked. The artistic results are stunning, but are they actually historical reconstructions—or evolutionary propaganda?

Scientific knowledge has experienced tremendous advances in the last several decades, especially in such relatively new fields as molecular biology, genomics, and embryonic development. Some biologists say, however, that much of what has been learned is not adequately explained by the standard evolutionary model. So, they are looking at alternate ways that evolution could be at work.

Scientists discovered something remarkable in a recent study—evolution can’t be reversed. In tracing the supposed evolution of a common protein, they introduced mutations to move the protein “backward” to each of its hypothetical transitional stages and discovered that each one wouldn’t work. What does that mean to the theory of evolution?

Charles Darwin admitted that the sudden appearance of fully formed creatures in fossil deposits was one of the biggest problems with his hypothesis that nature generated living creatures through natural selection.