You talk of their work as irrelevant?! On what basis? On what evidence? In other words, it is a bout time you spent more of your time finding out how evolution almost certainlyy worked. It seems you do not take into account the several billion years it took for very first signs of life to evolve into the multi-million species, approximately 95% of which becameextinct along the way, even before the dinosaur era. Think of all the body ssystems that had evolved by then, then think about the small mammals that since those multi-millions of years ago evolved into various mamal species. From that point on, remembering that the body systems, lungs digestion etc etc, are already in place. Then it becomes logical to realise that a comparatively small number of random mutations would be required, plus climate and environmental changes, to further differentiate species which cannot interbreed, and so on. The time scale is huge. To think that ancient Mayans knew better than what evolutionary biologists know today is to confuse myth with fact. What have you actually read about evolutionary biology? There are plenty of books, clearly and intelligently written for the non-scientist layman. Of course, they do not know every minute detail of every change, but since the Theory of Evolution has remained strong, and become stronger, via all the improvements, changes, challenges, etc along the way, why would you not believe it?Quote
Perhaps I have missed information that speaks to the contrary, but I wonder if mainstream academics are afraid to speak candidly about evolution's apparent irrelevance as a model that explains literally all change through a random processes only.