> The short terse answers yielding very little substantive information

You asked, I answered.

> The goal is to mutually improve understanding

Agreed. So what is your alternative? I am aware of the Lamarkian effect of methylation on DNA, and I'm vaguely aware that there might be another mechanism at the cellular level. I'm also aware of Darwin's gemmules theory which I understand is thoroughly discredited now. You seem very determined not to say what you're proposing.

> I highly doubt you have done it to any great extent

True. It was a course at school, and that was a long time ago. It was also rather Western-centric. Nonetheless, I did. As far as recommending a book, you clearly haven't even done a web search. There's plenty out there. Regarding my preference, there was a book (which I can't find now), an old Penguin book on the history of mathematics, but so old it's price was in pounds, shillings and pence. I wish I could find it, I'd love to reread it.

Bill Bryson did one on the history of science which is well spoken of, but I haven't read it https://www.amazon.co.uk/Short-History-Nearly-Everything-Bry...

> I think I have been quite clear

Fraid not. What is your alternative to evolution, specifically? Please reply without using ad homs.

> “Evolution” is a very broad term that encompasses many theories

Nope. "In biology, evolution is the change in heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on genetic variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more or less common within a population over successive generations" (wiki)

If you disagree with that, please post some specific links, I would actually be interested.

> If you don’t know how it came about then “random mutation did it”.

Yes. It's a placeholder theory. When something better comes along we replace it with the better thing. What do you suggest?

What's weird about arguing with you is you say we should be using something better but do not say what that better thing is.

> My whole point is that merely concocting just-so stories within a framework to double-down on it is not scientific. Do you agree? Or you disagree? Can you be clear?

It's the best hypothesis. It may not be right, but we can never be certain of what is right. If something arrives that better explains, we accept that instead. That's how science works.

> I have already quoted from your own article that the stories are problematic on their own terms

You pointed out that the cursorial hypothesis had problems, and you were right. You said nothing about the other 3 hypotheses.

You come across as somebody who just wants to discredit science without proposing something better (or are you religious?, Or just a teenager looking for attention?). You are not arguing in good faith.

I am not wedded to a particular viewpoint within science. If you can propose something better, even as a link, please do. I like the idea of Lamarkian development, it's just that, excepting methylation, there is no evidence of it that I'm aware.

so WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE?