I downvoted you (sorry, It's not often I do), and it wasn't knee-jerk. Because: 1. In both your comments on this thread you seem to want to relitigate some bee

I downvoted you (sorry, It's not often I do), and it wasn't knee-jerk. Because: 1. In both your comments on this thread you seem to want to relitigate some beef with 'random mutation and natural selection', even though that wasn't the point of, and isn't directly relevant to the article cited, Which is about the (predicted, but now for the first time observed) role of hybridisation in speciation. 2. You seem to have left your understanding of the mechanisms of evolution somewhere in the 1970s. I did my PhD in the 1990s, and I don't recognise "The idea that speciation happens EXCLUSIVELY by random mutation in natural selection" [caps yours], Except -- to be honest -- from historic papers and antievolution websites (though I'm very willing to believe it is a misunderstanding shared by journalists). Certainly the people I studied with had a much more nuanced view of evolutionary dynamics, not to mention one that didn't assume sexual reproduction or closed species. 3. Proof is for mathematicians. Obsession with proving evolution is again, something I only know from creationist rhetoric. 4. Citation needed for your bullying claim. There are certainly some who think natural selection is the most important mechanism in evolutionary change, there are those who would emphasise genetic drift, they go to the same conferences. Your image of the state of the science is fiction, in my experience. (Though I've been out of academia for 15yrs).