This is a good example of the way the fallacies of darwinism persist and operate. We cited Hoyle again today: natural selection can never be right, so where does this article go wrong? There are a number of issues here. First, critics of darwinism often distinguish microevolution, usually taken as core darwinian natural selection, maybe, and macroevolution: it is entirely possible that at the level of viruses and disease entities microevolution operates along darwinian lines. The problem lies in the universal generalization across all of life: but we know that species ‘evolution’ could never operate by natural selection at the level of complex higher animals. But at the level of the coronavirus? The factor of microevolution then may well apply, and it looks like it. But frankly I remain suspicious. I suspect that something more is at work here than random mutation and selection: there may well be a derandomizer of some kind but only a specialist could determine this IF he can get unscrambled from darwinian assumptions. Is there some factor beyond natural selection that gives odds a push? We are amateurs in this field and can’t say, but applying Hoyle’s statement, cautiously, we would recommend a closer and prolonged look. In any case the ‘evolution’ referred to here cannot apply at the level of animal species and their complex and still understood ‘speciation’.