There has been much hubub about a supposed missing link that has been allegedly located in the form of what appears simply to be a lemur monkey skeleton. Less attention has been given to a serious problem for evolutionists: a newly discovered species of mega-shrew (link).
Why is this mega-shrew a problem? It has a characteristic found in snakes, but not in any allegedly common ancestors of both shrews and snakes: teeth capable of injecting venom.
What is so significant about that? It requires that naturalists hypothesize parallel evolution: two species coming to be by chance to have similar features through the process of random mutation and natural selection.
The chances of both a shrew and a snake developing a similar beneficial mutation by chance is extremely small. Although this cannot definitively disprove naturalism (nothing can - naturalism is by definition unfalsifiable), it does require a still higher degree of "faith" (if you will) by the proponents of naturalism.
This is, of course, not the first such instance. One of the most notorious examples is the eye of the squid as compared to the eyes of men. Again, no alleged common ancestor can be found to provide appropriate nesting for this common feature and consequently the hypothesis of parallel evolution must be invoked.
And that is the basic flow chart for neo-Darwinian naturalism:
1. Hypothesize that everything is the result of natural selection and random (sometimes beneficial) mutations.
2. Attempt to arrange species data using nesting to meet hypothesis.
3. If nesting cannot fit all the species data, allege parallel evolution of species.
4. Claim victory despite the vast statistical improbability of beneficial mutations happening in different species in parallel.
5. If necessary, sprinkle in the pixie dust of vast periods of time to explain away the inconceivably unlikely event you are alleging occurred.
6. Insist that any explanation that invokes the supernatural is just filling gaps, superstitious, or religion interfering with science.