If you are not a biologist, you’d be forgiven for being confused about the state of evolutionary science. Modern evolutionary biology dates back to a synthesis that emerged around the 1940s-60s, which married Charles Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection with Gregor Mendel’s discoveries of how genes are inherited. The traditional, and still dominant, view is that adaptations – from the human brain to the peacock’s tail – are fully and satisfactorily explained by natural selection (and subsequent inheritance). Yet as novel ideas flood in from genomics, epigenetics and developmental biology, most evolutionists agree that their field is in flux. Much of the data implies that evolution is more complex than we once assumed.

Some evolutionary biologists, myself included, are calling for a broader characterisation of evolutionary theory, known as the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES).
...
If evolution is not to be explained solely in terms of changes in gene frequencies; if previously rejected mechanisms such as the inheritance of acquired characteristics turn out to be important after all; and if organisms are acknowledged to bias evolution through development, learning and other forms of plasticity – does all this mean a radically different and profoundly richer account of evolution is emerging? No one knows: but from the perspective of our adapting dog-walker, evolution is looking less like a gentle genetic stroll, and more like a frantic struggle by genes to keep up with strident developmental processes.

https://aeon.co/essays/science-in-flux-is-a-revolution-brewing-in-evolutionary-theory

Even ancient genomes have ghosts within them. The Denisovan genome bears the traces of ancient mixture, not only from Neanderthals but with another even more divergent group – some speculate it might have been Homo erectus. Everywhere geneticists look, they see populations more different than any living people, mixing with each other in small fractions. It is no evolutionary tree. Our evolutionary history is like a braided stream.

How could science have missed this?

https://aeon.co/ideas/human-evolution-is-more-a-muddy-delta-than-a-branching-tree

https://www.drawdown.org/scenarios

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank

Eighty of the solutions in this book already exist and are scaling to become competitive alternatives to now dominant, high-emitting technologies. They are economically viable, proven to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon dioxide, and have the potential to spread throughout the world.

Our approach was to collect as much data from a variety of vetted, widely-cited sources as possible, using our models to assess different potential pathways for global adoption. Since no individual organization, model, or researcher can claim to accurately know the future, or how every technology or practice will perform in every corner of the world, we gathered a wide range projections from multiple sources. This approach allowed us to generate reasonable, defensible guesses at how these solutions can grow and what their impacts could be.

Each solution is modeled based on a comparison between a reference case, assuming little change over the next thirty years, and three scenarios reflecting increasingly more accelerated global adoption.

Plausible Scenario: the case in which solutions on the Drawdown list are adopted at a realistically vigorous rate over the time period under investigation, adjusting for estimated economic and population growth.

Drawdown Scenario: the case in which the adoption of solutions is optimized to achieve drawdown by 2050.

Optimum Scenario: the case in which solutions achieve their maximum potential, fully replacing conventional technologies and practices within a limited, competitive market.

The data derived from models was then inputted into sector-level integration models to generate final results for all solutions within an in global system.

Six-hundred tons of oil has contaminated Brazil’s coast, and authorities have no idea where it’s coming from | National Post
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/authorities-cant-find-source-of-hundreds-of-tons-of-oil-contaminating-brazils-coast

I would say thay the article blaming Venezuela is political, considering the local political landscape, where Bolsonaro pretty much swore to tear up the environment going in. The one which says that they don't know where it is coming from is likely more accurate although he is probably being deceptive. Bolsonaro has been considered responsible for Amazon fires, after he put big business in charge of ecological policies, amongst other disturbing things. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/01/bolsonaro-environment-agriculture-ministries-amazon

https://news.mongabay.com/2018/12/bolsonaro-shapes-administration-amazon-indigenous-and-landless-at-risk/#

Tony Santoro's Guide to Illegal Tree-Planting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvtqKMxZ95s