Evolution by natural selection is directly observed in labs, farm fields, and jungles alike. Biologists are not seeking to "establish" it, but to refine it and place it in context with evolution by sexual selection, by genetic drift, by mutualism, and by other influences less well characterized, not least epigenetics, which acts at the scale of individuals.
I.e., lots of "mechanisms" are known. None contradicts any other. What mix is responsible for a change is often hard to tease out.
Darwin wrote about both natural selection and sexual selection. Which do you imagine to be "Darwinism"?
You would better get your information from people not seeking actively to delude you.
Rate of mutations may change, new mechanisms of evolution may turn up, humans ironically by understanding our genome have acquired the ability to manipulate it in intelligent fashion, and so on.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/wisdom-teeth-evol...
I don’t think Darwinism is scientifically established. It has become a bit of a sacred cow because of its opposition with religion, but it is merely a good explanation compatible with the data. That doesn’t prove it. It may be that life evolves and adapts through other mechanism than mere selective pressure.