I might miss several points made in the comment since my brain hurt too terribly much trying to parse it. So take this as a response to high level points noticed when parsing.

First, random caveats – I am not a biologists, but simply a well informed indivual who is married to one.

And a minor quibble – there is no such thing as a Darwinist any more than there are Newtonists, Einsteinists, Rutherfordists, etc. People who accept evolution are not part of a religion, but rather subscribe to the notion of adopting the most plausible explination given current understanding, which in the case of biological life is evolution.

The author has several failed conceptions that they base their criticism of. Foremost is the distinction between micro and macro evolution. That distinction is NOT part of the scientific literature and wholy a creationist construct. In truth there are only micro changes, which compounded over time can create large changes. The clear evolution of lvertabrate imbs shows this – the ponderous changes of fins slowly developing additional joints, elongating, forming additional joints, building mass, etc over the course of millions of years. Ultimately the problem with those who don’t see how major traits can develop is their inability to grasp the sheer scale of time and how minute changes aggrogated over such vast stretches of time naturally sum to major changes.

Bringing up odds is also a failed conception – it predesposes an intended end when evolution does not have one. The odds specifically that humans would evolve is slim, but the odds of *something* evolving is an all together more promising probability, and one that has fortunately resulted in us. The concept also predisposes that evolution is simply chance – while the specific mutation, the changes in DNA and how that is expressed, is a degree of chance, it being replicated to future generations is NOT chance. Evolution is all about the rules of selection that remove chance from the equation of whether a mutation from being inherited (well, mostly – nature is a chaotic system in which we have not been able to account for all variables).

The screeds about the “truth” in the bible are pretty random and unsupported, and also belay a lack of understanding in the scientific process. For example “Also the bible has never been disproved archeologically” is pretty far off the mark – outside of straight up mathmatics you can’t prove a negative (the real weakness I have with Myth Busters). Even if one is predisposed to believe a literal interpretation of the bible contrary to all evidence, one has to accept its general incompleteness (for example a lack of details about the origins of early generations – Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel, but to get a third generation we need to fill in some XX chromosome gaps missing here) which makes it of questionable utility. When one looks into the actual history of the formation of the christian bible (the incredibly cynical approach that Constantine took to cherry pick ideas that cemented central power, while destroying gnostic ideas that challenged central power. The translation and scribing discrepencies that are endemic to the book and well documented. etc) its reliability is further questionable. Finally there is the mountain of evidence from practically every side of science, from astrophysics to geology to biology, that challenge the literal interpretation of the bible. The presence of fault lines, the formation of elements, the helocentric view of the solar system – practically everything in reality contradicts biblical explinations; it isn’t just evolution.

Science certainly doesn’t have all of the answers, otherwise to quote an irish comedian, “it would stop”. However the absence of explinations for certain things at this period of time does not invalidate all other explinations, nor does it imply that the bible is true. For that to be an acceptable explination it is not sufficient to invalidate specific theory, but rather to prove the merits of the competing idea. Theories, like organisms, are subject to the survival of the fittest, of gradual change over time,.

Also, every fossil is a transitional fossil – true transition happens on a very hard to observe scale.

I’m sorry, I just got past the first few sentances and had to laugh. I saw the equivalent of “Ok, so I don’t understand why people belive in GRAVITY. So you got the fact that THINGS FALL DOWN when you drop them and how the earth goes around the sun… that just doesn’t cut it for me. I don’t understand why people just don’t realize that GOD moves it all from the evidence.”

Yes, it was THAT retarded.

Thanks for posting. I needed a laugh.

I believe in micro-walking, like going down to the store or maybe even across town. But there’s no way macro-walking is even possible. No one could ever walk across a continent with nothing but their feet.