No it isn't. You seem to be a little thin-skinned. Most people, even most scientists in other fields, are not familiar with transposons, or what point mutation, re-assortment, or recombination are or what their significance to evolution would be, for example.
I've observed that neither you are any of the other critics of this article have attempted to answer any of the technical genetic questions raised. I suspect it's because you do not understand them. Are you familiar with Barbara McClintock? "During the 1940s and 1950s, McClintock discovered transposition and used it to show how genes are responsible for turning physical characteristics on or off. She developed theories to explain the repression or expression of genetic information from one generation of maize plants to the next. Encountering skepticism of her research and its implications, she stopped publishing her data in 1953." Actually, the criticism came from "scientists" whose views her reseach threatened, and most did not understand the very technical nature of her research. She suffered terribly from this rejection. I think something, in a minor way, is going on here too. About Barbara: "Awards and recognition of her contributions to the field followed, including the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine awarded to her in 1983 for the discovery of genetic transposition; she is the first and, thus far, only woman to receive an unshared Nobel Prize in that category." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_McClintock Have a nice day! Hank
The author states that most mutations are detrimental and the rest are mostly neutral. This is an error. By far the majority of mutations are selective neutral. Your author doesn't even understand the basics of Kamura’s neutral mutation theory and the basics of Molecular Evolution.
She also thinks that sharks maintaining the same basic body plan over millions of years is somehow a blow against the theory of evolution (Normand the millions of years, and the evidence of so many other species changing around them). Nothing in the theory of evolution through natural selection MANDATES major body changes. A shark had a great body plan and a great food procurement strategy back in the late Cretaceous, and over two thousand shark species have been described in the fossil record.
Should I point out all her other errors? She started out with fundamental errors in her first paragraph that showed her poor understanding of the subject and the history of Science.
So what is her degree? What work has she done in genetics? Her obfuscation about her credentials goes well with her obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.