Look, I agree with evolution, but it doesn't get to the main questions: How did we come about? And why?
There's really nothing exciting about evolution if you ask me.
> How studiously post 32 has been ignored.
That's because the page it links to is scientifically poor. It proceeds from the wrong mathematical assumptions regarding the odds of amino acids forming the right enzymes. Their approach is a purely random one, like calculating the odds of getting a certain layout of cards through random shuffling. It doesn't work that way.
The page fraudulently states:
"To duplicate a bacterium, one would have to assemble 2,000 different functioning enzymes. The odds against this event would be 1 in 10 to the 20th power multiplied together 2,000 times, or 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power... "
The problem with this is, one *wouldn't* have to assemble 2,000 different functioning enzymes ALL AT ONCE. Start with a group of, say ten. Enough for replication. If another is added and that helps, great. You've grown by one. If one is added and it hurts, that organism dies. Which is no loss since there are innumerable copies of it already in the primordial ocean, since it's capable of replication and all.
Through this simple approach, attaining 2,000 different functioning enzymes is a matter of time, not a matter of cosmic unlikelihood.
And the authors know this.