What you have here is a fanatic, a crank, an obsessive ... all kinds of news to discuss, all kinds of politics to bandy about in a political forum, but someone just wants to take on those barefoot ignorants who dare to wonder if this theory just might have a few large holes in it...
Haven't you been paying attention lately?
We're all evolving to be gay.
Ape-like ancestor, Kro-Magnon, Homo-Sapien, Homo-Sexual.
Just like the flies!!!!
The Creation/ID folks have no interest in science or evolution except to destroy them where their particular religious beliefs afford them different viewpoints.
Why should scientists pay any attention to folks who get their scientific training and political motivation from Genesis? They're not out to correct flaws in evolution but to destroy it completely!
Now, here is another creation story for the C/ID folks!
Long ago no divisions existed between humans, animals and spirits. All things of the earth, sky, and, water were connected and all beings could pass freely between them. The Raven was a trickster full of supernatural power. He stole the sun from his grandfather Nasshahkeeyalhl and made the moon and stars from it. The Raven created lakes, rivers and filled the lands with trees. He divided night and day, then pulled the tides into a rhythm. He filled the streams with fresh water, scattered the eggs of salmon and trout, and placed animals in the forests. The first human was hiding in a giant clamshell and Raven released them onto the beaches and gave humans fire. Raven disappeared and took with him the power of the spirit world to communicate and connect with humans.
The ID movement's modus operandi is to spout old creationist arguments - with updated rhetoric - and loudly claim a controversy within science. And by golly, the public schools should "teach our the controversy!"
As a PR strategy it's brilliant, but as an actual, honest scientific critique it's barren.
They are. The fact is that, contrary to creationist propaganda, evolutionary theory has been tested repeatedly and, in a few cases, found wanting and subsequently modified. Here are a few examples. Darwin's original conception of genetic blending was wrong - replaced with Mendelian genetics. Natural selection isn't enough to explain all diversity - augmented with neutral drift. Strict common descent found wanting - added endosymbiosis and lateral transfer.
Of course the number of tests that it has passed are far more numerous. Scientists consider the theory very reliable because it is supported by multiple, independent lines of evidence.
That is why some of the most respected and trumpeted evolutionists have now stated their belief in some requirement for intelligent design.