> If the above statement is not a challenge to Darwinism, then what is it?
Not a challenge to Darwinism. For somethign to challenge some settled aspect of science, and not just flap about, it has to:
A) Show that it is so
B) Show that it actually trounces that aspect of science it's "challenging."
The putative "challenge" here fails utterly on point 2.
So now the word "challenge" means "actually trounces." I love the way that you guys change the definition of words. It seems to be the only thing that is consistent in evolution.