His paragraph on sandcastles was very instructive. If it is as hackneyed as you say, then perhaps you should find a refutation of it quite easily. It is the basis of the theory of intelligent design and it has roots that go back even further than Darwin. It has not been refuted and you will not be refuting it either, that is why you resort to the lame Clintonian excuse "it is yesterday's news".
Only in terms of instructing us about his total ignorance of the theory of natural selection.
If it is as hackneyed as you say, then perhaps you should find a refutation of it quite easily.
We have already refuted it--sand castles neither reproduce, nor mutate when they do so, so they are irrelevant to the discussion.