I am not sure how your argument applies to me, nor to my brethren, nor to the articles' author.
Perhaps if you were to share with us *exactly* the nature of our "error," with a solid argument instead of recurring to ad hominems, we might understand your point.
-Theo
There are so many errors in the article you posted, it would take hours to go through them all. I suggest you read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller, wherein most of them are addressed.
Just for fun, however, I'll address a couple errors in your article.
But neither the fossils, nor breeding experiments, nor the study of sub-species (or variations) in geographical isolates have produced a single case of one species turning into another.
There are, in fact, many instances, observed speciation, both in the fossil record and in modern times. The author is just plain ignorant.
Here's an article that lists just a few examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
I'd also point out that even the creationist group, Answers in Genesis, aknowledges that speciation does occur.
The best examples of speciation observed in the fossil record are horses and elephants. Gradual change is easily observable.
Nobody has ever observed “speciation” on the genetic level.
Also wrong, as any high school biology student would know. Scientists have observed that some plants speciate by doubling their chromosome count, for example.
Since the Cambrian, we see species being replaced by later species, not evolving into them. New species appear fully formed and change little or not at all until becoming extinct.
Wrong. Amphibians gradually evolved into reptiles, and we have many of the steps in between. Ditto for reptiles into mammals, and reptiles into birds.
We also have an excellent record of the gradual evolution of man.