[Cicero]

Hard to tell whether this makes sense or not. It's by the math that this theory would stand or fall.

Darwinism is like a religion, and Darwinists tend to have closed minds, so that might account for his negative peer reviews. Or it might not.

In any case, the theory that each species originated separately from purely material chemical process strikes me as exceedingly unlikely. Hard to tell without seeing the math. But if there are, for purposes of the argument, 10,000,000 separate species, then this would seem nearly 10,000,000 times more unlikely than Darwinian evolution--which, in my opinion, is vanishingly improbable already.

[Junior]

Darwinism is like a religion, and Darwinists tend to have closed minds, so that might account for his negative peer reviews. Or it might not.

Not. The purpose of a professional research paper is to spell out the researcher's methodology in such a way that it can be replicated by other researchers. If, during the attempts to replicate the research, the peer-reviewers get contradictory results, or if the paper isn't written in such a way as to make the methodology unreplicable (c.f. Pons and Fleischman), then it is typically rejected by the peer-review process. Personal views do not enter into the equation. It's not a perfect process, but it comes as close to being objective as humans have managed to get.

[devolve]

Un-PC to question why some dawgs sit on thar fat butts and eat and sleep while them thar hounds are out huntin' varmints and the collies are roundin' up the herd at feedin' time.

When did Darwinism suddenly stop and the lazy dawgs fail to completely evolve?

Or is that culturally insensitive to certain breeds of dawgs that are not up to the tests of life cause thar historically oppressed and never git enough Puppy Chow?

Whuts up wid dat?

[cookcounty]

"n any case, the theory that each species originated separately from purely material chemical process strikes me as exceedingly unlikely. Hard to tell without seeing the math. But if there are, for purposes of the argument, 10,000,000 separate species, then this would seem nearly 10,000,000 times more unlikely than Darwinian evolution--which, in my opinion, is vanishingly improbable already."

There are any number of folk about who have already done the calculations (in their heads!) and they "know" that there is life out there on many, many planets. Why life didn't arise a billion times on earth already, they are not able to say.