We should keep two issues distinct: (a) the criticism of evolution and (b) the qaulity of communication between disparate levels of ability of understanding.
If evolution does not concern itself with this feature, something else does. Or is it that you wish to deny the existence of complexity?
My general goal has been to stick to learning and education rather than turning another's loss into a side-show sport. I think it helps build a character of patience, which is greatly needed in an ambitious and adolescent world.
Being intoxicated this early in the morning is not good.
My point is simple. If you intend to be a critic of science you must understand it and not argue against straw men.
If you debate, you must understand your opponent's position and be able to state it correctly.
I have noticed that most of the evolution critics on these threads are unaware of what biologists have to say about evolution. This could be remedied by a bit of reading. Ernst Mayr's This is Biology would be a good start.
Oddly enough, most of the ID supporters on these threads have no idea what the ideological founders of ID have to say. Posters on these threads are generally unaware that Behe, Denton and, to some extent, Dembsky, accept the historical fact of evolution even while being skeptical of natural selection as the only shaping force.
Nothing on these threads is so technical that it is inaccessible to someone interested in learning. Having strong opinions on a technical subject without basic knowledge is inexcusable.