#3 is pretty low hanging fruit:
“... ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution.”
No, actually it specifically cites these important distinctions to make the case that extrapolating “A” to prove “B” is UNSCIENTIFIC....As this author unintentionally makes clear in his weak statement intended to support:
“Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.
“May be a prelude”!?!?!? That’s pretty UNSCIENTIFIC!!!!
Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.”
Well that’s cute, but the “evidence” in the fossil record is completely lacking!!!
As for the DNA comparisons, they conveniently ignore the fact that for well over 10 years we’ve known that the key building blocks for differentiation occur below the DNA level.
“As for the DNA comparisons, they conveniently ignore the fact that for well over 10 years we’ve known that the key building blocks for differentiation occur below the DNA level.”
Not sure what you are talking about.
Yet, even if you are making a valid point, this article was written 12 years ago.