You have not provided these "gigantic, gaping holes" in Evolution so far, so it would be interesting to see what you assume is so "gigantic" that the entire premise of Evolution would be so convoluted that even objective scientists would scoff.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v13i8f.htmThe Discontinuity Problem
The most basic problem with the theory of evolution is staring us right in the face, but it is so obvious that it is often overlooked.
Indeed, perhaps the most striking fact about nature is that it is discontinuous. When you look at animals and plants, each individual almost always falls into one of many discrete groups. When we look at a single wild cat, for example, we are immediately able to identify it as either a lion, a cougar, a snow leopard, and so on. All cats do not blur insensibly into one another through a series of feline intermediates. And although there is a variation among individuals within a cluster (as all lion researchers know, each lion looks different from every other), the clusters nevertheless remain discrete in "organism space." We see clusters in all organisms that reproduce sexually.
These discrete clusters are known as species. And at first sight, their existence looks like a problem for evolutionary theory. Evolution is, after all, a continuous process, so how can it produce groups of animals and plants that are discrete and discontinuous, separated from others by gaps in appearance and behavior? How these groups arise is the problem of speciation��"or the origin of species.
That, of course, is the title of Darwinâs most famous book, a title implying that he had a lot to say about speciation. ⦠Yet Darwinâs magnum opus was largely silent on the "mystery of mysteries." And what little he did say on this topic is seen by most modern evolutionists as muddled. 13 [italics his]
If the theory of evolution were true, then plants and animals really would blur together without clear distinctions. It really is a problem for which Coyne has no good answer.
No Excuse for Sex
The origin of sex is one of the hardest things for evolutionists to explain. Coyne doesnât have an answer. As usual, he just punts.
The question of the number of sexes is a messy theoretical issue that neednât detain us, except to note that theory shows that two sexes will evolutionarily replace mating systems involving three or more sexes: two sexes is the most robust and stable strategy.
The theory of why the two sexes have different numbers and sizes of gametes is equally messy. This condition presumably evolved from that in earlier sexually reproducing species in which the two sexes had gametes of equal size. 14
the first cell will always be the answer.
what, then is the origin of this cell? space rocks bumping together and suddenly there is a such thing as DNA?
