The arguments presented by these sources (even if they were correct) do not have any relevance whatsoever to cellular biology or the theory of evolution.
It must be noted that Comfort, and several of his sources, deliberately and maliciously confuse the theory of evolution with abiogenesis and cosmology, the fields that address the origin of life and/or the origin of the universe.
Comfort hopes to accomplish this by using quotes from various sources as evidence.
However, there are several major problems with Comfort's approach.
5), many of these quotes come from men who are not qualified biologists or any other relevant fields (or even qualified scientists at all).
Throughout this review of the book, every quote mine will be pointed out and revealed, as well as every instance when the person is not a biologist or a scientist.
However, there are many many problems with Comfort's rather dishonest approach.
This article will provide a side-by-side commentary and critical analysis of this book, along with highlights of certain fallacies throughout the book.
In this book, Ray asks a series of questions that he hopes will undermine people's acceptance of the theory of evolution.However, these typical creationist arguments do not damage the theory of evolution for multiple reasons.Creationists tend to use the Achilles Heel fallacy, and think if they can prove that there are no fossils or that a few of them were faked, then the entire theory of evolution is destroyed. There are vast amounts of data and peer-reviewed papers (which creationists obviously and deliberately ignore) examining the evidence for the Cambrian explosion and transitional fossils, and the fact is these “arguments” are wrong and have been known to be wrong for a very long time.Oftentimes, the quotes and claims that are outdated no longer apply because years of scientific research has built a stronger understanding of the theory of evolution (as well as many other scientific fields).For instance, quoting a source over a decade old about the lack of transitional fossils is useless, especially over the past recent years of many findings of numerous transitional fossils, making the older claims moot and worthless.
There are handfuls of the references provided by Comfort that stay on point, but they do not damage the theory of evolution as Comfort wishes they did.