Both or neither.

There are a good many transitional forms in the fossil record. Most of them are not known to the general public because they just aren't very interesting.The "dehumanisation" is always attributable to preexisting beliefs - and not evolution itself. Creationism is just as - if not more - supportive of racism. And even if that were not the case it would have no bearign on the truth of evolutionary theory.Irreducible complexity ? TO the best of my knowledge that one relies on Behe's opinions that the "indirect" routes - the routes any knowledgable person would EXPECT evolution to use - are too improbable. If you can find a decent argument FOR that let me know - Behe didn't bother to include one in his book.Improbability ? I haven't seen one argument which amounts to more than playing with made-up numbers.What's wrong with creationism ? Well is is'nt the idea that we might be responsible to a higher being. Plenty of Christians accept evolution. The fact that creationists frequently attribute such motivations to their opponents IS one of the things wrong with the creationist movement. They usually insist that people who dare to disagree with them cannot be Christian.But what is wrong with creationism ?Well the main questions is why is there so much evidence for evolution ? Is there a creator trying to fool us into believing evolution ?Another is that there is no theory of creationism - the closest you will find is apologetic attempts to "justify" a more-or-less literal interpretation of Genesis. By any account that is religion since it STARTS with the assumption that Genesis is in some sense a scientific account of the history of the world.

If you are going to calcvulate the probability of forming a "correct" chain of amino acids then first please explain what the "correct" chain or chains are and how you know them to be correct.Then explain the mechanisms available to form them and explain how you know that they are the only ones relevant.And don;t forget to justify any other assumptions you make.That is if you want to do a MATHEMATICAL proof rather than an excuse to reject evolution dressed up as mathematics.

75 proteins ? where does that number come from and what does it represent ?Whty do they have to be randomly assembled ? Replicators can be simpler - much simpler - and therefore evolution rather than random assembly is a distinct possiblity. Why is this ignored ?Let me put it VERY simple. NO scientist engaged in serious research into the origins of life would assume that 75 proteins would have formed by pure chance. This is not an "accurate" example at all it is a strawman invented by someone who is at best ignorant of the actual science involved.