celtic6:

I've always taken the creationists to be the wacko 6000 year old earth crowd, and I didn't see any of that here. But whatever the motivations, scientific arguments have to stand or fall on thier own, i.e. the evidence and logic presented.

Of course, but your original assertion was that this wasn't about creationism, and I think you're wrong. I don't think what he's doing really comes under the heading "scientific questioning." He's not looking at the body of evidence as a whole, he's just trying to pick apart evolution. Consider all this nonsense about how evolution must be false because the fossil record indicates that some species haven't changed much over extremely long time periods. That evidence is not contrary to the theory of evolution. Not all species have to evolve into different species; species evolve in accordance with changing environmental pressures. Therefore it's not surprising that some species don't change very much throughout history; or, in other cases, different populations of the same species may be exposed to different environments, and one population evolves (forming a new branch) and the other does not.