Yes, Pharyngula is great.
And VernR, “Climbing Mount Improbable” is highly recommended. The great thing about Dawkins is the clarity with which he explains counterintuitive notions, for instance that the selective pressure of, say, a stick insect looking 1% more like a stick than its forbears, is meaningful, given the vast number if individuals being selected over vast amaounts of time.

Sorry for the double post, but when you get to the site click on the pirate icon.

Seconding CS’s thanks.

On complexity, I just ordered Dawkin’s book Climbing Mount Improbable, which covers how the eye might have evolved as well as some other examples of adaption.

Thank you for the referral.  I like how he handles it.

Regards,

Yep, it’s one of my dayly reads.

You can’t argue with fanatics. What’s rather shocking is that Mr. Skell is a supposed chemist—not exactly the most subjective non-scientific field to begin with—and yet he seems to abandon established scientific parameters whenever it suits his need. Your friend would have a more fulfilling time selecting a nice bumby brick wall and then try smashing his head up against it repeatedly rather than trying to win over this dunderhead. Maybe another explaination exists though. Perhaps this is a ploy by Mr. Skell to score points for his side by enticing the prof. to overuse complex scientific jargon in order to explain his point (however scientifically correct) which goes right over the heads of most neophytes and thus providing Mr. Skell opportunities to score cheap simplistic points that would appeal to the real crowd he aiming for—the younger undecideds or people who are uncertain about the basic tenants of evolution. Perhaps the professor instead of trying to address each point made by this nimrod should take a page from his book and ignore the 100 point litanies Mr. Skell puts out and focus on explaining one or two in simple, clear,and realtivly jargon free terms so that his points could be understood by a wider audience.