I'm not sure what is so controversial about this topic or post. How many time does it need to be stated that Evolution has nothing to do with creation or the beginning/origin of life. Everything in Cofty's opening post is basic biology you will learn at either the high school level or an introductory biology course in college with the exception of the topic Cytochrome C protein molecule. That topic would probably be discussed in General Biology I at least in America as it is a protein found in Mitochondria and I remember it being covered briefly.
Cofty has every right to post this topic as you have every right not to click on it and comment. I can only assume the attacks are made because a logical scientific dispute is too difficult. Here is an attempt, and will note it's not my original thoughts, paraphrased from my poor recall of journal articles i've read, whether my logic is faulty at least it was a attempt vs an ad hominem attack :
In a Evolutionary progression you would expect to see a gradual change and transitional change in structures and differences between species. Such is the argument made and used as proof for evolution with transitional fossils. The same would be expected with Cytochrome C protein. However as has been noted by microbiologist Dr. Micheal Denton the difference between cytochrome C protein in bacteria was more similar to fish than mammal. The opposite should be true to support a transitional change. He further states that there is no transitional or immediate groups, something that should be there to support evolution.
I didn't really make a strong argument but point is one could make one.
I believe Dr. Denton is pretty much an outlier and dismissed by his peers
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html