1. I've been reading through the "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" (Thanks for the link).
2. You know, I was sitting on my chair moving ever forward in anticipation of seeing these 29+ evidences as I read. By the end the article I was balancing on the end of my vestigial tail.
3. Here is a sample argument from Section 1 of Mr Theobald's article and its supposed evidence for macroevolution: Because all lifeforms share the basic attribute of "DNA or RNA", this is evidence that they developed from one original form of life. Using the same type of reasoning it could be asserted that: Because all programs running on a given computer system share the basic attribute of binary coding, this is evidence that they developed from one original program. This is the sort of argument used in the first part of the article. They all hinge on the same view that because all living things share a set of attributes this gives evidence of common descent. Now I know why the author used the word 'evidences' instead of proof, as you can interpret this sort of evidence how you like. To me, the evidence proves only one thing: All living things share a basic set of defining attributes.
4. Categorising organisms on a phylogenic tree is no proof of common descent either. The evidence may suggest a possibility in theory, but the probability in fact is open to question. One of the ways macroevolution could occur for sure is if, like a compressed and encrypted file, all the necessary data were preprogrammed within, but then that would require a programmer. While it is a fact that changes can be made to genetic material via external means, to believe that such chains of mutations as evolutionists claim were responsible for such diversity of life, to my mind, requires a huge faith in the ability of random changes to shape such an outcome. I don't have that faith.
5. Apparently evolutionists can wash their hands of the need to account for abiogenesis as a prerequisite for their theory. However, some members here have implied that intelligent design theory cannot be taken seriously because it does not account for the maker of the designer (ad infinitum). It reminds me of a certain saying: "Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others."
6. Even if you don't agree with their religious beliefs (I certainly don't), those who have a sense of fair play should go and read a critique of Mr Theobald's article by Ashby Camp over at www.trueorigin.org.
7. This is my final post in this thread. Although its been an interesting topic to read and contribute to, I've been surprised at the insults thrown about. I was not impressed by those who essentially implied that other members must be thick. For me, such insinuations put me off reading anything those persons might post.
BTW: I've read "The Dawkins Delusion" and will be commenting on it sometime in the appropriate thread.