Vidqun: I had hoped we can discuss some of the specifics, go down to molecular level.
You're talking about some fairly involved scientific knowledge and high-level areas of research. The idea that non-experts can weigh in with more than basic levels of understanding isn't realistic. It's why I pointed out how people like Tour and Meyer are treated within the circles of science that specifically deal with the things they want to discuss and critique (areas outside of their own expertise).
They're not taken seriously by the experts in life sciences and evolutionary biology. I cannot speak to the stuff that Tour or Meyer bring up; I don't know anywhere near enough about them. But the people who DO know these things don't even find them worth listening to. Is this because of some vast scientific conspiracy? Or are they pushing ideas that can't be taken seriously by the people who actually know what they are talking about?
Same with evolution. If the actual experts and researchers into the field all come to the same conclusion, I am comfortable to accept that they have it right. Or at least, that they're on to something. What can the non-expert tell me about things that neither of us know much about? And why would I depend on them or myself for understanding about a topic that has been researched (and continues to be researched) as thoroughly as evolution has, for well over a century now?