Title: A reply to the prominent first review
Product review: He assumes that a single insitution's study alone proves the mathematical impossibility of evolution because a brute random version of evolution would take impossibly wrong. This is a strawman argument.Some had compared the odds of life randomly assembling to some monkeys pounding on a few typewriters, hoping to somehow recreate the lingual, semantic, literary 'irreducible' complexity of "Hamlet". A researcher took them up on it: he used a program where only the fittest (most Hamlet-y) letters survived. It took only a few hours to produce a perfect copy.Evolution does not create whole, random objects. Copious incremental variations do the trick. It has been proven far better than a few erroneous calculations by a questionable institute fifty years ago.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
