Simon has largely done exactly what I object to about those trying to debunk evolutionary theory, which is to make an argument based on a very selective point of view and also fails (as Mark points out) to offer any alternative – either mystical or physical. This is not to say Darwin is right but rather that the arguments made against him are normally very weak. For example: the fossil record combined with the time line. As I understand it, nobody is suggesting that evolution occurs at an even pace. It is perfectly rational to suggest that more complex forms suddenly appeared from sludge etc., rapidly evolved to create the major Phylum and then the pace of change slowed down. ‘Rapidly’ meaning 10’s of millions of years of course. The second point: fossils are very, very old and can only occur in very specific conditions. Lastly (for now), there are no ‘laws’ of chance – merely the maths of probability. There is no meaningful link about mathematically how long it would take a monkey to do something and the physical probability of a monkey so doing – physically he could just bash out War & Peace in one go. Toss a coin 1000 times and see what I mean. It is a dangerous by-product of the modern rational mind to link mathematical certainty with physical prediction.