Here's Canada's pre-eminent IDiot, Denyse O'Leary, with another novel argument against "Darwinism":
... [a writer's] editor had demanded that I account for the fact that humans share 98% of our DNA with chimps.
I asked her a simple - and, to me, obvious - question: Let's kidnap a guy off the subway in Toronto. Yes, that is a felony offence, but maybe we can manage the whole thing discreetly and get the charges dropped, if he agrees that it was all a private matter anyway ...
(would help if he was a friend or relative - of course, we could, at worst, be charged with wasting police time ...)
But now! We've got him! We will put a chimp from the local zoo of similar age beside him (securely buckled in, because we would not want anything bad to happen to our man).
If both are more than 30 years old, and are normal specimens, how many people will believe that they are 98% identical?
What woman, otherwise consigned to being a spinster, would marry the chimp if she didn't get the man? After all, the chimp is supposedly 98% of a man.
So Denyse's argument is that, even with that remarkable genetic similarity, Darwinism is clearly false since people still refuse to date outside of their species? Really? As a hard-core conservative, Denyse, are you sure that's the argument you want to be making?
I'm just asking.