This will get ranty but I feel I need to point out the thing as to why this position in particular is just such an annoying example of what is wrong this whole thing. Apologies for quite possibly offending you, but here's the thing:discrider said:
Might as well say that there is "propaganda" from both sides and stuff "obfusciating" science when trying to ascertain whether or not evil lizard people control the world or we live in a democratic state. One of those positions is not like the other to the point where everyone who has somehow researched the matter properly says one of those positions is very much bogus. So why on earth would anyone argue differently? I tell you why: because they have a vested emotional interest in getting people to adopt their viewpoint - no matter the cost.
And that is also the problem here: every single internet-creationist counterargument I have ever seen trying to "disprove" evolution is either ultimately fallacious, clearly just an emotional appeal to manipulate people to adopt that viewpoint, plainly uneducated or any combination of them - it is clear to me that most just don't know what they are talking about or a clear attempt at proselytization. The most egregious part about it, however, is the utter amount of arrogance inherent in that position: clearly somebody who has read two articles in some fucking blog can disprove over 100 years of work by scientists who wrote an ungodly amount of papers, did years of field work or performed thousands of experiments - because, hey, instead of thinking that maybe that strange organization that wants me to send them all my money because they want to spread the word of god is a little bit shady, clearly it must be far more trustworthy than every scientist ever, every scientific theory ever and any bloody application ever that has been born out of scientific research. And the reason is: they have to be right because somebody told them that it is part of what makes them be, ultimately because somebody, somewhere applied an unbelievably narrow interpretation to a piece of text. And that is enough for them to try with all their might to tear down a theory that might even save lives with its predictions.
That is not to say, that science, biology, evolution or what have you is beyond reproach, skepticism is bad or even god does not exist - by all means be skeptic and do research, try to learn things, make up your own mind, believe in whatever you want to and, above all, feel free to ask - but to presume to be able to mechanically disprove a cornerstone of biological science by a mere argument made up in five minutes of spare time without having at the very least a formal education on the matter and a place in the scientific community or simply as you call it "doing" the legwork is just one thing: pride. And that was a cardinal sin last time I checked.
Or in other words: it's simply not your or my place to decide if evolution is right or wrong - it was never a debate we were qualified to enter in the first place.
However, I can relate that research is hard to come by without a university access. So, if you are genuinely interested in those mechanical aspects and where and how it might not make sense I suggest to start with some university courses that you might find online for free (The MIT has some youtube channels on that I think) take the literature from there and edge onwards, Google Scholar [http://scholar.google.com/] might also be a good source if you want to find some papers, some of which are I think free. There is also PLOS [http://www.plos.org/] a free database for articles that you can use and arXiv [http://arxiv.org/] for physics you can also always skim through. For starters, I suggest to search for any articles or introductory stuff that might be good. There are also good magazines like Scientific American that you can also read to get a first introduction into these details.
