Additionally, the fossil record displays a regular pattern of abrupt appearances of new life forms (instead of their arrival by innumerable small steps in a Darwinian manner),
He begins with a false premise. It shouldn't be surprising to end up with a tall pile of fallacious conclusions.
What EVOLUTION is and what a DARWINIAN manner are is worth noting at the outset.
Darwin observed finches in the Galapagos with a range of beaks and feathers, tails, etc. that were discrete. That was the beginning. Puzzling out the reason for the range of differences and discovering a mechanism for isolating species from the same bird-type was the problem.
Darwin was completely unaware of genes or genetic laws. Had he known the ACTUAL method of passing morphological information from life to life his hypothesis would have been without the need to postulate OTHER causes.
Today, however, science has more data. What does this mean?
EVOLUTION is not exactly the same as a DARWINIAN MANNER.
Evolution is what it IS and not what Darwin's best guess made it out to be.
End of story.
Creating a straw man to beat with "facts" is an old trick. A tired one.
I find the subject of Evolution vs Creation the most boring of all subjects.
Why?
Because discussions bog down in the sludge of mind-numbing details that proliferate ad nauseum.
It is a war of data and not of thought or reason.
What could be interesting about watching a column of figures swarm like ants over another column of figures in a death-match of ciphers and integers?
Bah!
T.