It's funny the article is full of random this and random that, but selection is not random. Mutations may be random the way we perceive them, but doesn't have to be. Live a few years near a contaminated area and mutations will be the result as can be witnissed even today;

http://www.oasisllc.com/abgx/effects.htm

Quote:

---

Since Evolution A is not an observable, it can only be substantiated by circumstantial evidence. This circumstantial evidence is principally the fossil record, amino-acid-sequence comparisons, and comparative anatomy. Circumstantial evidence must be accompanied by a theory of how it relates to what is to be proved.

---

Dr. Spetner's reasoning in the mentioned article is odd by the way, basically he claims we may only 'zoom in' instead of 'zoom out' to see the bigger picture based upon the current evidence.

However evidence should be the backbone of a theory, not the other way around. Personally I wouldn't call it circumstantitial evidence, but in the case of Evolution A the evidence we are talking about is infact true evidence especially since the full process of macro-evolution is not observable. You can't reproduce that in the timespan of a humanlife or even in a dozen or perhaps even in a million lifetimes because it goes at a crawling speed, sometimes may stop when in equilibrium and after that change rapidly. This can all be seen in the fossil record, amino-acid-sequence comparisons and comparative anatomy studies. So again, infact this is evidence,

Cheers