I do agree that Gerlernter's argument is weak, at least as presented in this essay. Still, there is something to be said for the fact that the "statistical" nature of mutations over the timeframe don't quite add up. It could, of course, be something like survivor's bias.
But when a bright mind like Gerlernter raises the question, it's worth taking a look; many Darwinists won't.
Coyne, a Darwinist, discusses the Cambrian explosion as not being quite what creationists claim: it would be improbable for such fecundity of life to have occurred in the timeframe observed. This argument is refuted by Prothero [1]. Furthermore, the statistical incongruity seems like a red herring, and has been answered repeatedly [2]. Even if it still does not add up, I would argue that it’s not necessary to thump scriptures as a credible biological reference.
The evidence is not what you would make it seem, nor are counter-arguments based on theology. See the the rebuttal to Coyne I posted above if you have an open mind.
Can you quote the exact paragraph that looks interesting?
For example the numbers in the sections "Mutations" and "Building a Better Protein" don't make sense. More details in my commenting a previous submission https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20570102
Thanks for the link. It has a link to the article where the 10^-77 comes from. I'm not convinced, but I'll left a detailed reply for another day. [They use as a model a very big protein with approximately 300 amino acids and a very complex folding. It's not a good idea to use this number in the other article about the first proteins, that were probably much shorter and with a straightforward structure.]
