Explaining my vote down: (1) You make a lot of bold statements to refute a highly researched article full of references, with not so much as a nod to your sour

Explaining my vote down: (1) You make a lot of bold statements to refute a highly researched article full of references, with not so much as a nod to your sources (2) Your first sentence makes an assumption that he's missed or ignoring the very thing that the article is reacting to. The _whole_ point of the article is to discuss first principles. The author of the article is pretty well known for his ability to do so (3) I'm unclear on your statements about human evolution, all sorts of potential background for those statements spring to mind, but whatever it is, it is on you you to provide _strong_ references or original research in order to refute evolutionary science (4) Godwin's law in the very first comment!