Let me explain. were these words below yours, or Rana's? "...if this evidence is so strong, why did Charles Dawson feel compelled to invent Piltdown Man by assembling a hodgepodge of human and orangutan bones (using dental putty to hold the teeth in place), wearing them down with a file, and staining them with iron and acid to give them the appearance of age?" If they are your words, than you might make a good Trunk apologist. If they are Rana's words paraphrased, then you implied you'd make a good Trump apologist. Let me explain. In the sentence I quoted you have a "diversion". Something that has "truthiness" about it, and in this case, includes actual truth, but it in no way supports Rana's argument, though to the gullible it appears to. It simply serves to divert one's attention from a paucity of logic employed. The description above is that of a Darwin experiment. He was exploring his various hypotheses. It was an experiment in what he imagined our distant ancestors might have looked like. It was not terribly unlike the way comparative paleontology and archeology works today. He was engaged in exploration; not deceit. Now consider carefully the preamble words: "if this evidence is so strong, why did Charles Dawson feel compelled to invent Piltdown Ma." Can you see that these words have a sinister ring to them implying that Darwin is trying to cook the evidence. It's an attempt to divert the reader from an innocent Darwin experiment by implying something sinister going on. The entire post reads this way. It's a dangerous diversion from truth; not the truth of Darwin's hypothesis, but of his intentions. When anyone is led to believe something is true that isn't, for example: " Mexico will pay for the wall," "I'm a stable genius," "We test more than anyone," etc., etc., that person becomes dangerous because they will infect others with lies. And lies are truth's enemy. The type of diversion used in the Rana article you paraphrased is rather typical of the diversions Trump routinely engages in That's why I said you'd be a good campaigner for Donald Trump. Trump's minions aren't even aware of the vast gulf between truth and what Trump tells them, and Rana is aiming at the same gullibility. Whether Trump or Rana are aware that they are diverting by misrepresentation does not matter. Both are dangerous.
Don't want to imply that this is something you believe. Just want to point out that this is clearly wrong. Given an infinite amount of time, anything can not happen. What can happen is severely constrained by the laws of physics and chemistry. And that's one reason why evolution can occur far more rapidly than was once thought. In fact it is now thought that modern man evolved extremely rapidly in geologic time. It is also known, for the same reason, that living organisms anywhere in the universe will have carbon based chemistry. The specific reason is also known.