How could 300 species of fish evolve? I don't know but I am sure it's not impossible. It is specious to say that because it took birds longer to evolve somewhere else, that it would be impossible for those fish to evolve more quickly. I would say that one would have to really examine the facts available here, what we do and don't know about the geographic history of the region and how that might have had an effect on the flora and fauna there. I think it really would take experts in the associated fields of geography and biology to work this out. It's easy for a layperson to have a superficial look at what can be seen and make sweeping comments. Are there things we don't understand? Yes, Because we don't understand them, is that proof that evolution is wrong? No.

I read an article on the BBC news site yesterday talking about new things we've learned from fossils of homo erectus, and how we may not be as closely related to them as was thought. Also, they seem to have existed at the same time as homo habilis, so it is unlikely (but not impossible) that one evolved into another. This was one region, so what was happening in another is a mystery yet.

I read articles like this because I enjoy learning about new discoveries. I have to admit I had a laugh too, though, because stuff like this must get creationists fuming. All part of the big conspiracy, right?