The Atheist and the first dog.
Linkity

Article synopsis: The author demonstrates his appalling lack of knowledge on the subject of evolution. He does this by making a series of fantastic errors while speculating about the evolution of the dog. He was also somewhat rude. Let's correct his mistakes shall we?

Error one: 'Evolution claims that the dog's eye is complex and evolved instantly after millions of years of blindness.'
Well that isn't an accurate portrayal of the evolution of the eye is it? A more accurate reflection of reality would be to state that the eye evolved gradually from a series of useful "sight" organs which were selected for by the environment the organism lived in. Combined with beneficial mutation, this selective pressure caused the existing organs to become more and more useful until the modern eye resulted. It is interesting to note that the eye in general is still responding to environmental pressure and the accumulation of beneficial mutations. Tetrachromats, for instance, can see wavelengths that are imperceivable to the standard human eye. At any rate, here is a link that explains the likely evolution of the eye. (It's a PDF) http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/256/1345/53.full.pdf+html.

Error two: 'Evolution claims that genders evolved separately within a species and that these separate evolutionary processes occurred at the exact time to allow the propagation of the species.' This either demonstrates dishonesty or extreme ignorance on the part of the author. Given his predilection towards straw-man arguments, safe money would be on the former. Obviously, if a species was evolving, both genders would be evolving at the same time. Members of a species with compatible sexual organs that have a lineage that is responsive to change will continue to survive and evolve. Genders existed well before the first "dog" was around. So the intended question of "Where did genders come from?" is really a question of "where did sex come from?" Unfortunately, I do not know of a quick down-and-dirty web based resource to cite that would adequately answer this question but, Lynn Marqulis and Dorion Sagan's wrote a book on the subject called "Origins of sex" It's a good read.

After this point, the article digresses into pointless douchebaggery. The Author spends the next two paragraphs belittling an anonymous atheist on "an atheist blog." for explaining a benefit of sexual reproduction.