>More logical? Only if you desire a specific outcome Rejecting parts or all of the testimony of the Bible is not a new solution. Wisdom knows her own children.
>
>It is interesting to note that researching hereditary linage from mitochondrial RNA has led to data that suggests modern man was derived from a single female, now called 'eve'. If that research withstands analysis the question arises "with whom did eve conjugate to create offspring?" And, how was it possible that two such compatible beings could arise at exatcly the time, i.e., the child-bearing years of eve? The odds against that happening by random selection have to be astronomical to the point of impossible.

There for an explanation of how "Mitochondrial Eve" can quite easily have existed :
http://www.strbrasil.com.br/English/Scientia/eve.htm

>A similar nexus was reached in 1958, at a meeting of evolutionists in Denver, CO. They had convened to consider why, after 100 years of archeological and geological research the fossile record did not support Dawarin's theory of gradualism. Fredrick Hoyle, IIRC, showed mathematically why random collisions of precursor molecules causing the creation of a single cell with 2,000 protein enzymes was impossible, to say nothing of the nucleides inside and the cell membrane which surrounds them. Max Earnst responded with a tautological argument, stating "It just did!". The majority in attendence accepted Earnst's 'explaination' and that became biology's 'dirty little secret', according to Eldridge. He and Gould eventually developed, around 1972, an alternative theory to explain away the absence of gradualism in the fossil record, the theory of punctuated equilibrium. The two camps have been warring with each other every since.

Just because there are disagreements about the actual mechanism of evolution, does not invalidate the fact of evolution. Different people will interpret the available evidence & come to different conclusions. Much as with 'Christianity', there are many religions taking the Bible as their source of belief but interpret it differently. Should I dismiss the Bible, because there are arguments about it's interpretation ?

The arguments over gradualism & punctuated equilibrium are also a matter of interpretation, Gould & Eldridge pointed out that PE was not mutually exclusive of gradualism. Their PE theory attempted to link paleantology with contemporary theories of speciation from biological studies of living animals, to explain the apparent failings of gradualism.
http://www.skeptic.com/01.3.prothero-punc-eq.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html