I think Bobez is right--the 60% figure is probably misguided and overblown.

The chain of gradual change in life forms, fueled by natural selection, sexual advantage, and a drive for survival, is not really deniable, except by pure-dee mythmongering.

Whether the ionformation behind that chain includes a spiritual element or not is an interesting question, that is still open. The core question, to my mind, is the capacity for intention, something I have never seen in a molecule. Intending and understanding are orders of magnitude more subtle, it seems to me, than any other "behavior" (a much-abused word) in physical organic systems.

The Blind Watchmake (Dawkins) and other books by the same author do a good job of unfolding the reasoning behind modern Darwinism.

A