I'll also add creating a throwaway account to mention you thought other comments were jokes doesn't feel in particularly good taste, regardless of how surprised you were about it. Just asking how many here hold different creationist views suffices to start the discussion.
Not all new accounts are throwaways. I did create an account for this purpose, but not to avoid association with any main identity (I habitually delete or permanently abandon social media accounts on a regular basis, when I feel that my behavior is becoming too addictive, to enforce a break on myself). I did actually think the comments were jokes at first. I took the first one I saw as sarcasm. I didn't think the microevolution/macroevolution argument was still seriously peddled around. The last time I saw that one was in a Chick Tract, but I don't tend to see evolution discussed in places where creationists hang out often.
And though I am curious about the numbers, I'm also alarmed and dismayed that such intellectually dishonest positions are being seriously posited here, and I don't think they deserve to be treated as neutral and valid positions. They are offensive and extremist, and in many cases, actively harmful and disruptive. Almost every comment here is directly or indirectly debating the existence of macroevolution as a result.
Fair point on throwaways. I always call them throwaways out of lack of taking the time to think on what else to call them. "New accounts" feels wrong, even though technically accurate, as it can cause conflation with "new users". "Anonymous account" might be better phrasing for this case? I don't know if there is a more established term you/others use for accounts that hide community identity though. If there is please drop it in a reply so I can use that in the future.
However much I disagree with their reasons I don't necessarily think their comments make for bad discussion here or steer things in off-topic direction. A debate on what exactly this experiment is providing evidence of is good and healthy discussion of this article regardless which interpretation is correct, with those disagreeing the most likely to provide the critiques to consider. While they certainly aren't neutral positions (or ones I'd consider logical) that's not necessarily a mark of what's bad discussion or an excuse to announce I thought their comments were jokes/peddling. To us, some ideas offend, viewpoints alarm, or strike us as extremist - we don't have to treat those positions as neutral or valid but we should treat them kindly instead of always assuming the worst and commenting about it separately. That, ironically, is actually a distraction from discussion on the article (if you make a sincere Ask HN post about it some may be interested though).
I'd wager that represents the majority of religious scientists. I'm not disparaging faith itself (not here at least), just creationism and denial of evidence because it is contrary to preconceptions. Why I consider creationism as contrary to the hacker ethos is precisely because being a hacker involves thinking outside boundaries and engaging in playful curiosity (often with a disregard for established authority). Creationism is mental gymnastics to support an established orthodoxy. It's excessive effort spent to explicitly avoid exploring the boundaries of one's own beliefs.
Honestly, I don't know on the throwaways and I don't blame you for the assumption. By all accounts, this would look like a throwaway. I don't think there's a great word for it, and my pattern of social Internet use is admittedly uncommon.
I disagree that they aren't off-topic. It's an article about a specific observation of evolution, and their response is to question the entire reality of evolution as a whole. It's like the people who go into a programming language update announcement to complain and trash talk the language (which happens a lot in Rust submissions in particular). I also think it's inordinate. It's likely a tiny minority of people who think this way, but because they are the loudest, they still managed to determine the topic for the entire comment section. Thus there is much argument and disagreement over something that the vast majority of scientists and commenters here already agree on.
Edit: I also find it funny, in retrospect, that this is an exact example of Poe's Law as originally stated.
As a creationist, if I believe that God as described in the Bible exists, and I have a statement from Him on how the world was created, that also matches every observation I have made of the world around me, isn't it ridiculous to believe in something else that contradicts the Bible?