Heh heh heh, she's just as ignorant as Perry. She goes from this:
To this:
So she thinks that Darwin's theory breaks down because a complex organ could not have spontaneously arisen at once. When what Darwin actually said was that his theory would break down if it can't have been formed by numerous slight modifications.
I mean are her readers that dim witted that they can't see she's full of $hit?
She's using the creationist position to disprove evolution...they aren't the same thing at all! Evolution isn't 200 parts-let alone the number of actual genetic base pairs needed- appearing from thin air...that just shows how ignorant she is. She has zero understanding of conservation in genetics.
Let me know if you'd like to learn more Colpy. She's actually using the wrong branch of science for studying evolution. It's molecular biology that yields more insight, and we use it every day at work to differentiate between closely related specimens of the same species. That is, we're separating organisms that are going through evolutionary processes right now.
Me?????
(Insert angelic smile and batting eyes here)
I'm just providing grist for the scientific debate mill, as it were....
the "heh heh heh" should have been a hint........
Although I do think you are missing the point.....which was that each of the modifications would have to offer some survival advantage to have gain precedence in the population, and have provided the foundation for the next modification.......which would have to offer some survival advantage..........and so on.
Without those advantages at each stage of development, the whole would never have "evolved".
Damn, I was just playing the Devil's advocate!
