[js1138]

The story about simpler genes evolving to greater and greater complexities is not very credible, and ignores the fact that htese jumps in complexity require tremendous changes that are never discussed when the proposal is put forth that because ‘simpler clotting exists in soem species, this means more complex clotting can’t be irreducibly complex, and simpyl gives the appaearance of comlexity’. So again, there is a myriad of problems that we are NOT told about when it comes to species somehow aquiring the functions of irreducible complexities from lower complexity systems in other species ‘in hte past’ at some point.

Of course the changes are discussed. And if you read journals instead of creationist websites you would be familiar with the discussion. There are hundreds of published books on the evolution of blood clotting. a large stack, along with hundreds of journal articles were introduced as evidence at the Dover trial.

[CottShop]

[[Of course the changes are discussed. And if you read journals instead of creationist websites you would be familiar with the discussion.]]

I don’t simply read creationist articles contrary to your claim- I read whatever material is available on subjects we discuss, and quite frankly, ALL I see from Evo-firnedly scientific journals and publications are oversimplification hypothesis’ that try to justify their beleif.

[[a large stack, along with hundreds of journal articles were introduced as evidence at the Dover trial.]]

Yes they were- and not a single one provided the evidence that the changes needed a lamprey clotting system, or simpler ones, could be accoutned for via natural process’- ALL they did was posit what they felt ‘might have happened’ without explaining HOW these changes could take place without damaging hte species-

You have your opinion on hte matter, and that’s fine- so do a lot of scientists- however, their opinion relies on scenarios that simply defy biology.