Your posts are irrational and you don't understand squat. FYI, I've read the book and I am not about to spend my Sunday typing out all the tons of examples in her book that skeptics like you would require. Get off your lazy butt and read it yourself and then try arguing that she doesn't destroy Darwin's theory of evolution.
She destroys the theory of evolution as much as the creationist websites do (i.e., not at all). The nature and quality of the research is pretty similar in both cases; didn't she even get much of her evolution material from a creationist?
(This is but one small example of what passes for science on creationist websites.)
I only asked you to cherry-pick two or three. You could have done that in much less time than you have spent writing your irrational reasons for not doing so. So, rationally speaking, you have either not read it or there is nothing there you feel can be supported.