To: razzle
Darwin also said that if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my THEORY would absolutely break down. Well, Behe in Darwins Black Box describes numerous such organs, such as the blood clotting mechanism, the cilium, bacterial flagellum, etc. These structures are irreducibly complex and the darwinsits cannot answer any of this with their religion. The Creationists also said the same about the eye. That was until the scientists demonstrated the step by step evolution of every component from photosensors to lenses. The 'irreducible complexity' of the eye turned out to be not irreducibly complex. If the eye can be shown to not be irreducibly complex, your little examples don't have much of a chance.
143 posted on
07/08/2007 1:08:40 PM PDT by
burzum
(None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
To: burzum
Show me the Step by Step “evolution” of the eye that “scientists demonstrated” not to be irreducibly complex. (hint: you might need some help on this one). And don’t tell me that the light sensitive receptor of early creatures “evolved” into the human eye by random mutations, while your at it, also tell me how the early light sensitive receptor “eye” came about in the first place.
144 posted on
07/08/2007 1:26:15 PM PDT by
razzle
(Liberal Science: Experiments on unborn babies, man-made global warming, and darwinism.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson