Just read the article and am, to be generous, not favorably impressed due to tripping over errors every few words.
DNA does not code for triglycerides.
Eukaryotes are not just “multi celled organisms”.
Point mutations are not “almost always deleterious”.
There are more neutral mutations than beneficial or detrimental.
Recombination is not usually either neutral or deleterious, instead it is so beneficial that recombination is a major reason sexual reproduction is maintained instead of the more efficient asexual route.
Female gametes do undergo mutation (both eyebrows raised at the counter-claim).
New alleles are not required to be dominant.
We have observed speciation.
Wow. Ow. The pain. She apparently does not understand enantiomers. The directionality of an alpha helix is controlled by the stereochemistry of the amino acids involved, and that is controlled by biosynthesis. Same with DNA. It *can’t not* twist the way it does. Whee! Grab two complimentary DNA strands, drop them in buffer, heat, cool slowly, and watch them spontaneously match up and coil into a right-handed helix. That happens all on its own because that’s the lowest energy conformation.
“This does not, of itself, prove the Hox box does in fact control limb structure, since the product of the mutant gene is a shortened form of the required protein, therefore unrecognizable to the body and possibly treated as many other toxic elements are and consigned to the furthest limbs.”
Pardon me but, ZOMG WTF LOL?? Homeobox genes do in fact control body patterning, the truncated Hox gene would not be “unrecognizable to the body”, merely unable to interact with its substrates, and organisms do not ship toxins out to their extremities (”Hmm, this looks poisonous. I guess instead of letting it go on its way to the liver to be detoxified I’ll ship it to my hand. Who needs hands anyway.”)
“There is no genetic evidence which demonstrates the final skeletal form is purely and solely genetically driven.”
No one ever said that the skeleton was “purely and solely genetically driven”. Our skeletons are constantly modified by the stresses we place upon them (which is why astronauts have to worry about osteoporosis as their relatively unstressed bones are broken down by osteoclasts) but genetics!! pretty much is what runs the basic structure.
“That it is a combination of factors, including the environment which the forms develop in, which directs the final shape, and that the shape found in all animals, (with a series of minor variations) is so, not because of “descent” from a common ancestor, but because in the environment of this world, it cannot take another.”
She can’t even come up with something original. Evolutionists have studied distributions in morphospace and determined that some body plans are not possible to reach from current body plans or just plain not possible. However, the fossil record clearly demonstrates evolution of body plans.
All in all, massively error-filled, not the work of an expert. I would say she’s an educated layman, and an excellent example of the saying, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
A yeoman's effort and it should be put out there. I went with the first and last examples of her errors that stuck in my mind; you gave it a much more comprehensive treatment.
Maybe they will say you are being “postmodern” for the very non-postmodern comments that her views are not reflective of any objective reality - and in fact contradict it.
Skimming quickly while catching up on a couple days of posts, I read that as "drop them in butter" and thought, my, what an interesting recipe!