>>19635220>Trying to explain how every single element of an animal evolved in a backward fashion is extremely difficultSure, but a pulley system is very simple. There should be no problem explaining it.
You can't and the fact ou can't is a fundamental contradiction if you want to keep believing in evolutionary origins.
>and not even necessaryIt's necessary when you coincidentally discover something that contradicts your theory, like the pulley I mentioned.
>If it wasn’t this example you would find tens of thousands of others What do you mean "if it wasn't"?? It is. You're giving meaningless filler words.
There are many many examples of irreducible complexity too. The pulley is just the most undeniable and likely the simplest.
>Irreducible complexity isn’t the last gasp of religionists It is or it isn't?
And it has nothing to do with religion. Darwin himself recognized the idea if irreducible complexity. That specific term was coined later, but the idea verbatim came from Darwin.
>trying to hang on to their beliefsFunny how you wrote all that cope yet you can't explain the pulley when there is no reason to avoid explaining such a simple thing. You don't explain it because you can't. It violates your belief system but you plug your ears.
Evolutionism is a religion to you yet you pretend I'm the one not acting rational.
Ridiculous