We can observe that a peacock's fethers surve a function: to atract females---emperical evidence.
We can observe that that a pecock's fethers don't serve any other function---emperical evidence.
Hence: A peacock's bright plumage is not a result of indirected process.
27 comments
Okay, let's try this again.
<<We can observe that a peacock's fethers surve a function: to atract females---emperical evidence.
<<< We can observe that a peacock's fethers surve a function: to atract females---emperical evidence.
To paraphrase
Ooh, Ooh! I just figured it out. It's the fundy rewordification thingy. See, ID really IS true, as long as peacocks have "fethers", whereas with Evolution, peacocks obviously have "feathers". So if they just rename every other part of the bird ("wangs", "biks", etc) and rename it a pisscock, then perhaps their idea holds some merit. In some alternate universe.
"A feature cannot evolve an exact purpose by undirected means."
Wow, you fail biology and grammar. Maybe if you knew how to read, you would actually understand evolution, but even then, it's iffy.
Personally, I'm SHOCKED that a true fundie can even TYPE the word "peacock" - after all, it's got a dirty word in it...
(Brief mental image of said fundie at keyboard: We can observe that a peaCOCK's *fap fap* fethers surve a function: to atract females---emperical evidence.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
