Christine Janis, Professor of Biology, All Bluster and No Evidence
Kevin ReTARD McCarthy has a guest post by Christine Janis pertaining to Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt" chapter 12. It reads like a child's rant. She spews:
Whether or not the reader might find Frazetta’s explanations fanciful (and it must be remembered that Frazetta was writing almost half a century before our current knowledge of evo-devo, and our current understanding of how rapid morphological transitions can be effected by changes in regulatory genes), one thing is certain: he is *not* making a case that the morphological change in bolyerid snakes could not be achieved by evolutionary means.Umm Christine, blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution cannot account for regulatory genes. It cannot account for metazoans. Given the starting points of prokaryotes it cannot get beyond prokaryotes. So perhaps you should just shut up as it is obvious that you are just another dishonest evo. And also ID is not anti-evolution so it would be a good idea to learn what ID actually is before you attack it. Oh and it would be a better idea to have actual support for your position before calling anyone else dishonest.
Again, if unguided evolution is the mechanism: Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution. So if unguided evolution doesn't require coordinated mutations, meaning that just about any ole mutation will add to the advantage (bullshit), then it has a chance (pun intended). If it does then it is doomed.
And that leads us to the title of the OP-
Christine Janis did NOT present any evidence that blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution can account for the boyerines jaw, nor anything else for that matter.