>>10072959this isn't even a remotely valid or on topic satirical caricature of what I said. Your desperate projection that I don't understand this simple concept is incredible. I think you may have responded to the wrong person.
If not, go ahead and look for one of those propaganda posters we show to children that depict 5-8 steps of eye "evolution" using present day or recently extinct species, with the examples ranging from distinct phylum to even distinct kingdoms of animals, and then guess how many hundreds of millions of years must exist between each alleged step, and then realize these wildly different species are all laughably purported to represent a conceptually similar lineage of just one single species "evolving" sight. It's tantamount to religious nonsense. I never said a thing about how an example of each step "still" (lol) existing today has anything to do with proving the base concept wrong. Pretending there exists jumps between each separate species, each of which has a more complicated "eye," and these jumps are somehow indicative of a valid piecemeal method to evolve a human eye is what is total and utter nonsense that is nothing more than propaganda. That's what I was talking about. Not your made up projection that since they still typically exist today it has significance.
