The eye is irreducibly complex!!!!!

Well maybe it's not but one stupid error people make
in "Arguing" with creationists is being dogmatic.
I remember, going back a lot of years, insisting that
if creationists has a problem with the idea of humans
being Apes, "Humans are apes," stop saying it. If
saying it was a barrier to communications, if saying
it erected a road block to progress, STOP saying it!
After all, it wasn't even fact!
First off, it's not a "Fact" it's not "Science" it's
a convention. You say "Humans are apes" because in your
strictly linear (and hence limited) view the apes
came first, and then Homo (humans) evolved from them.
And that was never fact.
Chimps, for example, clearly evolved from a bipedal
ancestor with a hand more like our own than a Chimp's.
So why not "Argue" that the ape, in the case of the
Chimp, evolved from humans?
What's even more interesting is that Gorillas too appear
to be secondarily knuckle walkers. They too arose from
a bipedal ancestor, or an ancestor that was NOT a
quadruped and was not a knuckle walker, even if not
totally human like in locomotion.
View the dood Doctor's Aquatic Ape model, selective
pressures on bipedalism arose FIRST, and then the so
called "Apes" we descend from split off and evolved
away from the environment and the posture...
It's a good model.
"Disagree" with it if you must, and you must (one
can not dispute the status quo while maintaining their
title as dogmatist) but it's valid. It's no less and
quite frankly quite a bit more "Fact" than the insane
linear models.
So dump it all.
NOTE:  Google "Chimpanzees are human" or similar. There
is a science based, rational argument to dispense with
Pan and group Chimps under Homo. A different species of
Homo but Homo.
Freak out.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5