[.ca] Why Is a Fly Not a Horse? (ISBN 096386548X)

Flies in the Face of Tradition:
This book helped change the way I think about the theory of evolution. I can watch nature shows and laugh whenever they imply Darwinism explains everything and that scientists are knowledgable about the origin of species, since I know that scientists have an incredibly narrow perspective, despite their high IQ's (Scientists also supported eugenics, another example of their flawed ability to see things in a broad perspective). Sermonti, despite having a list of impressive credentials, is humble enough to admit that life is far too complex and involves too many mysterious properties to be explained by science and that the genetic code and its tendency to mutate is merely a necessity of survival and *not* the answer to everything. More impressive is Sermonti's knowledge and his obvious passion for not only science but also the creatures he studies *and* their Creator. It's so clear to me now that the spirit of a creature is central to their existence, while the genetic code is to help set limits and provide some direction and organization. As Sermonti says, differentiated survival is as much to keep creatures the same as it is for causing change. The title of the book is a reference to how it is possible to remove a gene that causes the eyes of a fruit fly to be expressed and replace that with an identical mammalian gene; the eyes are again expressed exactly as they were before. How would one explain that this gene exists in the simplest of creatures, but is *identical* and *interchangable* in more complex creatures? One might think that the genetic code was designed to function in *every* life form, even before they came into being and this Amazon customer/reader *does* believe the genetic code was designed. (By the way, *Why is a Fly not a Horse* contains an error or two which Darwinists have attempted to use to villify Sermonti and claim the errors indicate that the *whole* book is useless. Of course, Darwinists have been making errors for over 150 years, but their weak theory of creation still stands. If their theory were strong, they wouldn't feel a need to nitpick about Sermonti and other opponents of their view).