> You're making the same error she does. Darwin and the current state of evolutionary science are NOT interchangeable. There was a great deal Darwin could not explain (DNA is probably the most obvious example.) His theory was an incredibly good foundation, but where it had holes they are being filled, where it was wrong it is being corrected. It still isn't complete and perfect, likely never will be, but it was an amazingly good first shot at a model and it has been greatly improved in the time since.-I'm not making an error. Study the new research. I'm pointing out that Darwin's proposal cannot be dragged kicking and screaming into this century. You are absolutely correct about him and his conclusions for his day and time. But that theory is dead. Evolution occurred, but not by his random chance andnatural selection. that is why I put so much in here about Epigenetics. Darwin does not explain punctuated equilibrium, epigenetics does. Neo-Darwinism is dying, and now genetics are appearing. The complexities in the layers of the genome are enormous, and in my belief way beyond chance.