Give your one best shot - against evolution

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[B]Actually, yours seems the same opinion of everyone, at one time or another, on this forum (though they may deny it). The human gross anatomy and physiology defies comprehension, let alone its exceedingly complex microbiology, neurology, psychology, ethics, and spirituality. As a physician (podiatrist) who constantly deals with humans and persons (not synonymous), I perceive that they all, to some extent or other, don’t believe evolution could account for themselves and their illnesses. [/QUOTE]JM: Ever heard of malaria? Sickle-cell?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
No, it is relevant, because it is not evolution. That is, the type of evolution that lies at the cored of our debate. The type of evolution as understood by the public, marge-scale change over time.

​

Do you agree or disagree that info gain or loss is relevant when debating large-scale evolution, such as scales to feathers, no sonar to sonar, etc?

---

JM: I disagree since 'information' is such a nebulous term. How can you say what the 'marge' (sic) scale public believes? You can't even define the terms correctly on your home page!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
In this case, I was asking for evidence of naturalistically produced new algorithms in the DNA to produce new, useful functions such as going from no sonar, to sonar-capable, or from a scale to a feather.

​

---

So are you saying that a feather has more information than a scale? How do you figure the information content in these two features. Please answer in a completely quantitative manner. You can still answer even if a feather contains less information. I just want you to back up your idle chatter about information content.CheersJoe Meert