Your attempted attack at me and defense of GGG.
The reason I have my doubts about Darwin's theory is that I actually read the book and I don't accept just-so stories from those that purport that they are not pushing just-so stories when they are.
What exactly do you disagree with Darwin about?
If you'd have actually read the article which heads this thread, you would find out that it is a preface to a book and talks about information without going into the wellspring of that information. The book may later broach the question but the article itself does not mention the words evolution, or Darwin.
I read the article and it said nothing. It did quote one of my heroes, Feynman. You are aware that he did his best work in strip joints?
Obviously the article is trying to lay a foundation for intelligent design. Even though the writer was afraid to mention the words evolution (Darwin didn't use it either originally, but you knew that of course) or Darwin, that is what he is trying to falsify.
To avoid a lot of wasted time and effort it is just quicker and easier to jump to the chase and show the ID'ers/Creationists/Deists why their beliefs are wrong. I personally like to use their own beliefs against them in kind of a verbal jiu jitsu. Hence when GGG claims to believe in Evolution based on 'kinds' I simply asked him to indicate what the basic kinds are that everything else evolved from. Can you provide the basic 'kinds'?
Wow! Are you delusionary. First, you assert that GGG's posts are lacking any meaningful information while you participate in their discussion. Second the article is about information. You certainly deserved to be called on your comment. Be that as it may, my answer to you in no way indicates a fear of anything. You seem to be practicing the Darwinian art of drawing conclusions unindicated by the facts.
My last statement also indicates a disagreement I have with Darwin. I also don't think just-so stories are an argument to establish a fact.
If Feynman did his best work in strip joints we should have had many feather dancer Nobel laureates.
I read the article and it said nothing.
Well then you don't know what you are talking about. I find it hard to believe that it is common knowledge that the Uroctea spiders have 1500 spinnerets, or that the maximum deviation of the grid of scales on the Morpho rhetenor butterfly is only 0.00002 mm.
Saying someone is wrong is not showing someone is wrong.