So the loss of hind limbs in a whale is a sign of decline? How so?
"Any way to convince someone like you (who believes that loss of function = evolution) that 'evolution' isn't true? "
Evolution has no direction. If a loss of limbs increases an organisms reproduction success that is not a decline. You have swallowed the 'information' canard hook line and sinker.
Relative Information content
..............................billion base pairs.....chromosome number
Homo sapien sapien..................3.5.............46
Gorilla gorilla..............................4.16............48
Monodelphis dimidiata...............4.17............18 (Short-tailed opossum)
Macropus parma......................4.92............16 (Parma wallaby)
Terrapene carolina..................4.18............50 (Eastern box turtle)
Myxine glutinosa....................4.29............28 (Hagfish)
Galeocerdo cuvier...................3.79............86 (Tiger shark)
Bufo alvarius.......................5.65............22 (Colorado river toad)
It appears as though we ultra complex humans have less 'information' in our genome than quite a number of other organisms. Perhaps the 'amount' of information is not all that important? What are the implications of this in regards to a loss of limb?
The 'evolution has no direction' claim is a compromise to get the theory to match the evidence. This allows 'loss of function' (which is easily observed) to be passed off as 'evolution' instead of the decline that it actually represents. The little evos never know the difference.
It also appears that you have swallowed the 'DNA controls all' canard hook, line and sinker. The evidence now shows that bacteria under stress speed up the mutation of their DNA in an effort to create a genetic combination that can survive the new environment. This is evidence that 'the cell controls the DNA database' and not the other way around.
Now, if DNA controls, how did such a complex process become encoded within the very system that is being manipulated? Do you just believe *everything* you are told without question?
Is there *any* point in examining the realities of biological complexity and interrelationship of systems where you can simply recognize that they cannot develop without intelligent input or are you so committed to the naturalistic paradigm that you will accept any unobserved absurdity as the gospel truth?
Apparently so.