advancement in this debate. Sanford developped along with Baumgardner a computer program named 'Mendel's accountant' which ''is a user-friendly biologically realistic simulation program for investigating the processes of mutation and selection in sexually reproducing diploid populations''.
(on a side note, Baumgardner is the one who developped the 'Terra' program, used by geophysicists)
Sanford says in an interview that this program has been reported in two secular journals. I'm trying to find the articles in question.
John Sanford, John Baumgardner, Wes Brewer, Paul Gibson, and Walter ReMine, Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, Scalable Computing: Practice and Experience 8(2):147–165, June 2007.
John Sanford, John Baumgardner, Wes Brewer, Paul Gibson, and Walter ReMine, Using computer simulation to understand mutation accumulation dynamics and genetic load, in Y. Shi et al. (eds.), Computational Science—ICCS 2007, Part II, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4488, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pages 386–392.
They has made simulations using this program that confirmed what Sanford was advancing in his book Genetic entropy.
The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.
You're going to argue about the interpretation of plain English?
Shannon's information theory was proposed as a solution to the engineering problem of communicating information in the presence of noise. There are no semantic aspects to information theory. The only people who think they've come up with theories of information that include semantics are creationists like Dembski, Gitt and Spetner, and they've never bothered to connect their ideas to reality.
But though these people think it is possible to include semantics in a theory of information, even they understand that Shannon information does not include semantics. I couldn't say it any better than creationist Perry Marshall at his Cosmicfingerprints website:
Perry Marshall writes:
Claude Shannon's information theory does not mathematically quantify semantics - because so far as we know it's impossible to do so.
Could I suggest that you reverse the order of your "reply first, research later" approach?
Semantics is not part of Shannon's definition of information, since he was more concerned in transmitting information in a wire then to develop the full idea what is information etc.
Nonetheless, semantics is part of information. I mean, if information was one dimensional as Shannon proposed, then 'I have a black dog' would have less information then ''J'ai un chien noir''. But in reality, these two sentences have the same amount of information for the receiver.
No one's saying there's no such thing as semantic information. Of course semantic information exists.
But Shannon's theory of information does not include semantics. It only covers aspects of information that are quantifiable. You cannot adapt Shannon information to make arguments about semantic information. Anyone making claims about semantic information cannot cite Shannon.