Introduction to Information

All,This reminds me of an exchange with Fred Williams, among others.The argument goes like this. DNA contains information. Because information under Gitt's (or whoevers) formulation requires the intent of sending information, then information cannot arise randomly by definition. The information must have a sender, presumably God.Of course, there is nothing to stop the sequences that formulate proteins arising by chance. It is observed. Increases in efficiency, changed functions, even operons have been observed to evolve by nothing more than RM&NS. This brings up the interesting notion that a protein designed by man contains information, & exactly the same protein arrived at by RM&NS contains none. It therefore stands to reason that if we are using a definition of information that requires a sender, we must determine that God designed DNA before we can say it contains information at all before we can assert that God exists. If DNA arose naturally then it contains no information if the definition of information requires a sender, unless we switch to a less precise everyday meaning of information, that is. But then this demonstrates nothing, either.You cannot conflate different meanings of information to assert DNA must have had a designer without committing the logical fallacy of equivocation.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Crashfrog,Assuming this definitional problem with DNA is resolved, was there an assertion that DNAUnion was trying to make regarding information in the genome?Mark