In this blog creationist Michael Egnor was being asked to define information. Like any good creationist he refused to provide a solid definition and instead asked the evolutionists to do it. He did, however, make this statement:
Now if information is needed in evolution then there must be some organism that actually has information that would have needed to evolve. We apparently don't need any system to accurately measure it, instead we can just look at the genome and say "yep, that's it there".
So seeing how we've sequenced the human genome surely there must be something in there that creationists would call information. So I ask you to explain how the human genome contains more information than bacteria's. I ask you to use bacteria because the difference in information should be quite apparent, though you can use any organism if you wish.
Even though we cant measure it (and serious investigators like Dembsky are trying to figure this out), we know biological information when we see it.
Now if information is needed in evolution then there must be some organism that actually has information that would have needed to evolve. We apparently don't need any system to accurately measure it, instead we can just look at the genome and say "yep, that's it there".

So seeing how we've sequenced the human genome surely there must be something in there that creationists would call information. So I ask you to explain how the human genome contains more information than bacteria's. I ask you to use bacteria because the difference in information should be quite apparent, though you can use any organism if you wish.