What is meant by the word "information" in ID?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It would be dormant DNA, waiting to be used in the future. Not junk.

'Dormant' suggests it could become usefully active again without modification, but that seems unlikely - 'latent' might be a better fit; but, AIUI, it's called 'junk' because it isn't advantageously functional.

 

[SkyWriting]

The OP is asking what the definition of information is in ID; if you're suggesting that junk DNA is information because it's potentially useful, I agree - I'd go further, it's information whether or not it's potentially useful.

Are you suggesting that 'potentially useful DNA' is the definition of information in ID? if not, what?

It needs to be useful to be information. Garbage in the trash can remains garbage unless it is useful to somebody. Some may find data to steal for identify, some may find food to eat. But unless it has a potential or current use, it remains classified as trash.

 

[SkyWriting]

'Dormant' suggests it could become usefully active again without modification, but that seems unlikely - 'latent' might be a better fit; but, AIUI, it's called 'junk' because it isn't advantageously functional.

Then it was never junk if it has potential. It is literally, another mans treasure.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It needs to be useful to be information. Garbage in the trash can remains garbage unless it is useful to somebody. Some may find data to steal for identify, some may find food to eat. But unless it has a potential or current use, it remains classified as trash.

Is this your answer to the OP - that information in ID is useful data?

Because that means a particular sequence of, say, DNA, can be information or not information depending on where it is...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then it was never junk if it has potential. It is literally, another mans treasure.

By that definition, there's no such thing as junk of any sort. I would suggest that a definition that eliminates a useful concept (or requires augury) needs refining.

 

[SkyWriting]

By that definition, there's no such thing as junk of any sort. I would suggest that a definition that eliminates a useful concept needs refining.

Or said concept disemboweled.

New causes of autism found in 'junk' DNA ... - ScienceDaily

 

[SkyWriting]

Is this your answer to the OP - that information in ID is useful data?

Because that means a particular sequence of, say, DNA, can be information or not information depending on where it is...

It can be dormant or stored...certainly. But not Junk.

 

[SkyWriting]

As the title states, what is "information" with respect to claims by intelligent design.

Sometimes people will state that intelligent design involves the observation of entities that contain "information", therefore suggesting that they are designed. But what does this mean?

Useful data, in use or stored.

 

[SLP]

It would be dormant DNA, waiting to be used in the future. Not junk.

How do you tell this "dormant" DNA from junk?

Mice do fine without 'junk DNA'
Deleting non-coding regions from the genome has no apparent effect.​

How much information is in "dormant DNA"?

It is all well and good to produce assertions that make you feel good, but I'm betting you've got nothing of substance.

 

[SLP]

It can be dormant or stored...certainly. But not Junk.

Cool assertions.

No evidence?

 

[loveofourlord]

It can be dormant or stored...certainly. But not Junk.

your arguments are so cute, it really comes down to, "Uhuh." show that the DNA is actually dormant or stored.

The way I find creationists argue for DNA is like ford making a truck, then designing a car, but the car has all the parts of the truck, their just welded to the frame and such, they have no use, but same designer, same design. The simularities between animals isn't just what we expect to see, but what we wouldn't expect to see if they were designed, alot of wasted parts we never had any use for from our ancestors.

 

[Speedwell]

Is this your answer to the OP - that information in ID is useful data?

Because that means a particular sequence of, say, DNA, can be information or not information depending on where it is...

We are making some progress, however. We have apparently determined that the definition of "information" used in ID (according to SkyWriting, anyway) is not the same as the definition used in conventional Information Theory.

 

[chilehed]

As the title states, what is "information" with respect to claims by intelligent design.

Sometimes people will state that intelligent design involves the observation of entities that contain "information", therefore suggesting that they are designed. But what does this mean?

They appear to be confusing information with meaning. In information theory, character strings that are highly random have little meaning and lots of information. Strings that have a lot of meaning are necessarily less random and therefore have less information.

I've yet to see any ID proponent deal effectively (actually, at all) with the question of meaning, probably because they have no idea that it's central to their position.

 

[Speedwell]

They appear to be confusing information with meaning. In information theory, character strings that are highly random have little meaning and lots of information. Strings that have a lot of meaning are necessarily less random and therefore have less information.

I've yet to see any ID proponent deal effectively (actually, at all) with the question of meaning, probably because they have no idea that it's central to their position.

Confusion, maybe, amongst the rank-and-file. However, if you look carefully at the writings of professional IDists (John Safarti stands out as a particularly egregious example) you will see not confusion, but carefully crafted equivocation.

 

[chilehed]

It needs to be useful to be information.

Then how do you explain the fact that information is greater for random strings than for non-random strings?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then how do you explain the fact that information is greater for random strings than for non-random strings?

Quite; and who decides what is 'useful' - does an instruction book written Chinese contain information if it is useful to a Chinese reader but not to someone illiterate in Chinese?

 

[SLP]

It can be dormant or stored...certainly. But not Junk.

Mere assertions can be ignored.

 

[SkyWriting]

Mere assertions can be ignored.

Sure. Stick with "JUNK" for your favorite sciency term. Ignore any reasoning.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sure. Stick with "JUNK" for your favorite sciency term. Ignore any reasoning.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the use of the term - it was coined in the 1970s be a geneticist before it was discovered that non-coding DNA could be functional and before exaptation was a thing.

 

[SLP]

Sure. Stick with "JUNK" for your favorite sciency term. Ignore any reasoning.

I have seen no reasoning, just mere assertion.