'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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
'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.It would be dormant DNA, waiting to be used in the future. Not junk.
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.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?
'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.
Is this your answer to the OP - that information in ID is useful data?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.
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.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 needs refining.
It can be dormant or stored...certainly. But not Junk.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...
Useful data, in use or stored.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?
It would be dormant DNA, waiting to be used in the future. Not junk.
It can be dormant or stored...certainly. But not Junk.
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.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...
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.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?
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.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.
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?Then how do you explain the fact that information is greater for random strings than for non-random strings?
Sure. Stick with "JUNK" for your favorite sciency term. Ignore any reasoning.Mere assertions can be ignored.
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.Sure. Stick with "JUNK" for your favorite sciency term. Ignore any reasoning.
I have seen no reasoning, just mere assertion.Sure. Stick with "JUNK" for your favorite sciency term. Ignore any reasoning.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?