Gert Korthof has a web site that gives about as fair an evaluation of both sides of this debate as I've found from an evolutionist.Ã‚Â I find it odd to see that he sees information the way he does, and still believe in evolution, but I think he's on the right track....
To my way of thinking, a valid code or cipher has Ã¢â‚¬ËœhiddenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ meaning thus:
If C= p, A = X, T = h, then Ã¢â‚¬ËœcatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ would equal pXh if the substitutions relationships were changed on a daily basis, then Ã¢â‚¬ËœcatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ could equal Ã¢â‚¬ËœdogÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. This way the original language carries information to a receiver, yet the language is still English (garbled English).
For DNA to qualify as code it would have to do the same, e.g. DNA string GAT = protein X, will ATG ever produce protein X, ? because if it were a code it should be able to.
From the same link I found this quote
The kind of 'information' produced by a mindless computer program or a natural, physical mindless process is cheap, worthless, meaningless information. Just let it run forever and it produces an endless stream of 'information'! That is not what humans call information. There is the real paradox.
Another way of stating the paradox is: a long random string of letters has a higher Information Content then a book of the same length. This is so because a random string is hardly compressible at all, while the content of a book can easily be compressed (as everyone knows who uses PC compression programs as pkzip, winzip, etc). In fact a random string has the maximum amount of information. This definition of information was not invented by Paul Davies, but by Shannon, Chaitin and Kolmogorov. The next table shows increasing information content according to the mathematical definition:
highly repetitious sequencesÃ‚Â - bookÃ‚Â - random stringÃ‚Â
In everyday life the opposite is true: a random string of letters obviously has a lower, maybe the minimum of Information Content:
random stringÃ‚Â - highly repetitious sequencesÃ‚Â - bookÃ‚Â
So the ranking of books and random strings on the basis of the compressibility criterion yields a result clearly contradicting common sense knowledge. The point is that the word 'information content' is misleading outside the mathematical context. I propose to call that kind of Information Content just what it is: compressibility and nothing more.
Emphasis mine. 92g
Had a bit of a cross post, I edited this post to include some text from your link thus the small difference in the newly created Ã¢â‚¬Å“does DNA contain informationÃ¢â‚¬Â
Edited by chance, 10 April 2005 - 02:43 PM.