You are very funny.. You don't like me defining what information is, but then you seek to do it yourself...
No, that was not my point. My point is that any definition is arbitrary. We can basically make any definition we like and it will fit some subset of codes.
The reason Information must be clearly defined is because we are discussing the origin of life. Life is based on the genetic code, and the genetic code lies in the domain of information concepts that fit all known code systems.
Dr. Gitt has shown what that charateristics of that type of Information is, and he has demonstrated how the genetic code has the same characteristics as that found by any other known code system.
Dr. Gitt has made yet another arbitrary definiton of code.
What can be created from them that is not a direct representation of their cause?
The information for insulin is stored in DNA, but insulin has no cause in created that abstraction in the genetic code.
Can you really not see the difference?
I can see the difference, but it is still an arbitrary distinction: You decide
that it differentiates the systems, but it can also be seen as just different levels of sophistication.
The genetic code has nothing to do with tree rings and sand wavelets, and discussing them is a waste of time, and stated in the Forum FAW as unacceptable:
In fact there is also Fred Williams' very good definition of what we will discuss on this Forum as information.
As forum owner Fred has the right to define the meaning of the term 'information' within this forum, but it is still
an arbitrary definition.
What is information? Ã¢â‚¬â€œ The kind of information we should debate on this forum should be of the type that is sufficient to communicate enough data to build some object, such as a car, a computer, or in the case of the origins debate, an organism. To that end, I hereby offer coded information as the type of information to debate on this forum. By coded information I mean any type of information that is a language, as described by symbols, syntax, and semantics.
OK, we can use that definition for this debate. Just as long as you remember that it is just one of many valid definitions.
Your obfuscation is pretty convincing evidence that you don't have a leg to stand on. What you don't you address the issue of the origin of coded information instead of obfuscating over things that are not related to the origins issue?
Fine, let's discuss the origin of coded information, according to your definition. So, what is your point?
In this case no, because you are trying to establish history as information, and they are not the same thing.
Not according to your definition (which would give you serious problems, were I to nitpick it, but, let's not go there).
That day will never come. The Laws of Nature regarding information, the type of which the genetic code is, requires a mental origin. If it does come then of course I will admit it, but why don't you do the same now? I.e. admit that the genetic code is from a scientific point of view is a "miracle".
I have no need to admit it, because it isn't.
If you think about it, you will discover that your argument is circular:
The essence of your claim is this:
1st premise: All languages/codes have a mental origin.
2nd premise: DNA is a language/code.
Ergo: DNA has a mental origin.
However, it can be seen that till you actually prove that DNA has a mental origin, your second premise falsifies the first.