Nick Matzke and Biological Information- He just refuses to "get it"
In order for anyone to say anything about biological information they must demonstrate how it originated. Because if it did NOT originate via stochastic, ie blind watchmaker type, processes there would be no reason to infer those proceeses can account for its increase.
And for a clear understanding of the debate once living organisms appear then one must first read Dr Lee Spetner's "Not By Chance". Why? Because the argument is spelled out in detail (in that book).
However if one reads that book then one will realize that gene duplications cannot salvage the anti-IDists' calims. Why? Because only point mutations caused by copying errors can be rightfully claimed to be the product of a blind watchmaker. Other genetic movements do exist but to claim them for the blind watchmaker means one has to demonstrate that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via stochastic, ie blind watchmaker type, processes.
Nick also confuses "evolution" with the blind watchmaker. Apparently Nick refuses to understand that ID is NOT anti-evolution and that the debate is all about the mechanisms- designed to evolve or evolved via culled genetic accidents.
But Nick is part of the NCSE and we know that they are NOT interested in ID reality.
Oh well. And that is why I can hardly wait to be part of a Court case involving ID. I will give them a heavy dose of ID reality.
Good luck and good day...