Poor little clueless Kevin. He can't post positive evidence for his position so he is forced to attack ID with his ignorance. Bad move Kevin.
This time Kevin tries to take on Information and Intelligent Design.
Unfortunately for Kevin, he fails miserably.
First information and meaning go hand-in-hand at least 99% of the time for everyone on this planet. Even scientists at one time of the day or another, use information to = meaning. Their peer-reviewed papers are full of information that has meaning.
Call 411, ie information, and you expect to get a response that has meaning.
Encyclopedias are full of information that has meaning. Dictionaries are also full of information that has meaning. Textbooks are another example of information having meaning. It is difficult to find examples in which information does not have any meaning.
But Kevin thinks he is so smart, smater than all of us, because he read something about Claude Shannon. I doubt he read the paper or the book, he doesn't need to- he is smart. Just ask him.
For those of you who don't know Shannon, he provided us with a way to measure information. He did not care about meaning. So Kevin thinks that he said that information doesn't have any meaning. However when Kevin chose a definition for "information", he posted one that is all about meaning. He is too stupid to know what he did.
No Kevin, Shannon just didn't care- his measuremnet system doesn't care about meaning. That is why most scientists who use his concept refer to it as "information carrying capacity"- as in this "message" is 100 bits in length , which means it has the information carrying capacity of 100 bits. We don't know if there is actually any information in it.
We cannot meaure meaning. And no, IDists do not try to measure meaning/ functionality- Kevin is lying, again, when he says that.
As I told Kevin, meaning/ functionality is OBSERVED, and then we can measure the amount of information by counting the bits.
All of that said, to avoid confusion, IDists use the terms Specified Information
and Complex Specifed Information
to differentiate between Shannon Information and information that has meaning/ functionality. Does kevin ever mention that? No, because he is an ignorant punk on an agenda.
OK so Kevin provides a definition of "information" that contradicts his post, he lies about IDists trying to measure meaning and he clearly doesn't understand evolutionism.
Kevin also lies about IDists when he says:
Finally, is that the ID proponent assumes, one and only one, valid protein/DNA sequence.
Nope, we never have. And it is very telling that Kevin never references any of his claims about us. He thinks that he can just make shit up and post it because no one reads his trope.
Next Kevin sez that IDists do not understand Shannon.
Whenever you hear an ID proponent talking about Shannon information, they don’t understand the concept.
Well Chapter 4 of "Signature in the Cell" goes over Shannon Information in some detail. Perhaps Kevin can tell us what Meyer got wrong. Then there is Werner Gitt, who wrote "Inthe Beginning was Information" (1997), he too discusses Shannon and his work. Perhaps Kevin can tel us what Dr Gitt got wrong.
In the end only a moron would think that IDists try to calculate meaning. And kevin's post is all about us allegedly trying to do so- again without examples or references.