But since the meaning of evolution is change over time, that's evolution - sort of.
Darwinian evolution is not simply 'change over time', but an upward change over time. It says that molecules became microbes which became animals which became people. That change has a direction. We don't see that direction in observational science today. We see the opposite direction. We see losses of information, rather than gains.
By the way, if you considered the inability of men to make our own vitamin C as a software "bug" in our DNA program, how come it was allowed to get past quality control?
Mutations finally rendered the genes inoperable. We see MANY instances of this. For example, why can't close relations mary and procreate? Because close family relations contain the same genetic defects. The chance to breed with someone that has a good gene to cover up your bad gene is greater outside your own family. When people in the same family do procreate, the children get two sets of genes with all the same defects and then ALL the defects are expressed - typically resulting in retarded offspring.
This is completely contrary to the nature of science. It is the glory of science to progress, learning new information as we build on the old.
This is completely contrary to scripture, which points out that knowledge will increase.
You have mistakenly equated knowlege and information. For example, I can read a large scientific textbook full of information and not understand it. While the information is there... my knowlege may not increase. However, it would not be information UNLESS there was someone or something that could understand it. It would not be information unless it expressed something specific. What do we see in nature? We see things wearing out... we see things get old and die... we see things decay and dcompose. We don't see an animal born and then increase indefinately... we don't see pepetual motion, etc. We don't see dobermans give birth to spaniels without interbreeding. We do see that a pure doberman mating with a pure doberman gives birth to a pure doberman. No gain in information to suddenly give birth to a great dane, for example, is expected. But - would we expect a doberman to be born albino (which is the loss of all coloration information)? Would we expect a genetic defect, disease, or loss of function to be present insome offspring? Sure we might. But we would never expect some other breed, or wings, or something like that to appear.
This is completely contrary to observation of the fossil record, which shows increasing complexity and variation with time until some disaster wipes out a lot of life, then things are simpler again until again increasing complexity is able to be built up.
A fossil record that you can't prove actually means what you say it means because it was unobserved. The fossils could just as easily be extinc animals created exactly the that way.
Indeed, it seems to be built on nothing except a reverence for the past, along the lines of the kind of thinking that hopes to find lost wisdom from Atlantis or mystic secrets for moving great stones from the builders of the pyramids.
Actually it's built upon a straight forward reading of scripture as the basis of our a priori assumptions with which we interpret the scientific data. For example, the Bible says we were created from dust ~ 6000 years ago and that there was a global flood. When we look at the fossil record we say "how could this have come to be in 6000 years?". We look at the rock layers and say "how would a global catastrophe as devastating as flooding the whole earth effect this strata".
The flat statement that "information can only come from greator information" is a little strange to be seen on the internet, which would have been totally impossible to create by men just a hundred years ago, due to a total lack of the necessary information as to how to do it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp
The five levels of information
Shannon’s concept of information is adequate to deal with the storage and transmission of data, but it fails when trying to understand the qualitative nature of information.
Level 1: statistics
Shannon’s information theory is well suited to an understanding of the statistical aspect of information. This theory makes it possible to give a quantitative description of those characteristics of languages that are based intrinsically on frequencies. However, whether a chain of symbols has a meaning is not taken into consideration. Also, the question of grammatical correctness is completely excluded at this level.
Level 2: syntax
In chains of symbols conveying information, the stringing-together of symbols to form words as well as the joining of words to form sentences are subject to specific rules, which, for each language, are based on consciously established conventions. At the syntactical level, we require a supply of symbols (code system) in order to represent the information. Most written languages employ letters; however, an extremely wide range of conventions is in use for various purposes: Morse code, hieroglyphics, semaphore, musical notes, computer codes, genetic codes, figures in the dance of foraging bees, odour symbols in the pheromone languages of insects, and hand movements in sign language.
Level 3: semantics
Chains of symbols and syntactical rules form the necessary precondition for the representation of information. The decisive aspect of a transmitted item of information, however, is not the selected code, the size, number or form of the letters, or the method of transmission (script, optical, acoustic, electrical, tactile or olfactory signals), but the message it contains, what it says and what it means (semantics). This central aspect of information plays no part in its storage and transmission. The price of a telegram depends not on the importance of its contents but merely on the number of words. What is of prime interest to both sender and recipient, however, is the meaning; indeed, it is the meaning that turns a chain of symbols into an item of information. It is in the nature of every item of information that it is emitted by someone and directed at someone. Wherever information occurs, there is always a transmitter and a receiver.
Level 4: pragmatics
Up to the level of semantics, the question of the objective pursued by the transmitter in sending information is not relevant. Every transfer of information is, however, performed with the intention of producing a particular result in the receiver. To achieve the intended result, the transmitter considers how the receiver can be made to satisfy his planned objective. This intentional aspect is expressed by the term pragmatics. In language, sentences are not simply strung together; rather, they represent a formulation of requests, complaints, questions, inquiries, instructions, exhortations, threats and commands, which are intended to trigger a specific action in the receiver. Strombach defines information as a structure that produces a change in a receiving system. By this, he stresses the important aspect of action. In order to cover the wide variety of types of action, we may differentiate between:
Modes of action without any degree of freedom (rigid, indispensable, unambiguous, program-controlled), such as program runs in computers, machine translation of natural languages, mechanised manufacturing operations, the development of biological cells, the functions of organs;
Modes of action with a limited degree of freedom, such as the translation of natural languages by humans and instinctive actions (patterns of behaviour in the animal kingdom);
Modes of action with the maximum degree of freedom (flexible, creative, original; only in humans), for example, acquired behaviour (social deportment, activities involving manual skills), reasoned actions, intuitive actions and intelligent actions based on free will.
All these modes of action on the part of the receiver are invariably based on information that has been previously designed by the transmitter for the intended purpose.
Level 5: apobetics
The final and highest level of information is purpose. The concept of apobetics has been introduced for this reason by linguistic analogy with the previous definitions. The result at the receiving end is based at the transmitting end on the purpose, the objective, the plan, or the design. The apobetic aspect of information is the most important one, because it inquires into the objective pursued by the transmitter. The following question can be asked with regard to all items of information: Why is the transmitter transmitting this information at all? What result does he/she/it wish to achieve in the receiver? The following examples are intended to deal somewhat more fully with this aspect:
Computer programmes are target-oriented in their design (for example, the solving of a system of equations, the inversion of matrices, system tools).
With its song, the male bird would like to gain the attention of the female or to lay claim to a particular territory.
With the advertising slogan for a detergent, the manufacturer would like to persuade the receiver to decide in favour of its product.
Humans are endowed with the gift of natural language; they can thus enter into communication and can formulate objectives.
The concept of information
On the basis of Shannon’s information theory, which can now be regarded as being mathematically complete, we have extended the concept of information as far as the fifth level. The most important empirical principles relating to the concept of information have been defined in the form of theorems. Here is a brief summary of them:
No information can exist without a code.
No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.
No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
No information can exist without a transmitter.
No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
No information can exist without a will.
The Bible has long made it clear that the creation of the original groups of fully operational living creatures, programmed to transmit their information to their descendants, was the deliberate act of the mind and the will of the Creator, the great Logos Jesus Christ.
We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation.
Theorem 1: The statistical information content of a chain of symbols is a quantitative concept. It is given in bits (binary digits).
Theorem 2: According to Shannon’s theory, a disturbed signal generally contains more information than an undisturbed signal, because, in comparison with the undisturbed transmission, it originates from a larger quantity of possible alternatives.
Theorem 3: Since Shannon’s definition of information relates exclusively to the statistical relationship of chains of symbols and completely ignores their semantic aspect, this concept of information is wholly unsuitable for the evaluation of chains of symbols conveying a meaning.
Theorem 4: A code is an absolutely necessary condition for the representation of information.
Theorem 5: The assignment of the symbol set is based on convention and constitutes a mental process.
Theorem 6: Once the code has been freely defined by convention, this definition must be strictly observed thereafter.
Theorem 7: The code used must be known both to the transmitter and receiver if the information is to be understood.
Theorem 8: Only those structures that are based on a code can represent information (because of Theorem 4). This is a necessary, but still inadequate, condition for the existence of information.
Theorem 9: Only that which contains semantics is information.
Theorem 10: Each item of information needs, if it is traced back to the beginning of the transmission chain, a mental source (transmitter).
Theorem 11: The apobetic aspect of information is the most important, because it embraces the objective of the transmitter. The entire effort involved in the four lower levels is necessary only as a means to an end in order to achieve this objective.
Theorem 12: The five aspects of information apply both at the transmitter and receiver ends. They always involve an interaction between transmitter and receiver (see Figure 4).
Theorem 13: The individual aspects of information are linked to one another in such a manner that the lower levels are always a prerequisite for the realisation of higher levels.
Theorem 14: The apobetic aspect may sometimes largely coincide with the pragmatic aspect. It is, however, possible in principle to separate the two.
Having completed these considerations, we are in a position to formulate conditions that allow us to distinguish between information and non-information. Two necessary conditions (NCs; to be satisfied simultaneously) must be met if information is to exist:
NC1: A code system must exist.
NC2: The chain of symbols must contain semantics.
Sufficient conditions (SCs) for the existence of information are:
SC1: It must be possible to discern the ulterior intention at the semantic, pragmatic and apobetic levels (example: Karl v. Frisch analysed the dance of foraging bees and, in conformance with our model, ascertained the levels of semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. In this case, information is unambiguously present).
SC2: A sequence of symbols does not represent information if it is based on randomness. According to G.J. Chaitin, an American informatics expert, randomness cannot, in principle, be proven; in this case, therefore, communication about the originating cause is necessary.
The above information theorems not only play a role in technological applications, they also embrace all otherwise occurring information (for example, computer technology, linguistics, living organisms).
NE WAS THERE T