How can science of biology be brought in line with the theorems of the science of information technology?

They will never understand, life and reality just goes over the evolutionist heads. They will see one day hopefully not when it's too late. One evolutionist's comments I was reading said that genetics was the nail in the coffin for creationist but Jim your first answer says that genetics are baseless, so what do evolutionist stand behind. They sound a bit wishy washy to me. If something disproves their beloved theory they just dismiss the facts as things that don't matter. God bless bro.

Where did these "theorems" come from? (The fact that #4 and #8 say exactly the same thing in two different ways, indicates that somebody just made up these "theorems" without much thought.)

Look, to apply information theory to a existing biological system risks mistaking the metaphor for the real thing.

It's like saying the eye is like a camera ... and then asking how the operation of the eye can be "brought in line" with the fact that the eye lacks a shutter.

Your "theorems" *pre-suppose* terms like "assignment of the symbol set", "mental process", "freely defined", "strictly observed", "known", etc. So you are loading up the language to produce a certain result.

But look more closely. Your "theorems" 5-7 (in which these terms appear) are not about information, but about *codes*, which must not be mistaken for information. The code is part of the carrier/media ... which by your "theorem" #3, is not part of the information itself.

It is #4 (repeated as #8) that draws the connection between "code" and "information" ... but if you read carefully it is saying that code *represents* information ... not that it *is* information. It does not state that information is unable to exist in the absence of code to represent it. To pick a simple example, a snowflake is highly ordered, so it contains a high degree of information ... but it does not rely on any code mechanism to exist ... it's just a consequence of the physical structure of the water molecule.

So in one sentence I would reply that information can exist independently of any symbolic encoding of it ... which is why biological information can exist and grow without any "mental process" that assigns symbols for its encoding.

Your first part is also unrelated to the question of information science ... the fact that 1% of junk DNA has newly discovered function still means that 99% of junk DNA has no known function even though we've been looking very carefully. I would guess that we'll find a lot of functions for another 2% or 3% of junk DNA ... but this is still a drop in the bucket. What is very clear is that much of this junk DNA consists of genes that are found in other organisms where they *do* have some function ... i.e. that's why a dolphin embryo will have leg buds ... genes that are useless to the adult dolphin are nevertheless very useful to land-dwelling mammals ... so the fact that dolphins even *carry* these genes is evidence of common ancestry.

In other words, much of this junk DNA is *vestigial information* ... information that had a function in ancestors, but no longer does.

So much junk DNA is *CLEARLY* evidence of evolution.

Not a single one on the things you list is a theory or theorem. You don't seem to have a grip on what constitutes science.

Information technology is just that. Technology that is related to information and informing. It is NOT a science. It may and will include various science. Information technologist are NOT scientist, they are technicians.

So, rethink you question. Because it is information technology that will adapt, not biology.