Bohm, you haven't answered these questions:
· In the above statement, are you referring to the same use of "information" as in the article?
· If yes, then what is all the noise about?
· If no, then what is the point of the above statement?
because there are different constructs that one can call "information" the first clear sign the author is bullshitting is when he does not point out which construct he use (or if he is inventing one himself).
Which construct are you using for "bullshit"? Was the statement "evolution makes information" bullshit when written because you didn't define your terms? But now is it un-bullshit because the terms are now defined? You don't define your terms prior to using them, how do you expect definitions for everything from everyone you disagree with?
The central point is if evolution can create something "usefull" out of something which is not "usefull" (for example a new proteine).
I still have yet to read the article in question. However, isn't the article about information, not usefulness?
In my area are numerous natural gas wells. If you ask the geologists how they pick a site to drill they say nothing about evolution. What they talk about is features that are currently visible. typically they are looking for a certain type of hill. When they find a candidate they drill a shaft and set off an explosion in it. They take readings from sensor placed in the area.
Evolution may come into play if you were to ask them how it got there. It has no bearing on finding it. Same holds true for other mineral deposits.