Oh I so agree with you, Coyoteman. Still my concern is that a theory can become so "rigid" that it starts filtering out new facts and new insights that may arise in other scientific disciplines.
For instance, Hubert Yockey has brought information science to bear on problems of evolution, particularly insights from his own field of specialization, cryptology. His keenest interest is the evolution of the genetic code. One gets the impression that Yockey thinks of the genome itself -- as a sort of blueprint or template -- as "the common ancestor." He says the origin of the genetic code is unknowable; yet its evolution is something susceptible to investigation and understanding by means of mathematical tools. Clearly he thinks there's more to biological evolution than natural selection and survival of the fittest.
Indeed, just by acknowledging a genetic code, one is tacitly acknowledging the non-randomness of a key feature or driver of biological evolution. Codes don't assemble themselves, but are intelligently specified.
One thing that really bugs me about the defenders of neo-Darwinist theory is that they tell us the main anti-Darwinist onslaught is coming from mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, supersititious-moron creationists; but this is hardly the case. The real challenges are coming from other departments of science -- from mathematics and information theory (as in Yockey's case), and from physics. There has been tremendous resistance by "mainstream biologists" to insights that do not accord with the tenets of Darwinist doctrine.
I want to thank you sincerely for the fine essay you wrote me earlier, in response to my two questions. Jeepers, Coyoteman, it's not that I think you're "wrong," but that I don't think you've taken the problems far enough. But your essay was extremely well done and helpful to me (and to others, I feel sure). I truly appreciate your taking the time to write it, and thank you for it.
There is one point I'd like to make regarding your distinction between the words "faith" and "confidence." You aver science doesn't have "faith," but only "confidence" in its findings. But do you realize there's not really a dime's worth of difference between the two words, when you boil "confidence" down to its etymological roots? Confidence = "con," with, plus "fides," faith, trust (from the Latin).
Which gets us back to the observer, and his indispensable role in the quantification and qualification of reality. I've been driving myself nutz over "the observer problem" in recent times. It's still a work in progress; but I can tell you this with some confidence: It isn't confined to relativity and quantum theory only, but is alive and well in all human knowledge disciplines. It is manifestly alive and well among Darwinist theoreticians.
I'm grateful for this conversation, Coyoteman. Thank you.
You are clearly confusing "random" with "unpredictable". That is a distinction with a strict difference, and your conclusions fail because you conflate the two.
Codes don't assemble themselves, but are intelligently specified.
Back to Information Theory 101 for you, Betty Boop. A "code" is a context. Ignoring that "intelligently specified" has no strict definition here, everything has a code because the very act of observation (in its most abstract sense) creates a context. To put it another way, it is not possible for there to not be a code. Your argument is trivially reduced to tautology because you do not understand even the rudimentary mathematics.
Pardon me for intruding, but in this very fundamental matter he may be wrong. The genetic code seems to be a result of a specific direct chemical interaction between amino acids and their codons.
True enough. But he's describing the quantization of the molecules of DNA.
"Although there are many fields of biology that are essentially descriptive, with the application of information theory, theoretical biology can now take its place with theoretical physics without apology. Thus biology has become a quantitative and computational science as George Gamow (1904–68) suggested. By employing information theory, comparisons between the genetics of organisms can now be made quantitatively with the same accuracy that is typical of astronomy, physics, and chemistry."-- Hubert P. Yockey Information theory, evolution, and the origin of life
...
"The genetic information system is essentially a digital data recording and processing system. The fundamental axiom in genetics and molecular biology, which justifies the application of Shannon’s information and coding theory, is the sequence hypothesis and the digital rather than the analog or blending character (Jenkin, 1867) of inheritance as Darwin (1809–82) and his contemporaries believed (Fisher, 1930)."
Clearly he thinks there's more to biological evolution than natural selection and survival of the fittest.
No he does not. He is arguing that the origin of life could not be determined by study of genetic code.
"I show in this book that only because the genetic message is segregated, linear, and digital can it be transmitted from the origin of life to all present organisms and will be transmitted to all future life. This establishes Darwin’s theory of evolution as firmly as any in science. The same genetic code, the same DNA, the same amino acids, and the genetic message unite all organisms, independent of morphology."-- Ibid.
"The missing ingredient needed for the origin of living matter is the genome, not Intelligent Design.-- Hubert Yockey reply to FTE amicus brief
...
"Modern science shows that the genome is the answer to all objections based on gaps at any level. There is no need for a theory of "Intelligent Design" to explain any gaps. Darwin’s theory of evolution is among the most well-established theories in science.
Evolution and the origin of life are separate questions. My publications on information theory show that the origin of life is unknowable through scientific methods. All that can be taught in the science classroom about the origin of life is why it is unknowable and why past theories, such as chance and self-organization, had to be discarded. There are many things in science and mathematics that are true, but unknowable."
Whether Yockey is correct remains to be seen.
There is a clear distinction between problems we have not solved and problems we cannot solve.