Replies

the bottom line to what you are suggesting is that throwing a bunch of mutaitons at the ‘species’ can result in macroevolution, and htis simply isn’t true- mutaitons can only change, they can’t add non species specific informaiton. The meta info I spoke of contains all the info needed for a species- it contains species specific info, and it allows change- metainfo is info about information, and as such contains everythign needed specific to that species, both present and future to account for hte changes due to mutaitons.

Right off hte bat you have hte problem of the metainfo. It is impossible to get this metainfo by evolving chemicals into species because chemical info is far below metainfo, and cell info is also far below the metainfo

Here’s the link for tomorrow: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2163122/posts?q=1&;page=551

“Autopoiesis provides a compelling case for intelligent design in three stages: (i) autopoiesis is universal in all living things, which makes it a pre-requisite for life, not an end product of natural selection; (ii) the inversely-causal, information-driven, structured hierarchy of autopoiesis is not reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry; and (iii) there is an unbridgeable abyss between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural environmental and the perfectly-pure, single-molecule precision of biochemistry. Naturalistic objections to these propositions are considered in Part II of this article.”

Andfrom Betty Boops excellent analysis which you’ll find abotu 1/2 way down the page, where hte discussion startsto really take off discussing whether naturei s capable of creating htese hierarchy’s or not:

“First a recap of the AP hierarchy: (i) components with perfectly pure composition (i.e., pure elements); (ii) components with highly specific structure (e.g., molecules); (iii) components that are functionally integrated (i.e., can work cooperatively toward achieving a purpose or goal); (iv) comprehensively regulated information-driven processes (DNA, RNA); (v) inversely-causal meta-informational strategies for individual and species survival (we’ll get to that in a minute).

But what does this hierarchy mean?

An interesting way to look at the problem, it seems to me, is to look at the available potential “information content” of each of the five “manifolds” or “dimensions” of the hierarchy.

(For the present purpose, we’ll assume that “algorithmic complexity” is a function that yields “information content.”)

(i) gives us the atomic numbers of all the elements: their natural fingerprints or IDs by which they can be identified. It also gives us all the laws of physics. (i) is the physical foundation of all life forms. [As you may recall, Chaitin estimated the algorithmic complexity of the physical laws as ~103 bits.)

(ii) gives us the elementary bonding laws; indeed, it gives us all of physical chemistry. It is based on (i), but it is not reducible to (i). Indeed, irreducibility is a property of each of the hierarchical dimensions (i)–(v) with respect to the one(s) prior to it in the hierarchy. [I’m not aware that anyone has ever tried to calculate the algorithmic complexity of the chemical laws. But it must be greater than 103 bits; for chemistry rests on physics, plus its own unique “value-added” which level (i) does not anticipate.]

(iii) is where things really get interesting. This signals the first evidence that a life form actually exists. It should be obvious that such a phenomenon cannot be explained on the basis of the information available at levels (i) and (ii). It’s as if (i) and (ii) “didn’t even see it coming,” though both were necessary to (iii).