Thank you for your reply!
Now as I stated in the beginning of this post, I'll have to wait and see whether you will argue that the Theory of Evolution fails because it does not offer an explanation for the origins of life.
I have made no such claim. In the first place, the origin of life is not part of the theory of biological evolution. And in the second place, my claim from post 264 forward has been that the “theory of evolution” needs to be brought up-to-date. Specifically, I said:
As evidence I assert the randomness pillar in the equation random mutation + natural selection > species stands defeated because regulatory control genes are not mutable. A better formulation for today might be autonomous self-organizing biological complexity + natural selection> species - but it shouldn't be called the theory of evolution since the first formulation fails.
I offered the seemingly concurrent geological evidence of the evolution of the eye across many phyla as an example of the fatal flaw in the “randomness pillar” of the theory of evolution. Further, I offered information on “autonomous biological self-organizing complexity” to support why it is a better explanation than randomness. Everything I offered is conventional, mainstream science. Nowhere have I said that the theory of evolution fails because it doesn’t address the origin of biological life.
What I have raised in support of Intelligent Design theory is that information (Shannon, successful communication) is that property which separates that which is physically alive from that which is physically not alive. I objected to the difference being described by behavior (symbolization/semiosis) since there is an underlying physical difference, i.e. information; and I noted that the chemical and DNA constituents are just as good dead as alive. The hard, physical, difference between a dead cell and a live one is information – one successfully communicates with itself and its environment, the other has ceased communicating. The chemicals, the DNA, the semiotic potential remains – but is dead without the successful communication.
The quest for a materialistic explanation of the rise of biological information has nothing to do with the “theory of evolution” – but it has everything to do with abiogenesis/biogenesis. It is among the inquiries of the Chowder Society which is comprised of such formidable scientists as Tom Schneider (Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology) and Hubert P. Yockey (physicist, professor and author, Information Theory and Molecular Biology).
In the absence of a plausible materialistic explanation, the very existence of information in biological systems points directly to Intelligent Design. To that I will now add that autonomous biological self-organizing complexity is not directionless or happenstance and thus serves Intelligent Design theory equally as well as Evolution Theory (provided that regulatory control genes are largely immutable).
IMHO, Intelligent Design theory went off-track by using a backward looking approach at molecular evidence in proposing “irreducible complexity”. Evolution theory was formulated by looking backward, but Intelligent Design theory would have been better served (IMHO) by focusing on the rise of functional complexity – and in particular, the rise of functional complexity across phyla. Perhaps it would have been first to propose autonomous biological self-organizing complexity. At any rate, concurrent evolution by autonomous biological self-organizing complexity suggests a high degree of non-mutable regulatory control genes in common ancestors. To Intelligent Design theory, this in combination with the Cambrian Explosion might suggest direction, i.e. intelligent design.
At any rate, the recent peer-reviewed article by an Intelligent Design theorist concentrates on two points: the rise of information and geometry in biological systems. Since both deal with origins, neither should be considered as assaults on "the theory of evolution".
Let me respond to your post #320 first, before I move on to #321.
I was trying to be careful not to misrepresent your position on the necessity of including an explanation for the origins of life within a scientific evaluation of the Theory of Evolution, and I accept your statement that this was not your intention. I would like to explain briefly why I did this, so that you can appreciate the dilemma I was trying to resolve. You stated that biosemiosis was not the cause of the rise of information in biological systems it was the effect. And you then went on to point me to a link on the quest for the cause, which was the "Origins of Life" competition. Coming on the heels of your raising the question "what is life" as a shortcoming of behavioralistic models -- a point I will contest later -- and then proceeding to mention that successful communication was missing from those models I could not decide whether you meant to argue that a definition of life should contain mention of its origins, or possibly that the Theory of Evolution failed to include an explanation of life's origins, or whether you included the link reference as a side note for further discussion about what is missing from biosemiotics. I now consider the dilemma resolved after your last post.
Now, let us turn to the "randomness pillar" of the Theory of Evolution. I believe this is a misnomer, unless you insist that the Theory of Evolution can only be viewed as the entirety of Darwin's original formulation. Evolution explains the origin of species, natural selection is the engine of evolutionary change Darwin first proposed and which, as I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, is a point of significant debate among evolutionary biologists and theoreticians because many now reject natural selection's reliance upon random mutations. So before we go any further, let me give you
a link to pop up that makes the association of random mutations with natural selection clear, from which I quote the following excerpts and please pay particular attention to the last paragraph:
"
. . . The mechanism of evolutionary change was natural selection. This was the most important and revolutionary part of Darwin's theory, and it deserves to be considered in greater detail. . . .
. . . Natural Selection Requires. . .
For natural selection to occur, two requirements are essential:
1. There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness.
2. There must be differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait.
Unless both these requirements are met, adaptation by natural selection cannot occur. . . .
. . . When we incorporate genetics into our story, it becomes more obvious why the generation of new variations is a chance process. Variants do not arise because they are needed. They arise by random processes governed by the laws of genetics. For today, the central point is the chance occurrence of variation, some of which is adaptive, and the weeding out by natural selection of the best adapted varieties. . . ."
Now the above becomes important in viewing the new formulation you have proposed:
autonomous self-organizing biological complexity + natural selection > species
Though you have attacked the Theory of Evolution for its inclusion of the "randomness pillar" you have persisted randomness in using natural selection as the engine of evolutionary change in your alternative model. This was why I suggested an alternative formulation using Rocha's paper in which he differentiated biological agents by the distinction of "syntactic autonomy":
"
. . . I propose that until a private syntax (syntactic autonomy) is discovered by self-organizing agents, these agents exist in dynamically coherence or situation with their environments that include other agents. At this stage there are no significant or interesting types of closure or autonomy. When syntactic autonomy is enabled, then, because of description-based selected self-organization, open-ended evolution is established. . . ."
Now I am still turning it over in my own head as to whether Rocha sees "open ended evolution" as the prevailing type, I even considered that he might be trying to suggest that it is likely the only type. But even though his emphasis is upon explaining the concept and the means by which it can be achieved, he at least holds out the possibility that two types of evolution can exist. He begins his paper by mentioning "
we need first to understand the nature of distinguishable systems capable of evolving." And later, when discussing the disputes over natural selection he differentiates between biological agents "
capable of semantic emergence in a selective environment" which indicates he does see them capable of evolving, and others that are "
capable of a full situated semiosis" within "open ended evolution." This was why I suggested that you consider two types of models for evolutionary development as an alternative to your own, which persists randomness. Rocha uses the terms "Disabled" and "Enabled" to distunguish organizing agents, though he sees both as "self-organizing," based upon their ability to participate in the closure of semiotic systems. Rocha never states that "Disabled" agents evolve through natural selection, but since he did not discount the idea of natural selection entirely and he clearly argued that semiosis was something different, I believe the alternatives I suggested would be preferable.
Now; to deal with communication and behavioralist evolutionary models. You initially objected to the difference between "
that which is physically alive from that which is physically not alive . . . being described by behavior" and you argued that communication was the key. But behavioralist or semiotic models exist because they enable communication, as Rocha pointed out in part 4 of his paper:
"
. . . The introduction of a syntactic code allows the kind of recombination of dynamic descriptions used for construction of organisms which leads to open-ended evolution when included in a self-replication scheme as specified by Von Neumann. It furthermore allows the communication of these descriptions to systems which possess the same semiotic code. . . ."
Without communication, syntactic autonomy is impossible. But this is not to say that communication is an unresolved problem in semiotic systems, quite the contrary. See Mouton de Gruyter's
"Explaining and Understanding Life" article from the journal
Semiotica for a discussion that includes references to Shannon.
Finally; on the rise of biological information and the Theory of Intelligent Design you wrote:
"
. . . In the absence of a plausible materialistic explanation, the very existence of information in biological systems points directly to Intelligent Design. . . ."
I view this as an unscientific statement. I could accept it if it were reformulated as:
"
With materialistic explanations for the existence of information in biological systems now disproven, the very existence of that information points directly to Intelligent Design."
But the fact of the matter is that exobiologists are working to provide the materialistic explanation of which you speak. They have made some progress in explaining the chemical synthesis of RNA as has been pointed out in other posts earlier in this thread. Until exobiologists
disprove all materialistic explanations, they remain a possibility, especially in light of the progress they have made up until this point.