[orionblamblam]

> The theory of evolution itself does not ask or answer the question "what is life?".

Nor does the theory of relativity ask or answer the question "what is light?".

> I very strongly agree with Swenson that more than physical processes are necessary to explain the emergence and evolution of the biosphere

Sadly for you and Swenson, lab experiments have shown that basic physical processes are quite up to the task. No magic needed.


> If you have an explanation for any of the above which is by physical processes alone...

Yes. As to "information:" It's stunningly obvious, and I'm always amazed that people choose to ignore the obvious physical nature of it. A very short gene sequences adds another term, via replication error or whatever; the mere addition of another gene is more information, just as adding one letter at random to a word is more information. Whether that information is useful or not is something the environment will determine, based on its effects on the gene sequence/organism as a whole. If it's a net positive, it stays. If a negative, it dies. Just that simple. Increased genes = increased information.

As to the rest, I fail to see why you need to resort to magic to explain 'em.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply! But, er, nobody is resorting to magic to explain the "unphysical" aspects of life v non-life/death in nature.

me: I very strongly agree with Swenson that more than physical processes are necessary to explain the emergence and evolution of the biosphere

you: Sadly for you and Swenson, lab experiments have shown that basic physical processes are quite up to the task. No magic needed.

If there are lab experiments to explain the emergence and evolution of information, autonomy, semiosis, complexity and intelligence - then by all means, please list them here! There are a lot of mathematicians and physicists wasting their time if the answer has been discovered in the lab.

Yes. As to "information:" It's stunningly obvious, and I'm always amazed that people choose to ignore the obvious physical nature of it. A very short gene sequences adds another term, via replication error or whatever; the mere addition of another gene is more information, just as adding one letter at random to a word is more information. Whether that information is useful or not is something the environment will determine, based on its effects on the gene sequence/organism as a whole. If it's a net positive, it stays. If a negative, it dies. Just that simple. Increased genes = increased information.

Information is not the message (DNA/RNA) but the successful communication of it. More specifically, information is defined as "the reduction of uncertainty in the receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state".