That point is addressed in the "Information or What is life v non-life/death in nature?" section of the article. How do we explain the "will to live" - "want to live" - "struggle to survive" - or what amounts to the primary inception of "successful communication" in life v non-life/death.
Yes, I read your work. I see that you've described and defined it but did not see you address it's origin.
But you've obviously put a great deal of thought and work into this and deserve kudos for that, not to mention you're extra worldly penchant for civility and patience, two virtues not granted to me in vast quantities. :-}
A-G So very true, jwalsh! Great catch.
A-G That point is addressed in the "Information or What is life v non-life/death in nature?" section of the article. How do we explain the "will to live" - "want to live" - "struggle to survive" - or what amounts to the primary inception of "successful communication" in life v non-life/death.
This seems typical of the ID crowd, to play semantics and jump on any use of the language that, to them, seems to indicate an external (or non-intrinsic) influence on evolution. The language is such that it normally becomes easier to express and to understand if a minor amount of anthropomorphizing occurs when describing processes.
Natural selection does not have a 'prime directive' in the sense jwalsh seems to mean nor is there a 'will to live' inherent in the living that cannot be explained by natural processes. Upon encountering a new environment, some survive and some don't. Those that survive reproduce. If one adaptation happens to be fear, leading to running away then those that fear and run the fastest will not be culled out. No direction, no 'prime directive', no external intelligent influence. Very simple, very straightforward.