I have never thought of using the term autopoeisis but it is a good one. I have always thought in terms of self-directing, kind of a bio level Bildung rather than self-making. This is because there are only so many tricks you can make C N H and O do, just as a writer in English has only so many letters to work with. The basics are not made by the organism, but the number of possibilities of form is not limited even while some forms are impossible.
I personally think ‘self-assembling, and self-organizing’ is a more precise biological terminology, and I think the evidence points strongly to the fact that IC can’t be produced naturally because of many reasons- 1: it violates the second law 2: it violates mathematical probabilities 3: it violates known biolgical truths.
It’s the first point that I think is probably the most important, because IF Macroevoltuion werre even a biolgicqal possibility, it would have needed to violate this second law, not just in a few improbable instances, but billions of times in millions of species, (and htis of course violates rthe mathematical probabilites as well)
As well systems simply were not capable of self-organizing without prior instructions which apparnetly all arose beforehand in billions of instnaces? Sciecne can’t even show a few scant evidences which would even begin to hint at such complex self-assembly, but we’re to bleeive millions of species all violatedc al l 3 laws trillions of times to result in self-assembling’ systems that were all more complex than their predecessors?
Bah- too tired to noodle htis over today-