This article however is focused on information theory as applied to molecular biology with respect to the autopoiesis model.
To put it another way, it deals with information (successful communication) in nature as the necessary element for increased complexity - and more startling than that, that the message being communicated anticipates that which has not yet occurred.
Such a temporal non-locality obviously points to an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process.
Serious work is being conducted as we read today on the next generation of computer processors, single cell biological transistors that operate on chemistry, not electricity, so to speak. I find that amazing.
I am thankful great minds are working on the basis of platform for programming (intelligent design) realizing that once such computing power is eventually released (if we don't destroy each other first - humans) it will not so easily be corrupted by the already corrupted.
Serious 5th dimensional thinking being applied at the foundation of the research now and looking at Darwin and his evolution theory slapped the casually convenient-minded a couple centuries backwards.
Point: Einstein, Oppenheimer, a few others and the crew of the Enola Gay fully understood the concept of the threat of misused power once that trigger employed over human targets.
[[To put it another way, it deals with information (successful communication) in nature as the necessary element for increased complexity - and more startling than that, that the message being communicated anticipates that which has not yet occurred.]]
I need to expand htis to be a bit more precise and clear- if you don’t mind- the last part “and more startling than that, that the message being communicated anticipates that which has not yet occurred.”
Should read “and more startling than that, that the message being communicated anticipates that which has not yet occurred, and is species specific in nature- meaning that any changes that occure within hte species is species specific, and falls within species specific parameters.”
The importance of this distinction lies in the fact that change within a species is controlled by species specific parameters, which is why all lab tests and experiments to move a psecies beyond hteir own kind have failed- the metainfo for such change is simply NOT present i nthe species to allow such drastic changes. This is not to mean that ifnromation from an outside source that isn’t specific to hte species can not be itnroduced- experiments in ‘lateral gene transference’ have been ‘succesful’ i nthe sense that they were able to introduce foriegn genetic material and incorporate into the species genetic info- however, this resulted in degredation of the geentic info, and hte species own metaifno was at work tryign to eliminate this foriegn info as would be expected.
This issue of metainfo is quite an important issue to concider- it shows how species can handle foriegn invaders, can anticipate such changes, and can either utilize mistakes to the genome, or reject them all within a species specific paramter. We know for a fact that species have paramters- boundaries that dictate how far the genome can be altered- and we also know for a fact that the upper limits are still well within a species own kind. Whiel htere can be quite dramitic microevolutionary change within kinds, these fall far short of the drastic changes needed via complete itnroduction of new non species specific informaiton into hte genome- which, accordign hte metainfo ‘guidelines’ woudl be prohibited
The other important point brought up is the fact that this fully functional metainfo simply can not arise from a stepwise process of ‘change’. Simply altering info already present can not account for hte directive powers of metainfo in regards to the whole system.
Small changes don’t just affect the cell they work on- they affect entire systems, and htere NEEDS to be a controlling, governing metainfo inplace to make sure that ALL the changes brought about by mistakes don’t muck the whole works up. As mentioned, small cjhanges don’t simply affect single cells, and htrowing the numbers of changes that HAD to result in the introduction of NON species specific information into hte genome that macroevolution supposedly resulted in woudl have been absolutely dissasterous to the species
Examples...?