Replies

However, I continue to assert that his statement is also an appeal to the anthropic principle.../i>
The anthropic principle, like ID is difficult to disprove. I can't think of any way to test it.
But I disagree with something I think is being inferred from Wolfram, namely that evolution has a direction as a result of initial parameters. I can't prove this is false, but I believe it is.

I don't believe that everything we see in life was inevitable, at least not the large structures and body plans. Different circumstances would have led in different directions, particularly with different timings of catastrophic events.

Thank you so much for your reply!

But I disagree with something I think is being inferred from Wolfram, namely that evolution has a direction as a result of initial parameters. I can't prove this is false, but I believe it is.

The research in self-organizing complexity (the von Neumann challenge) seems to be moving right along. But the algorithmic information theory folks are also involved - so I'm really not sure at this point which theory of complexity will win. Both are of the "least description" variety.

Nevertheless, I believe it is safe to say that one of them will supplant the "happenstance" element of the theory of evolution. My guess is that "natural selection" will remain as a secondary factor. I say that because "natural selection" does not explain complexity at all and the evolution of semiosis (esp. the DNA) "demands" an explanation.