"The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be deduced from the laws of physics and chemistry lies not in some esoteric philosophy but simply in the mathematical fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of those laws.
This statement is illogical. Any measure of "information content" of any physical constuction does not preclude the fact that it's built upon the underlying physics.
"Chaitin has examined the complexity of the laws of physics by actually programming them."
No he has not. He simply created a do nothing program that contains a very simple, limited, incomplete set of representative laws, has a trivial length and the program halts. Nevertheless, it has no bearing on whether, or not complex physical entities are composed of simpler physical entities.
" He finds the complexity amazingly small. [i.e., Chaitin estimates it at 103 bits.]" Quoted in #55"
103 bits? What's that mean? A string 1000 bits long?
[[This statement is illogical. Any measure of “information content” of any physical constuction does not preclude the fact that it’s built upon the underlying physics.]]
Of course not, it can and does include simpler constructs from simpler proerties, however, this fact does not preclude hte fact that the more complex contents of information and structures are able to arise simply from simpler ones without some intelligent direction and severe biological and chemical changes that nature is incapable of producing.
[[Nevertheless, it has no bearing on whether, or not complex physical entities are composed of simpler physical entities.]]
See above- Again, computer models that assert that they duplicate evolution start with what again? Yup- info that is already present, and they manipulate this info intelligently, to aquire hte desired outcome, and as such they in no way represent the mechanics of nature.