At the lower level, the organism cannot know the need for repair and maintenance exists. It is not aware. It must be informed of this need.
Another even more fundamental example was brought up on this thread by Diamond as I recall. Namely that coding itself requires agreement on language between sender and receiver. The receiver must be able to decode an encoded transmission. Again, this is inversely causal (or as I prefer, temporally non-local.)
And at the very bottom of the abiogenesis ladder is the issue of where autonomy came from in the first place. At that theoretical level it is all a soup. Any message sent in its direction would be a broadcast to the soup. Things would have to become autonomous within that theoretical soup for successful communications to occur as we observe it today otherwise there would still only be that theoretical soup.
you: This is intresting, as the body can still function somewhat if certain supports are put inplace which indicates that comunication also flows from other sources as well
But the bottom line for me, is that no matter what message is being sent the organism is alive while it is successfully communicating. Once communication comes to an end, the organism is physically dead.
By the way, for those Lurkers following the spiritual or theological side of this discussion information (successful communication) is not physical. It does not die a physical death like the molecular machinery which facilitates successful communication in biological life or like the computers we are using will eventually succumb to entropy.
you: Which brings us to an interesting secondary possible counter-argument- it is claimed, and perhaps verified, that the reason for earlier and earlier succumbing to effects of entropy, is that species had to reproduce- the more htey reproduce, the quicker they die (Now Im not sure if this applies to every system or just to a select few, but it brings up an interesting issue of where, how, and could it possibly occure, issue of reproduction ability. Could hte info required for the complex system of reproduction arise from mutaitons- however, this would take an incredible indepth annalysis of al lthe systems and comunicaitons that go ionto the pprocess, and probably should be a whole htread of its own, with just hte highlights posted in htis thread if it is found this comunicaiton of info for htis particular system of reproduciton cant arise by simpel piling up of info fro mthe bottom up as Macroevolution demands.
And I agree such subjects would involve a lot of research and postings and thus might be good fodder for a new thread.
you: And htta is hte problem with every so called laboratory example of life- they MUST start with hte info already present, and they MUST intelligently control and manipulate and create designer cells in order to create even the simplest of functions within hte cells, but then the very next step becoems exponentially more complex and difficult, and involves an even greater itnervention of intelligence to control and manipulate and protect in order to violate the natural laws which macroevolution MUST obey.
[[Another even more fundamental example was brought up on this thread by Diamond as I recall. Namely that coding itself requires agreement on language between sender and receiver. The receiver must be able to decode an encoded transmission. Again, this is inversely causal (or as I prefer, temporally non-local.)]]
Excellent point- I must have missed this- this shows predesigned compliance between the two- one can not exist without being predesigned to recieve from the other. Not sure htough if an argument can be made that this agreement ‘could arise’ in stepwise fashion- I strongly doubt it, but mym ind is too tired today to noodle this over much.
[[And at the very bottom of the abiogenesis ladder is the issue of where autonomy came from in the first place. At that theoretical level it is all a soup. Any message sent in its direction would be a broadcast to the soup. Things would have to become autonomous within that theoretical soup for successful communications to occur as we observe it today otherwise there would still only be that theoretical soup.]]
Rhis rules out biological (which didn’t exist in the first place) to chemical comunication for sure- and although we have chemical to biolgical ‘creation’, what was created had nothign needed for sucessful comunication within itself in order to move to more complexity via billions of years of mutations.
[[But the bottom line for me, is that no matter what message is being sent the organism is alive while it is successfully communicating. Once communication comes to an end, the organism is physically dead.]]
I fully agree withhtis- the sideargument though is that ID says everythign is subject to entropy, and since htere are organisms that prolong this loss of comunicaiton for very long times, then apparently not everythign is subject to effects of entropy (although they would have to prove these organisms are eternal) But again, I aghree, the issues of htis thread are abotu whether complex cominicatiosn can arise naturally, and not abotu how species vary in resisting cell comunicaiton death timelines.
I’m still just a bit bothered by whether information could arise stepwise via change- I think the evidence is quite strong that it couldn’t- but there’s still a very slight question about htis issue for me- the arguments for it would be a VERY long stretch for sure, an impossible stretch I bleeive,but I’m just not completely satisfied that there couldn’t be that long stretch counterargument. It just bothers me slightly. Everythign so far stated about metainfo is more than reasonable and compliant with natural laws and reasonability- but...
Programmed cell death is a relatively recent invention. Single celled organisms do not die of entropy or "natural causes."
What a marvelous exchange between you and CottShop, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you for this superlative essay-post! It's definitely a "keeper."
BTW, your observation that inversely-causal information involves temporal non-locality is spot-on, IMHO FWIW.