[[All sender-receiver members need to be on the same ‘wavelength’ before it is possible to determine what needs to be transmitted in the coded message.]]
Another good point that probably should be developped more- This ‘same wavelength’ statement indicates that both sender and receiver NEED to be PREDESIGNED to utilize the message being transmitted in the first place- IF the receiver doesn’t understand code, the message is useless, and the sender is sending out nothign but goobeldygook which the receiver won’t be able to decode and utilize- the fact that cells can and do receive and understand the message and even hte miltiplier effects of the message indicate a designed assembly right form the get go- For the receiver to have waited aroudn millions of years while the sender and the receiver ‘got hteir act together’ in order to get themselves o nthe ‘same wavelength’ while nature manipulated the message via mistake after mistake is ismply an unreasonable position to take- hte ‘species’ would die off in very quick order awaiting this synchronization of decoding ability for hte receiver. Especially so when it comes to more andm ore complex information. Every minute change in the genome code would have to then wait millions of more years while the receiver got it’s act together so that it could properly understand the message and miltiplier effect of hte message, while it went htrough the tedious process of ‘mistake to sensible code’ via mutations, and again, the whole system would simply die off in very short order.
[[In general, information theory as discussed in Part 4, is based on sender-receiver notions which assumes the sender can intelligently or instinctively evaluate the needs of the receiver and act accordingly.]]
The further I read- the more profound this issue becomes- This evaluation on the part of hte sender really, very strongly, indicates, once again, that an intelligent agent causation foreknew the reciever woudl need an ‘intelligent’ sender which could anticipate how hte reciever would receive the message, and how it would react- ie: It doesn’t just simpyl send hte message, it also takes into account how hte receiver will interprete the message, and what actions the receiver will likely take when the message is received. Like i nthe Bee analogy in the link posted by diamond- the sender bee sends hte mssage knowing that an additional set of messages will be utilized by the receiver bees who must make hte determination abotu whether or not the journey to hte food source is worth the effort. This sender, message. receipt, interpretation, action sequence plays out even at the very lowest levels of life in a deterministic manner that shows very strong signs of an intelligent construction- not some arbitrary mistake driven process.