Thinking about this further, using a computer program such as TaxCut, it seems to me that the creator of Taxcut- the coder, acts as the metainfo in hte creation of hte software.
The coder NEEDS to know precreation how to code the program so that problems won’t arise, and he needs to carefully code to avoid problems. If he just simply threw out a bunch of ‘noise’, the program certainly wouldn’t work.
Now, let’s say a virus hits the program, and changes the info already present- let’s say it changes the #2 into 2.7 (We’ll get into ‘neautral changes in a moment- but for now, let’s focuss on changes that actually affect the program)
Every set of instructions that rely on the #2 is now goign to be affected- not only does the virus’ effect affect the #2, but it also affects every set of instrucitons that rely on the #2. No longer does 2+2=4, but it now now = 5.4. If, using normal software, we’re owed $200, using htis changed software, we’re goign to now get back a different maount. 5 times 2 is now going to = 13.5
Now, the coder CAN anticipate such viruses making htis particular change (again, the coder acting as the metainfo) and can include code to correct any such change, but again, this points to the absolute need of higher metainfo anticipating change and coding the program to deal with and handle and correct such a change before the change even takes place. IF the coder doesn’t predesign the software to deal with htis, the program is pretty much hosed.
Now, according to macroevolution, there are a number of neutral mutaitons in life, that simply just hang around and do nothign until another change somehow activates them in the correct sequences to bring bout change.
Further, these neutral changes - the ones that are supposedly goign to help move a species beyond their own kinds, are somehow compliant with the species own specific info, and supposedly won’t cause problems when they become activated via other changes, and start their ‘self assemblies’ sometime in the future.
But let’s examine htis more closely. First of all, we know that dleterious mutaitons far outnumber neutral ones, and it takes a trmeendous amount of deleterious mutations to gain one neutral mutaiton. The number of deleterious mutaitons that would HAVE to affect the program/species tryign to gain then umbers of neutral mutaitons macroevolutionsits tell us led to macroevolution, would simply overwhelm the program/species- Going back to the software, this would mean that there would HAVE to be an overwhelming number of deleterious changes before you got a single ‘neutral’ mutation, (5’s now= 5.9, 7’s now = 7.1, and so on and so forth) and hte software simply would not work. While the coder could in theory anticipate a bunch of changes, and code hte software to deal with htese changes, it woudl take a TREMENDOUS intelligence and foresight on their part to do so- making hte need for the intelligence behind the design of the metainformaiton that much greater.
However, we know from centuries of experimentation that species have unique species specific metainformation, inthat you can’t simply just throw a bunch of changes at the species and expect them to remain fit. adding changes that are not ‘coded for’ result in deleterious conditions, loss of info etc. just as it would in the software program IF the coder didn’t predesign hte program to handle certain changes.
I’ll have to expand htis further later, especiallyhte point about ‘neutral’ mutations acting on a living species- but examining predesign, it becoem quite evident that there is an absolute need for a controlling, directing, allowing/dissallowing predesigned metainfo already present to ensure fitness when faced with changes from outside forces acting on the lower information.
Fascinating analysis, CottShop! I just have some observations and questions.
If one fills the role of "coder" with eternal, omniscient God, then certainly this coder can "anticipate" (since the coder is not time bound) each and every potentially deleterious development anywhere in creation and provide strategies in advance of its occurrence so that any potentially affected living creature can have means to deal with and "defend itself" against, e.g., the (usually bad) effects of genetic mutation, which is usually ascribed to a "random cause." (That term sounds like an oxymoron; but maybe it is not one. I'm keeping my mind open.)
But still I think this model generally would be wrong on two counts. In the first place, for the coder to work in this way (should he/she/it so choose it) would be tantamount to establishing determinism as the most fundamental rule of the universe.
While determinism is just dandy as a means for understanding the application of a rule and how it might play out in the world theoretically, it does nothing to explain the rise of novelty in nature, and therefore of the diversity of life. In the second place, developed from the first, any deterministic model of nature, being mechanistic in its foundational principles, is systematically blind to potential non-material, non-mechanistic contributions to natural causation. For any such finding would be self-defeating to the argument that nature is, at bottom, the sum of the random activity of "dumb" matter at any given point in time.
And yet the irony seems to be that, without the random in nature, novelty in nature cannot occur.
And if novelty cannot occur, then that means that the world of nature must be perfectly "static." Meaning: No change. No development. No "evolution."
And also as it seems to me: No human free will. In a determined world, human judgment and choice would be perfectly superfluous.
Must conclude for the time being without drawing any conclusions here, dear CottShop. I just figure that these problems are bigger than either of us, or both of us in combination. :^)
Thank you ever so much for pinging me to your excellent analysis/post!