> the end result is nonetheless based upon chance and simple math.

Hi all
I have immense respect for Oliver and Cryberg but I cannot remain mute. The most recent work refutes the notion that evolution proceeds by "chance and simple math." Current thinking along these lines:

The concepts of the origin of the genetic code and the definitions of life changed dramatically after the RNA world hypothesis. Main narratives in molecular biology and genetics such as the “central dogma,” “one gene one protein” and “non-coding DNA is junk” were falsified meanwhile. 

The reductionistic and mechanistic views on physico-chemical properties of the genetic code are no longer convincing as appropriate descriptions of the abundance of non-random genetic content operators which are active in natural genetic engineering and natural genome editing.

Real lifeworld communication by living agents cannot be depicted by mathematical equations because communicating living agents do not behave mechanistically and the syntactical structure of natural codes does not represent its meaning, which in most cases is not available in the superficial but in the hidden deep grammar. In such outdated concepts a natural code like the genetic code is reduced to the sum of its measurable and superficial attributes which can be computed in a digital and algorithm-based procedure. 

Although it is possible to measure the physico-chemical properties of nucleotide sequence molecules, cell biology, genetics, computing their statistical features, essential properties such as de novo generation without gene duplication or error replication will have non-predictable, incomputable features in principle. 

This is the reason why mathematically and computation derived explanations remain unsatisfactory ...

Biosystems 140:49-57 (2016)

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html