The discussion Iâm reading is interesting from a computational perspective. From the biology perspective there is a basic problem in the premise and this could be due to unexamined bias.
The âreductionistâ model for biology is no longer considered workable. Here is a website that includes a discussion of this with good links to other articles.
In other words, making any conclusion about life or evolution or the nature of man based on how many bits of information is held in a strand of DNA does not square with current thought.
For example, the speed limit of mutation does not fit well with the observed âadaptive mutationsâ where in a life form will increase the number of mutations in response to a stress so as to survive. (The increased mutations does not lead to death- but survival)
The discussion Iâm reading is interesting from a computational perspective. From the biology perspective there is a basic problem in the premise and this could be due to unexamined bias.
The âreductionistâ model for biology is no longer considered workable. Here is a website that includes a discussion of this with good links to other articles.
http://www.psrast.org/strohmnewgen.htm
The âreductionistâ model is no longer considered valuable in medicine either. Check this link:
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0030208
In other words, making any conclusion about life or evolution or the nature of man based on how many bits of information is held in a strand of DNA does not square with current thought.
For example, the speed limit of mutation does not fit well with the observed âadaptive mutationsâ where in a life form will increase the number of mutations in response to a stress so as to survive. (The increased mutations does not lead to death- but survival)