Once I was but a fertilised egg, now I am a fully grown human and hopefully somewhat rational and creative.

fg:

I am both human and chicken, and will therefore not pursue this side conversation for fear of where it might lead.

Are you a fully grown chicken, or one still in the process of development?

Is it the chicken in you that makes you rational and creative?

And I see no reason to explain things to you that are undisputed history.

OK. Some things just can’t be explained.

Publications by Hubert P. Yockey, Ph.D.

Books

Yockey, Hubert P. (2005) Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life. Cambridge University Press.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press.

Yockey, Hubert P.; Platzman, Robert P.; and Quastler, Henry, eds. (1958) Symposium on Information Theory in Biology, New York, London: Pergamon Press.

Bioinformatics and Computational Biology are well-developed fields of research.

Yes, they are. But they aren’t what you apparently think they are either.

It is debatable whether bioinformatics and the discipline computational biology, literally “biology that involves computation,” are the same or distinct. To some, both bioinformatics and computational biology are defined as any use of computers for processing any biologically-derived information, whether DNA sequences or breast X-rays. Therefore, there are other fields, e.g. medical imaging / image analysis, that might be considered part of bioinformatics. This would be the broadest definition of the term. But, in practice, the definition used by most people is even narrower; bioinformatics to them is a synonym for computational molecular biology: any use of computers to characterize the molecular components of living things.
– here

Over the past few decades, major advances in the field of molecular biology, coupled with advances in genomic technologies, have led to an explosive growth in the biological information generated by the scientific community. This deluge of genomic information has, in turn, led to an absolute requirement for computerized databases to store, organize, and index the data and for specialized tools to view and analyze the data.
– here

You might say, it’s information about information.

Bioinformatics is the application of information technology to the field of molecular biology.
– here

Information technology, not information theory.

I’m looking for the theoretical basis for this stuff they are studying that they call “information.”

What is it, how is it generated and lost, where does it come from, what is it capable of, how is it transmitted, received, processed and what are the general principles and laws that apply to it. You know science

“Informal and colloqiual” isn’t an excuse for not doing science.

I see no confusion, nor misrepresentation, in Darwin’s prefatory exposition.

And I see no reason to explain things to you that are undisputed history.

Bioinformatics and Computational Biology are well-developed fields of research.

So what?

Can either of them account for the software (in living organisms) that controls the hardware (that make up living organisms)?

IOW can either of those “well developed foelds of research” demonstrate that biological information is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity?

And if they did how did they do so?

Or are you just/ still posting things that don’t support your claims as if they support your claims?

Mung: If biology is ever to join the true sciences, biologists better get busy in the field of information theory.

Bioinformatics and Computational Biology are well-developed fields of research. How do you think they process all the new genomic data? Just finding a parsimonious phylogenetic tree is a huge computational task. Bioinformaticians work very closely with mathematicians and computer scientists to utilize the most advanced methods of information analysis.

There are information-processing systems, signals, signal transduction pathways, etc.

If biology is ever to join the true sciences, biologists better get busy in the field of information theory.

As far as your prior claim, look up Hubert Yockey. I’d think you’d be aware of him.

I am both human and chicken,

Finally we have a completely rational explanation for all the eggs you lay here.

1)Namespace of DNA is filled with working arrangements or “life sequences”
2)The basic functionality or “life sequence” can be reached from a relatively short namespace
3)There are enough trials to go through the namespace in less than 1B years
4)Self-organization by some physical law
5)Intelligence