Conversations Beyond Science and Religion: Evolution 2.0 interview with Philip Comella

philipcomellaThere’s more to life than just atoms and molecules. And it’s the biggest untold story in the history of science.

Philip Comella is an attorney with a philosophy background and author of the book “The End of Materialism.” On his podcast “Conversations Beyond Science and Religion” Philip and Perry discuss the untold evolution story – the one that bridges the gap between scientific evolution and common sense.
[mp3j track=”http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/cbs111416.mp3″ title=”Listen to the interview” fontsize=”18px” flip=”y”]

Podcast at iTunes

Podcast description and download location

According to the orthodox Darwinian model, evolution works through the natural selection of favorable, random mutations. Those who have a hard time accepting the notion that mindless mutations can create the wonders of the living world often adopt the opposing view, creationism, which holds that, in the end, only the God of the Bible can explain the miracle of life.

In his new book, Evolution 2.0 – Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design, this week’s guest Perry Marshall applies the mind of an electrical engineer to the problem and comes to an original and startling conclusion: the source of life, the DNA molecule, is in fact a digital code; a mathematical language no different from those than run our computers.

We know that only intelligent beings (i.e., humans) write computer codes and that errors in the transmission of the codes, also known as noise, destroys the message; compounding noise does not create a work of art, a new computer model, or for that matter, a new species.

Random mutations cannot be the source of order.

Something special must be behind evolution. Listen in as Philip and Perry Marshall tackle this perennial issue in a forceful and original discussion.

8 Responses

  1. Milorad says:

    Perry,
    I really appreciate your work. But, if you want to break out theory of evolution (it is already breaken by itself, but people walks around with blind minds), you have to be very precise with words.
    You use term “orthodox Darwinian model”. Do you know what it means? Word “orthodox” is from Greek language and means “correctly glorify” and is directed right to God. So, in your text you said “correctly glorified Darwinian model”! Is it true? No, it is not.
    In 20th century word “orthodox” was incorrectly used by means of overstatement some of religious conceptions as “dogma” and others.
    One and only one correct use of term “orthodox” is in term like “orthodox church” or “orthodox faith”. Not with (todays) science.

    With regards,
    Milorad

  2. Hi Perry
    Many thanks for drawing my attention to this very interesting interview. You know as I indicated earlier Evolution 2.0, Shapiro’s natural genetic engineering and my proposed quantum bio-information field theory complement and support each other. So please let me introduce the following summary:

    Blind Physics Intelligent Evolution:
    Standard physics is blind because it does not envisage the physical properties and laws which distinguish life from non-life, so it infers that biological evolution is blind random process. Now quantum bio-information field theory (QBFT) reveals the evolution physical intelligent guiding principle which maximizes bio-intelligence.

    So What is Quantum Bio-information Field Theory (QBFT)?
    A quantum bio-information field (QBF) is a cellular domain of biochemical interactions underpinned by electromagnetic field; it is a function over bio-information and time. QBFT is the study of biosystems (life) as a QBF subject to the maximum action principle. The QBF generates bio-information oscillations for successive generations. Bio-information is not Shannon type of information, it is a measure of developmental functional complexity, and it has the dimensions of energy and information. The QBF is represented by a generalized Schrodinger type of system nonconservative, nonlinear and irreversible; it is periodic bio-information attractor (PBA), I call it the life-organizing principle. The phase of the PBA contains the dynamical essence of a bio-system because the rate of change of phase which is the rate of change of action is the driving force for bio-information (bio-complexity and gene expression). I call this relationship the maximum action principle because the rate of change of action is always positive all through the bio-system’s lifespan. Moreover the phase is correlated to the system’s bio-intelligence; bio-intelligence is the capacity to generate functional structures and has the dimensions of action information and time.
    According to QBFT the origin of life is the origin of bio-information. Bio-information originates when oligonucleotides and oligopeptides undergo reciprocal autocatalysis subject to the maximum action principle. Such subjection is a necessary condition for generating meaningful genetic code. A genetic code is meaningful if it produces viable functional proteins.
    Thus the QBF’s equations describe biotic evolution and development, for example micro-evolution (adaptation) is a process through which a maximum action potential, which is phase difference, restructures a genome to regain its initial appropriate bio-intelligence stationary functional state. Moreover, macro-evolution, based on the PBA, exhibits power law increase (distribution) of bio-intelligence in agreement with Bak-Paczuski’s self-organized criticality.
    Suffice to say QBFT is original, consistent, empirically falsifiable, and full of predictions, unifies physics with biology by revealing the physical properties and laws which distinguish life from non life, the QBF’s equations unify phylogeny with ontogeny, transcends orthodox Darwinists and creationists by showing that evolution is intelligently guided by natural laws. It provides theoretical support for Barbara McClintock and James Shapiro’s revolutionary discoveries concerning natural genetic engineering (NGE) according to which bio-systems are self-organizing and self evolving systems. Therefore a new paradigm is emerging according to which evolution is NGE and natural selection as mechanism and the maximum action principle as driving force which maximize bio-intelligence.

    -http://bookstore.iuniverse.com/Products/SKU-000693619/Discovery-of-the-LifeOrganizing-Principle.aspx
    -http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40974-016-0010-2

  3. Tito Martino says:

    Dear Marshall
    Congratulations for your continuing campaign.
    I can’t understand well spoken english; would you please send me a transcription of that interview? Best Regards

  4. Sam Wallace says:

    Looks interesting, and may have a chance to read; but one of my first thoughts is Henri Bergson’s CREATIVE EVOLUTION ( by a French philosopher a little over a hundred years ago – also kind of another “take” on the larger Darwinian ( Darwin was also considering Lamarck’s theories at one time) theory / discourse. Also, I have long believed it would behoove all – especially scientific-minded with a philosophical bent, to go back to the GREEKS -earliest, mostly crystal-clear thinkers / philosophers before Socrates ( pre-Socratics) and see what THEY meant by “materialism” ( the Milesians, beginning with Thales he was one of those ever-lovin’ ” fathers of..” – philo- sophy = loving – wisdom); then through various others, with pet-theories of the “original” material of the world, they reached an early theory of “uncuttables” ) = a-toms, through theories of earth, fire ( Heracleitus – a real super-brain!) and Pythagoras ( numbers as the most basic “stuff” ), finally ANAXAGORAS ( not numbers, but MIND as most basic, since mind conceives numbers), the spiritual god-father ( he brought philosophy to ATHENS!) of SOCRATES, PLATO, ARISTOTLE – TRUE & Greek beginning of philosophical ( later religious, especially Christian) notions of IDEALISM ( “ideia = Greek for form, or mold – like in ceramics) which the divine creator ‘demiourgos’ referred to in creating the physical world, for Socrates / Plato’s idealism, the original of which the ‘material’ was a copy … perhaps all of this is somewhat familiar in all this discussion / dialogue? Hopefull y, should be! Sam Scot Wallace

  5. Nimal Kattipearachchi says:

    Can’t understand from the dialog, can’t gather the idea, could you please send me written version

  6. Francisco Roque says:

    I am curious!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *