The link didn't work. It doesn't matter what you incline to believe, to be honest. It's what you're able to show is true. At least, if you're wanting to say that your belief is justified. An "inclination" from historical scholars is not strong enough. First and most obvious, they are already inclined in that direction, so naturally they will form reasons to support that presupposition. But again, the inclination doesn't matter. You need something more solid.I'm going to provide a link to a Christian website which provides arguments for the reasons we incline to earlier dating for new testament books rather than later.The same applies in terms of authorship. Just click the "dating" box on the link page provided.
There is a tremendous amount of information in a bleak rock-laden landscape. At least, in the sense that a phenotype must be able to interact with it in any beneficial way. The environment is the parameter.What's interesting is where attempts are made to create computer simulations of neo-darwinian evolution it appears the programmers factor in active information into the program to achieve their "goal."
The programmers also have to "program" the evolutionary algorithm. It is essentially a computerized model of physical processes. Short of creating a perfect simulation of every law of physics as well as the environment, that's the only way to do it. So yes, a great deal of information is put in place for the program to run.
The selection criteria is determined by the environment. A comparative analogy would be: pick an organism that needs 20% oxygen in the air to breathe, or one that needs 40%. You have to model some things with demonstrative programs or games.In the link you provided ,something of this sort is occurring with the "selection" criteria in the example given with the playing cards.
The question is, are you seeking to understand the mechanism, or seeking to find misunderstanding? Any misunderstanding we the laymen could uncover at our level of education on the topic is merely that- a misunderstanding. The true issues are much much deeper, and not in conflict with the theory. The misunderstandings you're dredging up on the internet are an excellent example of confirmation bias at work.
Flann, I can't watch videos the majority of the day. If you can provide a transcript, I'd be happy to take a look.It's over an hour long but if you pick up about 50 minutes in you will get the examination of such simulations, and the question arises how unguided processes square with what they have to program in, to get the desired result.