Biological organisms are [i]primarily[/i] Software Defined Lifeforms. - Yes or No?

The biggest question is: How does one go from molecules organized on a mineral surface to a set of molecules that makes copies of itself? We certainly know that is the fundamental characteristic of life, self-replication, and we know that some early system of molecules must’ve figured out that trick. Perhaps the minerals guided that process or perhaps they were merely a convenient place for molecules to meet and organize, and just by some pure chance event, just the right set of molecules came together and formed this self-replicating system.

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/life-and-rocks-may-have-co-evolved-on-earth-180957807/#K9RHlovy0HeWstxK.99

See, I know you are making this **** up because your own story does not add up, it contradicts the simplest logic

Clarify for me, do you think I have stated this correctly so far?

In a series of articles and books from 1996 onward, Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term "methodological naturalism" to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic metaphysical naturalism (as claimed by creationists and proponents of intelligent design, in particular by Phillip E. Johnson). Pennock's testimony as an expert witness at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today":

Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a paradigm of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.

I really don't know. Philosophy is not my thing. I had to look up Ontological to see what it means and I'm still not sure I understand it.

I do understand however that Methodological Naturalism is necessary to the scientific methodology. This explains it pretty well...
Quote:
In a series of articles and books from 1996 onward, Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term "methodological naturalism" to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic metaphysical naturalism (as claimed by creationists and proponents of intelligent design, in particular by Phillip E. Johnson). Pennock's testimony as an expert witness at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today".

Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a paradigm of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.

Does that help clarify my understanding of the matter?

You keep dragging DNA into my statements when I have not said anything about DNA.

rosborne979 wrote:
Computer software is discrete from its hardware. It can and does exist independently. In its most basic form it's just a pattern of logic gates held in state by electricity.

Biological information is intrinsic to its hardware (DNA), so the code and the hardware are essentially one thing. When the DNA evolves over time due purely to natural physical rules, the information it carries is carried along with it. That's a pretty key difference.

https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/products-and-services/promotions/trusted-custom-synthesis.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwrszdBRDWARIsAEEYhrcjG99sOXXKeTmmr8qwNtyKmn-tamWmwXcgP_N2LHME5O7W2GiUAzgaAknaEALw_wcB&s_kwcid=AL

If we knew the sequence for a T Rex we could create one now.

We could use one of your wife’s egg, plug in T Rex DNA, then use her womb for an incubator.

What say you Ros, does ordering DNA from a lab satisfy you as showing it to be 'separate' from the 'hardware'?

Genome transplant makes species switch
One type of bacterium has been reprogrammed into another.

Philip Ball

By transplanting their genomes, US scientists have converted one species into another.

John Glass and his co-workers at the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland, have taken DNA from a bacterium called Mycoplasma mycoides and inserted it into cells of the closely related species Mycoplasma capricolum.

They find that the recipient cells with the new genome behave like those of the donor species, making protein molecules characteristic of the donor. It's like re-booting a cell with a new operating system, says Glass.

The work raises the possibility of reprogramming cells with new functions — perhaps even turning cells from other organisms into human stem cells for regenerative medical treatments.

But that is a long way off. Glass's team currently has its sights set on giving a bacterium a completely synthetic genome, made in the laboratory.

This would enable the researchers to design a new species from scratch. It is an ambitious aim, not least because the design rules for an entirely artificial genome are still poorly understood. But the latest work, reported in Science1, shows that a cell's molecular machinery can run on a different genetic operating system.