Nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of code biology

This article highlights the potential contribution of biological codes to the course and dynamics of evolution. The concept of organic codes, developed by Marcello Barbieri, has fundamentally changed our view of how living systems function. The notion that molecular interactions built on adaptors that arbitrarily link molecules from different "worlds" in a conventional, i.e., rule-based way, departs significantly from the law-based constraints imposed on livening things by physical and chemical mechanisms. In other words, living and non-living things behave like rules and laws, respectively, but this important distinction is rarely considered in current evolutionary theory. The many known codes allow quantification of codes that relate to a cell, or comparisons between different biological systems and may pave the way to a quantitative and empirical research agenda in code biology. A starting point for such an endeavour is the introduction of a simple dichotomous classification of structural and regulatory codes. This classification can be used as a tool to analyse and quantify key organising principles of the living world, such as modularity, hierarchy, and robustness, based on organic codes. The implications for evolutionary research are related to the unique dynamics of codes, or ´Eigendynamics´ (self-momentum) and how they determine the behaviour of biological systems from within, whereas physical constraints are imposed mainly from without. A speculation on the drivers of macroevolution in light of codes is followed by the conclusion that a meaningful and comprehensive understanding of evolution depends including codes into the equation of life.

Code biology and the problem of emergence

It should now be recognized that codes are central to life and to understanding its more complex forms, including human culture. Recognizing the 'conventional' nature of codes provides solid grounds for rejecting efforts to reduce life to biochemistry and justifies according a place to semantics in life. The question I want to consider is whether this is enough. Focussing on Eigen's paradox of how a complex code could originate, I will argue that along with Barbieri's efforts to account for the origins of life based on the ribosome and then to account for the refined codes through a process of ambiguity reduction, something more is required. Barbieri has not provided an adequate account of emergence, or the basis for providing such an account. I will argue that Stanley Salthe has clarified to some extent the nature of emergence by conceptualizing it as the interpolation of new enabling constraints. Clearly, codes can be seen as enabling constraints. How this actually happens, though, is still not explained. Stuart Kauffman has grappled with this issue and shown that it radically challenges the assumptions of mainstream science going back to Newton. He has attempted to reintroduce real possibilities or potentialities into his ontology, and argued that radically new developments in nature are associated with realizing adjacent possibles. This is still not adequate. What is also involved, I will suggest, utilizing concepts developed by the French natural philosopher Gilbert Simondon, is 'transduction' as part of 'ontogenesis' of individuals in a process of 'individuation', that is, the emergence of 'individuals' from preindividual fields or milieux.