Evolution is one thing. Development is the other. Salthe covers this nicely.

Evolution is one thing. Development is the other. Salthe covers this nicely. — apokrisis

That you think a distinction between evolution and development would solve the problem indicates that you haven't recognized the problem. To begin with, to evolve is what life does, it is essential to our nature. So if your theory of "desire" as a directing force within the microphysical aspects of living organisms, explains the reality of development, but cannot account for the reality of evolution, then it falls short of being an hypothesis which is consistent with the evidence.

But the specific problem I was trying to bring to your attention is the issue of generation, the coming-to-be of living organisms. Consider the nature of reproduction if you will. When the seed, or embryo, is being developed, it is a part of the parent, so according to your hypothesis, it is being directed by the desire of the whole, which is the parent. We could say that this is the desire to produce another similar organism, and this desire drives the mechanisms which produce the seed.

After the seed is separated from the parent and begins to grow on its own, as a separate individual, it is a distinct whole, yet it is still directed by the very same desire, the desire to produce a similar organism (similar to the parent). Now this desire, the desire to produce a similar organism, which directs the parts in their various activities clearly pre-exists the existence of the individual itself, this distinct whole, which is the growing seed.

This is the nature of all forms of reproduction. The desire which directs the parts (if we are going to explain their activity in this way) always pre-exists the individual whole which is composed of those parts. The "desire" comes from the prior organism and is imparted to the new organism in the act of reproduction. That it is the same "desire" is evident from the fact that the very same type of organism as the parent is produced, and that same "desire" is responsible for the organism coming into existence as the specific type of organism which it is. Therefore we can conclude that this "desire" which you talk about must always pre-exist the organism itself (the organism being the whole), because it is the reason why the organism exists as the whole which it is, an organism. Do you comprehend the logic, and agree with this principle, that the "desire" you refer to must pre-exist the whole, as the cause of the whole being the type of thing which it is?.

To begin with, to evolve is what life does, — Metaphysician Undercover

Evolvability had to itself evolve by distinguishing itself from development. Replication with difference had to become distinct from homeostatic repair.

So "to begin with", the difference between the two started off vague. Calling it either evolution or development would be difficult at the first ribosomal state of abiogenesis.

But as soon as life started to establish any repair or replication capacities, the dichotomy rapidly strengthened as life had to be able to do both things – homeostatically rebuild itself, but also creatively replicate itself with a judicious measure of "requisite variety".

Your habits of thought just aren't atuned to the subtleties of biological causality. You are being too reductionist in thinking evolution explains everything.

Did you read the rest of my post, and get to the "specific problem" with your "desire" theory, or did you just get stuck on the irrelevant, if not arbitrary, distinction between evolution and development.

Your premise is wrong. So the argument that follows is already dead in the water.

Your premise is wrong. — apokrisis

Which premise would that be? Do you disagree that organisms are generated, that they come into being, and they have a beginning?