Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
71 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (3 members, 68 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,317 Year: 4,429/6,534 Month: 643/900 Week: 167/182 Day: 0/47 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 223 (701285)
06-15-2013 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Porosity
06-15-2013 3:45 PM


Yes, well, the thing is that when the loony says this:

There are no physical constraints linking a sign (codon) to what it represents, called the object in semiosis (amino acid). No physical connections.

The formal rules linking the object to the interpretant are also non physical. They are intangible you cannot touch them, they are not physics. It defies mechanistic physicality quite clearly.

... he is lying. The physical processes relating the codon to the amino acid are well understood. I think someone needs to look up concepts such as ribosomes, tRNA, and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase ... except, of course, that knowing stuff about biology doesn't help one to be a creationist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 3:45 PM Porosity has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 8:55 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 223 (701293)
06-15-2013 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Porosity
06-15-2013 8:38 PM


Re: Semi-ID-iotic argument for ID
A1.Chance and Necessity cannot generate a semiotic system, whereas the necessary and sufficient conditions of a semiotic system consist of arrangements of matter that produce specific functional effects by means of inert intermediary patterns.

Or to put it another way:

A1. Without a shred of evidence or argument, I'm going to assert something which implies the conclusion I want to draw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 8:38 PM Porosity has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 223 (707398)
09-27-2013 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Upright BiPed
09-26-2013 10:25 PM


I think what he's trying to say is that in order to for nucleotides to be translated into proteins, there has to be a mechanism to translate nucleotides into proteins. If his post has any other meaningful content, we'll never know, because apparently he joined this discussion board in order to not discuss things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Upright BiPed, posted 09-26-2013 10:25 PM Upright BiPed has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 223 (724862)
04-21-2014 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Ed67
04-21-2014 8:10 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Anyway, what matters is: whether evolution (methodological naturalism) can explain the first 'replicators', as you call them.

Perhaps this would be a good time to explain that writing --- for example --- "cat (dog)" does not actually make the word "cat" synonymous with "dog", nor, for that matter, establish any other relationship between them.

Evolution, of course, does not explain the first replicators, for the same reason that gravity doesn't.

Methodological naturalism, of course, does not explain the first replicators, for the same reason that the double-blind method doesn't.

Try to cultivate a little accuracy in thought and speech.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 8:10 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 99 of 223 (725046)
04-23-2014 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Ed67
04-23-2014 12:26 PM


Re: Articles of Faith
I take the evidence based approach that all complex specified information has been found to have an intelligent source ...

Well, no. Assuming that the vague term "complex specified information" includes the information in DNA, then DNA itself constitutes a counterexample. When we look at the DNA of (let's say) a rose-bush, we find that it was produced by mindless processes (in this case reproduction, recombination, mutation). The IDist needs to hypothesize an exception to what seems like an invariable rule for genomes --- that they are produced by unintelligent processes.

We may, however, say that whenever we can find out how "complex specified information" arises, whether it's a genome, an engineering blueprint, or a novel, it arises as a result of natural and not supernatural causes; so if you want to apply induction, you could start with that fact and draw the obvious inference.

You complain about the "constraints of scientific naturalism", but what is it except inductive inferences from facts such as these? To elaborate on this point, suppose that the usual way to get coaches was for fairy godmothers to turn pumpkins into them, as in Cinderella. Then it would be scientific to infer that that was how any given coach was produced, and we would have scientific supernaturalism. But it isn't. We infer a naturalistic explanation for any given coach not a result of some prejudice or philosophy against the supernatural in general or fairy godmothers in particular; it's just what experience has taught us. To put it another way, we dismiss the supernatural explanation, not because it is supernatural, but for the same reason that we would dismiss an explanation involving tiny purple elephants, which would be natural, but which are equally absent from our collective experience of the sorts of causes things tend to have. And I never hear anyone complaining about the "constraints of no-tiny-purple-elephantism".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 12:26 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 103 of 223 (725068)
04-23-2014 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Ed67
04-23-2014 11:23 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Can you possibly now see why evolution does not and cannot explain abiogenesis?

Yes, I see. So could you possibly let your gang know not to assert that the first DNA/RNA EVOLVED?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 11:23 AM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 106 of 223 (725090)
04-24-2014 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:12 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
You are confused. We're talking about how the genome contained in DNA came into existence. You're talking about how it gets replicated.
Different process. Try to keep up.

And the genome of a given organism such as a rosebush invariably comes into existence by the process which I have described. Do you deny it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:12 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 223 (725101)
04-24-2014 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:39 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
The genome for a rosebush only came into existence once, when it was (arguably) created. Now, it gets passed on by replication; what we see in present day are copies of the prototype. We are discussing the origin of the prototype, not of the extant specimens.

Did you really not understand that?

Let's try another example. I have just turned 40. My genome, therefore, did not exist until 1973. My parents' genomes existed prior to my conception, mine did not. Here, then, we have an example of a genome (mine) coming into existence. Do you deny it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:39 AM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 113 of 223 (725102)
04-24-2014 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:27 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
"complex specified information" is a term in the English language understandable by English speakers.

No.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:27 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 125 of 223 (725121)
04-24-2014 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:47 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
I can't help it if your English is 'challenged'.

As a matter of fact, you are exclusively responsible for the fantasy world in your head.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:47 AM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 126 of 223 (725134)
04-24-2014 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:27 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
"complex specified information" is a term in the English language understandable by English speakers. It means exactly what it says.

In order for someone to understand a word or phrase, it has to have operational value for them.

That is: someone who knows what "pink" means can answer the question "Is this object pink?" His definition acts as a criterion. Someone who understands what "elephant" means can answer questions such as "how many elephants are there in this picture?" (so long as he can also count). Someone who knows what "three" means can tell me if I'm holding up three fingers (so long as he also knows what "finger" means, and so can recognize a finger). And so forth.

On the other hand, the average English-speaking person would not be able to answer the question "How much CSI is in the sequence AGTCGATGCTAGTTTGCA", or even if there is any. Someone who doesn't even know it when they see it (and know it's absent when they don't see it) doesn't know what it means.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:27 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 2:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 130 of 223 (725170)
04-24-2014 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Ed67
04-24-2014 2:43 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Okay, have it your way. I'll use a different term in the future.

Well if you're going to use a different term for the same thing, then we would still have a problem, since the difficulty arises not because of the choice of words to describe the thing, but in the difficulty of identifying the thing the words are meant to denote.

But perhaps you will use this different term to mean a different thing. We'll see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 2:43 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 3:10 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 132 of 223 (725173)
04-24-2014 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Ed67
04-24-2014 3:07 PM


Re: CS on CSI
CS, a little common sense would tell you that it takes intelligence to create a system that runs on its own without intelligence.

A little common sense would tell him that the Earth is flat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 3:07 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 3:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 135 of 223 (725176)
04-24-2014 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Ed67
04-24-2014 3:10 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Nope. Specified Complexity will do. It's easier to type, anyway.

Then you still have the same problem --- you need some sort of operational definition. Otherwise it doesn't mean anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 3:10 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 136 of 223 (725177)
04-24-2014 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Ed67
04-24-2014 3:12 PM


Re: CS on CSI
I take it you DISAGREE that it takes intelligence to create a system that runs without intelligence?

Obviously, since it is easy to think of counterexamples. Such as a rosebush.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 3:12 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022