Semiotic argument for ID

Since I am a creationist of course I can't possibly have anything of value to say, and all I can say is it makes sense to me that a coding system couldn't have arisen by purely biological means. But then I don't think any of life could have arisen that way, or evolved after it had arisen either.

And I find it very interesting that so far nobody has had anything substantive to say against the idea, just the usual mocking and ridicule. Funny, I thought that was against the rules. Not.

Sure, chemical reactions are spontaneous, but we're talking about DNA coding, where a string of chemicals translates into physical features in a living creature -- not salt, not just some other chemical product, but traits in a LIVING CREATURE. That's rather a different order of "code" wouldn't you agree?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It seems to me that DNA encodes for proteins, not for traits.

Yes we all know that and it's a trivial point in this context.

How traits emerge is a far more complex story, and shouldn't be considered semiosis (IMO).

But it's obviously what the creationist argument is about. If you want to propose another term, fine, but semiosis seems to me to be quite appropriate. Chemical coding that produces a salt or a protein is obviously not the concern, but how one gets from the chemical product to the traits of the living organism -- that is obviously another order of coding that has no chemical or biological explanation and IMO can't have one.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hm, too bad if so, but with all that emphasis on "mind" it seems to imply more.