|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Semiotic argument for ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
a coding system couldn't have arisen by purely biological means But they can arise by purely chemical means. NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H2O That describes a real spontaneous chemical reaction that happens all by itself no matter what. That we can represent those reactions with letters does not create a coding systems that needs a coder to explain. When you mix an acid and a base, its makes a salt. That just happens. The only code to explain is the one we invented to talk about the reaction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porosity Member (Idle past 2122 days) Posts: 158 From: MT, USA Joined: |
Do you post over at theskepticalzone or uncommondecent? No... I'm not smart enough to post at theskepticalzone, yet smart enough not to post at uncommondecent.
Have you been reading my posts? All the time. That's one of the things I love about these forums...you can literally read how members have grown and evolved from their first posts.
This's the first I've heard of it. I looked up your links and read up some other stuff about all this. The interweds is a big place, one the sites I frequent has a group of creos trying to sell this Semi-ID-iotic argument to all the other ignorant plebes who think they are saying something smart.This is part of the reason I came here to get out the dumps and talk to people with some smarts and what not. Hey..are you really a Catholic Scientist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porosity Member (Idle past 2122 days) Posts: 158 From: MT, USA Joined: |
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. I value your opinion, do you have anymore to add than an opinion? Any citations for why this process could not be natural? Are you the one to make sense of Semiotics? if so...please do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Faith writes:
It seems to me that DNA encodes for proteins, not for traits. How traits emerge is a far more complex story, and shouldn't be considered semiosis (IMO).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. Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No... I'm not smart enough to post at theskepticalzone, yet smart enough not to post at uncommondecent. Ha! So who's worse, the smartasses or the dumbasses?
All the time. For how long? This is the first forum I came to. A friend recommended it to kill down time at work (we had discussed the creation/evolution debate together before). I started working the night shift in the lab at work beginning Jan. '05. I've never really considered being a lurker. I poked around for 2 days to get the jist of it before I dove right in. But I like to argue. I've never really posted at any other forums because I can't get over the inferior software.
one the sites I frequent has a group of creos trying to sell this Semi-ID-iotic argument to all the other ignorant plebes who think they are saying something smart. Yup, to them the end justifies the means.
Hey..are you really a Catholic Scientist? I'm more of a Cafeteria Catholic. I think it accurately conveys a sufficient portion of my character to be a useful identifier to those who might reply to me. I wasn't considering the lurkers, and didn't intend to represent Catholicism. I wanted something that informed the other posters about me. I was sitting in my lab coat, and removed my safety glasses to better try to come up with a name for my login here. I liked it being Catholic Something, but I didn't know what to call myself. I was reminded of a scene from the movie Half Baked (as I looked at myself in my PPE): Thurgood was sweeping the floor in the lab (where they were doing marijuana research), and an old man in a lab coat interjects: 'Uh, Janitor?' Thurgood offendedly turns to reply 'What is it?, Scientist." So I went with that. ABE: here's the scene: http://youtu.be/GDHVi3h6ZXw "I know this isn't your responsibility, but mop the rest of this shit up, I'll be right back" I've been promoted since then, to a desk mostly, but I still do scientific research in another lab there. Its those skills that I utilize as my job, but its all for commercial reasons... so we sell more of the products that we manufacture. I haven't published anything, but its been considered. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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? So much so that its not even a "code" anymore. Take a look at Message 4. They're talking about codons and amino acids. That stuff is just chemistry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Hm, too bad if so, but with all that emphasis on "mind" it seems to imply more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porosity Member (Idle past 2122 days) Posts: 158 From: MT, USA Joined: |
Ha! So who's worse, the smartasses or the dumbasses? LOL! I would have to go with the dumbasses...they make me feel smarter.
For how long? I started to do some research on this site about six months ago. The other forum is a conspiracy site and those clowns over there use every fallacy in the book, but this semiotic is new to me. So I decided I needed to look it up and arm myself with more knowledge... here I am.
I've never really considered being a lurker. I poked around for 2 days to get the jist of it before I dove right in. But I like to argue. I don't think of myself of being a lurker either, I just didn't feel I had anything to add to the existing conversations, so I stayed out of it tell I had something relevant to talk about. Besides I'm a shitty writer..lol.
I'm more of a Cafeteria Catholic. I was raised a Catholic, then ended up doing the Christian thing for my wife. For the last few years I've ended up being Agnostic, due in part for my curiosity of the universe and the realization that religion has stunted growth in human progress and on many scientific fronts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
It looks to me like semiosis, as used by creationists, is just numerology without the numbers.
If you want to propose another term, fine, but semiosis seems to me to be quite appropriate. Faith writes:
Chemicals have physical properties. There's nothing mysterious about that. A living organism is essentially just an enormous molecule with the sum total properties of its constituents.
... how one gets from the chemical product to the traits of the living organism....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3924 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
Semiosis requires mind, in fact it is the basis of mind. Here's the deal: both these can't be true. Examine these examples "Water requires oxygen; in fact it is the basis of oxygen" "Hydrogen requires water; in fact it is the basis of water" only a1 and b2 are true, not otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porosity Member (Idle past 2122 days) Posts: 158 From: MT, USA Joined: |
Hi ringo,
It looks to me like semiosis, as used by creationists, is just numerology without the numbers. I think that it has more to do with information. What they are saying is their puppet master is behind the scenes giving molecules the information to react to physical laws...the invisible creator at last! Here is large quote from on of these creos thinking processe.Sorry about the large copy/paste but there is no way I could explain this properly. quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
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? How is it different? Why can't we describe all chemical reactions as being guided by a code?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
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. Just as 600 years ago it made sense to a lot of people that the Earth remained stationary as the Sun moved about it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024