Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 8:57 AM
27 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, Faith, kjsimons, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric, vimesey (8 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,010 Year: 12,046/19,786 Month: 1,827/2,641 Week: 336/708 Day: 30/81 Hour: 10/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 46 of 223 (724795)
04-20-2014 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
09-27-2013 2:17 AM


I agree - same old argument, different name
I agree with this part: That word (I forgot it already lol) is just another name for communicating specified information, which, as ID has always argued, is the POSSIBLE downfall of abiogenesis.

Perhaps, though, it is more accurately describing what ID is trying to get across with its argument for the design of the code contained in DNA.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : Just having thoughts


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2013 2:17 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2014 3:35 AM Ed67 has responded

    
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 47 of 223 (724796)
04-20-2014 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Pressie
09-30-2013 7:40 AM


"Pressie" writes:

Not worth looking at.

Don't you find that a little prejudiced? I think he's making some EXCELLENT progress in making his case. Bravo!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Pressie, posted 09-30-2013 7:40 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 48 of 223 (724797)
04-20-2014 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
11-02-2013 3:49 PM


Re: Omigosh let's see if I get it ...
RAS writes:

GASP: that is obviously a coded sequence, and that means there was an original coder ... and this means the code must direct the action of the atoms to form first one set of molecules and then another: it must be ... {knees tremble} ...

Otherwise know as the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy

I must object; that straw man was a non-sequetir.

In your characterature, the fact that there was an original coder for the chemical nomenclature system, does not mean that "The code must direct the action of the atoms". In this case, the code must direct the action of the LAB CHEMIST.

But what if the lab chemist was replaced by a robot, pre-programmed to read the code of the researcher and cause the specified chemical reactions? This robot, receiving, translating, and executing communicated instructions, is much like the DNA molecule. It's just a mechanistic 'robot' pre-programmed to execute received orders.
The interesting question is, where did the DNA originally receive the orders from?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2013 3:49 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2014 12:47 AM Ed67 has responded
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2014 11:42 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 223 (724799)
04-21-2014 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Ed67
04-20-2014 11:42 PM


Re: Omigosh let's see if I get it ...

The interesting question is, where did the DNA originally receive the orders from?

You haven't come anywhere near setting up the loading in that question. One might just as well ask where the coding in a diamond came from.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Ed67, posted 04-20-2014 11:42 PM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 8:15 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15211
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 50 of 223 (724805)
04-21-2014 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Ed67
04-20-2014 11:00 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
The idea that evolution can't explain the first replicators isn't even an ID idea. Creationists are about the only people who even think that evolution should explain the first replicators.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Ed67, posted 04-20-2014 11:00 PM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 8:10 PM PaulK has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 51 of 223 (724827)
04-21-2014 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Ed67
04-20-2014 11:42 PM


Re: Omigosh let's see if I get it ...
Edsel, who can't be bothered to type 4 letters, let alone get three correct ... lets me abuse the coded sequence for the specific information in his name ...

I must object; that straw man was a non-sequetir.

In your characterature, the fact that there was an original coder for the chemical nomenclature system, ...

No no no, the naming is not the code they are just names for the atoms of the code so that we can refer to them with some semblance of intellectual comprehension (what are words and names good for anyway, just misspell it and people will understand eh?

The caricature that you so aptly point out applies to your caricature of the DNA molecule ...

So I am glad and relieved to see that you understand the errors of your position.

... does not mean that "The code must direct the action of the atoms". In this case, the code must direct the action of the LAB CHEMIST.

No it means that the atoms naturally form these molecules, just as all molecules come together in specific patterns do the the chemical reaction patterns based on their compositions.

But what if the lab chemist was replaced by a robot, pre-programmed to read the code of the researcher and cause the specified chemical reactions? This robot, receiving, translating, and executing communicated instructions, ...

The you have introduced a totally unnecessary element to a natural process that doesn't need a helping hand, haven't you?

What purpose does the robot serve?

... is much like the DNA molecule. It's just a mechanistic 'robot' pre-programmed to execute received orders.

And the DNA molecules act just the same with or without the unnecessarily introduced purposeless robot ... making chemical reactions by the natural process that doesn't need a helping hand, as we have just established.

The interesting question is, where did the DNA originally receive the orders from?

Yep, right up there with the interesting question, where did the sodium atom originally receive the orders to combine with chlorine to make salt ... just so we could have salt on our food! Amazing isn't it.

Edited by RAZD, : [..]


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Ed67, posted 04-20-2014 11:42 PM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 52 of 223 (724859)
04-21-2014 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by PaulK
04-21-2014 3:35 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
"PaulK" writes:

The idea that evolution can't explain the first replicators isn't even an ID idea. Creationists are about the only people who even think that evolution should explain the first replicators."

What kind of an argument is that?
We're not talking about whose idea it is.
you're wrong in your facts, but this is not the place for that argument.

Anyway, what matters is: whether evolution (methodological naturalism) can explain the first 'replicators', as you call them.

What do you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2014 3:35 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2014 8:38 PM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2014 2:05 AM Ed67 has responded
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2014 8:48 AM Ed67 has responded

    
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 53 of 223 (724860)
04-21-2014 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by NoNukes
04-21-2014 12:47 AM


The Loading Setup Tutorial
"NoNukes" writes:

You haven't come anywhere near setting up the loading in that question. One might just as well ask where the coding in a diamond came from.

NN, would you please explain your idea a little more? I'm not sure what you mean by loading.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2014 12:47 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
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 not yet responded

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 55 of 223 (724863)
04-21-2014 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by bluegenes
09-28-2013 3:36 AM


Re: Do all self-replicating molecules require recorded information.
"blue genes" writes:

...chemical self-replicators (which could exist on prebiotic earth)...

I wasn't aware that a chemical self-replicator that could exist on prebiotic earth was discovered or synthesized. Would you care to back up your statement with citations?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by bluegenes, posted 09-28-2013 3:36 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by bluegenes, posted 04-24-2014 11:25 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 56 of 223 (724865)
04-21-2014 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ringo
06-17-2013 12:39 PM


"Ringo" writes:

My point was that in both semiosis and numerology the "meaning" is assigned by the believer. It is not necessarily inherent in the system.

But that's exactly what this semiosis seems to be - a meaning inherit in the sequence of bases on the DNA molecule - inherently able to couple with the protein-building system, which is inherently able to produce proteins in the right amount, at the right time, and deliver them to the right place to make life possible.

The question is: where did this base sequence get inherited from?

Edited by Ed67, : addition


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 06-17-2013 12:39 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 04-21-2014 9:37 PM Ed67 has responded
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2014 8:57 AM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-22-2014 10:22 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 57 of 223 (724866)
04-21-2014 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Ed67
04-21-2014 9:34 PM


But that's exactly what this semiosis seems to be - a meaning inherit in the sequence of bases on the DNA molecule - inherently able to couple with the protein-building system, which is inherently able to produce proteins in the right amount, at the right time, and deliver them to the right place to make life possible.

That's only because the sequences that resulted in life dying were eliminated from the gene pool.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 9:34 PM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 9:42 PM Taq has responded

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 58 of 223 (724867)
04-21-2014 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Taq
04-21-2014 9:37 PM


"Taq" writes:

that's only because the sequences that resulted in life dying were eliminated from the gene pool.

There was no gene pool back then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 04-21-2014 9:37 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Taq, posted 04-21-2014 9:43 PM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 60 by AZPaul3, posted 04-22-2014 1:53 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 59 of 223 (724868)
04-21-2014 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Ed67
04-21-2014 9:42 PM


There was no gene pool back then.

The combinations of chemicals that did not result in reproduction were quickly swamped by combinations of chemicals that did. It is simply a feedback loop.

Added by edit: It is no different than feedback through a microphone and speaker system. White noise will result in a single tone being amplified above all the other frequencies because that one frequency happens to be "just the right one".

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 9:42 PM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4262
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 60 of 223 (724884)
04-22-2014 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Ed67
04-21-2014 9:42 PM


There was no gene pool back then.

Back when? How far back are you looking?

If there was no gene pool then there were no genes. If that's the time you refer to then you're not talking DNA but RNA. The RNA World and Cairns-Smith hypotheses use RNA as their initial focus for replication.

They hypothesize RNA as the first self-catalyzing self-replicating chains and not very long or very complex ones at that. The hypotheses continue that as the reactions in RNA-based organisms became longer and more complex it became thermodynamically easier (something nature seems to take advantage of at every opportunity) to make use of the DNA structures to augment the RNA mechanisms.

For each step Taq is correct. Any chemical reaction that enhanced the processes got replicated and those that did not died out. In the slow processes of chemical evolution, trial and error in literally trillions of trials a day over 500+ million years, by the time we find the first fossils (cyanobacteria) DNA had apparently become the main structure of chemical inheritance. Further refinements in the chemical interplay led to what we know today as "the cell" with its highly complex chemistry.

No need for any code writer since there is no code. There is just the result of billions of years of chemical complexity that, to us humans, appears to mimic a code that we might devise.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 9:42 PM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019