Semiotic argument for ID

If a self-replicating molecule that occasionally produces variants of itself counts as a semiotic system, then this might be true. If it doesn't, then it's false, because such a molecule would be subject to selection on the variants, and therefore to "Darwinian evolution". A process that forms a self-replicator of some kind would certainly be necessary prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution. But that's just stating the obvious.I've missed the argument for intelligent design here, unless it's in the word "irreducible".

Well, that clarifies some things. I was using a very broad definition of "Darwinian evolution", which would have included variation and selection in all chemical self-replicators. I assumed you meant something like that, because if you were merely pointing out that the system that we see at the base of modern life forms couldn't have produced itself, I couldn't think of any reason why you would bother to say that.So you don't seem to be claiming that variation and selection on chemical self-replicators (which could exist on prebiotic earth) couldn't lead to Darwinian evolution as you define it, you're merely pointing out that life processes couldn't produce the first life, something I would have thought we can all easily agree on. And as "universal observation" tells us that intelligent designers are life forms, how have you managed to get an argument for intelligent design from this?Am I right in saying that you do not regard "recorded information" as being necessary for all self-replicators?

The ability of simple molecules to replicate themselves (and to do so with variants that also replicate themselves) has been established since 1990. T. Tjivikua , P. Ballester , J. Rebek Jr.....They require no biosphere. Neither does RNA. RNA replicators have been discovered that reproduce and evolve without DNA, proteins, or anything else to do with life. Self-replicating RNAsI wasn't aware that any intelligent designer that could exist on prebiotic earth was discovered or synthesized. Would you care to back up such a claim with citations?

Speaking of the English language, which is semiotic, and which I'm sure you would say contains or expresses plenty of CSI, it's a good example of a semiotic system which, while a tool for intelligent creatures, wasn't actually intelligently designed. Unlike the intelligently designed Morse code, it's an ever evolving accident of history.If you disagree, you might tell me who intelligently designed it, and when.The biosphere is full of communication systems that could be described as semiotic, both intra species and inter species, and involving plants and bacteria as well as animals, but it is extremely rare for the senders and receivers of all these signalling systems to actually intelligently design them from scratch as we do with examples like semaphore and Esperanto.Careful observation wouldn't lead us to associate complex communication systems with intelligent design. The I.D. inference is a subjective human mistake.BTW, has it occurred to you that, if you infer intelligent design for the simplest organism, you would need to propose a designer who contains less "CSI" than that organism, otherwise consistency would require that you infer that the designer was itself designed.Also, if you believe in a designer who designed our world, in arguing against abiogenesis you are implying that the designer designed a sterile physical world, rather than one truly "fine tuned" for life.Many in the I.D. movement make fine tuning arguments while also making non-fine tuning arguments, without seeming to realise it.Why?