Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
21 online now:
Aussie, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo (4 members, 17 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,175 Year: 4,287/6,534 Month: 501/900 Week: 25/182 Day: 13/12 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
RAZD
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 223 (710176)
11-02-2013 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
09-30-2013 10:47 AM


Omigosh let's see if I get it ...
NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H2O*

* 2 set in subscript: <sub>2</sub>

Hmm we have this element, we'll call it "sodium" and use "Na" as a symbol for it, another we'll call "oxygen" and use "O" ... etc and now we can write

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H2O

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

Enjoy


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 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-30-2013 10:47 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Ed67, posted 04-20-2014 11:42 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(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 taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 63 of 223 (724897)
04-22-2014 8:48 AM
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.

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

Message 58: There was no gene pool back then.

Can you possibly now see why evolution does not and cannot explain abiogenesis?

Evolution is about change in populations of living organisms, and to study that you have to start with living organisms, you have to start with gene pools. Rather obvious eh?

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 52 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 8:10 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 11:23 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 64 of 223 (724898)
04-22-2014 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Ed67
04-21-2014 9:34 PM


DNA and chemical reactions.
... the DNA molecule - inherently able to couple with the protein-building system, which is inherently able to produce proteins ...

Can you describe a single part of this process that is not a chemical reaction bound by the rules of chemical reactions?

And how this is different than the chemical reactions that make salt?


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 56 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 9:34 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 102 of 223 (725067)
04-23-2014 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Ed67
04-23-2014 11:23 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Yes, I see. So could you possibly let your gang know not to assert that the first DNA/RNA EVOLVED?

Curiously, I usually use the term "developed" to differentiate the chemical process from the biological evolutionary process.

Of course this also gets into the question of what is necessary for life (see my response to Frako on this, Is there a legitimate argument for design?, Message 193).

Message 102:
PaulK writes:

quote:

"That, my friend, is a statement of FAITH."-ed67

But not religious "FAITH" since it is neither certain, nor is it lacking a foundation in evidence. To pretend otherwise would be equivocation and dishonesty.

So we've established that belief in abiogenesis requires faith in the unseen and unproven, j

So you went with equivocation and dishonesty ...

faith -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

You have confused meaning (1) -- what PaulK meant -- with meaning (2) or (4): that is equivocation, especially as he specified that it was based on evidence ... but then again I would not call it faith, myself.

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 73 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 11:23 AM Ed67 has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 148 of 223 (725198)
04-24-2014 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:27 AM


complex specified information -- purpose of choosing words
Sorry to disappoint you, but invoking CSI does not obligate me to understand Dembski's math (which I don't pretend to do).

I have "The Design Inference" but I can't follow the math, so I do not source it in my discussions.

That is a disappointment, here I thought you were some kind of math maven because you liked it when numbers were used. Instead they seem to be some kind of "shiny object" for you: easily distracted by mathematical manipulations with mindless meanings, and unable to determine when it is just horsepucky.

"complex specified information" is a term in the English language understandable by English speakers. It means exactly what it says. It is not a mathematical term, nor does it "belong" to Dembski by virtue of his using it.

Well then someone new to the debate should understand what it means then ... let's see what we can decode from the words:

quote:
com•plex
[adj., v. kuhm-pleks, kom-pleks; n. kom-pleks] adjective
1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite: a complex highway system.
2. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery.
3. so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with: a complex problem.
4. Grammar .
a. (of a word) consisting of two parts, at least one of which is a bound form, as childish, which consists of the word child and the bound form -ish.
b. complex sentence.
5. Mathematics . pertaining to or using complex numbers: complex methods; complex vector space.

ie - something so complex that the average person does not understand it nor is capable of explaining it, and does not need to (the IDologist mavens will tell you), something with an air of mystery and wonder for those who cannot understand it (so take the words of the IDologist mavens and don't question them) ...

quote:
spec•i•fy
[spes-uh-fahy] verb (used with object), spec·i·fied, spec·i·fy·ing.
1. to mention or name specifically or definitely; state in detail: He did not specify the amount needed.
2. to give a specific character to.
3. to set forth as a specification.
4. to name or state as a condition: He specified that he be given my power of attorney.
verb (used without object), spec·i·fied, spec·i·fy·ing.
5. to make a specific mention or statement.

Something specifically specified by someone (unspecified), so just using this word implies someone or something doing the specifying. It's usage here is to imply a reason and the involvement of a someone\thing.

quote:
in•for•ma•tion
[in-fer-mey-shuhn] noun
1. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.
2. knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.
3. the act or fact of informing.
4. an office, station, service, or employee whose function is to provide information to the public: The ticket seller said to ask information for a timetable.

Someone\thing that acts to inform someone\thing, transmitted communication, knowledge. Implies someone\thing with a communicator and a receiver.

So we have something too complex and mysterious for the average person to understand or explain, specified by and unspecified specifier to specifically accomplish the specific task of inserting the unspecified specifier, that acts to inform someone\thing and implying a communicator and a receiver.

In other words ... gigo. Words thrown together with connotations intended to imply something that isn't necessarily there, something with no metric to determine how to measure it. Pseudo-terminology: word jumbles with no real meaning for the purpose of fooling the gullible.

Application to biology ... zilch?

Message 115 I can't help it if your English is 'challenged'.

So you must have obviously come to the same conclusion I just did, because it's just words eh?

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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 108 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:27 AM Ed67 has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 179 of 223 (725289)
04-25-2014 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Ed67
04-24-2014 6:14 PM


Convoluted Silly Insight
Message 151: INFORMATION: ... communication, ...

who sends, who receives? what is the language used?

... factual data ...

So the structure of DNA is factual data ... an bunch of molecules is factual data, just as NaCl is an bunch of elements is factual data.

There is no qualitative difference in the chemical formation of either the molecules or the DNA from salts and any other chemical compounds. Adding quantity doesn't change the similarity of chemical bonds holding molecules together in set chemical patterns.

Message 152: SPECIFIC: ... having a special application, bearing, or reference;

Oops that isn't "specified" ... first you want

quote:
verb (used without object), spec·i·fied, spec·i·fy·ing.
5. to make a specific mention or statement.

So now you have "to make mention of a special application"

Or are we equivocating on meanings here already?

and what is the special application? to produce proteins? or to produce salt?

COMPLEX: ... complicated or involved arrangement of ... units ...

As complicated and involved as salt crystals ...

There you go, gang, all you need to admit that, by the english definitions of the terms, the DNA molecule contains COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION.

But you haven't put it together into a coherent assembly ...

Let me see:

A "complicated or involved arrangement of ... units" ... "to make mention of a special application" ... of ... "factual data"

Nope, still sounds like gibberish.

It's not the terms themselves Ed67, it is the salad that is made when they are put together that is meaningless. One with a high SI (silliness index):

quote:
Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...:

The Hypothesis to be tested, therefore, is that "life, the universe, and everything" show evidence of Silly Design (SD).

To accomplish this task there are several parameters that will be used to differentiate the different design possibilities. These include:

  • SI - the Silliness Index - for comparing the relative silliness of different features, the higher the SI the higher the probability of Silly Design
  • IC - Impossibility Content - a feature that is not consistent with the rest of the organism, has no discernable purpose and no possible natural need, finding an IC component would be de facto discovery of a Silly Design feature.

We expect more to be developed as the scientific effort to determine Silly Design matures.


A "complicated or involved arrangement of ... units" ... "to make mention of a special application" ... of ... "factual data"

Perhaps I need to add CSI: Convoluted Silly Insight - an observation into the innate basic silliness of a system, so convoluted that it defies rational explanation: the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, for example (not an "intelligent" design ...).

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

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 153 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 6:14 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 188 of 223 (725359)
04-26-2014 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Ed67
04-26-2014 8:05 AM


in your own words
... I simply mean information which is complex and specified. ...

Well that is a start. Like:

Of course if the hours were sunrise to sunset it would be even more complex specified information (an increase in quantity but not quality). Note it is written in code ...

... I simply mean information which is complex and specified. ...

Like the information to form complex salt crystals in specified formations.

Can you please elucidate in your own words any part of DNA function or existence that does not involve chemical bonds and chemical reactions in accordance with the rules of chemistry? It appears you are having a little bit of trouble grasping this simple concept ...

Can you please elucidate in your own words any specific difference in quality rather than quantity between DNA and salt molecules?

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 187 by Ed67, posted 04-26-2014 8:05 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Ed67, posted 04-27-2014 5:22 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 192 of 223 (725380)
04-26-2014 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by JonF
04-26-2014 10:25 AM


everything carries the information, complex and specified
The definitions you have offered are useless. They involve too many subjective evaluations and are not operational definitions. Two people could easily disagree whether some system possesses CSI because your definitions do not invoke objective measures.

Information that is complex and specified ...

... applies to everything, from the smallest known subatomic particle to the largest black hole.

Without it there would be only one uniform sameness.


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 190 by JonF, posted 04-26-2014 10:25 AM JonF has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 221 of 223 (725535)
04-28-2014 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Ed67
04-27-2014 5:22 PM


Re: in your own words
RAZD writes:

Can you please elucidate in your own words any specific difference in quality rather than quantity between DNA and salt molecules?

Really, you don't understand?

In HIGH SCHOOL, we were taught that, in my own words, the DNA molecule has INTERCHANGEABLE PARTS (the 4 bases) within its structure. These interchangeable parts are ordered in different ways to produce different specific results.

Where do you see this happening in salt crystals?

In natural salt crystals there are several "interchangeable parts" -- different elements that can take their place in the crystal structure and otherwise occupy space in the crystals:

quote:
... The mineral content also affects the taste. The colors and variety of flavors are due to local clays and algae found in the waters the salt is harvested from. For example, some boutique salts from Korea and France are pinkish gray, some from India are black. Black and red salts from Hawaii may even have powdered black lava and baked red clay added in.[8] Some sea salt contains sulfates. It may be difficult to distinguish sea salt from other salts, such as pink "Himalayan salt", Maras salt from the ancient Inca hot springs, or rock salt (halite).

... However, a study found the amount of trace elements, such as titanium, silver, cobalt, and lead in synthetic sea salt are much higher than those in sea water. ...

Iodine, an element essential for human health,[14] is present only in small amounts in sea salt,[15] although the concentration varies according to its provenance.[citation needed]


Lots of interchangeable parts ... all based on basic chemical bonding ...

... the DNA molecule has INTERCHANGEABLE PARTS (the 4 bases) within its structure. These interchangeable parts are ordered in different ways to produce different specific results.

This is still just chemical bonds and chemical reactions -- just a difference in quantity and not a difference in quality as I requested.

Curiously I've also raised this same issue on the other thread where you keep asserting some magical difference to DNA from basic chemistry:

Message 285, copied in full for your pleasure:

quote:
Valence Bond Theory

quote:
In chemistry, valence bond (VB) theory is one of two basic theories, along with molecular orbital (MO) theory, that were developed to use the methods of quantum mechanics to explain chemical bonding. It focuses on how the atomic orbitals of the dissociated atoms combine to give individual chemical bonds when a molecule is formed. In contrast, molecular orbital theory has orbitals that cover the whole molecule.[1]

Information that is complex and specific (your "definition" of csi) to how all molecules are formed from elements.

Note that this is general basic knowledge in chemistry.

What you have failed to show (yet) is that there is an entirely different sort/quality of "csi" in DNA, rather than just a difference in degree/quantity due to the quantity of molecular bonds.

There is a larger number of bonds, and hence "information that is complex and specified" regarding the molecular formation in Sodium Sulfate ( Na2SO4) crystals than in Salt (NaCl) crystals ... a difference in the degree of "csi" (based on the coded information specified by the valence bonds) but not any difference in the sort of "csi".

If I have one apple in one basket and 10 apples in another then I have a difference in the degree of fruit in the baskets. If I have one apple in one basket and one pear in the other then I have a difference in the sort of fruit in the baskets.

Please identify something that makes it a different sort of "csi" in DNA from the chemical bonding sort of "csi" in salt and sodium sulfate and other molecules -- this is your assertion to support.


So I'll repeat, now that I have made my point a little clearer:

Can you please elucidate in your own words any specific difference in quality rather than quantity between DNA and salt molecules?

Something that is not merely based on chemical bonding via the basic rules of chemistry?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 215 by Ed67, posted 04-27-2014 5:22 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