Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
71 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps
Post Volume: Total: 887,675 Year: 5,321/14,102 Month: 242/677 Week: 47/54 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 15 of 223 (701296)
06-16-2013 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porosity
06-15-2013 3:00 PM


This is my first post,

Do you post over at theskepticalzone or uncommondecent?

I'm a long time lurker here and I feel like I know you guys.

Have you been reading my posts?

It seems like the latest creationist sales talk is this new semiotic argument for ID. I did search here and came up blank. I was doing research on the subject and this was the first place I looked into trusting the great minds here.

From what I can conclude, is that if these guys use enough excessive, ill-defined verbiage, they can somehow justify making these supportive assertions. Hoping nobody can figure out what the hell they are saying?

The way I see it this will become another creationist fallacy, until they offer a genuine explanation/hypothesis of their own.

What do you guys think?

This's the first I've heard of it. I looked up your links and read up some other stuff about all this. (I can't believe people blog about what other people argue about on online forums)

My first reaction is that they've invented the problem that they think needs to be solved. Secondly, semiotics seems to stem from semantics, and semantic arguments are the least fun for me.

Now, on to what I see is the root of the "problem":

A-T-G-C

Those are all chemicals. When one amino acid binds to another, that is a chemical reaction. To make it easier to talk about those incredibly complex chemical reactions, their constituents are replaced with letters. In reality, they're just the spontaneous physical interactions that make up any reaction.

To a person interested in liguisitics, I could see how those letters looking like they're used to write some code would make it look like you need a code-writer in the equation.

But, for the real question of "where the code comes from", Why this letter connect to that letter, well that is going to be a chemistry problem.

People who really want to break this code would be studying chemistry.

All this stuff about non-physical linkages between the letter 'A' and the chemical Adenine is not really a problem from a chemical standpoint.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porosity, posted 06-15-2013 3:00 PM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Porosity, posted 06-16-2013 2:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(8)
Message 16 of 223 (701297)
06-16-2013 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
06-16-2013 5:01 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 06-16-2013 5:01 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 06-16-2013 1:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 223 (701305)
06-16-2013 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Porosity
06-16-2013 2:01 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Porosity, posted 06-16-2013 2:01 PM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Porosity, posted 06-16-2013 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 223 (701306)
06-16-2013 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
06-16-2013 1:57 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 06-16-2013 1:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 06-16-2013 3:59 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 37 of 223 (707435)
09-27-2013 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Upright BiPed
09-26-2013 10:25 PM


And because Darwinian evolution requires the transfer and translation of recorded information...

No, it doesn't. Its just chemical reactions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Upright BiPed, posted 09-26-2013 10:25 PM Upright BiPed has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 43 of 223 (707676)
09-30-2013 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Upright BiPed
09-27-2013 6:23 PM


Catholic Scientist,

"Its just chemical reactions."

This is typically the weakest of all objections. All symbol systems are material/chemical. You can’t demonstrate one that isn’t, so it’s not even a distinction. Of course, you can simply insist that any local “relationship” instantiated in the system is merely an anthropocentric projection; however what you cannot do is derive the effect of the medium from the chemistry of medium itself.

I'm talking about the nucleobases - A, T, C, G, etc.

They react chemically. They're not a "code" that needs a coder to write.

Just like:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Upright BiPed, posted 09-27-2013 6:23 PM Upright BiPed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2013 3:49 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 223 (724910)
04-22-2014 10:22 AM
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.

Its not as magical as you are seeing it. Its all just spontaneous chemical reactions.

Just like when growing salt crystals. There are sodium and chlorine atoms floating around in the salt water and when the water evaporates, they combine to make salt crystals. Those crystals can form into really cool patterns and shapes, but there nothing governing the formation of those shapes other than the spontaneous chemical reactions that take place due to the laws of physics.

DNA is no different.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 9:34 PM Ed67 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Capt Stormfield, posted 04-22-2014 5:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 67 of 223 (724932)
04-22-2014 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Capt Stormfield
04-22-2014 5:43 PM


It would seem to be the classic, and most rudimentary semantic error - mistaking the word for the thing. DNA is not code for chemistry, it is chemistry.

I don't think so. It doesn't seem like a rudimentary error. Like, this is not stumbling upon the word and then mistaking it for the thing. They are actively searching for things that they can make look like words.

Conveniently, the compounds in DNA were abbreviated as ATCG and... oh, now we can see a code


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Capt Stormfield, posted 04-22-2014 5:43 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 223 (725014)
04-23-2014 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Ed67
04-23-2014 12:26 PM


Re: Articles of Faith
all complex specified information has been found to have an intelligent source

DNA isn't specified.

so we should admit that, whatever the mechanistic details of life's origin, there's a real possibility that the specified 'recipe' included in DNA was designed by an intelligent being.

Nobody doubts the possibility. What you are being told is that you do not have any evidence for this designer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 12:26 PM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 223 (725092)
04-24-2014 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:12 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
We're talking about how the genome contained in DNA came into existence. You're talking about how it gets replicated.

DNA comes into existence by being replicated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:12 AM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:31 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 223 (725098)
04-24-2014 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:31 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
How do you think DNA comes into existence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:31 AM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:45 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 223 (725120)
04-24-2014 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:45 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
We're not talking about how it COMES into existence in the present day; we're talking about how it ORIGINALLY came into existence.

Well, sort of. You said that "all complex specified information has been found to have an intelligent source". But we have present day DNA, which you are claiming is CSI, that we can see coming into existence, without an intelligent source, through the process of replication. So, there are ways to get CSI, today, via sources that don't require intelligence today.

Now, that doesn't solve the problem of how the original strands of DNA came into existence, but we can see that the processes involved today do not require intelligence today.

I think it was built as part of the entire organism by an intelligent designer.

Like, an ancient proto-organism that all life today evolved from?

Only as an entire system can the life process exist, so I think it was assembled as a whole system originally.

Viruses and prions contain some of the life processes, like replication, but are not alive, so we can see that partial systems can exist.

There are self-assembling molecules that are not alive. And there are self-replicating molecules that are not alive.

We are moving towards an explanation of the emergence of DNA without needing to point to an intelligent designer.

"complex specified information" is a term in the English language understandable by English speakers.

What makes it information? How is it specified? And at what point does it get to be considered complex?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:45 AM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 3:07 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 138 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 3:25 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 223 (725165)
04-24-2014 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Ed67
04-24-2014 2:43 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Okay, have it your way. I'll use a different term in the future.

That's a tacit admission that you cannot define Complex Specified Information even though you were acting like it was self-evident earlier.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 2:43 PM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 3:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 223 (725178)
04-24-2014 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Ed67
04-24-2014 3:07 PM


Re: CS on CSI
What a curious remark. I was merely ceding the fact that 'CSI' now has a special meaning in common parlance, and I shouldn't use it generically any more.

And yet, you are still unable to define it. Like I said, it was a tacit admission.

CS, a little common sense would tell you that it takes intelligence to create a system that runs on its own without intelligence.

That's not true. The solar system runs on its own without intelligence and it didn't take intelligence to create it.

The same goes for the water cycle:

The laws of physics can cause systems to run on their own without any intelligence needed.

Kinda like how the laws of chemistry make DNA do its thing without the need for intelligence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 3:07 PM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 223 (725185)
04-24-2014 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Ed67
04-24-2014 3:25 PM


Re: Articles of Faith
I would pick definition 2 for this case, what do you think?

I think defining the word "complex" doesn't tell me at what point something gets to be considered complex. I know what the word means, I'm looking for a method to identify one thing as complex and another thing as not.

But given your definition, I would say that the code you think that DNA is, isn't very complex because repeating the same four letters in different ways isn't very complicated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 3:25 PM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 4:20 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 144 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 4:25 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021