Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
66 online now:
Pollux (1 member, 65 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
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 471 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 13 of 223 (701294)
06-16-2013 5:01 AM


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. But then I don't think any of life could have arisen that way, or evolved after it had arisen either.

And I find it very interesting that so far nobody has had anything substantive to say against the idea, just the usual mocking and ridicule. Funny, I thought that was against the rules. Not.


Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-16-2013 12:33 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2013 12:49 PM Faith has responded
 Message 19 by Porosity, posted 06-16-2013 2:10 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 06-17-2013 12:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 471 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 17 of 223 (701298)
06-16-2013 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
06-16-2013 12:49 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?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2013 12:49 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 06-16-2013 2:37 PM Faith has responded
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2013 3:39 PM Faith has responded
 Message 29 by Taq, posted 06-17-2013 12:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 471 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 223 (701302)
06-16-2013 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nwr
06-16-2013 2:37 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 06-16-2013 2:37 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 06-16-2013 5:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 471 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 24 of 223 (701309)
06-16-2013 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by New Cat's Eye
06-16-2013 3:39 PM


Hm, too bad if so, but with all that emphasis on "mind" it seems to imply more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2013 3:39 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021