Semiotic argument for ID

Message 166 of 223 (725230) 04-24-2014 9:09 PM

Reply to: Message 161 by Ed67 04-24-2014 7:45 PM

You're not going to try to defend your claim? That's OK by me, I sha'n't press you for an actual signed notarized confession that you were talking bullshit. This will suffice.

Message 168 of 223 (725234) 04-24-2014 11:11 PM

quote:

---

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.

---

-notice how even the URL calls it BASICS.

So it's common knowledge among the scientifically literate that DNA is the medium through which a COMPLEX, SPECIFIED CODE conveys the instructions necessary to build and maintain an organism.

Message 169 of 223 (725235) 04-24-2014 11:16 PM

Reply to: Message 168 by Ed67 04-24-2014 11:11 PM

quote:

---

DNA's code is written in only four 'letters', called A, C, T and G. The meaning of this code lies in the sequence of the letters A, T, C and G in the same way that the meaning of a word lies in the sequence of alphabet letters. Your cells read the DNA sequence to make chemicals that your body needs to survive.

---

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Message 170 of 223 (725236) 04-24-2014 11:20 PM

Reply to: Message 169 by Ed67 04-24-2014 11:16 PM

quote:

---

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

---

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Message 171 of 223 (725237) 04-24-2014 11:31 PM

Reply to: Message 170 by Ed67 04-24-2014 11:20 PM

quote:

---

The genetic code by which DNA stores the genetic information consists of "codons" of three nucleotides. The functional segments of DNA which code for the transfer of genetic information are called genes. With four possible bases, the three nucleotides can give 43 = 64 different possibilities, and these combinations are used to specify the 20 different amino acids used by living organisms.

The ribonucleic acid (RNA) that is directly involved in the transcription of the pattern of bases from the DNA to provide a blueprint for the construction of proteins is called messenger RNA or typically mRNA. The pattern for protein synthesis is then read and translated into the language of amino acids for protein construction with the help of transfer RNA or tRNA.

---

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Message 172 of 223 (725238) 04-24-2014 11:31 PM

Reply to: Message 162 by Ed67 04-24-2014 7:53 PM

Typical.

Message 173 of 223 (725240) 04-24-2014 11:39 PM

Reply to: Message 170 by Ed67 04-24-2014 11:20 PM

Now if only you could define the term in such a way that this claim was both true and meaningful ...

Message 174 of 223 (725241) 04-24-2014 11:42 PM

Reply to: Message 168 by Ed67 04-24-2014 11:11 PM

Though curiously enough the people you're quoting didn't actually use the phrase you've put in capitals, nor indeed two out of the three words in it. Perhaps they're not as "scientifically literate" as you ... or perhaps vice versa. Who can say?

Message 175 of 223 (725265) 04-25-2014 8:10 AM

Reply to: Message 168 by Ed67 04-24-2014 11:11 PM

No, it's common knowledge among the scientifically literate that DNA is the medium that stores the information necessary to build an organism.

You have not demonstrated that this information is a code by any definition of a code (imprecise use of the word "code" doesn't count), or that it's specified or that it's complex.

Even if it is CSI, which you are obviously unable to argue for, nobody (especially you) has established that it is necessary or even reasonable that intelligence is required to create it. Note the many counterexamples that you have ignored.

Message 177 of 223 (725268) 04-25-2014 8:26 AM

Reply to: Message 176 by Ed67 04-25-2014 8:13 AM

Nobody cares about what you think is CSI. What counts is what you can demonstrate to be CSI, using an operational definition of CSI.

Message 178 of 223 (725277) 04-25-2014 10:05 AM

Reply to: Message 176 by Ed67 04-25-2014 8:13 AM

I have seen it. It remains true that the people you quote in #168 didn't actually use the phrase you've put in capitals, nor indeed two out of the three words in it. Message #170 does not even dispute this fact and has no conceivable relevance to it.

Message 179 of 223 (725289) 04-25-2014 12:19 PM

Reply to: Message 153 by Ed67 04-24-2014 6:14 PM

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

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.

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?

As complicated and involved as salt crystals ...

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, : ...

Message 180 of 223 (725292) 04-25-2014 12:30 PM

Reply to: Message 134 by Ed67 04-24-2014 3:12 PM

I take it that you can't evidence your claims.