Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
74 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (3 members, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,317 Year: 4,429/6,534 Month: 643/900 Week: 167/182 Day: 0/47 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
ringo
Member
Posts: 19537
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 31 of 223 (701344)
06-17-2013 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Porosity
06-16-2013 7:15 PM


Porosity writes:

ringo writes:

It looks to me like semiosis, as used by creationists, is just numerology without the numbers.


I think that it has more to do with information. What they are saying is their puppet master is behind the scenes giving molecules the information to react to physical laws...the invisible creator at last!

My point was that in both semiosis and numerology the "meaning" is assigned by the believer. It is not necessarily inherent in the system.

What is meaningful to a creationist trying to "prove" that God exists is not the same as what is meaningful to a DNA molecule trying to replicate itself. (The DNA molecule has a much simpler agenda. )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Porosity, posted 06-16-2013 7:15 PM Porosity has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 9:34 PM ringo has seen this message

  
Upright BiPed
Junior Member (Idle past 3068 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 09-26-2013


Message 32 of 223 (707395)
09-26-2013 10:25 PM


I was given a link to this forum, which I found interesting. What I don't understand is what the purpose would be in posting someone else's words to attack my argument, if not to avoid the argument altogether.

I don't have a great deal of time to participate in the conversation, but I think at a minimum you ought to at least use my own words to attack my position. The argument is based on the material conditions required to translate form through a material medium into a physical effect. After all, its a physical process, so it must have physical consequences that can be observed. I can give the argument to you in a single paragraph:

- - - - - - - - - - -

In a material universe, it is not possible to translate any form of recorded information into a material effect without using an arrangement of matter (or energy) as an information-bearing medium. If that is true, then other material necessities must follow. Firstly, such a medium must evoke an effect within a system capable of producing that effect. Universal observation and logical necessity demonstrate this to be true. Secondly, if a medium contains information as a consequence of its arrangement, then that arrangement must be physically arbitrary to the effect it evokes. Again, universal observation and logical necessity demonstrate this to be true. And thirdly, if an arrangement of matter requires a system to produce an effect, and if that arrangement is arbitrary to the effect it evokes, then the system itself must contain a second arrangement of matter to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the arrangement of the medium and its effect. Once again, universal observation and logical necessity demonstrate this to be true. If each of these things are true, then in order to transfer and translate any form of recorded information, the process fundamentally requires two arrangements of matter operating as an irreducible core within the system. And because Darwinian evolution requires the transfer and translation of recorded information in order to exist itself, it cannot be the source of this system. Given these observations, a mechanism capable of establishing this semiotic state is necessary prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution and information-based organization.

- - - - - - - - - -

I might also say, the flagrant dismissals are substantially off the mark (i.e. comparing biosemiosis to astrology and creationism is merely avoiding the content of the material observations, which can be verified in any collegiate-level biology textbook).

Anyway, as I said, I will not have time to participate, so those who have nothing but character assassination and who obfuscate into irrelevant issues, will certainly have a chance to work their craft.

cheers


Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2013 1:53 AM Upright BiPed has taken no action
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2013 2:17 AM Upright BiPed has taken no action
 Message 35 by Pressie, posted 09-27-2013 2:43 AM Upright BiPed has taken no action
 Message 36 by bluegenes, posted 09-27-2013 5:34 AM Upright BiPed has taken no action
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2013 10:46 AM Upright BiPed has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 223 (707398)
09-27-2013 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Upright BiPed
09-26-2013 10:25 PM


I think what he's trying to say is that in order to for nucleotides to be translated into proteins, there has to be a mechanism to translate nucleotides into proteins. If his post has any other meaningful content, we'll never know, because apparently he joined this discussion board in order to not discuss things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Upright BiPed, posted 09-26-2013 10:25 PM Upright BiPed has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 34 of 223 (707399)
09-27-2013 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Upright BiPed
09-26-2013 10:25 PM


The argument seems to boil down to the idea that evolution cannot explain the origin of the original replicators from which all known life is descended.

This is not a new or even controversial idea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Upright BiPed, posted 09-26-2013 10:25 PM Upright BiPed has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Ed67, posted 04-20-2014 11:00 PM PaulK has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 35 of 223 (707402)
09-27-2013 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Upright BiPed
09-26-2013 10:25 PM


It doesn't bode well when it starts with In a material universe,...... I mean, we've only got one example of a Universe. We live in it. And it is material.

The beginning of the sentence implies that there are other non-material Universes.

This immediately warns me of a hidden agenda and that I can expect some long, religious word salad to follow. I'd rather not even bother struggling through it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Upright BiPed, posted 09-26-2013 10:25 PM Upright BiPed has taken no action

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 36 of 223 (707412)
09-27-2013 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Upright BiPed
09-26-2013 10:25 PM


self-replicating molecules.
Upright BiPed writes:

And because Darwinian evolution requires the transfer and translation of recorded information in order to exist itself, it cannot be the source of this system.

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".

Given these observations, a mechanism capable of establishing this semiotic state is necessary prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution and information-based organization.

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".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Upright BiPed, posted 09-26-2013 10:25 PM Upright BiPed has taken no action

  
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 taken no action

  
Upright BiPed
Junior Member (Idle past 3068 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 09-26-2013


Message 38 of 223 (707503)
09-27-2013 6:23 PM


Dr Adequate, Paul K

"I think what he's trying to say is that in order to for nucleotides to be translated into proteins, there has to be a mechanism to translate nucleotides into proteins."

"The argument seems to boil down to the idea that evolution cannot explain the origin of the original replicators from which all known life is descended."

The issue at hand is the material conditions which must be met in order to translate information, that is, the physicochemically arbitrary relationships which are fundamental to the rise of the genome. Without them, there is no biological organization, and no cellular life.

It requires an arrangement of matter (a medium) to evoke an effect with a system, where the arrangement is physicochemically arbitrary to the effect it evokes. It also requires a second arrangement of matter within the system to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the medium and its effect. These material conditions are found nowhere else in the physical world except in the transfer of recorded information. You might try reading something along the lines of Howard Pattee “The physics of symbols and the evolution of semiotic controls” (Professor Emeritus, Physics, SUNY) as a primer on the issues.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pressie,

"It doesn't bode well when it starts with In a material universe,...... I mean, we've only got one example of a Universe. We live in it. And it is material."

Agreed.

"This immediately warns me of a hidden agenda and that I can expect some long, religious word salad to follow. I'd rather not even bother struggling through it."

So, in not finding your expectations, you mention them as if you had, in place of a substantive response.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

bluegenes,

"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".

I cannot parse what you intended to say here, but I think it’s important not to conflate your map for the territory. Darwinian evolution operates by means of changes in the genotype being translated into the phenotype. (This is not even controversial). So in order to exist, Darwinian evolution requires recorded information and a system to translate it. Darwinian evolution cannot therefore be the source of these requirements. To say otherwise, is to say that a process which does not yet exist on a prebiotic earth (Darwinian evolution) can cause something to happen.

It can’t.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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.

Marshal Nirenberg used radioactive phenylalanine to establish its relationship to the input of polyuracil into the ribosome. He did so because that local relationship could not be established from the mere chemistry of the polyuracil. As the investigator, he did not impute that relationship on the system, he observed it in reality. If he had ignored those relationships, we would not know the genetic code today. But he wasn’t doing the experiment to ignore the relationships; he was doing it to discover them. That’s the point. Ignoring the relationship is an obvious non-starter; superseded in its ignorance only by overlooking the fact that if those relationships had not been instantiated in a physical system 3 billion years ago, we would not be here to ponder whether or not they’re anthropic projections.


Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by bluegenes, posted 09-28-2013 3:36 AM Upright BiPed has taken no action
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2013 4:33 AM Upright BiPed has taken no action
 Message 42 by Pressie, posted 09-30-2013 7:40 AM Upright BiPed has taken no action
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-30-2013 10:47 AM Upright BiPed has taken no action
 Message 44 by Porosity, posted 11-02-2013 1:08 AM Upright BiPed has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 39 of 223 (707504)
09-27-2013 6:30 PM


He can keep this up forever.

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 40 of 223 (707529)
09-28-2013 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Upright BiPed
09-27-2013 6:23 PM


Do all self-replicating molecules require recorded information.
UprightBiPed writes:

bluegenes writes:

bluegenes,
"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".

I cannot parse what you intended to say here, but I think it’s important not to conflate your map for the territory. Darwinian evolution operates by means of changes in the genotype being translated into the phenotype. (This is not even controversial). So in order to exist, Darwinian evolution requires recorded information and a system to translate it. Darwinian evolution cannot therefore be the source of these requirements. To say otherwise, is to say that a process which does not yet exist on a prebiotic earth (Darwinian evolution) can cause something to happen.
It can’t.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Upright BiPed, posted 09-27-2013 6:23 PM Upright BiPed has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 8:41 PM bluegenes has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 41 of 223 (707531)
09-28-2013 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Upright BiPed
09-27-2013 6:23 PM


Let me attempt to get you to clarify your position

Is your argument concerned with the origin of replicators as your initial post implied ?

Or is it about the origin of a "symbolic" representation of information not dictated by physical properties, potentially excluding any self-replicating system which lacks encoded information?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Upright BiPed, posted 09-27-2013 6:23 PM Upright BiPed has taken no action

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 42 of 223 (707667)
09-30-2013 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Upright BiPed
09-27-2013 6:23 PM


Upright BiPed writes:

quote:
Pressie,
"It doesn't bode well when it starts with In a material universe,...... I mean, we've only got one example of a Universe. We live in it. And it is material."

Agreed.

quote:
"This immediately warns me of a hidden agenda and that I can expect some long, religious word salad to follow. I'd rather not even bother struggling through it."

So, in not finding your expectations, you mention them as if you had, in place of a substantive response.

It was very substantive. Anything starting with a word salad in the first few words is not worth even looking at. I expect more word salads with nothing substantive to follow. Not worth looking at.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Upright BiPed, posted 09-27-2013 6:23 PM Upright BiPed has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Ed67, posted 04-20-2014 11:18 PM Pressie has taken no action

  
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 taken no action

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

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 1333 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 44 of 223 (710137)
11-02-2013 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Upright BiPed
09-27-2013 6:23 PM


Hello Upright BiPed,
What a pleasant surprise, I was not expecting you to show up here, I hope you will recant and participate just so we can get a better handle on what it is your trying to say.

You say...
"Darwinian evolution requires the transfer and translation of recorded information in order to exist itself, it cannot be the source of this system."

I'm curious if you understand modern evolutionary synthesis?
This so called "recorded information" is just gene flow from parent to offspring, or as you say "transfer".
You make it sound as if OZ is in the background typing away codes to effect the process of reproduction.
Furthermore evolution does not explain "the source of this system." Just what happens after.

I don't get this either.

quote:
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.

Can you simplify what it is your saying here? The first parts sound rather semantic and the last part...
" what you cannot do is derive the effect of the medium from the chemistry of medium itself."
This is not an explanation, I need an example of what medium you cannot derive from chemistry itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Upright BiPed, posted 09-27-2013 6:23 PM Upright BiPed has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 644 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022