Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
79 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, Theodoric (3 members, 76 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
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 61 of 223 (724885)
04-22-2014 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Ed67
04-21-2014 8:10 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
quote:

What kind of an argument is that?

I wouldn't call it an argument, it's just pointing out facts.

quote:

We're not talking about whose idea it is.

I guess that you don't understand the implications. Repeating common knowledge isn't an argument.

quote:

you're wrong in your facts, but this is not the place for that argument.

So if reality contradicts your opinions, reality is wrong ?

quote:

Anyway, what matters is: whether evolution (methodological naturalism) can explain the first 'replicators', as you call them.

What do you think?


I think that you should make up your mind whether you mean "evolution" or "science". Methodological naturalism includes a lot of things that aren't evolution. Evolution can't explain the first replicators, by the very nature of evolution. However, there is every reason to think that science will eventually come up with a possible explanation.


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 62 by frako, posted 04-22-2014 6:20 AM PaulK has taken no action
 Message 68 by Ed67, posted 04-22-2014 11:21 PM PaulK has replied

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 62 of 223 (724891)
04-22-2014 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by PaulK
04-22-2014 2:05 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
So if reality contradicts your opinions, reality is wrong ?

"If there's nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the universe!" (Dr. Beverly Crusher, "Remember Me")


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2014 2:05 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 644 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 644 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

  
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 taken no action

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

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 155 days)
Posts: 424
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 66 of 223 (724930)
04-22-2014 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by New Cat's Eye
04-22-2014 10:22 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-22-2014 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-22-2014 6:18 PM Capt Stormfield has taken no action

  
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 taken no action

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 68 of 223 (724941)
04-22-2014 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by PaulK
04-22-2014 2:05 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
PaulK writes:

I think that you should make up your mind whether you mean "evolution" or "science"


Okay, I mean METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM.

PaulK writes:


there is every reason to think that science will eventually come up with a possible explanation.

That, my friend, is a statement of FAITH.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2014 2:05 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2014 1:05 AM Ed67 has replied
 Message 94 by JonF, posted 04-23-2014 2:11 PM Ed67 has replied

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


Message 69 of 223 (724944)
04-23-2014 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Ed67
04-22-2014 11:21 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
quote:

That, my friend, is a statement of FAITH.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Ed67, posted 04-22-2014 11:21 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Pressie, posted 04-23-2014 3:39 AM PaulK has taken no action
 Message 71 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 10:58 AM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 70 of 223 (724945)
04-23-2014 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by PaulK
04-23-2014 1:05 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
I also don't understand why he's trying to slam the word 'faith' here. Isn't faith to be an enormous virtue according to some Holy Books?

I mean; if I wanted to make derogatory remarks about creationism/ID, I wouldn't try to slam it by calling it 'science'.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2014 1:05 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 71 of 223 (724986)
04-23-2014 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by PaulK
04-23-2014 1:05 AM


Articles of Faith
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, just as belief in a creator does. Perhaps more, but that's a subjective matter

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2014 1:05 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 11:21 AM Ed67 has replied
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2014 11:25 AM Ed67 has replied
 Message 81 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-23-2014 11:38 AM Ed67 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 72 of 223 (724989)
04-23-2014 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Ed67
04-23-2014 10:58 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
So we've established that belief in abiogenesis requires faith in the unseen and unproven, just as belief in a creator does. Perhaps more, but that's a subjective matter

Can you please explain why it requires faith to test a hypothesis? That doesn't make any sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 10:58 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 11:27 AM Taq has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 73 of 223 (724990)
04-23-2014 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
04-22-2014 8:48 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
RAZD writes:

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

Yes, I see. So could you possibly let your gang know not to assert that the first DNA/RNA EVOLVED?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2014 8:48 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2014 8:13 PM Ed67 has taken no action
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2014 8:31 PM Ed67 has taken no action

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


Message 74 of 223 (724991)
04-23-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Ed67
04-23-2014 10:58 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
quote:

So we've established that belief in abiogenesis requires faith in the unseen and unproven, just as belief in a creator does.

Well, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you had to roll out the same old lie anyway. Too bad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 10:58 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 11:29 AM PaulK has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 75 of 223 (724993)
04-23-2014 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taq
04-23-2014 11:21 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
Taq writes:

Can you please explain why it requires faith to test a hypothesis? That doesn't make any sense.

You don't understand. It doesn't require faith to test a hypothesis, it requires faith to BELIEVE a hypothesis is true without confirmation.

For further details, consult PaulK

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 11:21 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 11:28 AM Ed67 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