Where's the Evidence??
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-05-2012, 09:16 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
I will also add, which you will be able to corroborate, that my original claim was made on the assumption that "information" would be defined as Dembski defines "complex specified information". I have actually fulfilled that claim here.

You then clarified that you were using a different definition. I never claimed to be able to simulate information by your definition, although I indicated that I was willing to have a go, if we could reach agreement on an operational definition.

I will post a link on TSZ to this thread, as it is good to see you lay out your argument for a fresh audience. I note, however, that you have still not managed to address the question as to why the argument that protein synthesis is semiotic should be an argument for Intelligent Design.

But we never did, and I ran out of time for the exercise, although I have always been willing to continue the discussion, hence the thread about your argument on my blog, and my invitation to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Elizabeth Liddle's post
21-05-2012, 09:24 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Oh, and finally, if you are wondering why I have not posted at Uncommon Descent, where we started the conversation, Upright BiPed, it is because I was banned. Or should I say "Expelled!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Elizabeth Liddle's post
21-05-2012, 02:40 PM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2012 10:59 PM by kim.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Fuuuuuck; I finally made it to the end of this idiotic thread. What a lot of jacking off. Undecided
*********************


"Mechanisms, whether man-made or morphological, are boundary conditions harnessing the laws of inanimate nature, being themselves irreducible to those laws. The pattern of organic bases in DNA which functions as a genetic code is a boundary condition irreducible to physics and chemistry.” ~ Polanyi


You included the above quote Upright BiPed, in defense of your argument that the transfer of information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state. so I included it here.

For the most part, the sentence is fine and dandy however, I would take issue with the part where he states "whether man-made or morphological". Polanyi was a philosopher and a bit perky ... even for me.


You stated:
Quote: "If in one system we have a genuine representation, and in another system we have something that just acts like a representation, then surely you can look at the material evidence and point out the distinction."


Then would not the distinction simply be specific to the differentiation of each distinct system? It would seem to me that any semiotic argument would be system specific and relative.
Frontier territory would require unknown information to be processed with "new information"… in other words… maybe the process is just pulling together necessary elements and making shit up as it goes along and that's how and why it changes.


You stated:
Quote: "Semiosis must be acknowledged, since it can be coherently demonstrated to be true.

Semiosis is dependent on observation of transmitted information. Ok, semiosis acknowledged. However I don't know what would be "demonstrated to be true" about recording observation. Recording observation is objective. Studying how information transfers, may or may not have anything to do with what the significance of that information might be. If I'm not mistaken, semiotics rather semiology is the study of signs, symbols, and signification. It is the study of how meaning is created, not what the meaning is.




Thanks tons for alerting me to more shit I don't care about. Drinking Beverage

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
22-05-2012, 02:59 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Just when I thought: Oh my God, not this thread again, I see that we have an actual doctor that had the serious and knowledgeable conversation with our UprightBiped.

YES!

I hope that dr.Elizabeth Liddle is going to stay here a bit, we could use all the help for debunking these sorts of philosophers...

Ha, answer this now Upright, since you clearly do not want to answer to my questions.

Tongue

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2012, 05:22 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(29-03-2012 11:16 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  STARCRASH,
Quote:If you want a serious answer to these challenges, it would be best to pose them to actual biologists.

I do. In fact, in the past week I put the argument back in front of Nick Matzke at UC Berkley (of NCSE fame) as well as molecular biologist (and “RNA World” theorist) Art Hunt at the University of Kentucky. In typical fashion, Nick couldn’t refute the evidence, and Art wouldn’t engage it.

I hope you're taking Dr. Liddle's challenges seriously. I have no way of verifying that this statement you wrote back is true, but at least I can verify that you now have a chance to dispute your argument with somebody who's qualified to answer you.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2012, 07:51 PM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2012 08:02 PM by ibanezerscrooge.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
It seems to me that what UBP is trying to garner is the concession that semiosis in DNA replication suggests that an intelligence had to be involved in the design of that mechanism of information transference. The main problem that I see with the argument, as has been pointed out and ignored by UBP on another forum, is that the statement, "a semiotic state can only arise from an intelligent agent" which is a foundational principle of the argument. While this statement may seem to make sense from a purely intellectual standpoint it cannot be taken at face value as a correct assumption. It must be shown to be a conclusive fact that a "semiotic state" can only arise from the actions of an "intelligent agent" and not by any other non-intelligent (i.e. natural material) process. Without that scientifically established fact, the argument cannot proceed.

Perhaps this has already been done and I am not aware of it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ibanezerscrooge's post
22-05-2012, 09:30 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
One quick question ibanezer. How could you ever prove it can't happen by natural causes? We could examine nature looking for this process to happen for 500 years and still have no idea whether it does. You at most can prove that an intelligent agent can create it, which is actually at least a helpful step. I'm pretty sure that he's not suggesting people have created this exat step within the process which he feels requires intelligence so we would need to prove that intelligence is even capable of doing it.

An important thing to remember when arguing intelligence is that you're arguing anthropomorphism as the commonly accepted idea of intelligence has to do with humans. There are plenty of things which could be viewed as intelligent that many humans do not consider intelligent. To avoid anthropomorphising his god I think he really should discuss how far his god needs to be. But he hasn't discussed anything about the idea of god. So his basic argument that it's probable that something caused existance is sound enough. I just don't thnk he would accept an amoeba as the progenitor of the human race.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lilith Pride's post
23-05-2012, 03:11 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Nobody here needs my help in "debunking" Upright BiPed's semiotic argument for id, because, as several people here have pointed out (as have many people on my own blog, including myself), it's not actually a semiotic argument for id!

It's simply an argument for calling the information transfer processes within and/or between cells "semiotic". I think there are problems with that, but I'm willing to accept that there is a category of information transfer that we reasonably could give "semiotic", or some other name, to.

But that tells us nothing about ID. In fact it tells us nothing at all that we don't already know.

Unless Upright BiPed can articulate some reasons why he thinks that the "semiotic" character of genetic transcription/translation implies ID, or even is unevolvable, he doesn't have an argument.

And I have not yet seen any attempt (over three forums) by Upright BiPed to articulate any such thing. He just keeps banging on about how the evidence shows it's "semiotic".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Elizabeth Liddle's post
23-05-2012, 03:22 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Dear dr. Liddle,

our mutual friend UprightBiPed is unable to articulate the proper response to us is because he is not a scientist and he has no real understanding and knowledge about all these things. I'll give him credit for having collected all sorts of evidence and knowledge about DNA and genetics but he fails in understanding the things he read and learned about. This is where his true identity kicks in, philosophy. He is a philosopher, so instead of just observing and commenting on the material and scientific evidences obtained using valid scientific methods, he takes a part of some research and then transforms it all into a philosophical debate, giving it new meanings and new interpretations in a classic "what if" and "we could call it" types of philosophy.

But, luckily for us, we know the difference between philosophy and physical evidence. One can not simply bullshit the bullshitter...

He appears to withdraw form a fight after people see through his "evidences" and break his defence. Or when he comes face to face with another philosopher to bullshit him.

Smile

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Filox's post
23-05-2012, 06:21 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(22-05-2012 09:30 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  One quick question ibanezer. How could you ever prove it can't happen by natural causes? We could examine nature looking for this process to happen for 500 years and still have no idea whether it does. You at most can prove that an intelligent agent can create it, which is actually at least a helpful step. I'm pretty sure that he's not suggesting people have created this exat step within the process which he feels requires intelligence so we would need to prove that intelligence is even capable of doing it.

Good question, Lilith. That thought was behind my comment. I don't think you ever really could prove such a thing.

Elizabeth Liddle Wrote:Nobody here needs my help in "debunking" Upright BiPed's semiotic argument for id, because, as several people here have pointed out (as have many people on my own blog, including myself), it's not actually a semiotic argument for id!

Yes, what he and other ID people try and do is get concession on known facts that are just a little bit, almost imperceptively twisted. From there I would imagine that the argument would proceed something like, "Ok, since you acknowledge that x must be true, then would you also say that y is true?" this would go on and on, and if you followed them down their rabbit hole you would eventually end up at "God did it!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: