Where's the Evidence??

[Sol]

hm, need to read through that again, there seems to be a few inconsistencies and some skewed semantic elements.

Are you intending to introduce Peirce later or stay away from his theory altogether ?

[nach_in]

I think I understood those walls of text, but I can't find any evidence of intelligent design there, I only see some gaps on understanding genetics and maybe some over interpretation of things, which is a fairly new field, nothing unexpected.

[Upright BiPed]

Hi Sol, I'll be happy to clarify anthing you see.

Semiotics has matured a bit since the time of Pierce (ie, biosemiosis), who's concepts were entirely valid, but almost complete anthropomorphic. Artificially limiting the concept of a "representation" to a human is itself an anthropomorphic mistake - a pheromone is an arragenent of matter serving as a representation (within a system) to the ant as much as text is to humans. The idea is to reduce the observation down to its purely physical and material level, and then make the observations without an unrealistic limit to human-bound information transfer. The material objects within the various systems, and their dynamic relationships to one another, are precisely the same.

[morondog]

(22-03-2012 10:05 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  Hi morondog, thanks for the question.

You are correct, there arre bonds to attach the nucleotides (AGTC) to the backbone, but there are no bonds between the nucleotides that establish their order along that backbone.

No, I'm not an expert, just a generalist (a research director in a completely unrelated field) with a healthy curiosity.

---

By the way morondog, the fact that the bonds in DNA do not determine the order of nucleotides is a well understood idea - and is merely a background tidbit of information, so there's no need to get hung up on it.

No I get. Just bio is not at all my strong point so I got confused with the language. I actually thought your first post was really nice and clear. Second one's gonna take a while to digest 'cos it looks scary and long...

[Upright BiPed]

Hello nach.

Genetics is a larger issue which itself requires the proper translation of genetic information. This argument is solely an observation of the material objects and dynamic properties involved in that process - which genetics then depends upon.

You can view it in terms that the foreman at a manufacturing plant making footballs doesn't need to know the latest ideas on Instant Replays in order to how to make a football. One issue comes before the other.

---

---

Thanks morondog. You are perceptive.

The second post (the argument) was given to a gentleman who certainly didn't need any grease to help understand the issues. It stands to reason it would be a bit tougher to work through. (But I tried to make it accessible to anyone with the curiosity to do so).

[nach_in]

(22-03-2012 10:41 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  Hello nach.

Genetics is a larger issue which itself requires the proper translation of genetic information. This argument is solely an observation of the material objects and dynamic properties involved in that process - which genetics then depends upon.

You can view it in terms that the foreman at a manufacturing plant making footballs doesn't need to know the latest ideas on Instant Replays in order to how to make a football. One issue comes before the other.

---

---

Thanks morondog. You are perceptive.

The second post (the argument) was given to a gentleman who certainly didn't need any grease to help understand the issues. It stands to reason it would be a bit tougher to work through. (But I tried to make it accessible to anyone with the curiosity to do so).

Yes, but I still don't see some divine hand on that. You said you would provide an argument for ID, but I don't see it, maybe I'm missing some point, is it something along the lines of irreducible complexity?

I didn't get your football analogy though, sports are not my thing

[Denicio]

Fuck the scientific psychobabble and fancy pants words.

Where is your proof of an actual designer?
Where does this designer come from?
Where does your information about this designer come from?

You can speak of DNA, Genome and other scientific things and gently weave in SUPER natural arguments (ID at its most basic) but it cant get past the basics.

To me the term Intelligent Design is an oxymoron. There is NOTHING intelligent ABOUT our design. We are FAR from perfect. Many mazes in our bodies that defy explanation and things left behind that boldy display NO design but artifacts of evolution of some sort.

Science freely admits it does not have all the answers. BUT they are working towards getting them. I work with product designers, i know product designers. If you argue that we were designed, then whatever it was (god, xenu, aliens) was one hell of a sloppy designer. (check out the Laryngeal Nerve on a Giraffe on Youtube for a glimpse into this)

If any of your ID arguments include sin, original sin, the fall of man, human sacrifice for sins or any of that stuff...then its 100000000000% religion and you are using science buzz words hoping for a 'gotcha' moment.

By invoking SUPERnatural in a natural world then ANYTHING is possible...which begs the question "Why dont you believe the FSM is the Intelligent designer?"

But you freely admit you are a Theist...which puts you at a disadvantage as you begin the argument with a huge BIAS. We all have a bias, but adding the Theist component really skews any objectivity.

Looking for the Truth, no matter where it leads you is one thing.
Looking for answers to fortify an argument is another.

So, if you TRULY did HONEST research and you came to a conclusion that was alarmingly contrary to your theism, WOULD you totally and completely walk away from your belief in god (or gods, or what ever)?

The earth is not flat, Pluto is not a planet, epilepsy is not demon posession....many people of science have let go of previous beliefs in light of new and solid information.

Can you, will you?

I dont care if you answer, its something you have to be honest with yourself about.
D

[craniumonempty]

(22-03-2012 09:48 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  Although the chemical bonds that actually form the backbone are well known, there is one set of bonds that are completely absent. Those 'missing' bonds are the ones between the nucleotides themselves which could determine their order within the sequence. In other words, there are no physical or chemical bonds between the nucleotides that determine their order along the linear axis of DNA (where the information is). Those sequences are therefore referred to as "physico-dynamically inert" (meaning that the chemical bonds they are associated with do not determine the sequence in which they exist) and it is those sequences that create Life.

This is a scientifically observable fact of DNA which is not even in question. It is not based upon what we don't know, but what we already know, and have demonstrated to be true.

This is my opinion as I'm no expert either.

As far as I know, you are correct that there is no bonds between the nucleotides up the backbone that determine the order (they just bond to the backbone). If there were there would probably be no mutations or at least it would be a hell of a lot harder. The orders are determined by the RNA and other DNA strands (or whatever that's called). The sugars that make up the backbone just bind to the nucleotides, but the bonds on that end are pretty much the same between them all and the backbone has no way of knowing what goes where.

However, you aren't questioning that, you are questioning where did the sequences come from, correct? Basically, how did life come from non-life. If you are looking where it started, then you need to look in abiogenensis as that is what they study in that field.

As far as sometime after the first life form was stable (or stable enough) and able to reproduce (because there may have been many, but only one was able to multiply and go one until today), then from there you have the beginning of evolution by natural selection.

... BTW, do you have a hypothesis for ID abiogenesis (as that's what it sounds like you are trying to get at) or is this simply trying to argue against current theories? I'm not sure I see an argument for anything, just against.

[Upright BiPed]

Hello again nach,

Allow me to answer an important issue you raise.

This has to do with the “divine hand”. It is not the intent of the semiotic argument to establish a “divine hand”, as I said, its only purpose is to establish the very coherent demonstration of a semiotic state during protein synthesis. Right now, the vast majority of working biologists view the information transfer as only “analogous” to other forms of information transfer. They use the language of other forms of information transfer; they build simulations based upon it, and generally take it for granted. In other words, they only give it the wink wink, while the evidence itself clearly (and quite convincingly) demonstrates that it is semiotic.

---

I am off for a short while, but will return this afternoon/evening to address any posts (as I see others have already joined in).

-cheers

[nach_in]

(22-03-2012 11:47 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  Hello again nach,

Allow me to answer an important issue you raise.

This has to do with the “divine hand”. It is not the intent of the semiotic argument to establish a “divine hand”, as I said, its only purpose is to establish the very coherent demonstration of a semiotic state during protein synthesis. Right now, the vast majority of working biologists view the information transfer as only “analogous” to other forms of information transfer. They use the language of other forms of information transfer; they build simulations based upon it, and generally take it for granted. In other words, they only give it the wink wink, while the evidence itself clearly (and quite convincingly) demonstrates that it is semiotic.

---

I am off for a short while, but will return this afternoon/evening to address any posts (as I see others have already joined in).

-cheers

I'm not an expert on this topic either, so I can't think of anything to refute what you posted, and I'm not sure I understand well enough. But lets say it's true for the sake of the debate, why is that evidence of a designer? it's just evidence that there's more to this processes than what they originally thought, but that would be just another known unknown, not evidence of a designer.

Lets not forget that biologists don't fully understand all the processes of DNA encoding and decoding, and lets not forget about epigenetics which is a whole new side of it and it's in its diapers.

Don't forget about protein folding, all this things are still mysterious, and though scientist know a lot of it, is just the tip of the isberg for sure. But there's no reason to think those mysteries are the work of some god or a designer.