Where's the Evidence??
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2012, 12:58 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2012 01:01 PM by houseofcantor.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(22-03-2012 09:48 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  This all raises a very important question; how did these very special sequences come to exist?

Geometry. It's not such an important question but rather reflects the self-importance of the observer. Tongue

As has been mentioned, I'm not seeing a design argument here. Tongue
(22-03-2012 11:25 AM)Denicio Wrote:  Fuck the scientific psychobabble and fancy pants words.

Man. Can't even wait till he gets like twenty posts before bending him over the table... Big Grin

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like houseofcantor's post
22-03-2012, 01:10 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
could you clarify what you mean by semiotic?

Semi - half
otic Huh

I came across this whole field of biosemiotics on wikipedia as I applied my google-fu, which seems to be the study of flow of information within a biological setting, but you seem to be using it with a specific meaning in mind i.e.

"if I prove that this process is semiotic then I deduce... something"?

If I give you that the process is semiotic, what deduction do you make? I suspect this is where the intelligent design enters the picture?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2012, 01:20 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(22-03-2012 01:10 PM)morondog Wrote:  could you clarify what you mean by semiotic?

Semi - half
otic Huh

No dude, you're missing a couple of letters. It's supposed to be semi-idiotic which is just slightly worse than being a moron. Big Grin

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Erxomai's post
22-03-2012, 01:25 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(22-03-2012 01:20 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  No dude, you're missing a couple of letters. It's supposed to be semi-idiotic which is just slightly worse than being a moron. Big Grin

Hehe Tongue Couldn't resist could you. I actually thought as I was writing that, I thought... I know Pastor Erx is gonna come and shove his oar in here, I won't comment myself, I'll just leave a nice tasty bit of bait and see which atheist fish takes my hook Big Grin

BTW Upright Biped it was a serious question Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2012, 02:08 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(22-03-2012 11:25 AM)Denicio Wrote:  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.

Agree 100 %.

I went with my dad to see a little patient of his, (one of our neighbors) this morning who is about 5 1/2. He has Leukemia. He is THE cutest little guy. He always comes over to ask if I can "come out and ride bikes". He was in the hall pushing his IV, making the nurses laugh. I just thought...you call THAT "intelligent design".

The point is, ladies and gentlemen, as Denicio said...you can discuss the science till you're blue in the face. In the end, you have to cook up the designer. Ya "ain't got one", so far. (Certainly it can't be that Yahweh Sabaoth guy..the god of the armies, (or his wife Ashura)).

So by all means talk about the biological stuff, but when that's over, remember, there are some here who will be waiting to hear about which designer you're going to lay it at the feet of..(how's THAT for a bad senetence?) AND after ya get the designer part figured out, call the physicists in for a consult...cuz you're gonna have to explain how a "creative act" began and proceded, BEFORE (the singularity) spacetime existed as a dimension. Good luck with that. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2012, 03:25 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(22-03-2012 10:32 AM)Upright BiPed Wrote:  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.

Thanks for the clarification, I needed that.

Yes biosemiosis has advanced a good deal, in the same way that substitution has advanced since Pavlov. However, sometimes the basics are still pertinent.

I see from your responses you are more concerned with the philosophy of "information" transference rather than the Biological aspect.

Unfortunately I have little time for philosophy (science has pretty much got things covered). My interest is biology so, unfortunately I will have to absent myself from this discussion, (has, have you intimated, others have done.)
Which is such a shame as new information or perspectives on existing information is interesting.

If I may point out, without animosity... If you are to say that Pierce is anthropomorphic in his approach (which may be valid, although I would rather say anthropocentric.)

If you accuse an act of anthropomorphism, then it is somewhat invidious of you to use an anthropomorphic analogy ie, pheremones and text to humans, as a discount.

Simply as a matter of consistency, it may be best to avoid this type of thing.

All the best in your philosophical discussion. I will however stick with actual biology.

In life you can't have everything................. Where would you put it ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sol's post
22-03-2012, 05:22 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hello All. I am back. Thanks to all that have chipped in.

Give me just a few to get situated a bit, and I will respond.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2012, 07:32 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
(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

What evidence is convincing? There are no signs or symbols - they're just molecules.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-03-2012, 10:38 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2012 10:48 PM by Upright BiPed.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hello Denicio,

My impression of your comment is that you are more interested in a concession than a response. When you say:

Quote: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?

...I, in turn, see someone who doesn't want to have any contact with evidence that he doesn't care exists – and – I see someone moving the goalposts to a place unrealistically safe and assured. Unless I am misrepresenting you, your position boils down to “Fuck your evidence, show me the designer”.

One of the possible problems with that position is – in the absence of a demonstrably open mind – it quickly becomes impervious to reason. It's a position that results in: 'I reject your evidence because', and then moves the standards of proof to a place impossibly out of reach, a place so distant that not even your own theories go there, and nor anyone else's.

Such a position would result in an act of faith, defended by the unknowable.

I'm sure anyone would avoid being in such a position. In your own words, “its something you have to be honest with yourself about”. As for myself, I'll continue to consider what we can actually know.

Thanks.
Hello Craniumonempty,

I think you are generally correct in your understanding of the bonds in DNA, but then you say: “The orders are determined by the RNA and other DNA strands (or whatever that's called)”. The paired strand of DNA does not determine the sequence it contains, and neither is that sequence determined by RNA. The ordering of messenger RNA (mRNA) during transcription is determined by the sequence instead.

“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.”

The question of how the sequence (the information) came to exist is certainly one of the unanswered question in abiogenesis, but the observations I made are about the objects and dynamics of a transfer of information as we already know it to exist. In other words, one is a valid open question, and the other is what we already know.

“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.”

I have no particular response to make, other than to say that Darwinian evolution requires recorded information to exist (in order to function), so the observations I made are a requirement for evolution to exist, and therefore must either precede it or be congruent with it.

“... 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.”

No, I am not trying to get at a theory of ID abiogenesis. My argument is that the transfer of information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state. This isn't an argument against something, so much, but an argument for something based upon they way in which we find it. In all of the material observations I made in the argument, none of them are even controversial. The argument, is nothing more than recognizing something for what it materially demonstrates itself to be.
Nach,

Quote:“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.”

From one layman to another, thank you for the candor.

You can't get from an observation of molecular evidence, to a proof of a designer. Those are the high stakes slots. The observation being made is that the transfer of information during protein synthesis creates physical entailments which precisely match those from any another form of information transfer. From a material standpoint, it's a process we coherently understand; there are no gaps in recognizing the objects and dynamics involved. So clearly do we understand this process, we cannot even conceptually grasp how information could be exchanged in any other way than we way we find it. I would challenge anyone to even suggest a method to record and transfer information without a representational arrangement of matter and a protocol in order to understand it. We know the process is semiotic, and to explain it will require a mechanism capable of creating a semiotic state.

In that sense, it would be fair evidence to question if something capable of a semiotic state was not possible at the origin of life. The alternative, is that without the organization made possible by semiotic information, representations and rules can arise.

Quote:“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.”

There are huge swathes of things we do not understand about the genome, bu biologist have no absolutely no issue understanding how the transfer of information takes place during protein synthesis. It is richly understood. Epigenetics is certainly a growing study, but nothing and no-one in the field thinks they'll re-write the process of protein synthesis.

Quote:“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.”

You are right again, all of these things you mention are tremendous opportunities, but they are significant in that they are pointed to things we do not know. None of these will change what we already can demonstrate to be true about the objects involved in translation. That is how these things (the ribosome, the various RNAs, the aminoacyl synthetases, base paring, etc) came to exist in our knowledge - they were demonstrated.

Thanks for your thoughts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Upright BiPed's post
22-03-2012, 10:48 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Hello UpRight:

You still haven't addressed the elephant in the room, how do your posts at least hint to ID? we said already we don't see it and explained why. Go on man you can do it, at least try Tongue

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: