|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 48 (9216 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,691 Year: 1,013/6,935 Month: 294/719 Week: 82/204 Day: 2/12 Hour: 2/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Semiotic argument for ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
I agree with this part: That word (I forgot it already lol) is just another name for communicating specified information, which, as ID has always argued, is the POSSIBLE downfall of abiogenesis.
Perhaps, though, it is more accurately describing what ID is trying to get across with its argument for the design of the code contained in DNA. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : Just having thoughts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
"Pressie" writes: Not worth looking at. Don't you find that a little prejudiced? I think he's making some EXCELLENT progress in making his case. Bravo!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
RAS writes: 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
I must object; that straw man was a non-sequetir. In your characterature, the fact that there was an original coder for the chemical nomenclature system, does not mean that "The code must direct the action of the atoms". In this case, the code must direct the action of the LAB CHEMIST. But what if the lab chemist was replaced by a robot, pre-programmed to read the code of the researcher and cause the specified chemical reactions? This robot, receiving, translating, and executing communicated instructions, is much like the DNA molecule. It's just a mechanistic 'robot' pre-programmed to execute received orders.The interesting question is, where did the DNA originally receive the orders from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The interesting question is, where did the DNA originally receive the orders from? You haven't come anywhere near setting up the loading in that question. One might just as well ask where the coding in a diamond came from.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18054 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
The idea that evolution can't explain the first replicators isn't even an ID idea. Creationists are about the only people who even think that evolution should explain the first replicators.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Edsel, who can't be bothered to type 4 letters, let alone get three correct ... lets me abuse the coded sequence for the specific information in his name ...
![]() I must object; that straw man was a non-sequetir. In your characterature, the fact that there was an original coder for the chemical nomenclature system, ... No no no, the naming is not the code they are just names for the atoms of the code so that we can refer to them with some semblance of intellectual comprehension (what are words and names good for anyway, just misspell it and people will understand eh? The caricature that you so aptly point out applies to your caricature of the DNA molecule ... So I am glad and relieved to see that you understand the errors of your position.
... does not mean that "The code must direct the action of the atoms". In this case, the code must direct the action of the LAB CHEMIST. No it means that the atoms naturally form these molecules, just as all molecules come together in specific patterns do the the chemical reaction patterns based on their compositions.
But what if the lab chemist was replaced by a robot, pre-programmed to read the code of the researcher and cause the specified chemical reactions? This robot, receiving, translating, and executing communicated instructions, ... The you have introduced a totally unnecessary element to a natural process that doesn't need a helping hand, haven't you? What purpose does the robot serve?
... is much like the DNA molecule. It's just a mechanistic 'robot' pre-programmed to execute received orders. And the DNA molecules act just the same with or without the unnecessarily introduced purposeless robot ... making chemical reactions by the natural process that doesn't need a helping hand, as we have just established.
The interesting question is, where did the DNA originally receive the orders from? Yep, right up there with the interesting question, where did the sodium atom originally receive the orders to combine with chlorine to make salt ... just so we could have salt on our food! Amazing isn't it. ![]() Edited by RAZD, : [..]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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
"PaulK" writes: The idea that evolution can't explain the first replicators isn't even an ID idea. Creationists are about the only people who even think that evolution should explain the first replicators." What kind of an argument is that?We're not talking about whose idea it is. you're wrong in your facts, but this is not the place for that argument. Anyway, what matters is: whether evolution (methodological naturalism) can explain the first 'replicators', as you call them. What do you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
"NoNukes" writes: You haven't come anywhere near setting up the loading in that question. One might just as well ask where the coding in a diamond came from. NN, would you please explain your idea a little more? I'm not sure what you mean by loading. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Anyway, what matters is: whether evolution (methodological naturalism) can explain the first 'replicators', as you call them. Perhaps this would be a good time to explain that writing --- for example --- "cat (dog)" does not actually make the word "cat" synonymous with "dog", nor, for that matter, establish any other relationship between them. Evolution, of course, does not explain the first replicators, for the same reason that gravity doesn't. Methodological naturalism, of course, does not explain the first replicators, for the same reason that the double-blind method doesn't. Try to cultivate a little accuracy in thought and speech.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
"blue genes" writes: ...chemical self-replicators (which could exist on prebiotic earth)... I wasn't aware that a chemical self-replicator that could exist on prebiotic earth was discovered or synthesized. Would you care to back up your statement with citations?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
"Ringo" writes: My point was that in both semiosis and numerology the "meaning" is assigned by the believer. It is not necessarily inherent in the system. 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. The question is: where did this base sequence get inherited from? Edited by Ed67, : addition
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
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. That's only because the sequences that resulted in life dying were eliminated from the gene pool.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
"Taq" writes: that's only because the sequences that resulted in life dying were eliminated from the gene pool. There was no gene pool back then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
There was no gene pool back then. The combinations of chemicals that did not result in reproduction were quickly swamped by combinations of chemicals that did. It is simply a feedback loop. Added by edit: It is no different than feedback through a microphone and speaker system. White noise will result in a single tone being amplified above all the other frequencies because that one frequency happens to be "just the right one". Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8711 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
There was no gene pool back then. Back when? How far back are you looking? If there was no gene pool then there were no genes. If that's the time you refer to then you're not talking DNA but RNA. The RNA World and Cairns-Smith hypotheses use RNA as their initial focus for replication. They hypothesize RNA as the first self-catalyzing self-replicating chains and not very long or very complex ones at that. The hypotheses continue that as the reactions in RNA-based organisms became longer and more complex it became thermodynamically easier (something nature seems to take advantage of at every opportunity) to make use of the DNA structures to augment the RNA mechanisms. For each step Taq is correct. Any chemical reaction that enhanced the processes got replicated and those that did not died out. In the slow processes of chemical evolution, trial and error in literally trillions of trials a day over 500+ million years, by the time we find the first fossils (cyanobacteria) DNA had apparently become the main structure of chemical inheritance. Further refinements in the chemical interplay led to what we know today as "the cell" with its highly complex chemistry. No need for any code writer since there is no code. There is just the result of billions of years of chemical complexity that, to us humans, appears to mimic a code that we might devise. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025