Semiotic argument for ID

Oh, now I get it!! Thanks.

The ability of simple molecules to replicate themselves (and to do so with variants that also replicate themselves) has been established since 1990. T. Tjivikua , P. Ballester , J. Rebek Jr.....They require no biosphere. Neither does RNA. RNA replicators have been discovered that reproduce and evolve without DNA, proteins, or anything else to do with life. Self-replicating RNAsI wasn't aware that any intelligent designer that could exist on prebiotic earth was discovered or synthesized. Would you care to back up such a claim with citations?

Jorge at TWeb once defined complex specified information as information that is both complex and specified. Looks as if our local pal is from the same mold.

Well, sort of. You said that "all complex specified information has been found to have an intelligent source". But we have present day DNA, which you are claiming is CSI, that we can see coming into existence, without an intelligent source, through the process of replication. So, there are ways to get CSI, today, via sources that don't require intelligence today.Now, that doesn't solve the problem of how the original strands of DNA came into existence, but we can see that the processes involved today do not require intelligence today. Like, an ancient proto-organism that all life today evolved from? Viruses and prions contain some of the life processes, like replication, but are not alive, so we can see that partial systems can exist.There are self-assembling molecules that are not alive. And there are self-replicating molecules that are not alive.We are moving towards an explanation of the emergence of DNA without needing to point to an intelligent designer. What makes it information? How is it specified? And at what point does it get to be considered complex?

As a matter of fact, you are exclusively responsible for the fantasy world in your head.

In order for someone to understand a word or phrase, it has to have operational value for them.That is: someone who knows what "pink" means can answer the question "Is this object pink?" His definition acts as a criterion. Someone who understands what "elephant" means can answer questions such as "how many elephants are there in this picture?" (so long as he can also count). Someone who knows what "three" means can tell me if I'm holding up three fingers (so long as he also knows what "finger" means, and so can recognize a finger). And so forth.On the other hand, the average English-speaking person would not be able to answer the question "How much CSI is in the sequence AGTCGATGCTAGTTTGCA", or even if there is any. Someone who doesn't even know it when they see it (and know it's absent when they don't see it) doesn't know what it means.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Okay, have it your way. I'll use a different term in the future.

That's a tacit admission that you cannot define Complex Specified Information even though you were acting like it was self-evident earlier.

What a curious remark. I was merely ceding the fact that 'CSI' now has a special meaning in common parlance, and I shouldn't use it generically any more.

Well if you're going to use a different term for the same thing, then we would still have a problem, since the difficulty arises not because of the choice of words to describe the thing, but in the difficulty of identifying the thing the words are meant to denote.But perhaps you will use this different term to mean a different thing. We'll see.

CS, a little common sense would tell you that it takes intelligence to create a system that runs on its own without intelligence.

A little common sense would tell him that the Earth is flat.

Nope. Specified Complexity will do. It's easier to type, anyway.

I take it you DISAGREE that it takes intelligence to create a system that runs without intelligence?

Then you still have the same problem --- you need some sort of operational definition. Otherwise it doesn't mean anything.