Semiotic argument for ID

Wise words. You might consider reading the abstract of the paper itself instead of just the PR fluff about the paper. They seem to have left out the part about the "code" being designed.

[qs] I noticed that. Every time I encounter metaphorical language in English, hey, there it is! A big fat red METAPHOR printed right next to it!Thank God, huh? Otherwise some folks could [color=red]METAPHOR[/color=red] make asses of themselves.[/qs]Hey, buddy, if your only contribution is to INSULT, you're better off waiting to comment until you have something INTELLIGENT to say.

Actually, Capt, I already quoted this paragraph from the abstract on this thread or the other one on this topic. When I did, I did NOT claim that the researchers believed the two codes in the genome to be DESIGNED. So where did you get that idea?You are throwing useless RED HERRINGS into the discussion in an attempt to harass me. Any more of this an I will be reporting this to the administrators.

Then where would you be?Besides, it's not just an insult. You totally missed the mockery.And what about the entertainment value? You have to take that into account. Don't be so selfish.You don't reply to serious problems pointed out in your own position, preferring rather to ridicule questions and objections you cannot handle. You've got a METAPHORone-trick, incredulity pony, and it gets tedious watching you ride around in circles. METAPHORSo as far as I'm concerned, buddy, it's open season on boringly stupid. My restraint heretofore has been herculean...but every once in a while your empty pinata head will swing by, and I'll whack it.Aw, go ahead. Say something smugly ignorant again.You know you want to.

Really, you don't understand?In HIGH SCHOOL, we were taught that, in my own words, the DNA molecule has INTERCHANGEABLE PARTS (the 4 bases) within its structure. These interchangeable parts are ordered in different ways to produce different specific results.Where do you see this happening in salt crystals?Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Hey, let's keep the personal insults out of this, guys. It's against the rules of the thread.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Hey, I've got an idea, why don't you report that I've invited you to kiss my ass, you unresponsive troll.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: Suspension for this and other messages.

No, not me. You might want to consider the sources, though. One of which has the actual abstract linked. With your research methods and reading comprehension I'm not surprised you have missed the whole side of the barn. Yes, scientists have continued to find additional complex operations of the genome such as enhancers, promoters, HOX genes, as well as the transcription binding factors the UofW work was studying. None of these equate to any "second code hidden within the first (non-existent) DNA code".What the UofW work did was not find any new levels of complexity, let alone any hogwash like a hidden second code, but did add new knowledge showing the breadth of use of the (already found and analysed) transcription binding factors.[aside]
Not that you would understand, but a lot of the rest of the folks here will; the significance of the UofW paper is that it will help track the transcription paths, especially the multi-gene paths, for a lot of proteins. This will impact proteomics to a great extent.
[/aside]So, in addition to there being no first code, in the sense you wish "code" to be defined, there now is no second code within the same DNA molecular structure. Who'd a thunk? Wow. How damn dense can one human be and still function across the internet?Her statement has nothing to do with using "literary terms." The statement she points to:The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons.is just plain wrong even given the literary analogy.Do you understand why? ... which is correct and you probably still do not know why. The only one screwed here is not Dr. Emily Willingham, Ph.D., Biology, U of Texas, Austin, the author of that second link, but (no surprise) you.With the typical Missouri mule you have to take a 2x4 to their butt to get their attention. Here, you were walloped up 'long side the head and you still carried on, dumb as a stump, like nothing ever happened.As for your message to Capt Stormfield for quoting from the actual study paper from the UofW, the actual paper which is now the (sub)topic of discussion in this thread: Please consider my responses to your continued inanity as harassment of your poor, helpless, little self.Report away.

Thanks for reminding me about your posts, Jon. I have been distracted by dog-and-pony shows but I finally got back to looking for some reasonable posts on this forum, and yours are two of them. In reply to this: Make up your mind:
Either 'code' means ...or it doesn't exist in biology.Which is it?Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Point taken. I don't have mastery of Dembski's math. That's why I'm fine with using different wording; I don't mean to conflate what I'm arguing with what Dembski argues. I don't understand the guy - it's not just the math, but the very technical language he uses is way above my head.At the same time, I was not convinced of my viewpoint by Dembski's work; it was mainly Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe whose books speak directly to the topic of CSI (and its synonym, Specified Complexity) that have been most convincing to me about the implications of the existence of a code in DNA.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

In natural salt crystals there are several "interchangeable parts" -- different elements that can take their place in the crystal structure and otherwise occupy space in the crystals:

quote:

---

... The mineral content also affects the taste. The colors and variety of flavors are due to local clays and algae found in the waters the salt is harvested from. For example, some boutique salts from Korea and France are pinkish gray, some from India are black. Black and red salts from Hawaii may even have powdered black lava and baked red clay added in.[8] Some sea salt contains sulfates. It may be difficult to distinguish sea salt from other salts, such as pink "Himalayan salt", Maras salt from the ancient Inca hot springs, or rock salt (halite).

​

... However, a study found the amount of trace elements, such as titanium, silver, cobalt, and lead in synthetic sea salt are much higher than those in sea water. ...

​

Iodine, an element essential for human health,[14] is present only in small amounts in sea salt,[15] although the concentration varies according to its provenance.[citation needed]

---

Lots of interchangeable parts ... all based on basic chemical bonding ... This is still just chemical bonds and chemical reactions -- just a difference in quantity and not a difference in quality as I requested.Curiously I've also raised this same issue on the other thread where you keep asserting some magical difference to DNA from basic chemistry: Message 285, copied in full for your pleasure:

quote:

---

Valence Bond Theory

​

quote:

---

In chemistry, valence bond (VB) theory is one of two basic theories, along with molecular orbital (MO) theory, that were developed to use the methods of quantum mechanics to explain chemical bonding. It focuses on how the atomic orbitals of the dissociated atoms combine to give individual chemical bonds when a molecule is formed. In contrast, molecular orbital theory has orbitals that cover the whole molecule.[1]

---

​

Information that is complex and specific (your "definition" of csi) to how all molecules are formed from elements.

​

Note that this is general basic knowledge in chemistry.

​

What you have failed to show (yet) is that there is an entirely different sort/quality of "csi" in DNA, rather than just a difference in degree/quantity due to the quantity of molecular bonds.

​

There is a larger number of bonds, and hence "information that is complex and specified" regarding the molecular formation in Sodium Sulfate ( Na₂SO₄) crystals than in Salt (NaCl) crystals ... a difference in the degree of "csi" (based on the coded information specified by the valence bonds) but not any difference in the sort of "csi".

​

If I have one apple in one basket and 10 apples in another then I have a difference in the degree of fruit in the baskets. If I have one apple in one basket and one pear in the other then I have a difference in the sort of fruit in the baskets.

​

Please identify something that makes it a different sort of "csi" in DNA from the chemical bonding sort of "csi" in salt and sodium sulfate and other molecules -- this is your assertion to support.

---

So I'll repeat, now that I have made my point a little clearer: Something that is not merely based on chemical bonding via the basic rules of chemistry?

The former. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Then why are you asking for references to mathematicians who have analyzed and demolished Dembski's arguments? There are plenty, but you wouldn't have a chance of understanding them. CSI and SI are not synonyms. Since you (and Dembski and Meyer and Behe and anyone) have never been able to produce an operational definition for what CSI is or detecting it, there's no point in using the term; it's just meaningless noise.