Semiotic argument for ID

There are no physical constraints linking a sign (codon) to what it represents, called the object in semiosis (amino acid). No physical connections.The formal rules linking the object to the interpretant are also non physical. They are intangible you cannot touch them, they are not physics. It defies mechanistic physicality quite clearly.

Semiotics, or semiology, is the study of signs, symbols, and signification. It is the study of how meaning is created, not what it is. Below are some brief definitions of semiotic terms, beginning with the smallest unit of meaning and proceeding towards the larger and more complex:Signifier: any material thing that signifies, e.g., words on a page, a facial expression, an image.Signified: the concept that a signifier refers to.Together, the signifier and signified make up theSign: the smallest unit of meaning. Anything that can be used to communicate (or to tell a lie).Symbolic (arbitrary) signs: signs where the relation between signifier and signified is purely conventional and culturally specific, e.g., most words.Iconic signs: signs where the signifier resembles the signified, e.g., a picture.Indexical Signs: signs where the signifier is caused by the signified, e.g., smoke signifies fire.Denotation: the most basic or literal meaning of a sign, e.g., the word "rose" signifies a particular kind of flower.Connotation: the secondary, cultural meanings of signs; or "signifying signs," signs that are used as signifiers for a secondary meaning, e.g., the word "rose" signifies passion.Metonymy: a kind of connotation where in one sign is substituted for another with which it is closely associated, as in the use of Washington for the United States government or of the sword for military power.Synecdoche: a kind of connotation in which a part is used for the whole (as hand for sailor).Collections of related connotations can be bound together either byParadigmatic relations: where signs get meaning from their association with other signs,or bySyntagmatic relations: where signs get meaning from their sequential order, e.g., grammar or the sequence of events that make up a story.Myths: a combination of paradigms and syntagms that make up an oft-told story with elaborate cultural associations, e.g., the cowboy myth, the romance myth.Codes: a combination of semiotic systems, a supersystem, that function as general maps of meaning, belief systems about oneself and others, which imply views and attitudes about how the world is and/or ought to be. Codes are where semiotics and social structure and values connect.Ideologies: codes that reinforce or are congruent with structures of power. Ideology works largely by creating forms of "common sense," of the taken-for-granted in everyday life.

I did search here and came up blank.

From what I can conclude, is that if these guys use enough excessive, ill-defined verbiage, they can somehow justify making these supportive assertions. Hoping nobody can figure out what the hell they are saying?

A1.Chance and Necessity cannot generate a semiotic system, whereas the necessary and sufficient conditions of a semiotic system consist of arrangements of matter that produce specific functional effects by means of inert intermediary patterns.
A2. The necessary and sufficient conditions of a protein synthesis system consists of arrangements of matter that produce specific functional effects by means of inert intermediary patterns.
A3. A protein synthesis system is a semiotic system
A4. Therefore Chance and Necessity cannot generate a protein synthesis system.B1. Chance, Necessity and intelligent causation can generate a semiotic system, whereas the necessary and sufficeint conditions of a semiotic system consist of arrangements of matter that produce specific functional effects by means of inert intermediary patterns.
B2. Chance and Necessity cannot generate a semiotic system, whereas the necessary and sufficient conditions of a semiotic system consist of arrangements of matter that produce specific functional effects by means of inert intermediary patterns.
B3.Therefore the origin of a semiotic system is best explained by chance, necessity and intelligent causation.

... he is lying. The physical processes relating the codon to the amino acid are well understood. I think someone needs to look up concepts such as ribosomes, tRNA, and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase ... except, of course, that knowing stuff about biology doesn't help one to be a creationist.

A1.Chance and Necessity cannot generate a semiotic system, whereas the necessary and sufficient conditions of a semiotic system consist of arrangements of matter that produce specific functional effects by means of inert intermediary patterns.

A1. Without a shred of evidence or argument, I'm going to assert something which implies the conclusion I want to draw.

faith writes:Since I am a creationist of course I can't possibly have anything of value to say, and all I can say is it makes sense to me that a coding system couldn't have arisen by purely biological means.

This is my first post,

I'm a long time lurker here and I feel like I know you guys.

It seems like the latest creationist sales talk is this new semiotic argument for ID. I did search here and came up blank. I was doing research on the subject and this was the first place I looked into trusting the great minds here.From what I can conclude, is that if these guys use enough excessive, ill-defined verbiage, they can somehow justify making these supportive assertions. Hoping nobody can figure out what the hell they are saying?The way I see it this will become another creationist fallacy, until they offer a genuine explanation/hypothesis of their own.What do you guys think?