Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9159 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Post Volume: Total: 915,009 Year: 2,266/9,624 Month: 111/1,588 Week: 40/267 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2452 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 36 of 223 (707412)
09-27-2013 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Upright BiPed
09-26-2013 10:25 PM


self-replicating molecules.
Upright BiPed writes:
And because Darwinian evolution requires the transfer and translation of recorded information in order to exist itself, it cannot be the source of this system.
If a self-replicating molecule that occasionally produces variants of itself counts as a semiotic system, then this might be true. If it doesn't, then it's false, because such a molecule would be subject to selection on the variants, and therefore to "Darwinian evolution".
Given these observations, a mechanism capable of establishing this semiotic state is necessary prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution and information-based organization.
A process that forms a self-replicator of some kind would certainly be necessary prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution. But that's just stating the obvious.
I've missed the argument for intelligent design here, unless it's in the word "irreducible".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Upright BiPed, posted 09-26-2013 10:25 PM Upright BiPed has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2452 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 40 of 223 (707529)
09-28-2013 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Upright BiPed
09-27-2013 6:23 PM


Do all self-replicating molecules require recorded information.
UprightBiPed writes:
bluegenes writes:
bluegenes,
"If a self-replicating molecule that occasionally produces variants of itself counts as a semiotic system, then this might be true. If it doesn't, then it's false, because such a molecule would be subject to selection on the variants, and therefore to "Darwinian evolution".
I cannot parse what you intended to say here, but I think it’s important not to conflate your map for the territory. Darwinian evolution operates by means of changes in the genotype being translated into the phenotype. (This is not even controversial). So in order to exist, Darwinian evolution requires recorded information and a system to translate it. Darwinian evolution cannot therefore be the source of these requirements. To say otherwise, is to say that a process which does not yet exist on a prebiotic earth (Darwinian evolution) can cause something to happen.
It can’t.
Well, that clarifies some things. I was using a very broad definition of "Darwinian evolution", which would have included variation and selection in all chemical self-replicators. I assumed you meant something like that, because if you were merely pointing out that the system that we see at the base of modern life forms couldn't have produced itself, I couldn't think of any reason why you would bother to say that.
So you don't seem to be claiming that variation and selection on chemical self-replicators (which could exist on prebiotic earth) couldn't lead to Darwinian evolution as you define it, you're merely pointing out that life processes couldn't produce the first life, something I would have thought we can all easily agree on. And as "universal observation" tells us that intelligent designers are life forms, how have you managed to get an argument for intelligent design from this?
Am I right in saying that you do not regard "recorded information" as being necessary for all self-replicators?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Upright BiPed, posted 09-27-2013 6:23 PM Upright BiPed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 8:41 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2452 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 122 of 223 (725115)
04-24-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Ed67
04-21-2014 8:41 PM


Re: Do all self-replicating molecules require recorded information.
Ed67 writes:
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?
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 RNAs
I 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 8:41 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2452 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 159 of 223 (725219)
04-24-2014 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Ed67
04-24-2014 6:14 PM


Who designed English?
Ed67 writes:
There you go, gang, all you need to admit that, by the english definitions of the terms, the DNA molecule contains COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION.
Speaking of the English language, which is semiotic, and which I'm sure you would say contains or expresses plenty of CSI, it's a good example of a semiotic system which, while a tool for intelligent creatures, wasn't actually intelligently designed. Unlike the intelligently designed Morse code, it's an ever evolving accident of history.
If you disagree, you might tell me who intelligently designed it, and when.
The biosphere is full of communication systems that could be described as semiotic, both intra species and inter species, and involving plants and bacteria as well as animals, but it is extremely rare for the senders and receivers of all these signalling systems to actually intelligently design them from scratch as we do with examples like semaphore and Esperanto.
Careful observation wouldn't lead us to associate complex communication systems with intelligent design. The I.D. inference is a subjective human mistake.
BTW, has it occurred to you that, if you infer intelligent design for the simplest organism, you would need to propose a designer who contains less "CSI" than that organism, otherwise consistency would require that you infer that the designer was itself designed.
Also, if you believe in a designer who designed our world, in arguing against abiogenesis you are implying that the designer designed a sterile physical world, rather than one truly "fine tuned" for life.
Many in the I.D. movement make fine tuning arguments while also making non-fine tuning arguments, without seeming to realise it.
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 6:14 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024