Semiotic argument for ID

quote:

---

James Watson and Francis Crick's insight that genetic INFORMATION is embedded in the physical structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)

---

. EvC Forum: InformationThat one's a given.

quote:

---

Watson and Crick were the first to realize that the seemingly random sequence of the four bases in DNA formed a code which specified the order of the twenty amino acids that make up most proteins

---

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/...trieve/Narrative/SC/p-nid/153
Another given...So so far we have the INFORMATION and SPECIFIED parts confirmed by the discoverers and researchers of the DNA code. How about COMPLEX?

Well, DNA doesn't have machinery, per se, so that part of the definition doesn't apply.But it DOES have a very "complicated or involved' arrangement of "units" in the nucleotide sequence, so it qualifies as COMPLEX.There you go, gang, all you need to admit that, by the english definitions of the terms, the DNA molecule contains COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION.Now I'll stop using the term, on DA's request.
Unless, of course, someone ELSE brings it up...

Obviously it is not common or make sense. Just because you think it means something does not make it common or mean it makes sense.

Yea its the same information as a mould has, to make moulded objects.

That is using a different definition of information. I assumed you wanted us to use yours. A sentence using the word "specified" and "DNA" in the same sentence does not bear out your point, any more than the sentence "John saw the blue flower" would substantiate a claim that John was blue, or a flower.The "genetic code" does indeed specify which DNA codons cause which amino acids to be added to the chain. This has nothing to do with the question of whether (for example) my DNA is specified according to your definition of "specified" or indeed any other.You are really not good at reading things, are you? That one's easy. According to your definition, DNA is definitely not complex.

Woooo,
Two of the three words were used by the author of the piece. That must mean, must mean...absofuckinglutely nothing.Do you really think Watson and Crick would support CSI?Watson is still alive. Why don't you ask him?Before you embarrass yourself more.

quote:

---

"The easiest way to believe in the theory of intelligent design is to never go to school," he said.

---

SourceOh yeah.
Still waiting for you to define CSI. Not define each individual word because that's...well...stupid.

No it doesn't.

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?

Yes, and the information in the mould was put there by an intelligent designer.

Go back to high school. This is REALLY basic stuff

sore loser

Can you explain why you see something in DNA that James Watson doesn't?

Can you explain why you can't see what Watson and Crick saw?

That sounds like a no to my question.I assume your cryptic question back to me is meant to imply that Watson and Crick's statement somehow supports your position. Since Watson has explicitly said that only the uneducated could believe in intelligent design, I don't think you can claim any support from that source.