God's Finger Print:The Semiotic Dimension of DNA

I bring this argument up a lot. However, I believe it is an important argument, and one that makes the theistic world view far more logical than the atheistic world view. I have brought it up a few times and people argue it, but the more I understand the argument the more intriguing it is.

Let me start by giving an example of semiotic dimension. Lets pretend you are following directions.

"Drive north 5 miles."

If you were to look at these scratches on paper they would express information, and you would immediately know to drive 5 miles north. Now express in terms of natural physical and chemical processes the information being passed back and forth between the sentence and yourself.

Let me save you the time. This is impossible. Why? Information is abstract, and therefore outside the realm of science. Something that carries information such as language has what is called a semiotic dimension. The only way Science can account for semiotic dimensions is by the input of a creative mind.

Richard Dawkins says that God is not plausible as a scientific explanation, because Science looks for an answer that goes from simple to complex. is this always the case?

Lets look at the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. If one were to read that book they would immediately infer a top-down causation, that is the book which is complex was created by the ultimately more complex being, Richard Dawkins. When one sees a semiotic dimension we immediately give credit to a creative mind. Information is the product of minds.


DNA has a semiotic dimension. During protein synthesis genetic material is moved about and transported to other parts of the cell and a MESSAGE is conveyed. This MESSAGE contains the INFORMATION necessary to create a protein.

Now explain the INFORMATION passed between mRNA and a ribosome using natural physical and chemical processes. Hope that makes my point.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


I'm not an atheist, but I think that an atheist would simply say that information doesn't necessarily need a Creator to exist, much less to be transmitted. At least that's what I would say if I were one. I think that your fallacy lies in proving that God exists. I don't think that you can prove that something as immaterial as God exists. If it were possible, it would have already been done, ages ago. I personally believe that spiritual conviction, or a lack thereof, is a personal conviction. If that weren't true, there would be no debate.

brazenalderpadrescorpio
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I'm not an atheist, but I think that an atheist would simply say that information doesn't necessarily need a Creator to exist, much less to be transmitted. At least that's what I would say if I were one. I think that your fallacy lies in proving that God exists. I don't think that you can prove that something as immaterial as God exists. If it were possible, it would have already been done, ages ago. I personally believe that spiritual conviction, or a lack thereof, is a personal conviction. If that weren't true, there would be no debate.

Lets use the God Delusion Analogy from earlier. We have the Book and we infer the creative mind of Richard Dawkins was behind it based on the semiotic dimensions within the message convey by the scratches on the front of the book.

Now DNA passes information from mRNA to a ribosome and they convey the instructions necessary for a protein. These instructions carry semiotic dimension. So what we have in the case you have brought up is a book, but you do not want to give that book an agent by which it came about. That is illogical based on what we see within the natural world, unless you can explain using natural physical and chemical processes where the information for a protein came from.

Now this is an interesting topic and one I've thought about in various forms myself.

Basically what you're saying is that the communication of information of DNA/RNA is a sign of some kind of Creative Mind being at the root of it, right???

I'm not sure if I'd agree with you about information being out of the realm of science though. Language maybe, but information as a whole takes many forms. Some of which aren't always abstract forms of communication. There are physical methods of communication which aren't abstract at all but direct, like your sense of touch for example. At least if I understand what it is you're talking about that is....

mOjOm
Now this is an interesting topic and one I've thought about in various forms myself.

Basically what you're saying is that the communication of information of DNA/RNA is a sign of some kind of Creative Mind being at the root of it, right???

Thats basically what I am saying friend.

I'm not sure if I'd agree with you about information being out of the realm of science though. Language maybe, but information as a whole takes many forms. Some of which aren't always abstract forms of communication. There are physical methods of communication which aren't abstract at all but direct, like your sense of touch for example. At least if I understand what it is you're talking about that is....

Remember we are talking about information with semiotic dimension, which means that it must carry some kind of meaning. For example, specific patterns of DNA code for specific proteins because of the meaning or interpretation of the information conveyed.

Just a fun quote from Lane Lester (Ph.D. Genetics) and Ray Bolin(Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Biology)

"DNA is an information code...The overwhelming conclusion is that information does not and cannot arise spontaneously by mechanistic processes."

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Ok, I'm still a bit fuzzy on the Semiotics part. I'm reading about it as we speak so I sorta get it, but not sure why it is so important in what you're saying.

Do you mean that because of the complexity of DNA that it must have a creative designer??? That because of the "coding" and information content being of such a high level of complexity, it is a Top Down process rather than bottom up???

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


A question crept up in my mind as well. You said our sense of touch is an example of information that is not abstract, but isn't it only the mechanism that we are describing not the actual information? Right after I read that I touched my pillow. I understand why I feel the pillow. It touches my cells and they send signals to my brain that tell me there is a soft comfortable substance there, but how do I explain the information passed between a nerve cell and a synapse? I can describe the mechanism and even the end result of the mechanism, however the creator of that message was originally still me(through the cells and nerve subconsciously) and a creative mind is still behind it. It wouldn't be information if the electrical signal fired and there was no interpretation it would just be an unguided mindless process.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Yes it does lead to the conclusion that there is some Programmer at work; an Entity and Intelligence that CREATED the blue prints and communication system of passing the information generation to generation; The GENESIS of Species (a deliberate pun on Darwin).

The code is in the DNA and it is also environmentally responsive; adaptation. Through each individual life in any given species there is a feedback system at work. Has science located this feedback system? On a genetic level there is no doubt a communicative process that allows for changes through generations according to environmental variations.

reply to post by Revolution9


Just wanted to add that I am aware of the mutation argument; that life just mutates and some mutations work and so they thrive. However, I just don't see anything particularly haphazard in this universe. I see patterns and laws at work. There is a law and process at work through species; sensors of some sort are in a way reporting back on our experience and fine tunings are always at work (and eventual huge adaptations over many generations).

mOjOm
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Ok, I'm still a bit fuzzy on the Semiotics part. I'm reading about it as we speak so I sorta get it, but not sure why it is so important in what you're saying.

Do you mean that because of the complexity of DNA that it must have a creative designer??? That because of the "coding" and information content being of such a high level of complexity, it is a Top Down process rather than bottom up???

In semiotics, a sign is something that can be interpreted as having a meaning, which is something other than itself, and which is therefore able to communicate information to the one interpreting or decoding the sign. Signs can work through any of the senses, visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory or taste, and their meaning can be intentional such as a word uttered with a specific meaning, or unintentional such as a symptom being a sign of a particular medical condition.

There are two major theories about the way in which signs acquire the ability to transfer information; both theories understand the defining property of the sign as being a relation between a number of elements. In the tradition of semiotics developed by Ferdinand de Saussure the sign relation is dyadic, consisting only of a form of the sign (the signifier) and its meaning (the signified). Saussure saw this relation as being essentially arbitrary motivated only by social convention. Saussure's theory has been particularly influential in the study of linguistic signs. The other major semiotic theory developed by C. S. Peirce defines the sign as a triadic relation as "something that stands for something, to someone in some capacity"[1] This means that a sign is a relation between the sign vehicle (the specific physical form of the sign), a sign object (the aspect of the world that the sign carries meaning about) and an interpretant (the meaning of the sign as understood by an interpreter)

Lets look at Peirces theory on semiotics in which he defines a sign as something that stands for something, to someone in some capacity.

He breaks it down by saying there is a sign vehicle(Richard Dawkins/God), a sign Object(Scratches on paper(book)/DNA), interpretant(Reader/Ribosome).

So again we have all three parts of a semiotic system, but they absolutely a hundred percent of the time require a creative mind.

en.wikipedia.org...

Why? In order for a semiotic system to be explained there must be a signifier and information processed by an interpreter. No where in nature do we ever see something in existence like say the ocean portray meaningful information to the beach . Or a Jellyfish portray meaningful information to a cat. It just isn't logical, and not natural. When we see semiotic systems we immediately infer the top-down causation, which is why I believe it makes a theistic world view much more logical.

@op.... Information can exist as an idea or concept without a physical medium. The information in DNA is NOT the same as the DNA molecule. Its like the difference between an ink splatter and a sentence in english written with the same ink. The sentence indicates the presence of an external intelligence. Similarly, the information encoded in the DNA also points to the original source of the information.

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio


Actually, he would need to prove that it was in fact a god that did it, which requires locating and examining that god, then establishing a basis by which to recognize it as a god. There's an awful lot of assumptions being made right now, even if it turns out semiotic DNA is a product of intelligent design.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio

 

Actually, he would need to prove that it was in fact a god that did it, which requires locating and examining that god, then establishing a basis by which to recognize it as a god. There's an awful lot of assumptions being made right now, even if it turns out semiotic DNA is a product of intelligent design.

Its impossible to prove the existence of God who is outside our 3 dimensional reality...and from a time beyond the origins of the material universe. Its as impossible as presenting evidence for every single transitional form between the single cell and bipedal mammals. Even if there was direct evidence of God, there would be those who deny it.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Its not impossible. You're just unwilling. That's to be expected.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Its not impossible. You're just unwilling. That's to be expected.

edit on 9-3-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Then its also possible for you to present evidnce of every single transitional form between the original single celled organism and bipedal mammals. Go ahead. If you say you can't, then it means you're unwilling or those forms never existed in the first place.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Proving that something exists that transcends time and space is not possible given our current situation. Hint: We are trapped in time and space (three dimensions).

Can you imagine a 5 or 6 or 7 dimensional object? Didn't think so. Now imagine something that is not quantifiable and is not defined by time. Can't either huh?

How can we imagine something you have never seen? Is it possible? Where does this notion of God come from if we can't use our five senses to detect him?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Our species in 500,000 years old. The earth is four and a half billion years old.
Most scientists agree that life began about three and a half billion years ago. You really expect us to master that information in a quarter of the time it took to happen? Especially given that science took a while to find its feet. But if you happen to unearth Adam or Eve's bones somewhere, I guess we're at an impass. Even though we (non ID) do at least have bones. Lots and lots of bones. And lots of books about them. You get what I'm saying?

bitsforbytes....Where does this notion of God come from if we can't use our five senses to detect him?

The notion of a Higher Being is inborn. It is beyond our five senses. Every human is born with God-consciousness and that is why every culture has a concept of The Divine. It is non-theism that goes against the grain.