It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Semiotics of DNA

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
So I wrote a thread on this a long time ago, but I lacked the ability to properly articulate the thoughts. So I will start out by saying that this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather this thread is about evidence based on facts that leads us to the conclusion that life was the product of intelligent design.

The facts:

DNA communicates the directions for a protein in the form of symbols.

Symbols-(especially in semiotics) a word, phrase, image, or the like having a complex of associated meanings and perceived as having inherent value separable from that which is symbolized, as being part of that which is symbolized, and as performing its normal function of standing for or representing that which is symbolized: usually conceived as deriving its meaning chiefly from the structure in which it appears, and generally distinguished from a sign.

AT and CG are chemicals. These chemicals are symbols for mRNA which is then carries those chemical symbols to the ribosome which will then encode the symbols into a particular protein.

This process has intent which is defined as intention which means a thing intended: an aim or plan.

Intent is the product of a conscious design.

DNA has Intent.

Therefore DNA is the product of conscious design.

Very simple this time. I think every statement is easy to agree with, and its pretty much self explanatory. Enjoy.




posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Intent is the product of a conscious design.


Says who?


DNA has Intent.


And I am sure you have established that entirely to your own satisfaction, but certainly not mine.

You have not established that DNA "communicates the direction" any more than gravity communicates a (the) direction. DNA is a particular chemical structure that conforms with the known laws of chemistry and physics, and its results also conform to those laws.

DNA has no more "intent" in the sense of "conscious design" than the FSMFSMs, since it is specifically a result of conscious design.


Therefore DNA is the product of conscious design.


It does not follow.


Very simple this time. I think every statement is easy to agree with, and its pretty much self explanatory. Enjoy.


Very simple indeed......well described.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul





Says who?



A tornado does not have intent. No aim, no purpose. it simply is a tornado. A rock slide is the same. A chair on the other hand has intent. It was designed for the purpose of supporting a person in a seated position. A program has intent. But acts of nature do not. For example, natural selection has no purpose no aim no goal, it simply does as it does. The very word itself implies there was a conscious being.




And I am sure you have established that entirely to your own satisfaction, but certainly not mine.

You have not established that DNA "communicates the direction" any more than gravity communicates a (the) direction. DNA is a particular chemical structure that conforms with the known laws of chemistry and physics, and its results also conform to those laws.


That was a typo sorry. It was supposed to say directions, or instructions. Based on which symbols(codon) the ribosome receives it produces a particular protein. This is communication thru symbols there is no way around it. The information that is exchanged is abstract and it has purpose or intent which is to build a particular protein.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul





Says who?



A tornado does not have intent. No aim, no purpose. it simply is a tornado. A rock slide is the same. A chair on the other hand has intent. It was designed for the purpose of supporting a person in a seated position. A program has intent. But acts of nature do not.


and yet DNA's "action" is an "act of nature".



For example, natural selection has no purpose no aim no goal, it simply does as it does. The very word itself implies there was a conscious being.


So since we are products of natural selection that says there is no design - you are contradicting yourself.






And I am sure you have established that entirely to your own satisfaction, but certainly not mine.

You have not established that DNA "communicates the direction" any more than gravity communicates a (the) direction. DNA is a particular chemical structure that conforms with the known laws of chemistry and physics, and its results also conform to those laws.


That was a typo sorry. It was supposed to say directions, or instructions. Based on which symbols(codon) the ribosome receives it produces a particular protein. This is communication thru symbols there is no way around it. The information that is exchanged is abstract and it has purpose or intent which is to build a particular protein.


You are equating symbols with chemicals - and you have not actually established that premise at all - you simply state it to be true.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul




and yet DNA's "action" is an "act of nature".


Not if it has intent. Acts of Nature do not have intent.




So since we are products of natural selection that says there is no design - you are contradicting yourself.


I think humans were made as they are, so kinda hard to think we are products of natural selection. Natural selection produces variation among species I don't think it creates new species. Lizards stay lizards. Fish stay fish. Whales stay whales. Also this is about the creation of life. Not what happens after life gets started.




You are equating symbols with chemicals - and you have not actually established that premise at all - you simply state it to be true.
[/quote

I am not equating. i am calling them symbols because they do accurately fit the definition of a symbol. I'll give you an example

en.wikipedia.org...

Above is a table of codons and their respective amino acids. The ribosome in the process of translation receives information from mRNA in the form of a symbol which is a chemical having a complex of associated meanings and perceived as having inherent value separable from that which is symbolized. Specific chemicals symbolize specific amino acid chains which build specific proteins. They have inherent value.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul




and yet DNA's "action" is an "act of nature".


Not if it has intent. Acts of Nature do not have intent.


Now you are using circular reasoning - DNA's action is an act of nature - but not if it has intent, and because you say it has intent it is not an act of nature.





I think humans were made as they are, so kinda hard to think we are products of natural selection.


I have no such belief and no such problem.


Natural selection produces variation among species I don't think it creates new species. Lizards stay lizards. Fish stay fish. Whales stay whales. Also this is about the creation of life. Not what happens after life gets started.


In out short time frame evolution is pretty much invisible- we really have no concept of the time that 10-100-1000 million years REALLY is.






I am not equating. i am calling them symbols because they do accurately fit the definition of a symbol.


From the wiki article on symbols:


A symbol is an object that represents, stands for or suggests an idea, visual image, belief, action or material entity. Symbols take the form of words, sounds, gestures or visual images and are used to convey ideas and beliefs.


From Google's "define" function:


symbol
/ˈsɪmb(ə)l/
noun
noun: symbol; plural noun: symbols

1. a mark or character used as a conventional representation of an object, function, or process, e.g. the letter or letters standing for a chemical element or a character in musical notation.
"the symbol r in Figure 5 represents a gene which is ineffective"

synonyms: sign, character, mark, letter, hieroglyph, ideogram
"the chemical symbol for helium is He"

•a shape or sign used to represent something such as an organization, e.g. a red cross or a Star of David.
"the Red Cross symbol"

synonyms: logo, emblem, badge, stamp, trademark, crest, insignia, coat of arms, seal, figure, device, rune, logotype, logogram, monogram, hallmark, tag, flag, motto, token, motif, colophon, ideogram
"the Red Cross symbol"

2. a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract.
"the limousine was another symbol of his wealth and authority"

synonyms: emblem, token, sign, representation, figure, image, type; More
metaphor, allegory

"the lotus is the symbol of purity"

verb
archaic

verb: symbol; 3rd person present: symbols; past tense: symbolled; past participle: symbolled; gerund or present participle: symbolling; past tense: symboled; past participle: symboled; gerund or present participle: symboling

1. symbolize.


you have not shown how DNA fits any of these definitions.




I'll give you an example

en.wikipedia.org...

Above is a table of codons and their respective amino acids. The ribosome in the process of translation receives information from mRNA in the form of a symbol which is a chemical having a complex of associated meanings and perceived as having inherent value separable from that which is symbolized. Specific chemicals symbolize specific amino acid chains which build specific proteins. They have inherent value.


That is not an example that shows symbolism - Everything has an "inherent value" by that measure - since everything is made of chemicals, and all chemicals have "associated meanings" - your point is meaningless.
edit on 17-8-2015 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quote tag



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why would DNA have intent? Replication is simply a fixed chemical process that takes place. How can you think that any chemical process has intent? Imagine sodium and chlorine interacting to make salt. Does the sodium and chlorine have intent to form salt? It doesn't make any sense, no matter how complex the chemical reaction is. Chemistry is just chemistry.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul




Now you are using circular reasoning - DNA's action is an act of nature - but not if it has intent, and because you say it has intent it is not an act of nature.


Lol thats not circular reasons. Things with intent are designed to do something. Acts of nature do not. Circular reasoning would be me saying DNA has intent, because DNA has intent. Which is not my reasoning.




In out short time frame evolution is pretty much invisible- we really have no concept of the time that 10-100-1000 million years REALLY is.


Oh so it happens we just can't see it happen? We also can't see it happen in the fossil record the pre-cambrian explosion is a big no no for darwinian evolution.




you have not shown how DNA fits any of these definitions.


Semiotics is the study of signs and symbols, which is why I used the definition I gave in the OP from dictionary.reference.com. Read that definition.




That is not an example that shows symbolism - Everything has an "inherent value" by that measure - since everything is made of chemicals, and all chemicals have "associated meanings" - your point is meaningless


Wrong. Salt forms based on chemistry, and if there were a chemical that would cause a more stable reaction based on the number valence electrons then that chemical would form instead of Salt. Protein synthesis does not work that way. The protein that gets made is based on the instruction of the genetic code.

In protein synthesis the correct anticodon does not have to be matched up with the right codon. Meaning the chemicals do not have to react the way they do. The error rate in protein synthesis is about 1 in 10000. Errors do occur, and there are mechanisms in place to handle these errors. My point here is the science is simply just not as you say. They don't just bond because of chemical necessity. What you are getting confused on is the fact that a chemical can be just as much a symbol as a letter in language. Letters sybomlize a sound and certain orders of sound symbolize certain words. Chemicals in protein sythesis symbolize certain amino acids. Certain amino acid chains build certain proteins.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: StanFL

Because the chemical occurrence is not physically required to occur in that fashion. The error rate is about 1 in 10000. The reason one occurs more often is because other mechanisms are set in place to interpret which route to take based on the energy level, which is called kinetic proofreading. There is also Conformational proof reading which is a form of proofreading in place based on structure. The chemicals don't have to bind in certain way, but mechanisms are in place to ensure that they do. This is why they are chemical symbols and not just chemical reactions.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Maybe instead DNA is the product of conscious design it is conscious. It has a memory it can problem solve and works over time periods far exceeding our own...



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

you have no idea what you are talking about - you cannot just make up definitions to suit your own end purposes such as your idea of circular reasoning is nonsense, the definition of semiotics STILL doesn't make DNA "signs or symbols" - those are entirely your own inventions.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join