Semiotics of DNA. Logical Evidence for Intelligent Design.

reply to post by Quadrivium


You should check out that thread Rhinoceras posted a link to. Just a couple posts above yours.

ServantOfTheLamb

rhinoceros

ServantOfTheLamb
Semiotics cannot be accounted for through the terms of physics or chemistry, and require the input of intelligent life.

Nope. You're welcome to join the discussion in this thread. Good luck trying to refute the evidence. Let's keep it fact-based

I went to your thread and it shows that you are one of the hard headed individuals mentioned in the OP. This argument is not about how we describe the code. It is the fact that parts of the cell exchange specified information, and that the information sequencing is not determined by chemical means. This is semiotic system. Semiotics are only known to arise from intelligent beings.

This reply of yours shows that you either did not read through my thread, or you simply did not understand the point I was making. In my thread, it's demonstrated how this "semiotic system" had a much simpler beginning, and that it evolved over time to the point of what we have now (well the 20 or so different systems that are now known to exist). The genetic code is a clear example of a "semiotics" arising without intelligent beings by natural selection..

reply to post by luciddream


That made things much clearer, thank you!

Is it already time for the "I don't know, therefore God" show? Huh. Must have missed the memo. Oh well, should be interesting watching the creationists get schooled. *grabs popcorn*

reply to post by olaru12


a corner of my mind is open to Intelligent designer, something far from a "god". We could be mistakes lol.

I just like to think about theories and ideas, but no way i am submitting to them without any sort of evidence.

Right now i have no reason to believe in a Designer.

Come one man.... really?



Everyone knows it was Aliens.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

A group of researchers working at the Human Genome Project indicate that they made an astonishing scientific discovery: They believe so-called 97% non-coding sequences in human DNA is no less than genetic code of extraterrestrial life forms.

The non-coding sequences are common to all living organisms on Earth, from moulds to fish to humans. In human DNA, they constitute larger part of the total genome, says Prof. Sam Chang, the group leader. Non-coding sequences, originally known as "junk DNA", were discovered years ago, and their function remained a mystery. The overwhelming majority of Human DNA is “Off-world” in origin. The apparent “extraterrestrial junk genes” merely “enjoy the ride” with hard working active genes, passed from generation to generation.

After comprehensive analysis with the assistance of other scientists, computer programmers, mathematicians, and other learned scholars, Professor Chang had wondered if the apparently “junk Human DNA” was created by some kind of “extraterrestrial programmer”. The alien chunks within Human DNA, Professor Chang further observes, “have its own veins, arteries, and its own immune system that vigorously resists all our anti-cancer drugs.”

reply to post by ZeroReady


That's funny, I don't recall the OP using the word God once, the OP says intelligent design.
It would seem that you have such a deep hatred for God, or psychological obsession with God, that you will use every chance to show it.

There is a man who is one of the biggest "anti-God" evolutionist in the world, but in an interview with (i believe) Ben Stine, he admitted intelligent design is a possibility, but only from aliens, not a God.

He basically gave up his evolution believes to say "Aliens" as long as it was not God. Showing that he only has a deep psychological animosity towards God.

But too help you with your condition i'll ask the OP.

OP what do you mean by intelligent design? And are you saying evolution is not possible, if it is indeed intelligent design?

reply to post by solomons path

Gotta love your intentionally obtuse nature Randy . . . always brings levity to my day.

You seem to handle it pretty well. And the light humor is the attraction. Not the
disrespect. Anyway, considering evolution requires time. How much time would
you say has passed since this common ancester has existed ? Is there some
consensus that is generally accepted or is the question ever even asked ? Please ?

Spell check

reply to post by GunzCoty


Intelligent designers are nothing but this new era "creationist". They can cover it with "science" all they want, its creationism in the end.

ID is another way to get into school and young students head.

After a while... "remember the intelligent designers? well he is god"

reply to post by luciddream


Why can't it be an Alien?

I don't have a problem with Intelligent Design as long as we don't stick with the concept of God as the designer.

What if it was another pre-human race?
Or a interstellar race that did the designing?

Of course like any theory. ID should be just that.... a theory.

GunzCoty
reply to post by ZeroReady

 

That's funny, I don't recall the OP using the word God once, the OP says intelligent design.
It would seem that you have such a deep hatred for God, or psychological obsession with God, that you will use every chance to show it.

There is a man who is one of the biggest "anti-God" evolutionist in the world, but in an interview with (i believe) Ben Stine, he admitted intelligent design is a possibility, but only from aliens, not a God.

He basically gave up his evolution believes to say "Aliens" as long as it was not God. Showing that he only has a deep psychological animosity towards God.

But too help you with your condition i'll ask the OP.

OP what do you mean by intelligent design? And are you saying evolution is not possible, if it is indeed intelligent design?

Actually, it's very relevant to equate "God" with ID, because the term and movement originated through the creationist's legal failure to have creation taught in HS science classes. So, while the term and idea may have been co-opted by the ancient alien crowd, it had nothing to do with extra-terrestrials at it's onset.

There is an external text quote in my first post on page 1 that speaks to this by the very group that started the movement, the Discovery Institute.

Here is a short video that also speaks to the association:

randyvs
reply to post by solomons path

 

Gotta love your intentionally obtuse nature Randy . . . always brings levity to my day.

You seem to handle it pretty well. And the light humor is the attraction. Not the
disrespect. Anyway, considering evolution requires time. How much time would
you say has passed since this common ancester has existed ? Is there some
consensus that is generally accepted or is the question ever even asked ? Please ?

Spell check

edit on 20-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

First, this is off-topic, so I'll answer your question but won't derail the OP's thread further . . .

Generally accepted estimate is 5-7 million years for the CHLCA (chimp-human last common ancestor). However, other estimates have been proposed depending on the method of testing (proteins, X-chromosome, morphology). The differences in age are to be expected though, due to the slow nature of speciation and environmental isolation.

Here is the wiki page explaining it in more detail:
CHLCA

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

You should check out that thread Rhinoceras posted a link to. Just a couple posts above yours.

Perhaps YOU should check it out, as I have posted on it a while back

reply to post by solomons path

Generally accepted estimate is 5-7 million years for the CHLCA (chimp-human last common ancestor). However, other estimates have been proposed depending on the method of testing (proteins, X-chromosome, morphology). The differences in age are to be expected though, due to the slow nature of speciation and environmental isolation.

Well your answer seems on topic. So hopefully I'm not off topic with the question.
Thank you I'll go to your link.

Quadrivium

rhinoceros

Quadrivium
The funny thing is that Evolution has absolutly nothing to say about where we came from.

Are you serious? Evolution clearly argues, based on facts, that all life on Earth (that has been studied so far) comes from a common ancestor

edit on 20-9-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

What definition of "fact" are you using in the above post?
And could you possibly describe this common ancestor.
Thanks
Quad.

It would seem that Rhino does not wish to answer my above questions. Therefore I would like to open them to others. If possible, try and provide links. I may be able to show you something interesting.
Anybody wanna play?

Quadrivium

Quadrivium

rhinoceros

Quadrivium
The funny thing is that Evolution has absolutly nothing to say about where we came from.

Are you serious? Evolution clearly argues, based on facts, that all life on Earth (that has been studied so far) comes from a common ancestor

edit on 20-9-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

What definition of "fact" are you using in the above post?
And could you possibly describe this common ancestor.
Thanks
Quad.

It would seem that Rhino does not wish to answer my above questions. Therefore I would like to open them to others. If possible, try and provide links. I may be able to show you something interesting.
Anybody wanna play?

See two posts above, if you are talking about CHLCA. If speaking of a different species, please state that species and to what other species you want it related to.

As far as fact . . . a piece of information, an occurrence based or observation or experience, something known to have happened.

Or are you, as most creationists who argue against science, conflating the term fact with philosophical truth?

solomons path

Quadrivium

Quadrivium

rhinoceros

Quadrivium
The funny thing is that Evolution has absolutly nothing to say about where we came from.

Are you serious? Evolution clearly argues, based on facts, that all life on Earth (that has been studied so far) comes from a common ancestor

edit on 20-9-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

What definition of "fact" are you using in the above post?
And could you possibly describe this common ancestor.
Thanks
Quad.

It would seem that Rhino does not wish to answer my above questions. Therefore I would like to open them to others. If possible, try and provide links. I may be able to show you something interesting.
Anybody wanna play?

See two posts above, if you are talking about CHLCA. If speaking of a different species, please state that species and to what other species you want it related to.

As far as fact . . . a piece of information, an occurrence based or observation or experience, something known to have happened.

Or are you, as most creationists who argue against science, conflating the term fact with philosophical truth?

In his post, Rhino said......

Are you serious? Evolution clearly argues, based on facts, that all life on Earth (that has been studied so far) comes from a common ancestor 

Please use this for reference to my questions.
Thanks.

Quadrivium

Quadrivium

rhinoceros

Quadrivium
The funny thing is that Evolution has absolutly nothing to say about where we came from.

Are you serious? Evolution clearly argues, based on facts, that all life on Earth (that has been studied so far) comes from a common ancestor

edit on 20-9-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

What definition of "fact" are you using in the above post?
And could you possibly describe this common ancestor.
Thanks
Quad.

It would seem that Rhino does not wish to answer my above questions. Therefore I would like to open them to others. If possible, try and provide links. I may be able to show you something interesting.
Anybody wanna play?

The factuality of evolution is off-topic, but by 'facts' I mean empirical evidence. As to the common ancestor of all known life on Earth (Archaea, Bacteria, Eukarya), it's quite given that it must have been a prokaryotic (in the sense that it had no nucleus or organelles) cellular organism, which had the general DNA->RNA->Protein "dogma" going.





Although many observations support the notion that there was a lot of horizontal gene transfer in early evolution so the tree of life is really more like a network. Note, the pic below just demonstrates the concept. The first pic is based on 16S rRNA gene and the eocyte stuff on 50-100 concatenated universal proteins. I think the trees are rooted on midpoint.

ServantOfTheLamb

rhinoceros

ServantOfTheLamb
Semiotics cannot be accounted for through the terms of physics or chemistry, and require the input of intelligent life.

Nope. You're welcome to join the discussion in this thread. Good luck trying to refute the evidence. Let's keep it fact-based

I went to your thread and it shows that you are one of the hard headed individuals mentioned in the OP. This argument is not about how we describe the code. It is the fact that parts of the cell exchange specified information, and that the information sequencing is not determined by chemical means. This is semiotic system. Semiotics are only known to arise from intelligent beings.

This is a cop out. That other thread is more than good enough for you to post your opinion in. But instead of entering into an evolutionist's thread and contributing to it, you want to create yet ANOTHER creationist thread with scientific half-truths. You and I both know where this thread is going. It's going to become another echo chamber for creationists to post a bunch of scientific half-truths and lies while continually ignoring all the evidence provided by the evolutionists.

reply to post by grey580


Of course, it could well be aliens, seeds, or we could even be a human colony sprouted from a microbe... i like the ID theory a lot like i mentioned earlier, it opens up parts of the brain... but thats it, i just like the idea.

I just like the idea of big bang theory as well , however, if i were to compare ID and the big bang... my logical side would lean toward the big bang, just a tad bit.

In the concept of Creation and the Evolution, the Evolution sides offers me much more data to lean with, while on the creationist side, not much.

So pretty much all the theory out there.... i never 100% with it, heck not even 95%... but many theory like the evolution i support for the low low price of 90.99%. Heh, jokes aside, certain theory i lean more but never accept.


Out of all the theory proposed(that are hard to explain), evolution makes the most sense so far, however evolution does not explain origin but i am happy to know when we find it, until then, no one is gonna knock on my door and say, "i know who created us, please join us"...