Semiotics of DNA. Logical Evidence for Intelligent Design.

What if...... this designer or "god", alien, three headed spider, what have you... designed DNA so that it would evolve... mind blown!!

Jokes aside, there's a lot we understand about DNA and a lot of stuff we don't understand about it. As far as I'm concerned this topic falls under the category of "unanswerable questions" along with where did all this come from, what was there before the big bang, who am I??... etc.... at then end of the day we can only give our informed opinions about the case

reply to post by Biigs



Semiotics isnt biology its used in human studies. Its used for developing if there is a code code breakers can use this process to decide if there is meaning behind say random letter sequences they find. Its also used to help track down origins of languages. Lets say we have a picture of a car and one a really close up picture if same car all you see is color. one picture conveys information.You know its a car even though in reality its just a picture.The other conveys no information to you other then a color so you dont associate it with anything other then of course the color blue.You have no way of knowing its a car. Well your brain processes signs you see an egg you know it came from a chicken this is the argument that ID has started using if DNA has meaning and we know this then something had to give it meaning.Its a false argument however as humans are interpretations are flawed we see things in clouds in toast our mind is set up to see signs even when there not there.

Bottom line is this really doesnt apply to DNA its miss applying science like trying to use the laws of thermodynamics to explain gravity.

rhinoceros

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.

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

How is the factuality of evolution off topic? The OP claims DNA came about by ID, you claim it could have evolved by natural process.
Please show me the empirical evedence for all animals having a common ancestor. As I said earlier, I will gladly accept links to any scientific sites.

Quadrivium
How is the factuality of evolution off topic? The OP claims DNA came about by ID, you claim it could have evolved by natural process.

OP doesn't negate common ancestry, but only how life started.

Please show me the empirical evedence for all animals having a common ancestor. As I said earlier, I will gladly accept links to any scientific sites.

There's a nice node with all animals in Figure 1 of this article. Should we discuss the science behind it?

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?

Intelligent design means I believe the creation of the universe and life itself were guided by a being with its own will. I personally believe it is the Christian God. That is not the reason for this post. The post is to show that a God exist not which one. Why? One must have belief IN God before they can believe THAT God.

Krazysh0t

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.

I have not ignored any evidence. There are some people who ignore reason. Why waste the time arguing with them?

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Intelligent design means I believe the creation of the universe and life itself were guided by a being with its own will. I personally believe it is the Christian God. That is not the reason for this post. The post is to show that a God exist not which one. Why? One must have belief IN God before they can believe THAT God.

Huh. Looks like you have more work cut out for you than I thought.

reply to post by Quadrivium

The OP claims DNA came about by ID, you claim it could have evolved by natural process.

They are actually Stephen Meyer's claims and they have been refuted in both my initial post and Rhino's thread. Can you further the discussion on the OP or are you just going to ignore them and pretend it didn't happen?

Please show me the empirical evedence for all animals having a common ancestor.

Rhino already posted evidence going all the way back to parkaryotic level. Can you provide evidence to the contradict his post?

If you are going to ignore that here are a few more.

Psuedogenes

Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations

Evidence for Common Descent wiki

What makes these homologous similarities particularly suggestive of common ancestry in the case of cytochrome C, in addition to the fact that the phylogenies derived from them match other phylogenies very well, is the high degree of functional redundancy of the cytochrome C molecule. The different existing configurations of amino acids do not significantly affect the functionality of the protein, which indicates that the base pair substitutions are not part of a directed design, but the result of random mutations that aren't subject to selecti

Cytochrome C - protein redundancy - DNA redundancy

Morphology

A strong and direct evidence for common descent comes from vestigial structures. Rudimentary body parts, those that are smaller and simpler in structure than corresponding parts in the ancestral species, are called vestigial organs. They are usually degenerated or underdeveloped. The existence of vestigial organs can be explained in terms of changes in the environment or modes of life of the species.

A lot more evidence

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

I have not ignored any evidence. There are some people who ignore reason. Why waste the time arguing with them?

Same reason Jesus did. You'd know more about that than I would. Although for accusing people of ignoring reason, you seem to be ignoring a lot of stuff being posted that refutes your argument.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Should have hit refresh . . . Didn't notice you answered already, sorry.

Well I added a few other areas . . . not that they'll be read.

luciddream
reply to post by Biigs

 

OP is pretty much amazed how protein is made, he gives the credit to god.

Transcription: DNA unfolds, produces a messenger RNA(mRNA), which is a copy(opposite) of the DNA, it leaves the Nucleus(where DNA resides) thru pores, into the cell's Cytoplasm.

Translation: Once in cytoplasm, the mRNA goes to Ribosomal RNA(rRna), which makes protein according to the codes on the mRNA.



DNA is the customer.

mRNA is the purchase order.

rRNA is the warehouse worker.

Protein is your purchase.

You misunderstand the argument.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I have not ignored any evidence. There are some people who ignore reason. Why waste the time arguing with them?

Same reason Jesus did. You'd know more about that than I would. Although for accusing people of ignoring reason, you seem to be ignoring a lot of stuff being posted that refutes your argument.

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

No one has refuted this argument yet. All I see is people describing that information is exchanged and passed through chemical means. Where did the information come from? Who or What put specified information with complexity into our biology?

ServantOfTheLamb

Krazysh0t

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.

I have not ignored any evidence. There are some people who ignore reason. Why waste the time arguing with them?

Total cop out . . .

You posted an OP that cited, what you thought, was strong evidence for design. It's been shown that, by Rhino's detailed thread and by my initial post, that Meyer is supplying false information and is wrong. Bottom line, your OP is conjecture based on a misrepresentation of the actual processes involved. Neither you nor Meyer have the empirical evidence to back the claim made in the OP.

Instead of addressing this you go straight to a logical fallacy (sophistry) by claiming those that refute your claims are "ignoring reason" . . .

Intellectually dishonest, at best, and proves you don't know enough about the subject you claim to be false.

ServantOfTheLamb

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I have not ignored any evidence. There are some people who ignore reason. Why waste the time arguing with them?

Same reason Jesus did. You'd know more about that than I would. Although for accusing people of ignoring reason, you seem to be ignoring a lot of stuff being posted that refutes your argument.

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

No one has refuted this argument yet. All I see is people describing that information is exchanged and passed through chemical means. Where did the information come from? Who or What put specified information with complexity into our biology?

Another logical fallacy . . . The claim was that DNA is logical evidence for ID. However, all refutations to your claim show that no designer is needed. Furthermore your main citation comes from Stephen Meyer, who has been shown to be wrong and severely misrepresenting the processes he talks about.

Therefore the whole premise of your OP is false . . . There is no reason fill in with a god of the gaps entity. You are talking in circles and moving the goalposts.

reply to post by rhinoceros


The reason I won't join your thread is because it isn't the same argument. I am arguing that ID answers the question to the origin of the information within DNA. Your thread only describes how we interpret the information in DNA. It does not answer how the specified information came to exist within life forms. Science cannot answer this question. Information is on a mental plane not a physical one. You say the fact that the information repeats refutes ID? How so?

reply to post by solomons path


No rhinos thread does no dispute this argument. It simply describes how we interpret the information in DNA. It does not explain how specified information exist within the biology of life.

rhinoceros

Quadrivium
How is the factuality of evolution off topic? The OP claims DNA came about by ID, you claim it could have evolved by natural process.

OP doesn't negate common ancestry, but only how life started.

Please show me the empirical evedence for all animals having a common ancestor. As I said earlier, I will gladly accept links to any scientific sites.

There's a nice node with all animals in Figure 1 of this article. Should we discuss the science behind it?

Thanks Rhino,
I had to read some sections twice to get through the page. I have saved fig.1-3 to study and look through more later.
The link you provided seems to be a compelling hypothesis. It is not however empirical evedence. Nor is it *fact* using the definition provided by Solomon's path.
Quad

ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

The reason I won't join your thread is because it isn't the same argument. I am arguing that ID answers the question to the origin of the information within DNA. Your thread only describes how we interpret the information in DNA. It does not answer how the specified information came to exist within life forms. Science cannot answer this question. Information is on a mental plane not a physical one. You say the fact that the information repeats refutes ID? How so?

Ignoring the question (logical fallacy) . . . circle, circle, circle.

All of the information provided to you in this thread and Rhino's shows how the information arises through natural selection without the use of a supernatural agent. RNA, and later DNA, didn't start out with "all of the information within the DNA". It started out much more basic and information built up over time through natural selection and mutation.

This information was provided for you, yet you keep claiming nobody has explained it. Either you just don't understand any examples that have been provided for you (too dense) and are too lazy to read through the links, or you are being intentionally obtuse. I'm willing to bet it is the latter.

EDIT - Furthermore, if you were really interested in learning the "how", the information is easily found on the web through a simple search.

Why don't we just connect some dots? It's pretty easy to put this together using 'semiotics' itself.

'semiotics' (the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation)

and 'language' (the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way)

or 'alphabet' (a set of letters or symbols in a fixed order, used to represent the basic sounds of a language; in particular, the set of letters from A to Z)

of DNA, or genetic 'code' (a system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols substituted for other words, letters, etc., esp. for the purposes of secrecy.)

Clearly, there is a 'relationship' (the way in which two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected, or the state of being connected)

between the 'creator' (a person or thing that brings something into existence. synonyms:author, writer, designer, deviser, maker, producer;

and it's 'design' (a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made. synonyms: plan, blueprint, drawing, sketch, outline, map, plot, diagram, draft, representation, scheme, model)

displayed in 'words' (mark -letters, words, or other symbols- on a surface, typically paper, with a pen, pencil, or similar implement. "he wrote his name on the paper"
synonyms: put in writing, write down, jot down, put down, note, take down, record, register, log, list)

or 'logos' (the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ)

the 'monogenus' (Monogenēs (μονογενὴς) is a Greek word which may be used both as an adjective monogenēs pais only child, or only legitimate child, special child, and also on its own as a noun; o monogenēs "the only one", or "the only legitimate child")


...In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made...

...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...

This is the concept of creationism. It is the semiotics of the logos in written language and the relationship to DNA. It is the structure of these logos that creates life by moving us emotionally and establishing a connection and relationship between reader and what is written. It is the concept of conforming by means of the heart to what is being written and/or preached. This is the 'creation' that is being spoken of. This is the power of 'God' though his word. This is the way man has employed this power and delivered it to others.

The romanticism experienced by the religious is a 'marriage' between themselves (a host) and the dogma they have been delivered (parasite). This concept is everywhere and is much deeper than what I have outlined.

The "truth' really is in the gospels in that it is the "example" and blueprint of this concept. It says so all over the place but people fail time and time again to see that the gospels are there to expose this concept and warn of it.

The "truth" of the gospel is that it preaches seeking within ("seek ye first the kingdom"..."the kingdom is within")

and to fear God. "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell"

but there is a "god", the one within who resides in the heart and his name is Love. This is the way we are intended to procreate, through our own heart in love with our spouse. Not by these traditions. Not under the conditions that shape and form our hearts for us through fear. You see how the truth is there hidden in plain sight, knowingly deceiving for those who rebel against their own heart and go the wrong way. "the whole need not a physician"....."take heart"....."in the bossom of the father"...."god is love"....."I desire mercy, not sacrifice"

so where did this example lead in the end? "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

where has that gotten us so far? what does our end look like if we are to follow him? the prophecy Revelation?

And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!

what's done is done and we all have been influenced is some way by this but we must be wise and bold enough to stand up for ourselves against this oppression that is evangelized EVERYWHERE. Follow your heart so as to create yourself! We are told so often that we are evil that we fear what we might find within, but the evil is being fed to us while the good within our heart is constantly vexed with anguish, crying and pleading with us to let its voice be heard. We are too quick to abandon our first love out of fear for our own salvation, preferring a hero rather than our own ability to save ourselves....

"Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee" -Job 40:14

I apologize for going off in this direction but it is all related, just consider the mental illness that we have all been introduced to through religious dogma and the pressure all around us. This isn't getting any better. The church is ever-growing and the more these self-righteous who are of the 'same mind' recruit, the more pressure our children and grandchildren will suffer from them, without proper guidance.

If atheists believe in love and humanity, then they believe in the true 'god.' How could an atheist know a truth that is in the gospels without having to be shown? How does the Christian express the opposite of this truth (hate) toward the ones how practice what they pretend to know? Its simple, the religious adhere to the dogma that adorns the simplicity of truth. Because this dogma is more attractive like ornaments on a Christmas tree, it is easier to see and acknowledge.

As for creation, Love did have its role in our procreation. Love is the passion within all of us. It is the power that drives all of us. It is the most hated force by the greedy and power hungry and control over us...and they know how to silence that passion by shoving our mistakes in our face, causing self hate and self denial all the way to our cross and conformity to the sickness.

Think about it! Ask yourself how do these religious leaders - who know the scriptures very well and claim to know and fear god - lie, molest children, etc?? surely they don't believe in the consequences, thus god. They know there is not penalty for them as long as they are seen as holy. They know the wrath that is to come is the wrath that will be in the hearts of men when they discover the truth. This is why we are waking up slowly, so as to have time to heal in this truth, forgive and patiently rebuild in love.

I could continue for hours, but I will end the post here. Sorry for the lack of experience in forums and for not introducing myself properly. I will warm up to this and hopefully make some friends here. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

reply to post by pariyzeramiyn


While quite verbose, you are using the same false premise that the OP and Meyer are using. Semiotics. You are also just using one big Appeal to Emotion, a logical fallacy.

The "coding" is not like a language, in the classic sense. The bases are not static. The arrangement of the bases and their function is determined by their physical properties. I'll post this again:

The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.

DNA as language