Semiotics of DNA. Logical Evidence for Intelligent Design.

reply to post by solomons path

I'm out for the night . . . Friday and my baby just got home! Enjoy your weekend Randy!

All good and congradulations Sol.

To be cont....

Now I'll accept your next planned statement/proposition/trap, as soon as you show me empirical (independently verifiable/falsifiable) evidence of said creator/designe

That's an easy one. Your ancester is my designer.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


After reading your reply its obvious your clueless on what genes are and what they do so read this it will help.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Especially these parts about how genes evolve then rethink what you said as to why we share genes.

rhinoceros

Quadrivium
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

"Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation."

Care to enlighten me how sequenced genomes don't represent empirical evidence?

Simple its that science stuff again and god doesn't like that science stuff because when people understand it they realize he didn't do it.

ServantOfTheLamb

solomons path
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

You seem to be missing the main point, which is in the discussion section, that we can predict descent by comparing how closely related (or not) the sequencing is.

What predictions does design hypothesis make on this? And how have they verified or falsified these predictions? How does sequencing of cytochrome-C similarity aid the designer and for what function? Where is the evidence of said designer?

You are doing the same as Quad . . . taking empirical evidence confirming predictions made in hypotheses designed around physical laws and the rules of Evolutionary Theory . . . then saying "yep that's design". Yet still no falsifiable predictions or standard set of rules for design hypothesis or what function these processes are designed for. See the last couple paragraphs of my response to Quad.

You guys remind me of the Christian missionaries that first travelled to China and Japan . . .

In the sixteenth century European Christian missionaries first came to China and Japan. In meeting the Buddhists of China and Japan, the missionaries saw many things that reminded them of Christianity. They saw similarities in the Buddhist and Christian services. They thought they also saw similarities in Christian and Buddhist books and doctrines.

The early Christian missionaries were disturbed by these apparent similarities. They decided that Satan had invented a counterfeit Christianity to lead people astray and to keep them from following the true Christian teachings.

Christians worship an almighty, all merciful God who is the Creator of Heaven and earth. Shin declares the object of its religious refuge to be the Buddha of Endless Life and Light. This Buddha is all merciful and omniscient, but he is neither the Creator nor regulator of the world.

Christians believe that all people in the world must accept Christ, and missionaries undergo all sorts of hardship to bring the gospel of Jesus to all mankind. Christians "have a story to tell to the nations." They go to teach and elevate people. Christianity teaches that God, himself uncaused, is the cause of all things. Moreover, God continues to take an active interest in his creation and directs and manages it according to his own wisdom. Christians believe that God will hear and answer prayers. Christianity holds that the law of cause and effect operates according to the pleasure of God.

But Shin Buddhism, being non-theistic, has no concern with prayers. All things operate in accord with a strict law of cause and effect, and not even Amida Buddha can violate this law to bring us salvation. Amida Buddha himself, in fact, arose in accord with this law of cause and effect. Shin maintains that the law of cause and effect is an eternal, immutable law within the universe.

Christianity finds evidence of its truth in the fact that all people will accept it. Shin takes universal acceptance as a sign of not being a true doctrine.

Shin is a rational teaching, presenting the ancient truths of Sakyamuni Buddha's message in a uniquely modern garb.

Shin and Christianity each are completely different from the other.

How many times am I gonna have to tell you, that you are misunderstanding the argument. I am not refuting the chemical and physical processes involved with DNA. I am stating that these chemical and physical processes cause an exchange of information with semiotic dimension...I do not understand why you keep going in depth with physical and chemical processes....Regardless if you are right and there used to be nucleotide bases that turned into RNA that turned into DNA(which is only a theory not proven fact like you pretend it is) there is still an exchange of information with specified complexity. The fact that the information has semiotic dimension is what I claim is proof of ID not the physical aspects of DNA.

What he has been trying to tell you is chemistry.Chemical reactions can only happen a certain way if conditions are present a chemical reaction occurs. Chemistry is bound by its own set of laws and chemistry will all ways give you the same results it has to. The point your missing is DNA itself is nothing more then Deoxyribonucleic acid a simple molecule that creates chains. It can be nothing else it litterally had to be what it is thats chemistry.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Its hard to define this line, I would almost agree in that sense.

Certain stimuli (in semiotics) certainly effect this process as a whole due to our response and the changes that inevitably occur in our lifestyle -(just think of how most Christian converts change and become self-righteous, entitled, discriminatory, isolated and "chosen")- but can it account for changes in DNA over time? I will maintain that semiotics influence this process including those in language. Nature itself communicates in the same way. This is how a flower is able to evolve to produce a wasp-shaped bud in order to attract an actual wasp for pollination. In nature, everything is a result of a natural reaction to stimuli in the environment. Those stimuli are semiotic in essence. Language was designed around that essence, hence the pictographic origin of alphabets. Those symbols were taken from nature and given sound based on natural understanding of the reaction those sounds promote...which was found in observation of nature, which also relates to semiotics. Nature "chose" or "selected" continuation of life, therefore learned through evolution by trial and error, so to speak. This is semiotic in essence. For stimuli that promoted life, nature rewarded the reproductive process with pleasure (orgasm?). For stimuli that promoted death, nature responded by inflicting pain to those sort of things that would result in death. We all know this. It is imitated in our culture just as all of the patterns of nature using semiotics. The problem is that this pattern can be manipulated to promote unnatural responses, just as most religions paint an ugly picture of sex or any pleasure for that matter, and positively reinforce destructive behaviors like isolation from the general community and being paralyzed by the notion that their "works" are boastful efforts to please god.

I'll take a stab at cooking up a theory about how this all began:

As men multiplied and increased in knowledge they adapted the ability to think critically and cognitively, rather than solely relying on the ID, provided by nature's instinctual urges. This must have been an adaptation to maintain romantic relationships which communicated positive feelings. This the arrival of the ego must have been the desire to have this life through a conscious experience; a natural desire created by human relationships and the desire to be an individual among the clan. Man decided to know himself. I see this as the point which man (ego) was placed in the garden of eden (pleasure)...he loved the social experience and wanted to "own" it. The expulsion from the garden didn't occure until the super-ego was "created" and delivered to man by those superior in strength and cunning and those who asserted their way of life and their idea of social order, perhaps for the perpose of having more (sexual partners, food, shelter, respect, servants?) than others -a behavior not unlike modern religion with its presence of power, riches, authority...molestation? This knowledge of good and evil was the establishment of the laws of society, most effectively: religion -how does one go about learning right from wrong? Our laws carry ethics handed down by religious institutions, obviously by design and with the intent that society conform to that design. It was delivered long ago in the same way Christianity is evangelized today; social movements and agendas are pressed upon us; media outlets provide a continuous supply of poisonous, yet addictive propaganda, etc. It is a continuing effort and self-sustaining practice. The world is always about to end, we are always sinners, our ego is always to blame, we aren't humble enough, its our fault the world is in bad shape, etc, etc...that is, unless we have a scapegoat and conform to societies' pseudo blame-game. Or unless we conform to a church and dedicate one day a week to reassure ourselves of our personal safety, write a check for 10% of our weekly earnings, receive our weekly message about the scapegoat that had to be sacrificed for our wickedness - its the same structure (with semiotics present everywhere, in everything), you chose which scapegoat you like best.

Otherwise, having exposed ourselves to this practice and then denying it, we are forced to return to our own vomit and sift through the broken shards of our soul with the hope that we can put ourselves back together again. I have been doing this for months. Semiotics is the key ingredient to understanding how all things we are exposed to were created and do relate to one another, in an unnatural and false pattern (this is our confounded language, our fallen tower of Babylon). This sort of undoing of falsehood is deep. Its sick, and I wouldn't delight in creationism while ignorant of who the creator(s) are. But I do I believe we all have something better within us that has been preserved naturally...time to be our true selves.

I believe this discussion is extremely important and even though my posts are more parallel to the topic than in line with it, I believe it is relevant discussion. I just don't know how to approach the topic of DNA and its direct relation to semiotics without a level of anxiety beyond that of which I wish to experience.

dragonridr

ServantOfTheLamb

solomons path
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

You seem to be missing the main point, which is in the discussion section, that we can predict descent by comparing how closely related (or not) the sequencing is.

What predictions does design hypothesis make on this? And how have they verified or falsified these predictions? How does sequencing of cytochrome-C similarity aid the designer and for what function? Where is the evidence of said designer?

You are doing the same as Quad . . . taking empirical evidence confirming predictions made in hypotheses designed around physical laws and the rules of Evolutionary Theory . . . then saying "yep that's design". Yet still no falsifiable predictions or standard set of rules for design hypothesis or what function these processes are designed for. See the last couple paragraphs of my response to Quad.

You guys remind me of the Christian missionaries that first travelled to China and Japan . . .

In the sixteenth century European Christian missionaries first came to China and Japan. In meeting the Buddhists of China and Japan, the missionaries saw many things that reminded them of Christianity. They saw similarities in the Buddhist and Christian services. They thought they also saw similarities in Christian and Buddhist books and doctrines.

The early Christian missionaries were disturbed by these apparent similarities. They decided that Satan had invented a counterfeit Christianity to lead people astray and to keep them from following the true Christian teachings.

Christians worship an almighty, all merciful God who is the Creator of Heaven and earth. Shin declares the object of its religious refuge to be the Buddha of Endless Life and Light. This Buddha is all merciful and omniscient, but he is neither the Creator nor regulator of the world.

Christians believe that all people in the world must accept Christ, and missionaries undergo all sorts of hardship to bring the gospel of Jesus to all mankind. Christians "have a story to tell to the nations." They go to teach and elevate people. Christianity teaches that God, himself uncaused, is the cause of all things. Moreover, God continues to take an active interest in his creation and directs and manages it according to his own wisdom. Christians believe that God will hear and answer prayers. Christianity holds that the law of cause and effect operates according to the pleasure of God.

But Shin Buddhism, being non-theistic, has no concern with prayers. All things operate in accord with a strict law of cause and effect, and not even Amida Buddha can violate this law to bring us salvation. Amida Buddha himself, in fact, arose in accord with this law of cause and effect. Shin maintains that the law of cause and effect is an eternal, immutable law within the universe.

Christianity finds evidence of its truth in the fact that all people will accept it. Shin takes universal acceptance as a sign of not being a true doctrine.

Shin is a rational teaching, presenting the ancient truths of Sakyamuni Buddha's message in a uniquely modern garb.

Shin and Christianity each are completely different from the other.

How many times am I gonna have to tell you, that you are misunderstanding the argument. I am not refuting the chemical and physical processes involved with DNA. I am stating that these chemical and physical processes cause an exchange of information with semiotic dimension...I do not understand why you keep going in depth with physical and chemical processes....Regardless if you are right and there used to be nucleotide bases that turned into RNA that turned into DNA(which is only a theory not proven fact like you pretend it is) there is still an exchange of information with specified complexity. The fact that the information has semiotic dimension is what I claim is proof of ID not the physical aspects of DNA.

What he has been trying to tell you is chemistry.Chemical reactions can only happen a certain way if conditions are present a chemical reaction occurs. Chemistry is bound by its own set of laws and chemistry will all ways give you the same results it has to. The point your missing is DNA itself is nothing more then Deoxyribonucleic acid a simple molecule that creates chains. It can be nothing else it litterally had to be what it is thats chemistry.

I understand that. The chemical composition of DNA doesn't determine the sequencing. Meaning any point on a DNA strand is capable of receiving any of the bases. The only thing said to stop this from occurring is the dimensional space. However, occasionally DNA Tautomerization occurs and the base pairs will swap. They are not a set rule of chemistry. Chemically A can bond with C and G with T.

• Normal base pairing in DNA is A-T and G-C. The tautomers forms are capable of unusual base pairing like T-G and C-A. Tautomers can cause genetic mutations by pairing incorrectly with complementary bases.

faculty.ksu.edu.sa...

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

There is no need to debate genetics, semiotics, information theory or biochemistry. You are simply reiterating Paley's Watchmaker argument. It is as old as the hills, and has been thoroughly debunked.

Perhaps someone has already pointed this out in the thread, which I confess I have not bothered to read since there is nothing new on this topic to discuss. Semiotics is an impressive word but it doesn't really mean much.

reply to post by Astyanax


lol, debunked

How does the cartoon debunk the cartoonist??

reply to post by AbleEndangered

You assume that we are the cartoon and God is the cartoonist.

There is nothing to show that such is the case. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence making it clear that we are the cartoonist and God is the cartoon.

reply to post by Astyanax


Oh, he's not gonna like that...

I'm telling him right now what you said!!

read this carefully:
www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2011/110513.html
www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2011/110513.html

reply to post by AbleEndangered

The study you linked debunks itself:

This project does not set out to prove god or gods exist. Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact.

That is a real time saver.

ServantOfTheLamb

dragonridr

ServantOfTheLamb

solomons path
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

You seem to be missing the main point, which is in the discussion section, that we can predict descent by comparing how closely related (or not) the sequencing is.

What predictions does design hypothesis make on this? And how have they verified or falsified these predictions? How does sequencing of cytochrome-C similarity aid the designer and for what function? Where is the evidence of said designer?

You are doing the same as Quad . . . taking empirical evidence confirming predictions made in hypotheses designed around physical laws and the rules of Evolutionary Theory . . . then saying "yep that's design". Yet still no falsifiable predictions or standard set of rules for design hypothesis or what function these processes are designed for. See the last couple paragraphs of my response to Quad.

You guys remind me of the Christian missionaries that first travelled to China and Japan . . .

In the sixteenth century European Christian missionaries first came to China and Japan. In meeting the Buddhists of China and Japan, the missionaries saw many things that reminded them of Christianity. They saw similarities in the Buddhist and Christian services. They thought they also saw similarities in Christian and Buddhist books and doctrines.

The early Christian missionaries were disturbed by these apparent similarities. They decided that Satan had invented a counterfeit Christianity to lead people astray and to keep them from following the true Christian teachings.

Christians worship an almighty, all merciful God who is the Creator of Heaven and earth. Shin declares the object of its religious refuge to be the Buddha of Endless Life and Light. This Buddha is all merciful and omniscient, but he is neither the Creator nor regulator of the world.

Christians believe that all people in the world must accept Christ, and missionaries undergo all sorts of hardship to bring the gospel of Jesus to all mankind. Christians "have a story to tell to the nations." They go to teach and elevate people. Christianity teaches that God, himself uncaused, is the cause of all things. Moreover, God continues to take an active interest in his creation and directs and manages it according to his own wisdom. Christians believe that God will hear and answer prayers. Christianity holds that the law of cause and effect operates according to the pleasure of God.

But Shin Buddhism, being non-theistic, has no concern with prayers. All things operate in accord with a strict law of cause and effect, and not even Amida Buddha can violate this law to bring us salvation. Amida Buddha himself, in fact, arose in accord with this law of cause and effect. Shin maintains that the law of cause and effect is an eternal, immutable law within the universe.

Christianity finds evidence of its truth in the fact that all people will accept it. Shin takes universal acceptance as a sign of not being a true doctrine.

Shin is a rational teaching, presenting the ancient truths of Sakyamuni Buddha's message in a uniquely modern garb.

Shin and Christianity each are completely different from the other.

How many times am I gonna have to tell you, that you are misunderstanding the argument. I am not refuting the chemical and physical processes involved with DNA. I am stating that these chemical and physical processes cause an exchange of information with semiotic dimension...I do not understand why you keep going in depth with physical and chemical processes....Regardless if you are right and there used to be nucleotide bases that turned into RNA that turned into DNA(which is only a theory not proven fact like you pretend it is) there is still an exchange of information with specified complexity. The fact that the information has semiotic dimension is what I claim is proof of ID not the physical aspects of DNA.

What he has been trying to tell you is chemistry.Chemical reactions can only happen a certain way if conditions are present a chemical reaction occurs. Chemistry is bound by its own set of laws and chemistry will all ways give you the same results it has to. The point your missing is DNA itself is nothing more then Deoxyribonucleic acid a simple molecule that creates chains. It can be nothing else it litterally had to be what it is thats chemistry.

I understand that. The chemical composition of DNA doesn't determine the sequencing. Meaning any point on a DNA strand is capable of receiving any of the bases. The only thing said to stop this from occurring is the dimensional space. However, occasionally DNA Tautomerization occurs and the base pairs will swap. They are not a set rule of chemistry. Chemically A can bond with C and G with T.

• Normal base pairing in DNA is A-T and G-C. The tautomers forms are capable of unusual base pairing like T-G and C-A. Tautomers can cause genetic mutations by pairing incorrectly with complementary bases.

faculty.ksu.edu.sa...

Exactly right but were talking very simple life forms to start so the process isnt that hard. Look start with chemistry monomers are produced you know amino acids. These combine to make polymers we do it in labs all the time. They make photocells RNA replicase and a fatty acid membrane now these cells arent alive just lots of combinations of them think trillions floating around.these protocells start replicating.Remeber at this point still just chemistry we havnt created life! You know what i have an interview i think you should see we can come back later. Figure you need to see what we have found out so far in labs.Then will discuss this further but you should begin to see the idea. But i dont want to lose everyone discussing this either so watch the video and ill post more later.

reply to post by dragonridr

Exactly right but were talking very simple life forms to start so the process isnt that hard

Not that hard in a controlled environment, a lab, a petri dish. And what is even admitted all thrru
your vid Dragon ? Someone is there nurturing. So what science proposes
happening in a hostile environment, seems time and again no more
perposterous then my belief in a diety.

randyvs
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Exactly right but were talking very simple life forms to start so the process isnt that hard

Not that hard in a controlled environment, a lab, a petri dish. And what is even admitted all thrru
your vid Dragon ? Someone is there nurturing. So what science proposes
happening in a hostile environment, seems time and again no more
perposterous then my belief in a diety.

edit on 21-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Your missing the point they arent nurturing what they are doing is finding out under what conditions these things occur. So the lab is attempting to recreate the conditions of prebiotic earth. Its not creating anything what its doing is seeing what happens when you put chemistry under certain conditions. Remember when i said chemical reactions have there own laws and by knowing what conditions these chemical reactions occur also helps us understand the conditions of early earth. Let me give you an example one of the conditions for this experiment is no oxygen since early earth didnt have any and this can also effect the results. All the scientists do is set up the conditions and chemistry does the rest. Though nice try however trying to make it look like chemical reactions need intelligence to occur like it doesnt happen naturally? Let me ask this are you aware they created life in a lab from chemicals?

Never mind.

reply to post by dragonridr

Though nice try however trying to make it look like chemical reactions need intelligence to occur like it doesnt happen naturally? Let me ask this are you aware they created life in a lab from chemicals?

Negative Dragon ridr. Is anyone aware of such a thing ?
And I imagine what you are going to tell me is something pretty insignificant.
With such lack of fan fair and announcement

reply to post by randyvs


well if you got your science from somewhere other then outdated ID websites you would know this. But theres a reason i brought this up it directly answers your question about how base pairs would form on there own.Here ill post the article but i want you to pay attention to how they created synthetic life. They basically inserted a whole bunch of base pairs left and when they came back self replicating DNA had formed.So it must not be as hard as you think it is huh? In two days all that random base pairs(guanine-cytosine and adenine-thymine) assembled itself and formed a brand new life form. See when chemistry is left to do what it does life forms.

On a Friday in March, scientists inserted over 1 million base pairs of synthetic DNA into Mycoplasma capricolum cells before leaving for the weekend. When they returned on Monday, their cells had bloomed into colonies.

www.wired.com...

reply to post by dragonridr


What year was this synthetic life discovery made ?
It must be a date alive in the mind of every scientist ?
And I don't visit ID sites. I'm always here.

Even this pathetic example of hype is unheard of without a petri dish.
The Earths environment right at this moment, is likely
the least hostile it could ever be, to such a random act of
pure chance as this suggests. And it's not happening.
Anywhere. Ever.

randyvs
reply to post by dragonridr

 

What year was this synthetic life discovery made ?
It must be a date alive in the mind of every scientist ?
And I don't visit ID sites. I'm always here.

edit on 21-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Read the article since you asked this question it tells me you didnt take the time to read it. As far as every scientist no probably not i would think its only important to Bio chemists but really dont think a physicist would care for example. Then where ever you get your information on science i suggest maybe start looking into research papers Science makes discoveries every day. Since you opened this thread ive seen you argue about things not being possible but yet know nothing about what scientists have learned. You can never win an argument unless you know all the facts not just the ones you agree with. Now if you like i can continue to piece the creation of life together for you. We have the 2 main parts i showed you how cell membranes can form and how DNA can assemble it self only one more piece to the puzzle and we are done.

I think you realize at least its possible at this point which leads to a question if we can show life can be created through chemical reactions why do you think we need a magical deity to accomplish this?