Semiotics of DNA. Logical Evidence for Intelligent Design.

Okay, so whenever I enter this debate this is the first evidence I pull up for Intelligent design. Each word in the sentence you just read has a semiotic dimensions(they carry meaning). There are semiotic dimensions within DNA, whether we are observing it or not.

Here is an example of how our genetics have semiotic dimension:

Transcription is the first step of gene expression, in which a particular segment of DNA is copied into RNA by the enzyme, RNA polymerase. Both RNA and DNA are nucleic acids, which use base pairs of nucleotides as a complementary language that can be converted back and forth from DNA to RNA by the action of the correct enzymes. During transcription, a DNA sequence is read by an RNA polymerase, which produces a complementary, antiparallel RNA strand.

Source

The first step in Protein synthesis is transcription of an mRNA gene from a DNA gene in the nucleus. During transcription, mRNA and DNA exchange information between one another that carries specified information. Let me pause for a second to explain specified information.

a;kklsdjfutjjfjausdkjta;lksdjfias;lkdjfurjfgbuvfuktudadtuiljofpoditioeiasdooitaurutieoutaiirutuetioti

The line of letters above is considered information, however, the information is not specified(it carries no meaning). However, the preceding sentence and the one you read now are information, and it is specified.

That being said, mRNA and DNA exchange specified information between each other whether an observer is observing or not. This information has a semiotic dimension because it is specified information. Semiotics cannot be accounted for through the terms of physics or chemistry, and require the input of intelligent life.

Example, if you were walking along the beach, and suddenly came across your name scratched in the sand, regardless of the physical and chemical processes involved, you would immediately look for an intelligent being as the cause.

I must take a break to say the chemical structure of DNA does not determine the sequencing of the nucleotide bases. 56:30-1:00:00 of this video explains what I mean more in-depth.



Now the mRNA migrates out of the nucleus and attaches to a ribosome. Translation is the next process to occur.

In translation, messenger RNA (mRNA) produced by transcription is decoded by a ribosome complex to produce a specific amino acid chain, or polypeptide, that will later fold into an active protein.

Source 2

Here is another example of information with specified complexity being exchanged within the cell. This all occurs with or without an observer. The purpose of this thread is to get the hard headed individuals to understand that the argument of semiotics within the genetic code isn't referring to the way in which we describe the sequencing, but the fact that the pieces of the cell are exchanging specified information with semiotic dimension. Our version of the code is irrelevant(ACG, ect..) it is the exchanging of information with specified complexity that is important.

Semiotics have never been shown to occur through natural processes, and therefore make a very compelling case for at least the origins of life to have been guided by intelligent design.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


If the existence of intelligence was proof of intelligent design, then most scientist would claim that they themselves are proof of intelligent design. I wonder why they don't? /sarc

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

S&F Nice read. I totaly agree.
I have a bad feeling though that this thread, which speaks mostly of origins, will be blasted by those of the "Evolutionary" belief.
The funny thing is that Evolution has absolutly nothing to say about where we came from.
Quad

Good job OP

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

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Well formed thread!

Now I have to watch it, can't let this pass by even though I don't typically debate this topic as it has no real world application to speak of and there is so much work to be done to save said world.

I certainly sympathize with the postulation.

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.

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)

Well one its not based on fact. It is based on speculation. The origination of a new form has never been documented by science. I will agree that micro-evolution occurs however that is as far as it goes. Macro-evolution has no observable evidence behind it, and until it does should be taken as only a theory.

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.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Ah yes, the never ending misrepresentations of science from the Discovery Institute and Dr Stephen Meyer.

A group who's stated goal has nothing to do with scientific integrity, in fact, it is just the opposite.

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Meyer, who's doctorate is in History and Philosophy, is one of the founder's of the Discovery Institute and the ID movement has no evidence for his claims, despite calls for him to produce evidence for such for over a decade. The same Meyer that refused to testify in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in defense of his claims because he knew it would give the movement a black eye by going up against real scientists like Kenneth Miller.
Kitzmiller v Dover

The presentation that you linked, YouTube video, is based on his book by the same name and only sounds like it has validity to those that are lacking knowledge in the fields he purports to talk about. Here are a couple of examples of actual scientists, in the field, thoughts on his book.

Stephen Fletcher, chemist at Loughborough University, responded in The Times Literary Supplement that Nagel was "promot[ing] the book to the rest of us using statements that are factually incorrect." Fletcher explained "Natural selection is in fact a chemical process as well as a biological process, and it was operating for about half a billion years before the earliest cellular life forms appear in the fossil record." In another publication, Fletcher wrote that "I am afraid that reality has overtaken Meyer’s book and its flawed reasoning" in pointing out scientific problems with Meyer's work by citing how RNA "survived and evolved into our own human protein-making factory, and continues to make our fingers and toes."

Darrel Falk, former president of the BioLogos Foundation and a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, reviewed the book and used it as an example of why he does not support the intelligent design movement. Falk wrote that the book contains many incorrect claims such as "Meyer correctly concluded that no RNA molecule had ever been evolved in a test tube which could do more than join two building blocks together." Falk was critical of Meyer's declaration of scientists, such as Michael Lynch, being wrong without Meyer conducting any experiments to falsify the established work in the field. Falk wrote, "the book is supposed to be a science book and the ID movement is purported to be primarily a scientific movement—not primarily a philosophical, religious, or even popular movement." Falk concluded, "If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public."

To the OP: I would love to see you actually participate in Rhino's thread to debate this . . .



Why is it that when known hoaxers are used as citation in other forums the mods step in and move or close the thread, but when their babble is used in this forum it's allowed?

I may disagree with your view but do appreciate the way that you have constructed the arguement.
Evolution IMHO works in a slightly different analogy, you put some random letters down

Rgfddr if sdwwzxw worm

Through time, the words that are meaningless get removed- evolution- while the words that make sense survive. So through "selection" words and then sentences will form.

reply to post by rhinoceros

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

Shouldn't this actually be an uncommon ancester ? Doesn't seem to be very common to me.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Stop trying to convert everyone to your creepy cult.

You're saying that because information is exchanged in DNA, there is a God. That's not scientific at all. You're just sticking god in where you don't understand science.

Get back to the Dark Ages.

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.

DNA does not employ "semiotics" in the classic sense of the word . . . that is a misrepresentation of the process to pander to those with a philosophical bias. This is not a new claim by the creationist/ID community and been refuted many times over.

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.

An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.

DNA as lanquage?

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.

You have know way to know if semiotic systems can be created only by intelligent beings this is an asumption on your part. Id also argue is DNA a semiotic process or are you interpreting it as one? And if DNA is then i guess we can show at least one example of being created without intelligence. You know whats funny ID picked up on this because 1 man used this argument in a debate unsuccessfully i might add.He was talking about coding but the catch is codong requires intellegence but DNA indeed does coding so is DNA intelligent?

randyvs
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

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

Shouldn't this actually be an uncommon ancester ? Doesn't seem to be very common to me.

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

I wish i was better at biology and chemistry to fully understand whats going on here.

Can somone break down the info so a simple person can understand please?

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


So.... pretty much you are amazed by how transcription and translation works, so only choice you can come up with is god.. ahem.. Intelligent design?

Transcription and Translation is a just a mechanism, the codes gets expressed depending on the organisms environment, not the reverse..

Some organisms feed on glucose for energy, no glucose? then Lac Operon kicks in, some have the ability to covert lactose into energy.

The codes are there, the time to make use of them has not yet arrived, we probably have the code for fins and tails in their too, but they are discarded or mute.

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.

I can agree with "intelligent design" but that doesn't mean life was created by a supreme being.

We could be "test tube" babies in some cosmic lab.