Upright Biped,
Before fleeing the discussion in July, you spent months here at TSZ discussing your “Semiotic Theory of ID”. During that time we all struggled with your vague prose, and you were repeatedly asked to clarify your argument and explain its connection to ID. I even summarized your argument no less than three times (!) and asked you to either confirm that my summary was accurate or to amend it accordingly. You failed to do so, and you also repeatedly refused to answer relevant, straightforward questions from other commenters here.
Here is my most recent attempt at a summary of your argument, from July 22nd:
X1. All irreducibly complex systems are designed.
X2. All semiotic systems are irreducibly complex.
X3. Therefore, all semiotic systems are designed.Y1. A system involving representation(s) and protocol(s) is a semiotic system.
Y2. Protein synthesis involves a representation and a protocol.
Y3. Therefore, protein synthesis is a semiotic system.Z1. All semiotic systems are designed (by X3).
Z2. Protein synthesis is a semiotic system (by Y3).
Z3. Therefore, the protein synthesis system is designed.If you think this is an accurate summary, then tell us. If you don’t, then please make corrections while maintaining the explicit and concise format of the summary.
I reiterate the challenge, with special emphasis on the bolded part above. Note that since you claim that your argument is an argument for ID, it must lead to conclusion Z3 or something similar:
Z3. Therefore, the protein synthesis system is designed.
If it does not, then it fails as an argument for ID.
Also worth repeating are some observations I made earlier regarding your evasions:
Upright doesn’t realize how obvious his predicament is to the rest of us.
Suppose he had a strong argument (or at least thought that he did). Then he would have every reason to make his position clear and to answer questions forthrightly, secure in the knowledge that his argument would stand up to scrutiny and criticism. On the other hand, he would have no reason to evade or obfuscate, as doing so would only create the impression that his position was weak.
Now suppose that his argument is weak, and that Upright knows this. Clarifying his position in this case would be disastrous, as it would lay bare the flaws in his argument and render it vulnerable to decisive refutation. Evasion looks weak, but at least it allows him to pretend that his argument is strong and that the only problem is that people have failed to understand it properly.
So far Upright’s behavior matches the second scenario perfectly. We thus have every reason to believe that Upright’s argument is weak and that he knows it.
You can choose to evade and obfuscate, Upright, but be advised that we know exactly why you do it.
I invite you to prove me wrong. Either confirm that my summary above is correct, or amend it while maintaining its explicit and concise format so that it accurately represents your argument.
Clarify or evade. It’s your choice.
Upright may be preparing to flee from onlooker again:
Upright, This is your “Semiotic Theory of ID”. It is your responsibility to provide an argument in its favor that leads to a conclusion of design, and to communicate that argument to your audience in an intelligible way. You failed to do that here at TSZ, and you’re failing to do it at UD as well.
You claim that onlooker is only pretending (an “adolescent deception”) not to understand your idiosyncratic usage of terms. If your accusation is correct, then there must be plenty of mature people out there who do understand your terms and your argument. Find one who has better communication skills than yours, and ask him or her to lay out your argument clearly, concisely and explicitly, using the style I employed in the OP.
In fact, let’s consider this an open invitation: Anyone out there who actually understands Upright’s argument: Please present it clearly, concisely and explicitly, using the style I employed in the OP, either here or at UD. (Junkdnaforlife tried, but gave up after I pointed out that his or her argument depended on an unsupported premise.)
P.S. Upright, why do you insist on avoiding onlooker’s questions by asking your own? (That’s a rhetorical question. I know very well why you do it.) When I have an idea to support, I can lay out an argument for it without any help from my interlocutors. Why can’t you? You’re whining because onlooker isn’t following your script. Be a big boy and make your case on your own, if you can.
It’s not a question of “smarter” as it is a question of courage.
It takes courage to look at your beliefs and question them when your life is built on them as a foundation.
Dembski said there was no evidence for a literal “Noah’s Flood” but was called up on the carpet for it by his bosses.
He threw his science to the side and said sorry, he’ll revisit what scripture said about the flood.
That’s where ID sits, as a wall protecting a literal interpretation of the Bible.
That’s why “Darwin” leads to atheism which leads to Hitler and Stalin which shows the danger of abandoning scripture.
IDists need courage to look at the creation stories in the Bible and say, are they truly historical.
If I was an ID proponent I would have a “semiotic” theory of ID that I could back up in two short paragraphs.
I would choose common terminology that everyone understood without requiring them to accept new definitions for those terms.
If someone asked me a question, I would answer it instead of wasting three times the effort to evade it.
I would like to see UB and keiths trade places for a debate.
Let UB see what a proponent of a theory has to supply while UB can try to find holes in that “theory” and knock it down.
The point is not to have a “winner”, but to show the ID side how to properly back up a “theory”.
I think we understand the theory just fine. We are just seeing if UBP can attach it to ID without assuming his conclusion.
we have spotted him the semiotic part. Now he needs to prove a negative. That the system could not have evolved. That’s the ID movement in a nutshell. The assertion that you can prove a negative by thinking or reasoning about it.
There’s another part of UprightBiped’s comment that I find even more disturbing than his premature gloating (and more than the weirdness implicit in that “adolescent” slur):
<blockquote>… Having refused to answer a simple question, you now claim that by using this example, I am being “non-responsive” to your question. The reasons for your claim are certainly not obvious, particularly since giving examples is virtually synonymous with giving an explanation … </blockquote>
I don’t get it. Since when is giving an example “virtually synonymous” with giving an explanation? Ever? Particularly in this discussion, when a major part of the problem people have with UB’s so-called proof is not understanding what UB thinks is the import of examples already given. Also not understanding why UB rejects some – such as Libby’s patio table hole – such as the example of autocatalysis given just above – while accepting others, in what appears to those who lack “understanding” to be solely based on whether UB can explain them away, or not.
Attempting to educe new knowledge in a student by providing multiple examples and encouraging the student to make a generalization about them may be a valid method. I think we teach kids what “tree” means by showing them lots of different specific examples of trees and allowing them to form a generalization that “tree” is well, umm, tall … branched … leaves on branches … etc. But I don’t think that ever substitutes for actually explaining the concept of “tree”. Do you figure that UB really thinks examples and explanations are virtually synonymous, or is that just a little dissembling UB does to save face?
Well, darn, looks like my attempt to get blockquotes didn’t work this time and I don’t see what I did wrong – but I think the quote from UB is delineated clearly enough, so I’ll leave it be.
UB never made a case that his “semiotic theory” is a result of an “intelligent designer”.
If he actually is saying that then please explain how the “first” codes were recorded into an “existing cell”.
To be clear, imagine a hard drive that has no data and then….., “information” is recorded into it.
The hard drive has to exist before the “information” is recorded into it.
The “information” also has to “exist”, before it can be recorded onto the device.
So if we have an empty but living first cell, where do you get the “information” from?
If the cell is actually alive, why do you even need “information”?
How do you download “information” into a cell?
If the cell is dead before it gets the “information”, how do you start it living?
Where do you get the “form” of the cell before you get “information” into it?
Mung has some great questions.
The problem is that they’re all questions that UB has to answer! 🙂
The html blockquote delineators work fin inside the little box to the far right of the reply box called “html” in tiny letters. After inserting the blockquote, just click on the nearly invisible dark line under “cancel” to return to the normal reply box. ALL <do something> html commands must be done inside the html box to work.
No longer? When did it start supporting I.D.?
I don’t know what the ghost of Joe is doing here. Anyway, his understanding of Upright Biped’s argument seems to be that it’s an “intelligent designer of the gaps” argument.
I doubt if UB would agree.
Upright is back to lying about Reciprocating Bill and ‘entailment’:
I suppose Upright is hoping that a bald lie about RB will deflect attention from his failure to clarify his argument. It’s safer to change the subject than to risk responding to onlooker’s questions or to my challenge:
How about it, Upright? Do you have enough confidence in your argument to allow it to be presented clearly? Or does that scare you?
Why would you claim that I assert that “inference to best current explanation” is a “form of fallacy”?
If you’re best suspect is the butler, you now have to prove it.
It is not a “form of fallacy” to believe that the butler did it, but a good cop would then try to prove his case with evidence.
If you agree that proof is required before conviction, why is proof not required for ID?
Why does an “inference to ID” not require evidence?
If I’m wrong show me that the “butler of ID” had motive and means.
Now since I’ve answered a KF question, maybe he’ll have the courage to answer one of mine.
How do you download the “semiotic codes” into the first cell?
Poof.
It’s hard to find a flaw in your “poof theory of ID”! 🙂
It seems KF is trying to back away from his inability to answer a simple question after I answered one of his.
Q: KF, how do you download the “semiotic codes” into the first cell?
While UB can’t follow an argument, I have faith in KF’s onlookers, who probably can.
UB started with an *invalid* use of “entailment” to which RB said, that’s NOT valid.
UB then offered a *valid* use of “entailment” to which RB said, that’s valid.
UB’s first use is STILL wrong while his following example is STILL right.
UB muddies the water by trying to claim there was only one usage under consideration.
UB can prove me wrong by printing examples of BOTH cases.
How about it UB?
How does the designer come up with FS?
How does he he know WHAT to design?
If he can’t see into the future, how can he predict what will be required?
Do human engineers at the DoD design complex systems such as the F35 BEFORE they have a spec?
Where does the designer get his “specifications”?
Poof don’t need no lousy specs.
keiths:
“Upright is back to lying about Reciprocating Bill and ‘entailment’”
If we return to my original comment on UB’s use of “entailment,” we see that it was exactly on target, even given his later revisions:
“I find UB’s language nearly impenetrable, in part due to his poor grasp of his own vocabulary. Example: above, he uses “entailments” in a peculiar way. “Entailment” is misplaced in a sentence such as “There are four ‘entailments’ of any such recorded information.” What he is stating, awkwardly, is that recorded information, as he defines it, has four characteristics. Characteristics =/= entailment. Characteristics may be simply asserted, and that all UB has done: made definitional assertions. Entailments do more work, because they necessarily or logically follow from a set of statements or theoretical framework, and hence may generate empirical predictions that test the generating theory. There is no set of statements or theory from which Biped’s assertions necessarily flow, and the above are not “entailments” with predicted empirical consequences. Just assertions, or perhaps proposed descriptions. So while Biped thinks he has demonstrated something empirical about the exchange of information, he has not.”
This exactly diagnosed UB’s misuse of “entailment,” and the cargo cult uselessness of his “entailments” vis making further inferences, or empirically testing his theory.
I wouldn’t change a word.
That’s the “best answer”?
Is that the one you’ll put in front of a school board?
Are you in favour of putting that in science texts?
Do you realize I asked you a legitimate question, expecting a serious scientific response?
Have you even thought about all the obstacles in a designer’s path that would allow someone to draw the inference, that an “intelligent designer” would not have the capabilities of designing “successful” life?
Then show me just one way.
KF has never had the courage to admit the designer faces the same obstacles he assumes are faced by evolution. If functionality is genuinely isolated on unbridgeable islands. Then the only path to design is magic, and magic is not design.
I’m betting that neither UB, KF or “the designer” have any idea on how to download the first “semiotic codes” into a cell.
That’s it though isn’t it?
We have to prove a “working mechanism” and they don’t.
An obstacle is an obstacle to ID or evolution, but clearly not to magic.
Since UB wants to relive the discussion, I thought he’d like a reminder of events that just preceded his retreat:
UB:
Unfortunately, your two short sentences don’t summarize the thrust of my post.
That was:
– Semiotic theory as you describe it is silent on the causation of the entailments.
And,
– Semiotic theory as you describe it is silent on the causation of the transfer of recorded information (itself not caused by the entailments – even though the entailments are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the TRI.)
Therefore,
– Semiotic theory is silent on the origins/cause of the entire complex (“the entailments,” “the transfer of recorded information,” and “a semiotic state.”)
Further,
– Semiotic theory must be silent on competing theories of the causation of the relevant theories, as it is silent on causation generally.
UB:
My point exactly. It would be nonsensical to maintain that the distinction between “the rapid oxidation of fuel” and “fire” is an empirical one when “the oxidation of fuel” is the definition of fire. Yet you claim exactly the reverse vis the relationship of “the transfer of recorded information” and “a semiotic state.”
So, either this claim is not really founded squarely upon “material observation” and is instead a system of definitions, only (if it is empirical, then what distinction is observed?), or the relationship between the elements of semiotic theory are not analogous to the relationship of fire to the elements of the fire tetrahedron, after all.
Upright Biped, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.
Also, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?
Why? And why not?
(And, why won’t you answer this question?)
Earlier, I wrote:
Sure enough, Upright is trying to spin the ‘entailment’ story. He’s also trying to change the subject away from his argument and back to “material observations”.
And:
Upright,
You’re not fooling anyone. Your audience at UD knows that you are trying to divert attention away from your argument and back to “material observations”. Why? Your argument must be absolutely pitiful if you’re working so desperately to conceal it.
Barry probably thought he was doing you a favor by starting that thread. He didn’t realize that underneath the crust of verbiage was a spindly little argument that couldn’t stand on its own. It must be embarrassing for you to let him and all of the other IDers down.
After all this time, all of your bluster, and all of your hollow declarations of victory, you still haven’t summoned the courage to present your argument clearly, much less defend it.
Come on, Upright. Don’t be embarrassed. Share the great “Semiotic Theory of ID” with us.
This is the big money question.
Not UB, or Joe or KF want to step up to bat on this one.
IF the “semiotic theory of ID” is supposed to be a possibility, explain how it is possible.
Give us a mechanism that is actually possible and can be studied by students.
Well he has said that a single base system couldn’t evolve into a multi-base system, so I’ll give him credit for leaning toward an actual hypothesis capable of being researched.
This presents an interesting dilemma. If this hypothesis could be operationalized and modeled in software — as Elizabeth offered to do — then I sure UPB would object that the simulation doesn’t model the real world.
So if we are left with real world research we have the word of UPB against biochemists like Szostak as to the probabilities involved.
I have said from early in this discussion that UPB’s semiotic argument offers no value added. It offers no arguments adding to the fact that we do not know how the genetic code arose, and we know that the problem is very, very hard.
That’s really it. That’s the whole thing.We don’t have a detailed scenario for OOL. Something that has been acknowledged since forever, and something made explicit with the discovery of DNA.
The semiotic BS just adds a layer of abstract mumbo-jumbo to what is a problem in chemistry. It’s a kind of negative knowledge — words masquerading as knowledge but in fact tending to discourage research aimed at solving the problem. ID in a nutshell.
That is the whole point, that “non-guided by an intelligent designer evolution” is a better model than ID.
This is because ID does not offer a mechanism that can be analyzed and found to be fit for predictions.
If you think I’m wrong here , show me your mechanism for downloading the first “semiotic codes” into a cell.
And we all knew that, when we couldn’t understand volcanoes and found their actions mysterious, the thing to do was to stick a god in the gap, so we got the volcano gods. And we all knew that, when huge gaps in our knowledge made weather mysterious, the thing to do was to stick gods on the clouds, so we got the weather gods.
So now we all know that, as we don’t yet know the step by step of OOL, then the inference to the best explanation is that we should follow a time honoured tradition, and STICK A GOD IN THE GAP, so we get the “unknown intelligent designer”.
Plus ça change……..
However, many of UB’s gaps are not so wide. Most don’t exist at all.
For example, he includes in his list of phenomena demonstrating the “the transfer of recorded information” and hence “a semiotic state” items such as pheromones, sensory input, animal signaling, etc. for which we already have strong justification for asserting evolutionary origins by Darwinian means. Human gestures and speech, and the theory of mind upon which they are founded, are also strong candidates for evolutionary explanation, at least at their foundations.
So we ask UB: What happens to semiotic theory, and the unspoken (but lurking) implications thereof, when it is shown that a number of phenomena that he asserts demonstrate the “entailments” of the TRI, and hence a semiotic state, in fact arose by natural, unguided means?
Joe, you sound like me begging KF and UB to *demonstrate* that their claims are even possible.
Hear that UB and KF?
People on *both* sides want demonstrations of their claims.
It’s not just us, we *all* want positive evidence.
Onlookers want possible *mechanisms* offered instead of hearing us snipe at each other.
Onlookers would like to know, just how do you download those first “semiotic codes” into a cell?
Mung writes:
Okay, Mung, your thought experiment demonstrates that the effect of pressing a key doesn’t depend on what’s printed on it. Now what? Instead of asking further questions, how about presenting a clear, concise and explicit argument for the “Semiotic Theory of ID”, using the style I employed in the OP? Upright is afraid to do it. Perhaps you aren’t.
What’s the thought experiment supposed to show? If an assignment could be different but isn’t, it means that someone must have designed it? What baloney!
I get sick of programmers thinking they know what they are talking about when it comes to chemical systems. I’m one myself, and the resemblance of ASCII to the genetic code is entirely superficial.
If you want to know what amino acid will get linked to which codon, *you* look it up in a table. Living systems don’t look things up in tables. Molecules have affinities, entirely reducible to ‘matter and emergy’.
There is a molecule with two ends, tRNA. An enzyme attaches amino acids to one end, usually without reference to the other end – it recognises ACC-stem loops. The other end has a binding affinity for mRNA triplets. So frigging what? The codon does not ‘represent’ the amino acid, simply because this lumpen molecule-with-two-ends sits between them in some circumstances – triplets only acquire this ‘meaning’ when they find themselves in edited mRNA, a multiple of three displaced from the Start codon. By co-evolution of the two tRNA ends, and mRNA, a relationship has emerged that we can tabularise, because for most codons it is ‘universal’. All this means is that current life descends from a common ancestor that was no more able to globally substitue a particular amino acid in every one of its proteins than we are – the system was already fixed, and we have inherited that fixity. This does not mean that the system from which they inherited was likewise fixed in every last one of its ancestors, leading back to the OoL.
People are actually investigating this stuff. They have phylogenetic evidence that the ACC stem is older than the anticodon loop. The ribosomal subunit performing peptidyl transferase (the end with which the ACC stem interacts) is older than that docking mRNA. aaRS proteins that link amino acids to tRNA are younger than most proteins of their type, indicating that an ancient mechanism of specified amino acid condensation preceded the modern system’s main protein component.
There is no evidence that the system arose all at once.
UB is slippery. At UD he quotes me engaged in supposed “definition derby.”
UB replies:
But in his missive to Larry Moran:
My emphasis. In his missive to Larry Moran UB states unequivocally that the entailments “are a necessary result” of the TRI, that that result can be observed, and that that observation “confirm the existence” of information transfer.” This once again exhibits the form A -> B. B, therefore A.
Under withering documentation that this is a logically flawed argument, Biped pivoted to the claim that “the entailments” are “entailed” because they are the necessary and sufficient material conditions for the TRI. To make this work, he has to morph this claim:
Into this one:
Which is an entirely different claim. In the first he asserts that the entailments “are a necessary result” of the TRI. In the second he asserts that the observation of the entailments is the necessary result of the TRI, because the entailments are the necessary and sufficient material conditions for the TRI.
Hence he has claimed that “the entailments” are are both results of, and conditions for, the TRI. He was compelled to make these nonsensical, contradictory claims to paper over the above noted pivot – the sort of slippery equivocation that he celebrates as a moment of triumph.
(BTW UB, I am proud to be identified with Diffaxial and Voice Coil.)
“Necessary and sufficient” implies that one thing is the sole cause of another? Or at least a prequisite? So how does the system come into existence? Poof?
What KF has provided is nothing more than an acronym, not a mechanism.
One mechanism for providing an Internet connection is by changing voltage levels on a hard-wired connection such as the Ethernet port on a PC.
Another mechanism is by modulating radio signals on a wireless link between a router and a laptop.
In both cases, I can get the proper equipment and monitor the mechanisms in operation.
I think that is what the onlookers for both sides were expecting, something real form kairosfocus or Joe that could explain “how”.
UB has a “semiotic theory” that lacks a mechanism that can be analyzed.
Joe, please take a shot at describing “something” that could account for how the first “semiotic codes” were downloaded into a cell.
KF, onlookers are waiting to see if it is even possible.
Design is not a mechanism any more than the term art defines a mechanism.
An artist can use painting as a mechanism for expression , or he could use a camera as a mechanism, but an artist cannot use *art* as a mechanism.
A *designer* cannot claim to use *design* as a mechanism.
Joe, please take a shot at describing “something” that could account for how the first “semiotic codes” were downloaded into a cell.
Imagine you’re in front of a school board.
What would you provide to convince them ID has mechanisms?
Joe, KF is on my side.
From KF himself, no specific mechanism, *despite* his claim of intelligence as a cause.
You two should talk to each other more.
Gpuccio was brave enough to posit a mechanism. He asserted that mutations leading to adaptive sequences are poofed into the genome via quantum twiddling, and indistinguishable from stochastic processes. A nice, safe conjecture that is completely devoid of content.
I don;t recall how he accounts for the first instance of the genetic code, but once you’ve accepted magic as an explanation, one needn’t worry about details.
Yes, with a “specification” of the “functionality” required *before* I started designing, unlike ID, which assigns “specific functionality” after the “design” is in operation.
Here’s a valid spec; “Design a circuit that will give me a voltage source that is half of VCC regardless of what VCC actually is.”
Here’s a bad one; “Design a circuit that meets my requirements 3 years from now.”
You will notice the second spec has left some important stuff out.
Onlookers are still waiting to see if KF can actually come up with a possible means of loading the first “semiotic codes” into a cell.
At least KF, identify the problems so that Joe can take a shot at it.
If your side can’t do that, you’ve left UB with a big problem for his semiotic theory, specifically, that arbitrary codes cannot be loaded into a cell.
We all know about human intelligence but any “intelligent designer” that “designed” humans, clearly would be an intelligence that we DON’T know about.
So what was the plan that allowed the “intelligent designer” to reach hisi goal of loading the first “arbitrary semiotic codes” into a cell?
Show me a wiring diagram that might be possible in this case.
Where is the plan and the diagram?
Can you come up with an equivalent?
That is par for ID.
This is the way it is, THEREFORE, that’s the way it was supposed to be.
As KF would know, engineers often attribute “bugs” as “features” but the smart project managers catch them! 🙂
Joe’s method is called drawing the bull’s eye after the arrow has landed.
It has been done by evilutionists also, when they attribute every feature of an organism to selection. Not a good thing, whoever does it.
Intelligent Design’s version of Smart Bombs! 🙂
The best answer is that there is “more than one way to skin a cat-fish”? Yeesh. I’d hate to hear the worst one.
Anyone who thinks you can ‘program’ a chemical system … have a shot at programming a chemical system. You know the ‘spec’ now, ‘cos you have an example system you can reverse engineer.
So code it. Write a few lines in ‘DNA’ and see how you get on. Then think about how you might ‘download’ that into a cell from the info-cloud that you seem to think hovers around chemical systems ever-eager to impart ‘information’ to them by mysterious transfer.
First, though, you might want to learn some chemistry. And work out a way of suspending physics while you assemble your imputed ‘minimal cell’. And maybe wonder why experts don’t give two seconds’ thought to this ‘semiotic’ notion, including the people who elucidated the ‘code’ in the first place. Ideologues one and all, no doubt.
No-one, but no-one, puts the modern genetic code at the OoL. Protein may have existed, synthesised by some other method, prior to the modern code, but the code itself – the very thing all this ‘semiotic’ verbiage seems focused upon – is not considered remotely likely to be an OoL feature. You don’t need protein to make protein. We do, in our cells, but that is a different matter.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/7/1/23/abstract
I have a solid objection to design based on the simple observation that biological “engineering” has major obstacles.
Addressing KF’s concerns about the OOL, I note that no IDist has come up with a means of loading UB’s “arbitrary semiotic codes” into the first cell.
I wonder why that does not cause KF to ask engineering oriented questions that would allow him to come up with a possible design “mechanism” for downloading data to a cell.
For some reason ID stops at the point where ID should start providing answers.
Joe cuts to the core concepts of the ID argument.
Why do KF, Dembski and Upright BiPed not have this sort of clarity?
Upright,
You’ve now been offered four distinct ways to correct your communication failures and get your argument across to your audience:
1. Look at my summary of your argument in the OP. If it’s accurate, tell us. If not, amend it while maintaining its concise and explicit format.
2. Answer onlooker’s questions, so onlooker can do the work for you and recast your argument in the same concise and explicit format that I used in the OP.
3. Get one of the “specialists” to do the work for you. You wrote:
It only took me a few minutes to come up with my summary. A “specialist” who understands your argument well should be able to do even better.
4. Get anyone else in the world to do the work for you (as long as they have better writing skills than you). According to you, onlooker is only pretending not to understand what you’re trying to say. If your accusation is true, there must be lots of people who do understand your argument. Pick one — any one, as long as he or she has better writing skills than you — and ask him or her to summarize your argument, using the concise and explicit format of the OP.
A reminder: You claim to have a “Semiotic Theory of ID” that applies to the protein synthesis system. Your argument must therefore lead to the conclusion that the protein synthesis system is designed. If it doesn’t lead to that conclusion, then your argument fails to support the “Semiotic Theory of ID.”
You’ve been whining about having to answer onlooker’s questions. Okay, if you don’t like answering onlooker’s questions, then pick one of the other three options above. Everyone is watching — and waiting. Will you deliver, or will you fail again?