…- A Sign of Unintelligent Design
In a recent thread here at TSZ William J. Murray brought up the subject of semiosis, to which Allan Miller responded:
Allan Miller: Nice to see WJM has absorbed UB’s ‘semiotic’ nomenclature though. Published nowhere, of course…
It never ceases to amaze me how critics of ID will say anything just be contrary regardless of whether what is said is true or even coherent.
Allen then goes on to describe how he thinks a semiotic system could arise HERE.
So perhaps Allan can be the very first to publish in this new and exciting field of semiosis. More likely though, is that his initial claim was just false. (Probability near 1, IMO.)
How does Allan know what elements need to be present in order to establish the existence of a semiotic system?
There are in fact some interesting comments over in the thread that initiated this OP that I may in time copy over here.
Any claim that Upright BiPed created the terms semiosis, semiotics, biosemiosis or biosemiotics is simply ludicrous.
The claim that WJM has absorbed UB’s ‘semiotic’ nomenclature is likewise ludicrous.
The claim that there’s been no publishing in semiosis, semiotics, biosemiosis or biosemiotics is simply ludicrous.
People who make such claims should not be taken seriously.
[title split by Lizzie]