I have been having an exchange with Upright Biped here about his perception of how his “semiotic theory of Intelligent Design” has fared among sceptics. In the hope that he will be prepared to re-engage with us in addressing a few outstanding points, I post his argument, originally published at lawyer Barry Arrington’s Uncommon Descent blog
1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc).
2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.
3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).
4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).
5. If that is true, and again it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. In fact, this is the material basis of Francis Crick’s famous ‘adapter hypothesis’ in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes.
6. It then also follows that this second arrangement must produce its unambiguous function, not from the mere presence of the representation, but from its arrangement. It is the arbitrary component of the representation which produces the function.
7. And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information.
8. During protein synthesis, a selected portion of DNA is first transcribed into mRNA, then matured and transported to the site of translation within the ribosome. This transcription process facilitates the input of information (the arbitrary component of the DNA sequence) into the system. The input of this arbitrary component functions to constrain the output, producing the polypeptides which demonstrate unambiguous function.
9. From a causal standpoint, the arbitrary component of DNA is transcribed to mRNA, and those mRNA are then used to order tRNA molecules within the ribosome. Each stage of this transcription process is determined by the physical forces of pair bonding. Yet, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by pair bonding; it is determined by the aaRS. In other words, which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS. This is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation.
10. This physical event, translation by a material protocol, as well as the transcription of a material representation, is ubiquitous in the transfer of recorded information.
CONCLUSION: These two physical objects (the representation and protocol) along with the required preservation of the arbitrary component of the representation, and the production of unambiguous function from that arbitrary component, confirm that the transfer of recorded information in the genome is just like any other form of recorded information. It’s an arbitrary relationship instantiated in matter.
My personal view is that there are a couple of basic faults with UB’s argument. It appears to address origin-of-life (OOL) theories rather than than the theory of evolution (ToE) and it is a default argument; “OOL fails, therefore Intelligent Design”. I have no training in logic, so Reciprocating Bill’s comments, later taken up by keiths, have been a bit over my head. It is a shame that UB seemed to lose interest in defending his argument before we got to the meat of the biochemistry, where I have a little knowledge, now outdated, as this is where his argument really falls apart for me. I think the attempt to link semiosis to protein synthesis just fails utterly.
I invite other critics of Upright Biped’s argument to briefly summarize, paste or link their queries or objections in the hope that Upright Biped may find the time to respond.
ETA:
Elizabeth has devoted some considerable time to considering Upright Biped’s semiotic argument as previous threads, such as this one demonstrate.
Joe:
It’s in the Constitution?
Have you checked them all?
Semiotic systems exist to communicate something from one intelligent agent to another. So either this isn’t one or someone has picked a very arcane communication medium. Or, we’ve broadened the term ‘semiotic’ to include non-communicative systems, so we can kid ourselves that by doing that, we have proven that agencies (who definitely make the inter-agency communicative kind) must also have made the non-communicative kind. The venerable Creationist art of Definology.
UBP’s semiotic theory is about as airtight as a balloon knitted out of wool.
I cannot understand why, after everything that was pointed out to him, he still believes he has won the day.
This is pitiful. Upright Biped is still trying to claim victory at UD:
What an awkward position he’s in. After admitting to Reciprocating Bill that his argument doesn’t support a design inference, he is now trying to limit the damage caused by that admission. Meanwhile, his argument — already useless as an argument for ID, by his own admission — is also falsified by cases of information transfer that don’t require both a representation and a protocol, as I’ve pointed out. His argument is thus both useless and wrong.
From that position of weakness, he attempts to claim victory, hoping that someone — anyone — will believe him.
It must suck to be Upright.
No, I think Upright loves being Upright. He enjoys saying the same things, in pretty much the same way, and people point out the flaws in the logic, the weakness of trying to analyse systems according to their fit to definitions we use elsewhere. Criticisms simply bounce off the shell, because he already convinced himself through ‘Definology’ of the watertightness of his case. If only one can define it as a symbol system, it must be a symbol system, and there’s only one way to create those, huh gang? He climbs once more to the top of the heap and crows that he still hasn’t been refuted after a gazillion posts. Cue cheers and claps from Mung, Joe and BA. And total disinterest from the rest of the world.
This from the end of November:
Well, I certainly didn’t say agents definitely don’t make systems that one could call semiotic but which don’t convey meaning to or from people. Whether or not we can be justified in calling a particular interaction ‘semiotic’ is just semantic nicety to which the world pays little heed. The word has a usage principally in interpersonal communication or the reading of unintentional signs, which can be extended however far it suits one to do so. If you want to say that the internal operation of a computer program is semiotic, fine. Computer programs are designed. Well done.
But if semiotic systems must have designers by definition, then you have no grounds to make that call for translation. There’s a vital piece of information missing. If semiotic systems don’t have to be designed, then yeah, knock yourself out, it’s a semiotic system. But you can’t then say “therefore Design by definition”.
A ‘genuine’ symbol system would involve conscious agents in some way. Something which acts like a symbol system but involves no conscious agent in its design or operation … that would seem to be one quite important ‘fundamental distinction’. Codons aren’t symbols. They are physical 3D charge distributions in space that physically dock with a complementary charge distribution. That base-pairing complementarity is exactly the same as the complementarity that permits replication – much more fundamental than the complementarity of triplet codons is the complementarity of the two base pairs, and this is a physical relationship, not a symbolic one. My socks don’t symbolise my feet (admittedly, at least one of these had a Designer).
Allan has written extensively on the biochemistry of the system and the flawed rationale for insisting that a “Darwinian” system cannot exist without protein. People who think so seem doggedly determined to avoid the recognition that it is inheritance (genotype) that generates evolution, not phenotype. We can grant that no extant organism can replicate without protein. This is no grounds for insisting that it is therefore impossible. Protein is not the only form of biological catalyst.
Allan:
I don’t think so. If he were so sure of his case, he’d be eager to address criticisms head on. Yet he never does so. He is always evading and obfuscating.
I think he started out believing his argument, but that he now realizes that his critics are right, and that it just doesn’t hold water. He’s too ashamed to admit it, especially in front of all his friends at UD, especially on a thread dedicated specifically to his argument.
Read his last several comments at UD, starting here. I think you’ll see what I mean. Upright is not a happy person.
No, I’m afraid I see the same old cocksure UB.
“No-one has refuted …” amounts to “No-one has been able to persuade me that my opinion that protein translation is a ‘truly’ semiotic system is incorrect, nor that the material observation of the universality of protein translation in modern life does not force as a logical necessity that this system needed to be devised before the OoL.”
One can hardly refute an opinion. If people think that a codon docking a tRNA that has been bound by an aaRS and charged with an amino acid equates to the codon meaning the amino acid, then biochemistry is nearly all about ‘meaning’. But IMO it isn’t, it’s about magnetism – or rather, charge attraction and repulsion. We could spend a few thousand posts debating the relevance of meaning to molecules, but
1) I couldn’t be arsed
2) I’m going to pre-emptively declare victory right now and save everyone the bother. Take it as read that this declaration would reappear in the form “N posts and still no-one has refuted me” were the discussion actually to take place.
Like all arguments from analogy, UB’s is weak, a weakness dealt with by JS Mill and others but still overwhelmingly persuasive to many. And his belief that modern life is representative of everything that ever lived boils down to ‘hasty generalisation’. It might not seem hasty – we’ve looked at everything! – but there are 3-4 billion years’ worth of dead organisms to add to the set. He remains silent on the matter of how the Designer instantiated his thought processes and memories – semiotic, surely?
Combine weak logical arguments, ignore one glaring and crucial exception to your assumed universal, add in a conviction that the system cannot work without all its parts because UB cannot think of a way it would, and you have the Semiotic Theory of ID. Which will never be refuted.
It’s not that important whether UB is really utterly impervious to criticism or is maintaining a front. The simple issue is whether he is on to something with his “semiotic” argument. I get the impression that the consensus here is that it is incoherent, wrong and useless. I have commented at UD that the ball is in his court. Why, for instance doesn’t he publish in “Bio-complexity”? Indeed, why is no-one from the ID community showing any interest in promoting the “semiotic” argument? My suspicion is that his “semiotic” argument is as transparently useless to them as it is to us skeptics.
UB and gpuccio could both submit to BioComplexity if they had coherent arguments. Or even not.
One of the central threads running through Upright Biped’s “semiotic theory” is the same central thread the runs through the arguments of all the wannabe theorists at UD. It is going on at this very moment with KF’s pretentiousness about entropy and the second law in the thread about Meaning and the Brain over at UD.
All ID/creationist arguments come from the philosophical perspective before the Middle Ages, not even Renaissance philosophy; and especially not from our understanding of modern science. Their arguments about the nature of things in the universe still contained all the mysterious, anthropomorphic tendencies, yearnings, and purposes found in humans. Magical relationships among things were seen everywhere.
Reciprocating Bill’s pointed question about the restrictions on mechanisms required for “semiosis” clearly upset UB when it caught UB in a contradiction.
UB got just as angry way back, at the beginning of all this here on this blog, when we tried to pin him down about where along the chain of increasing complexity in systems of matter that semiotic theory takes over from the laws of physics and chemistry.
UB, as with every ID/creationist theorist over at UD, simply do not have a clue about the modern fundamental concepts in physics, chemistry, and biology. Everything to them is about magical relationships among things; and they go about postulating anything they wish about those interrelationships in a manner that allows them to keep some form of supernatural and sectarian world view.
They make no secret of their hatred of “materialism;” but that hatred springs from total ignorance of even the most basic understanding of modern science. These are people from the Dark Ages. Their “philosophy,” such as it is, comes from that period and before. And yet they think they are on the forefront of modern philosophical thinking; or at least are trying to make it appear that way.
Not one of them can pass simple concepts tests about modern science; and not one of them can fathom a simple quantitative calculation involving modern science that clearly refutes their claims. They don’t even acknowledge that such calculations exist.
UB appears to be gunning for a position of “Philosophical Guru of ID.” “Wizard of ID” would be more appropriate.
I have to note that the folks here who have been hammering at UB have remarkable patience in order to put up with all that obfuscation coming from him.
Upright BiPed:
Reciprocating Bill:
Mung:
No, Mung, RB is right. Have you even bothered to read Upright’s argument? It’s right there in the OP:
He’s not merely saying that the system is irreducibly complex. He’s claiming that it is “fundamentally required” in order to transfer recorded information.
Upright has contradicted himself yet again.
Upright BiPed:
The irony will be lost on no one but Mung.
And so is the precursor system, as long as there is replication with heritable variation and differential reproductive success.
That is simply not true, and Upright’s argument topples as a result. Darwinian evolution doesn’t require a genotype/phenotype distinction. If you have replication with heritable variation and differential reproductive success, then you have Darwinian evolution.
Besides, Upright isn’t merely claiming that Darwinian evolution depends on this “physiochemically-arbitrary relationship”. He claims that in all cases, the “transfer of recorded information” depends on it:
Upright’s argument depends on that assertion. The assertion is wrong; therefore, so is Upright’s argument.
So if, “physiochemically” (I’m sure they mean physicochemically), a complex interaction has one form but could have had another, that means … what? That someone chose its form (because systems never settle without intelligent agents making them do so)?
I’ve been using/misusing the term as freely as anyone…
keiths:
A complete non sequitur. A failure in basic logic.
The very fact that something is an arbitrary-relationship proves – to them – that someONE, not something, and certainly not any unguided natural process, had to select between the originally arbitrary options. The mere existence of the arbitrary-relationship is all by itself sufficient evidence that someONE chose it. Yes, it’s literally inconceivable to them for a system to settle without an intelligent agent making it so.
There is no natural weather, there’s only the work of the Rain Fairies 😉
Hey, Mung!
Welcome to TSZ, and congratulations on venturing out of the UD echo chamber.
You wrote:
I’ve explained why Upright’s assertion is wrong. You claim that my explanation is wrong. Can you justify your claim?
Whoa! Mung, you old sonofabitch. And here I thought you were a perpetual Florence Ballard.
keiths,
Do you deny that TSZ is an echo chamber?
You made an of assertion for which you offered no supporting evidence or argument. Your conclusion was a non sequitur. What’s to justify?
You now assert that you gave an explanation in some other post and that my comment should be taken as a claim that your explanation in some other post to which i was not responding is wrong.
What is your justification for that assertion?
That would violate the laws of psychics.
keiths,
No, you offered a hypothetical for which you offered no evidence.
This was answered in the thread at UD so I have no intention of repeating it here. If the argument is appealing to Reciprocating Bill he can repeat it there and argue it’s merits (assuming it has any).
Alternatively, you could start a thread here at TSZ on the published requirements for Darwinian evolution. That might be interesting on it’s own merits.
Mung:
I don’t recall seeing an answer. Could you link to it?
I wrote:
Mung then posted this link, as if it were somehow a rebuttal:
The Genotype/Phenotype Distinction
Mung, do you understand the difference between the following two sentences?
1. Darwinian evolution doesn’t require a genotype/phenotype distinction.
2. There is no distinction between genotypes and phenotypes.
Keep thinking about it until you can see the difference.
In your next comment, you quoted the following:
You’re trying to disagree with the “Darwinists,” but you’re failing even at that. We don’t believe that the first replicator was formed by a Darwinian process.
This pattern is typical for you. Instead of trying to understand what’s being discussed, you mindlessly look for something to disagree with, whether relevant or not. And you tend to fail even at that, as shown by the two examples above. You’re constantly impeding the discussion rather than contributing to it.
Try to do better, Mung. If you can’t be bothered to understand the topic of debate, then leave the discussion to those who do.
Welcome, Mung.
But why? Darwinian evolution, according to you and the other ID supporters, explains very little.
What is much more interesting is how ID explains the current observed data. Or rather how ID supporters claim that ID explains the data as typically very little is actually “explained” in ID.
So, given that according to you Uprights assertion is correct, how does that explain, well, anything at all? Given Uprights assertion, what does ID tell us about the origin of life?
That it was designed? Well, I knew that already (the D in ID clued me in). Anything else?
OMTWO:
Upright is afraid to make even that claim on behalf of his “theory”. Pitiful, isn’t it?
Thank you Rich.
keiths,
Yes, it does.
You haven’t a clue about how the first replicator was formed, if there ever was a first replicator. And if there was a first replicator you have no clue whether it was capable of Darwinian evolution.
Given the nature of your evidence-free theory you can pretty much say anything you like, but that doesn’t make it so.
If you had evidence which favored your position you would present it. If you believe my pointing out the lack of evidence for your claims is impeding the discussion I could really care less. Without evidence what’s to discuss?
You haven’t a clue about how the first replicator was designed, if there ever was a first replicator. And if there was a first replicator you have no clue whether it was capable of Intelligent Design evolution.
Given the nature of your evidence-free theory you can pretty much say anything you like, but that doesn’t make it so. If you had evidence which favored your position you would present it. If you believe my pointing out the lack of evidence for your claims is impeding the discussion I could really care less. Without evidence what’s to discuss?
OMTWO:
I think it explains a great deal. It just doesn’t explain everything. Or conversely, it can be used to explain just about anything and ought to be questioned on those grounds alone.
As to the point, even Reciprocating Bill agrees that understanding the requirements are important.
What sort of system is required for Darwinian evolution to occur. I think that’s an interesting question. I’m interested in what evolutionary theory has to say on the matter. I think it deserves a thread.
Maybe I can start one myself, lol.
True, but so what? I haven’t asserted that there was a first replicator or that it was designed.
True, but so what? I haven’t asserted that there was a first replicator or that it was designed or that it was capable of Intelligent Design evolution.
Which theory are you referring to? You appear to be agreeing with me.
I take it you agree with me.
Is there some reason why you can’t apply the same logic and reasoning to claims made by keiths? Are the requirements different if the author of a post has the name keiths?
Are you having difficulty distinguishing the claims made by keiths from the claims I’ve made?
Assessing the “Algorithmic Origin of Life”
Do you want to discuss this paper, mung? Why not start a topic, perhaps with your thoughts on the points Walker and Davies are making?
sez mung:
False. In point of fact, we’ve got more than just one clue about how the first replicator was formed. Specifically, we’ve got all those Miller/Urey-type experiments which prove that boring, mindless, unguided chemistry is perfectly capable of generating amino acids; we also have evidence that random strings of amino acids are perfectly capable of possessing biochemically-relevant properties. We certainly don’t yet have the whole story, to be sure—but nobody ever did say we’ve got the whole story. What we do have is clues, in spite of your assertion that we “haven’t a clue about how the first replicator was formed”.
Replicators (life-forms) exist now; the current understanding of the Universe indicates that there was a time in the path when the Earth was incapable of supporting any kind of life, and the same is true of the Universe as a whole, so there had to be “a first replicator” some time or other. As far as I can tell, ID doesn’t deny that there was a first replicator; rather, ID may (or may not, it’s a bit unclear?) ‘merely’ propose that that first replicator was not generated by unguided chemistry but, rather, by a Designer.
False. We have all the evidence from chemistry that chemical reactions don’t always happen exactly 100% the same, and that‘s a honkin’ big clue that whatever the first replicator might have been, it would not have replicated itself with 100% perfect fidelity. And given an imperfect replicator… what the heck would prevent Darwinian evolution from operating on said imperfect replicator?
So the entirety of your evidence is a blog post by Upright?
Is that it?
Walker and Davies early state a definition of a Darwinian process:
Mung, do you agree with this bolded definition?
No. For one, I don’t believe that software programs are Darwinian. Nor do I believe the processes they refer to are well-defined, particularly with regard to the various phenomena they list.
Your beliefs are conveniently selective. You believe that the chemistry of DNA can be reduced to “information” and that the behavior of DNA translation can be reduced to information processing, and that changes to the code sequences can be subjected to probability calculations.
Yet when this model is analyzed and emulated, suddenly the mathematical abstraction no longer applies.
You can’t be intellectually honest and have it both ways. You have a model; you derive certain probabilities from the model. You cannot simultaneously claim that the model no longer applies when its consequences are derived.
Continuing my analysis of the ID probability model:
If it is necessary to model chemistry exactly, then it is impossible to model evolution in any way.
The sparseness of configuration space cannot be fully determined except by testing it in detail. Simply to declare, as Kariosfocus does, that function is as rare as a needle in a haystack, is simply making claims without evidence. With the McLaughlin paper in print, it is making claims contrary to evidence.
So if ID advocates wish to make the argument that functional sequences are separated by unbridgeable gulfs, they have their work cut out for them. Prove it. Prove that McLaughlin and Lenski and Thornton are wrong and that their actual experiments in exploring configuration space are simply wrong.
petrushka,
I am not a reductionist. I don’t know how one would ‘reduce’ the chemistry of DNA to information or how one would ‘reduce’ the behavior of DNA translation to information processing.
petrushka:
Simply to declare, as Kariosfocus does, that function is as rare as a needle in a haystack, is simply making claims without evidence. With the McLaughlin paper in print, it is making claims contrary to evidence.
Except kf and/or gpuccio gave reasons why the evidence is in favor of their claims, and gpuccio has shown why the McLaughlin paper shows no such thing.
Then I would suggest you read up on Dembski, Behe, gpuccio and UprightBiped.
They make arguments based on analogies to information processing. The entire ID argument is based on probabilities, and the probabilities are computed by assigning abstract mathematical properties to DNA sequences and the process of translation. CSI, FSCI and dFSCI are all models based on analogies to information processing.
Now if you want to argue about the actual chemistry, you need to discuss Lenski, Thornton, McLaughlin, et al. Show us the experimental evidence that sequences cannot move sideways in configuration space.
Tell us about it.
We know more about protein functional space as time goes by. If the McLaughlin paper is completely in accord with ID, then gpuccio can no doubt point to ID publications that anticipated its results.
Gpuccio is arguing that because no one has completed the painstaking research to find the history of protein domains, such histories cannot exist. A terribly weak argument. It’s equivalent to arguing that because you don’t know how your parents met, they could not have met.
If ID supports want to argue that no natural history is possible, than they need to do the research. they need to walk a protein sequence sideways and demonstrate that it can’t be done.
gpuccio:
I’d imagine where there is a fatal step, things that take that step die.
…
The fact that 75 percent of substitutions have little effect doesn’t suggest that perhaps function is not sparse?
It’s quite sufficient to account for the fact that domain sequences can drift apart to the point where they have no commonality.
It may have been missed by ID advocates, but evolution seldom jumps into configuration hyperspace. It explores only nearby space. Even things like combinations and translocations do not involve making long sequences from scratch. The working parts are always slight modifications of existing working parts.
How or why should it suggest such a thing?
Let me try an analogy. You scape some paint off your car. How likely is it that will make your car non-functional? You sever the gas line. How likely is it that will make your car non-functional?
How does scraping all the paint off your car lend credence to the idea that there are no islands of function? What new function have you found?
No, it isn’t. Not unless they are completely non-functional and under mutation. But that’s just a random/blind search for function from a sea of non-function. And there’s no reason to believe that blind search can get us to an island of function.
Then where are all the missing intermediate working parts?
Every “part” you consist of, is intermediate between a predecessor part and a future part. Every organism always has, and always will, be composed entirely of intermediates.
Mung
The same place all your ancestors are – dead, buried and lost to history as they are stepped on and over.