mns2012 (mns2012) wrote in biosemiotics,

Upright Biped: краткая история биосемиотического аргумента в пользу гипотезы дизайна биосферы

Выцепил ещё один замечательный по содержанию и по краткости комментарий нашего старого знакомого Upright Biped (Прямоходящего Двуногого) по поводу истории исследований по биосемиотике, которые являются основанием гипотезы об интеллектуальном происхождении биоты (в частности, трансляционного аппарата, использующего универсальный код и являющегося ключевым при размножении организмов). Это ответ некоему Джорджу Кастилло, артикулирующему основные (увы, распространённые, но неверные) аргументы против ID (скорее даже не аргументы, а огульное отрицание).

Немного предыстории. После нескольких комментариев против ID, высказанных Дж. Кастилло, Upright Biped задал ему следующий вопрос, на который он ответить, естественно, не смог.

Regardless of what anyone thinks preceded that time, at the point in earth’s history that the first ever aaRS was successfully synthesized from memory, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place?

Задан этот вопрос был в обсуждении другой статьи gpuccio о топологии хроматина.

Ничего кроме этого Дж.Кастилло ответить не смог. Он признаёт, что ответа у него нет и что ответ на этот "слишком детальный вопрос" представляется ему стратегическим самоубийством (как говорят борцы, самокладом, когда противнику вообще ничего не нужно делать для победы, только ждать, когда ты сам себя положишь на лопатки).

На мой взгляд, ответ только один: эволюционный постепенный путь к формированию семантически замкнутой системы трансляции НЕ-ВОЗ-МО-ЖЕН. Семантически замкнутое семиотическое ядро могло быть только загруженным в систему сразу целиком. Никакие гистерезисные экивоки здесь не помогут.

Sorry I’m late to the party. It’s a long holiday weekend in my part of the world, and I live on a lake, so you can do the math on that. 🙂

I see George has re-appeared for some more dismissal of evidence. Let’s see what he has to say:

1. you have carefully designed the question in a way that will force most people (read: people with little knowledge of biology) to eventually pidgeonhole themselves into saying …

You apparently believe it’s somehow illegitimate (or trickery) to ask details about how your model of biological origins results in something being the way we find it today. Obviously, I strongly disagree with you on that point, as should anyone and everyone. It’s not a trick question to point out the well-documented features of the system and ask how they came into being under your paradigm. If those features are so distinct and unique that they’ve been described in the literature as the fundamental and necessary conditions of such systems, and if they were predicted in logic and then experimentally confirmed to true, then I think it would be rather careless (fairly stupid) to not ask these questions. Indeed, I would like to think that a person with your level of certitude would anticipate the questions, and be ready with a logical answer. Your response, on the other hand, has been to launch insults and complain about the questions. Perhaps you can explain why you should be exempted from responding to physical evidence.

2. the entire premise of your question is a strawman as you are unflinchingly rigid in the definition of an aaRs, its functions/roles, and the system itself…

Alan Turing wrote a paper in the 1940s where he presented a programmable information system that (in order to function) mirrored Charles Peirce’s model (written decades earlier) of a necessary triadic relation between an object, a medium of information about that object, and a discrete interpretation of that medium. Turing’s paper would lead directly to the information explosion we are living in today. John Von Neumann then took Turing’s machine (with its Percean logic intact) and used it to predict the necessary physical conditions of an autonomous self-replicator. Francis Crick et al then experimentally demonstrated the medium of information in DNA, as well as its basic encoding structure. He then went on to predict that a set of discrete objects would be found within the system to serve as the interpretants of the code. These objects were experimentally described later by Hoagland and Zemecnik, confirming Crick as well as Von Nuemann, with Turing and Peirce in tow. After Nirenberg and others cracked the code, setting off the information revolution in biology, Howard Pattee presented the specific material conditions of the system in the language of physics, and described the semantic closure required for the system to function (i.e. Von Neumann’s “threshold of complexity”).

Since you seem to be suggesting that Von Neumann (Peirce, Turing, Pattee) is wrong about those conditions, perhaps you can tell me where the model is incorrect? In order to function, does the system require both the medium of information and the constraints to interpret it? Does it require semantic closure in order to replicate itself? If you cannot tell me where the established model is wrong, then please do tell me why I shouldn’t refer to it, or why your arguments should be exempted from it.

but the conversation is in fact about the evolution of the system which occured millenia ago. Your question is not representative of how anyone thinks this system evolved.

This is assuming your conclusion. This is assuming your conclusion in the face of universal evidence to the contrary, followed by an irrelevant (and fallacious) appeal to authority.

3. no one knows how the translation system evolved; how information was first encoded in a genome and how that genome was converted into a functional molecule.

This is just more of the same.

George, if you intend to answer no questions, to deal with no details, or consider how any evidence might impact your beliefs, then at least try to be entertaining.
Tags: intelligent design, upright biped, биосемиотика, цитата

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic