Joined: Mar. 2008
Upright Biped promises to respond:
|So, I make this suggestion. Instead of you cobbling together some idea of the transfer of recorded information without the use of a material representation, an attempt destined to fail, why not accept my offer instead? Spend that time fashioning your best three or four questions. All that is asked of you is that you exercise the discipline to target the actual argument as it is given, its conclusion, and the material evidence that supports it. |
If you choose otherwise, then by all means, let’s hear your example. You can expect a concise and immediate rebuttal to the necessary equivocation which you force yourself into, and you’ll be able to enjoy whatever honor is afforded to you for (unnecessarily) losing another argument and not admitting it.
And just so we are clear, that is not a display of arrogance or undue certainty, that is the culmination of Crick, Peirce, Nirenberg, Hoagland, Polanyi, von Neumann, Pattee, the principles at work, and the material evidence. If I am wrong about that, then you should be able to point it out.
Then pretty much abandoned the thread. He has not responded to a single post by mphillips. For example:
|My question is this. |
Please support your claim that “the”, i.e the extant symbol system, existed in it’s current form at the origin of life.
|I’d like to know which. So what about your argument supports ID? As at the moment all I can see is this:|
Darwinian evolution requires the symbol system in DNA to already exist in order to exist itself. To say that Darwinian evolution could have caused the symbol system, is to say that Darwinian evolution can suddenly cause things to happen even before it exist.
[Therefore Intelligent Design ]
So, please provide support for your claim that Darwininan evolution caused the symbol system that Darwinian evolution itself uses or that “Darwinists” are making that claim.
So I suppose Upright's argument boils down to this.
|Darwinian evolution requires the symbol system in DNA to already exist in order to exist itself.|
At one point at TSZ I characterized UPB's argument as a chicken and egg argument. Apparently I was right.
This is, of course a problem to be solved by chemistry, and UPB steadfastly refuses to discuss the chemistry.
The fun starts at comment #81
”The 2nd law states how systems work when no intelligence is involved.”