# Side Comments: Is there really information being conveyed within a cell? **URL:** \ **Category:** Side Conversation\ **Tags:** Comments\ **Created:** [February 6, 2025, 5:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036 "2025-02-06T17:22:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 1:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/61 "2025-03-09T13:36:47Z")

Hi Bill, Well, in this discussion, here are the meanings I give to these two words: Signifier: something that points to something else by mean of representation or indication (ex: tree rings indicate whether conditions, codons represent amino acids) Signified: the thing that the signifier points to. > [@colewd](#): > > > Edit: If a causal relationship exists between a signifier and a signified, **its directionality depends on the type of sign considered**. > > I think this is the point you are making that people are not understanding for some reason Yes. And like you, I don’t know why some people here don’t seem to grasp this simple point. ---

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 5:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/62 "2025-03-09T17:19:53Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > Well, in this discussion, here are the meanings I give to these two words: > > Signifier: something that points to something else by mean of representation or indication (ex: tree rings indicate whether conditions, codons represent amino acids) > > Signified: the thing that the signifier points to. And smoke represents fire, right? Could you, then, explain why you believe there is an intelligent agent involved when a pile of burning leaves produced smoke? ---

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 5:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/63 "2025-03-09T17:21:13Z")

> [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/494): > > > [@colewd](#): > > > > > Edit: If a causal relationship exists between a signifier and a signified, **its directionality depends on the type of sign considered**. > > > > I think this is the point you are making that people are not understanding for some reason > > Yes. And like you, I don’t know why some people here don’t seem to grasp this simple point. Possibly because it appears to be nothing more than a bald, unsubstantiated, assertion. 🙄 ---

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 6:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/64 "2025-03-09T18:36:29Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > Signifier: something that points to something else by mean of representation or indication (ex: tree rings indicate whether conditions, codons represent amino acids) And amino acids can represent codons, just as codons can represent amino acids. ---

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 3:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/65 "2025-03-10T15:53:59Z")

> [@Rumraket](#): > > And amino acids can represent codons, just as codons can represent amino acids. No. In the cell, representation flows one way—codons dictate amino acids, not vice versa. Amino acids don’t stand for codons in the translation process. At best, amino acids might be seen as indexes for they might point to codons by mean of indication, but only in a retrospective, human-interpretive context, not in the biological mechanism. ---

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 3:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/66 "2025-03-10T15:54:43Z")

> [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/495): > > > [@Giltil](#): > > > > Well, in this discussion, here are the meanings I give to these two words: > > > > Signifier: something that points to something else by mean of representation or indication (ex: tree rings indicate whether conditions, codons represent amino acids) > > > > Signified: the thing that the signifier points to. > > And smoke represents fire, right? No, smoke points to fire by mean of indication, not representation. > [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/495): > > Could you, then, explain why you believe there is an intelligent agent involved when a pile of burning leaves produced smoke? One doesn’t have to explain what he doesn’t believe, does he? ---

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 4:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/67 "2025-03-10T16:11:59Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > No, smoke points to fire by mean of indication, not representation. Please explain the difference, and how you have determined that applies to burning leaves producing smoke thru physical processe, but not to codons producing amino acides thru physical processes. ---

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 5:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/68 "2025-03-10T17:15:33Z")

> [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/499): > > > [@Rumraket](#): > > > > And amino acids can represent codons, just as codons can represent amino acids. > > No. **Yes.** This is just an obvious fact anyone who isn’t cognitively diseased can fathom. An amino acid can represent a codon. > [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/499): > > In the cell, representation flows one way—codons dictate amino acids, not vice versa. > Amino acids don’t stand for codons in the translation process. Aaaand we’re back to the _direction of causality_ rule. You said because fire causes smoke, we can use the order of causes to classify the smoke as the signifier (that which is caused by something else), and the fire to be the signified. Applying this rule to translation, since amino acids are caused by codons (as you say, _dictated_ by codons), amino acids would be the signifier, and the codon the signified. But you want to say the codon is the signifier, and the amino acid the signified. In contradiction to your rule about the order of causes. So you’re contradicting yourself. Stop contradicting yourself. You’re an embarrassment to everything you claim to stand for. ---

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 8:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/69 "2025-03-10T20:23:17Z")

> [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/503): > > > [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/499): > > > > > [@Rumraket](#): > > > > > > And amino acids can represent codons, just as codons can represent amino acids. > > > > No. > > **Yes.** This is just an obvious fact anyone who isn’t cognitively diseased can fathom. An amino acid can represent a codon. No, in the cell, aa don’t represent codons. I challenge you to find a single publication where the author says that aa represent codons. > [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/503): > > You said because fire causes smoke, we can use the order of causes to classify the smoke as the signifier (that which is caused by something else), and the fire to be the signified. You didn’t pay attention to what I wrote for if you did you would have avoided two big errors here. First, I’ve nether said that because fire causes smoke, we can use the order of causes to classify the smoke as the signifier. Second, I’ve never defined _signifier_ as that which is caused by something else. > [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/503): > > Applying this rule to translation, since amino acids are caused by codons (as you say, _dictated_ by codons), amino acids would be the signifier, and the codon the signified. Given that the rule is false, no surprise that the conclusion is false. > [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/503): > > But you want to say the codon is the signifier, and the amino acid the signified. In contradiction to your rule about the order of causes. Again, the rule you falsely attribute to me is false. A priori, the causal relationship that may exist between a signifier and a signified tell you nothing about the directionality of the relationship. It may be that the signifier is caused by the signified, as it is the case when dealing with indexes (smoke, the signifier, is caused by fire, the signified; or tree ring, the signifier, is caused by whether conditions). Or it may be the other way around, as is the case when dealing with symbols (amino acids, the signified, is caused by codons, the signifier) > [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/503): > > So you’re contradicting yourself. Stop contradicting yourself. You’re an embarrassment to everything you claim to stand for. I invite you to ponder more deeply the elements of this conversation before making these baseless claims. ---

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 11:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/70 "2025-03-10T23:41:25Z")

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 11:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/71 "2025-03-10T23:41:30Z")

> [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/505): > > > [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/503): > > > > > [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/499): > > > > > > > [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/498): > > > > > > > > And amino acids can represent codons, just as codons can represent amino acids. > > > > > > No. > > > > **Yes.** This is just an obvious fact anyone who isn’t cognitively diseased can fathom. An amino acid can represent a codon. > > No, in the cell, aa don’t represent codons. I challenge you to find a single publication where the author says that aa represent codons. Yes. When we are talking about _representation_ I couldn’t give any less of a rat’s arse what anyone has written in any publication, even less what happens to occur in the cell. In terms of the concept of representation, which is just that, a concept, amino acids can represent codons just as well as codons can represent amino acids. > [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/505): > > > [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/503): > > > > You said because fire causes smoke, we can use the order of causes to classify the smoke as the signifier (that which is caused by something else), and the fire to be the signified. > > You didn’t pay attention to what I wrote for if you did you would have avoided two big errors here. First, I’ve nether said that because fire causes smoke, we can use the order of causes to classify the smoke as the signifier. Second, I’ve never defined _signifier_ as that which is caused by something else. Then **what the flying fork is this**?: > [@Giltil](#): > > No, not at all. > The causal relation between an index (the signifier) and the signified has a particular direction which is that the signifier is caused by the signified, and not the other way around. For example, the signifier « smoke » is caused by the signified « fire ». Therefore the signifier « smoke » stands as an index. Similarly, because the signifier « tree rings» is caused by the signified « environmental condition », « tree rings » stand as indexes. > In the case of codons, the causal relation between the signifier (codons) and the signified (amino acids) is inverse to what happens with indexes for if it might be said that amino acids (the signified) are in a sense caused by codons (the signifiers), it is of course not the case that codons (the signifiers) are caused by amino acids (the signified). You literally and explicitly define signifier and signified in terms of the direction of causal relation. And then you immediately go and contradict yourself. Your behavior is that of a clown. One with either an extremely poor memory, or liar. Either way I’m done. Talking to you, since you behave this way, is beneath me. I’m out. Bye. ---

**Author:** ![Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/puck_mendelssohn/32/11849_2.png) [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Puck_Mendelssohn)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 11:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/72 "2025-03-10T23:52:40Z")

> [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/507): > > You know no such thing of course. I note that you never bother to actually respond to those who have been citing the evidence to you. I take that as your recognition that you are unable to productively respond to them. Why don’t you do that, now, rather than just uttering the equivalent of “NUH-UHHHH!” Perhaps you don’t take in the evidence; if so, then I suppose it may be true that YOU do not know any such thing. But you should not impute that to others. ---

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2025, 11:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/73 "2025-03-10T23:52:59Z")

> [@Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/508): > > Your behavior is that of a clown. One with either an extremely poor memory, or liar. Either way I’m done. Talking to you, since you behave this way, is beneath me. I’m out. Bye. But, Rum, if you do that how will @Giltil remember what he’s written here? He obviously can’t do it himself. He keeps denying and contradicting what he’s written. ---

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2025, 8:03am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/74 "2025-03-11T08:03:00Z")

Apparently consistently reminding him of his own words and shoving evidence in his metaphorical face has no effect. These people are cowards. Their “worldview” is quite literally make-believe. They seem to think they have the power they ascribe to God: That they can just speak reality into manifesting their will. Gilbert said it _and it was so_. The biggest irony of it all is that it’s basically a postmodernist approach to discourse, or facts. It is as if they actually don’t believe in objective facts. We all just decide what is true based on personal desires, and this then _makes it_ true for us. ---

**Author:** ![AnEvolvedPrimate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@AnEvolvedPrimate](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AnEvolvedPrimate)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2025, 11:54am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/75 "2025-03-11T11:54:36Z")

What I don’t understand about this is how applying a bunch of made-up concepts and rules re: semiotics to molecular biology gets us any closer to demonstrating a designer? Just because you can invent concepts and apply them to manufactured objects and living organisms tells us nothing about the origins of those things. This is just an attempt at an argument based on equivalence. ---

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2025, 1:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/76 "2025-03-11T13:16:14Z")

> [@Rumraket](#): > > The biggest irony of it all is that it’s basically a postmodernist approach to discourse, or facts. It is as if they actually don’t believe in objective facts. We all just decide what is true based on personal desires, and this then _makes it_ true for us. Yes, that is something that has struck me as well. Not quite the same thing, but I am currently involved in a discussion with a guy who wrote a [book on the resurrection of Jesus.](https://www.amazon.ca/Undead-Historical-Investigation-Miracle-History/dp/1698686773). He claims that the cures reported by people who bathed in the waters of Lourdes are good evidence that miracles occur. He emphasizes that, when deciding whether an actual miracle cure has occurred, the Church relies on something called the Lambertini Criteria, which are summarized as follows: > According to the Lambertini criteria, the disease must be serious and impossible to cure by current human means as well as not be in a stage liable to remission. The cure must be _instantaneous, complete, permanent_, and must not be preceded by treatment to which the cure could be attributed. In order to comply with these criteria, the cases can sometimes take decades of follow up and observation before they are “cleared” by the Medical Bureau. [Lourdes: A uniquely Catholic approach to medicine - PMC](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4313433/) My point is that these are just some criteria the Church made up in the 18th Century, and they have not been validated as a means of distinguishing natural spontaneous remissions from those caused by the Christian god or some other supernatural being. It’s not dissimilar to how @Giltil just makes up some criteria that he then declares as definitive of “intelligence.” However, at least the Church doesn’t keep revising and reversing the Lambertini criteria with every new paragraph. ---

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2025, 3:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/77 "2025-03-11T15:25:33Z")

> [@AnEvolvedPrimate](#): > > Just because you can invent concepts and apply them to manufactured objects and living organisms tells us nothing about the origins of those things. HI E The transcription/translation mechanism is evidence that there is something going on beyond the laws of the natural world in explaining the origin of this biological mechanism. This is a mechanism that if removed will kill any cell. Gil through his arguments has been trying to show it emulates human designed complex systems. I think the closest equivalence is the 3D printer. The reality is all origins are hard to explain. If I asked you to explain the origin of the electron you might cite the Big Bang but that does not tell us much. I think there are two possible answers that make any sense as the random accident multiverse explanations do not IMO. -We don’t know. -There is an intelligent creator(s) behind it all. I have personally over time landed on the second conclusion. ---

**Author:** ![Gisteron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gisteron/32/15845_2.png) [@Gisteron](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Gisteron)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2025, 3:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/78 "2025-03-11T15:44:55Z")

> [@colewd](#): > > The transcription/translation mechanism is evidence that there is something going on beyond the laws of the natural world in explaining the origin of this biological mechanism. Is it? I’m not seeing it. Perhaps you can help: > Premise 1: X exists. > > - - - fill in the blank - - - > > Conclusion: Therefore something is going on beyond the laws of the natural world in explaining the origin of X. > [@colewd](#): > > This is a mechanism that if removed will kill any cell. **Any** cell? Even cells that do not have DNA in them? > [@colewd](#): > > The reality is all origins are hard to explain. If I asked you to explain the origin of the electron you might cite the Big Bang but that does not tell us much. Can’t speak for EP, but I for one would not do that in response. I would ask you first to clarify what you mean by “to explain” in general and by “to explain the origin of the electron” in particular, because I genuinely do not know what criteria a message must satisfy in your opinion, so as to qualify as an attempt at a response to this query. ---

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2025, 3:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/79 "2025-03-11T15:59:21Z")

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#): > > It’s not dissimilar to how @Giltil just makes up some criteria that he then declares as definitive of “intelligence.” Just like “This one goes to eleven,” from _Spinal Tap._ ---

**Author:** ![AnEvolvedPrimate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@AnEvolvedPrimate](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AnEvolvedPrimate)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2025, 4:02pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/80 "2025-03-11T16:02:23Z")

> [@Mercer](#): > > Just like “This one goes to eleven,” from _Spinal Tap._ I was thinking along the lines of Monty Python and the “she’s a witch!” bit. [Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036.md?page=3) [Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036.md?page=5)