It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BIOSEMIOTICS: Our DNA definitely IS a code(r).

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I've been arguing on this place a whole bunch of times that our DNA is a code. I always get the response that it's just a molecule and is not a code. From the perspective of biosemiotics, it simply is a code. Rather than explaining it, I'll be leaving the abstract of the paper here, for everyone to draw their own conclusion.


Biosemiotics: a new understanding of life.

Biosemiotics is the idea that life is based on semiosis, i.e., on signs and codes. This idea has been strongly suggested by the discovery of the genetic code, but so far it has made little impact in the scientific world and is largely regarded as a philosophy rather than a science. The main reason for this is that modern biology assumes that signs and meanings do not exist at the molecular level, and that the genetic code was not followed by any other organic code for almost four billion years, which implies that it was an utterly isolated exception in the history of life. These ideas have effectively ruled out the existence of semiosis in the organic world, and yet there are experimental facts against all of them.

If we look at the evidence of life without the preconditions of the present paradigm, we discover that semiosis is there, in every single cell, and that it has been there since the very beginning. This is what biosemiotics is really about. It is not a philosophy. It is a new scientific paradigm that is rigorously based on experimental facts. Biosemiotics claims that the genetic code (1) is a real code and (2) has been the first of a long series of organic codes that have shaped the history of life on our planet. The reality of the genetic code and the existence of other organic codes imply that life is based on two fundamental processes--copying and coding--and this in turn implies that evolution took place by two distinct mechanisms, i.e., by natural selection (based on copying) and by natural conventions (based on coding). It also implies that the copying of genes works on individual molecules, whereas the coding of proteins operates on collections of molecules, which means that different mechanisms of evolution exist at different levels of organization.

This review intends to underline the scientific nature of biosemiotics, and to this purpose, it aims to prove (1) that the cell is a real semiotic system, (2) that the genetic code is a real code, (3) that evolution took place by natural selection and by natural conventions, and (4) that it was natural conventions, i.e., organic codes, that gave origin to the great novelties of macroevolution. Biological semiosis, in other words, is a scientific reality because the codes of life are experimental realities. The time has come, therefore, to acknowledge this fact of life, even if that means abandoning the present theoretical framework in favor of a more general one where biology and semiotics finally come together and become biosemiotics.


Source




posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

Have you read the article?



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

highly unlikely or else the OP would've understood that this section takes a big dump on their supposition of the other thread.

. The reality of the genetic code and the existence of other organic codes imply that life is based on two fundamental processes--copying and coding--and this in turn implies that evolution took place by two distinct mechanisms, i.e., by natural selection (based on copying) and by natural conventions (based on coding). It also implies that the copying of genes works on individual molecules, whereas the coding of proteins operates on collections of molecules, which means that different mechanisms of evolution exist at different levels of organization. This review intends to underline the scientific nature of biosemiotics, and to this purpose, it aims to prove (1) that the cell is a real semiotic system, (2) that the genetic code is a real code, (3) that evolution took place by natural selection and by natural conventions, and (4) that it was natural conventions, i.e., organic codes, that gave origin to the great novelties of macroevolution.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
It does not take a huge dump on the other thread. Why? Simply because evolution took place by natural selection AND natural conventions. Natural selection alone is insufficient to explain genetics and evolution.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Somebody messed up my cascading style sheet when they made me and forgot to add the bit about hair.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

Yeah we can use human analogies to explain everything.

Brains are computers.
Fish are submarines.
Birds are planes.
DNA is code.



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: vasaga

Yeah we can use human analogies to explain everything.

Brains are computers.
Fish are submarines.
Birds are planes.
DNA is code.
Why bother replying if you didn't even read the article? I'll just copy from the same article as an answer.


This review intends to underline the scientific nature of biosemiotics, and to this purpose, it aims to prove (1) that the cell is a real semiotic system, (2) that the genetic code is a real code, (3) that evolution took place by natural selection and by natural conventions, and (4) that it was natural conventions, i.e., organic codes, that gave origin to the great novelties of macroevolution. Biological semiosis, in other words, is a scientific reality because the codes of life are experimental realities. The time has come, therefore, to acknowledge this fact of life, even if that means abandoning the present theoretical framework in favor of a more general one where biology and semiotics finally come together and become biosemiotics. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


It's obvious. All scientific articles that support your view are true, any others that do not, will be rejected, even if they are just as valid. Scientism at its best.
edit on 26-4-2014 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: vasaga


Why bother replying if you didn't even read the article?

The article costs forty dollars to read. Do you really think your opinions are worth spending forty dollars to debunk?



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

Thanks for that dude, interesting theory. I think that it could be true, what with the linear block error correcting code discovery. What puzzles me is, if this theory is true, then what is the reason for it? Are we just a simulation run for someone/something so huge/advanced? Is it a kind of echo of a past civilisation? Also, if its true, then what did Mr and Mrs Wachowski (Screenplay writers of The Matrix) know that we don't/didn't? Because we have to admit, it touched pretty damn close on this theory. Not that i'm a stern follower of the movies, it's just an interesting link. Star n flag homey



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
To add some more to this, i find David Adair to be an interesting subject. His understanding of propulsion systems from a very early age pointed him out as a candidate for secret projects early on. His story of going to groom lake meeting Gen. Curtis Lemay and being shown what he describes as a symbiotic engine is the link i find here.

It's a pretty safe assumption that with the advancement of technology and our understanding of biology, these two subjects will merge. And by will i mean have already been doing so from over 50 years ago. Look up RFID (another thing David Adair speaks about), internet being passed through human tissue, etc.

Now during Mr Adair's video as previously mentioned, speaking of a symbiotic engine. He explains he understood the look of the object, the areas that would form the propulsion energy, what he didn't understand were two things.

1. There were no wires present, which he states is amazing as his similar models of the same propulsion system had a ridiculous amount of wires. And 2. When he touched this engine, he noticed the metal/mineral that it was composed of, was rippling away from his skin, forming little 'tornadoes' as he puts it. He later explains that this was due to his high emotions regarding his communication with the military people present. During his exit of the facility, he touches it a second time, and this time its rippling much more softly, as his emotions were in a calmer state.

Now i wouldn't consider myself anywhere near a qualified rocket scientist, but what this rocket prodigy is explaining seems to be something rather spectacular. Consider this...

If a well renowned, well documented rocket engineer/scientist speaks of a symbiotic engine, then this says to me that there would be advanced civilisations/entities out there. This would also lead me to a question of, if there is one entity superior to us, who created them? There must be more entities vastly superior to this also.

Linking our approaching connection of technology and biology, i find it safe to assume that biosemiotics is a highly plausible theory, and should be seriously approached to further our understanding of not only ourselves, but creation itself.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

I'm curious as to why a simple article is suddenly the holy grail of science? It, as you yourself state, an article, its not a paper that has been been published and submitted for peer review. Dr. Barbieri bypassed the entire process and that in and of itself is somewhat telling. Dr Barbieri sets out to not just co vice the rader that biosemiotics is the new paradigm but that it is being suppressed by "mainstream" science which is so preposterous it is an outright lie. It's not that articles that don't jive with pe,Ed personal opinions are automatically validated. This is a case of someone using a university position to push a personal agenda without following the normal route and protocols while pouting that their hypothesis is being denied the validity he feels it deserves. If it were as inscrutable as he claims, why not publish it in the appropriate journals for others to revue and attempt to replicate his results?

It would seem to me that something has gone terribly awry when Barbieri claims that his thesis which warranted the study if nonhuman sign use in the first place is NOT suited t non human sign use. It's a pretty clear case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Barbieri is setting parameters of his thesis to work within his own comfort zone as opposed to seeking out the true parameters and taking the thesis or experiment where the results lead. He is starting of with presupposition and then refusing to allow peer review of the data. It reeks of shoddy and rushed science and I use the word scie ce rather loosely in this instance.

In the article, Barbieri produces the generic mathematical function of f(x)=y only to quickly declare that since it doesn't conform to what he anticipated the outcome to be, i.e. that since it doesn't conform to what he thinks the "sign" should look like that the Peircean model established by other biosemiticiams just isn't for him so should therefore be retailored to conform with his rather unsubstantiated suppositions.

Biosemiotics has the potential to be a legitimate field but has been and continues to be appropriated to further particular, unsubstantiated models as they attempt to slough off any interpretations that dont support suppositions no matter what the data actually indictates. Barbieri throughout several articles has made assertions that he has cast in point form to give the impression of scientific but the postulate amounts to little more than a combination of unreflective metaphysics and primitive inclinations as he tosses aside any and all competing postulates from within the field of biosemiotics.

To sum all of that up, your rallying cry against people tossing aside the science that doesn't agree with them can be firmly applied to Dr. Barbieri himself, so my question then is did YOU actually read the Article or are you trying to make it out like you did when you never made it past the abstract?



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Life starts as a sperm and a egg and the sperm is just one cell but it has a libary of DNA information in it and enough information as to be a blue print to build the human body !

This is not fiction but science fact and this DNA is not simple X & Y's but is indeed computer code that is base 4 and not base one like our current computers us.

The Brain is like a computer, DNA is code so unless you think something came from nothing (big bang theory) and time never started and never ends then nothing physical as we understand it can exist so my conclusion is that we are inside a computer program, laws of physics are anything the programmer wanted then to be.

Big Bang = PC switched on or program loaded


originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: vasaga

Yeah we can use human analogies to explain everything.

Brains are computers.
Fish are submarines.
Birds are planes.
DNA is code.


You were right at least on two accounts



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

Here is an interesting article from a computer programmer about DNA

I tend to lean toward the theory that DNA is a code too. Maybe we are AI, that evolved ?

One way or the other... we have a creator.

article

leolady


edit on 27-4-2014 by leolady because: cuz



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: pr0ph3t

"Thanks for that dude, interesting theory. I think that it could be true, what with the linear block error correcting code discovery. "

I think this was a case of people getting ahead of themselves much like the string entanglment theory.

Yes it is logical that data will have some type of CRC checking but they are still a long way from finding it and it was only two years ago that they were all saying that only 10% of our DNA is used and now they have back peddled.

You have nothing to fear so long as Microsoft was not involved in writing the software



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: vasaga


Why bother replying if you didn't even read the article?

The article costs forty dollars to read. Do you really think your opinions are worth spending forty dollars to debunk?
Good to see your intentions. You want to immediately debunk. You're not even trying to be critical. You're trying as hard as you can to dismiss anything that doesn't conform to your biased beliefs. You've got your conclusion ready and have closed yourself off for new information. Very anti-scientific.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: VirusGuard
a reply to: pr0ph3t

You have nothing to fear so long as Microsoft was not involved in writing the software



Amen brother haha



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: vasaga


Good to see your intentions.

Unlike you, I make no secret of them.


You want to immediately debunk. You're not even trying to be critical.

So far, I have only asked you whether you read the article.

Recall what I posted:


'Do you really think your opinions are worth spending forty dollars to debunk?

Your opinions, not the paper. The paper, since it was posted by you, will turn out to be either (1) creationist twaddle or (2) a valid piece of research misrepresented as creationist twaddle. Either way it is of no material importance whatsoever.

Predicting that anything you have to say about evolution and abiogenesis will be rubbish is hardly a daring leap into the unknown, Vasaga. You are a regular on this forum and you have said a great deal on both subjects in the past. Over several years you have managed to make it abundantly clear (to the scientifically informed) that you have no competence in biology, statistics, evolution, biogenesis, microbiology or organic chemistry. Your views on all these subjects are worthless because you have not studied or understood them, yet you insist on parading these views, 'supported' by — what was it? Oh yes, (1) creationist twaddle or (2) valid research misrepresented as creationist twaddle.


You're trying as hard as you can to dismiss anything that doesn't conform to your biased beliefs. You've got your conclusion ready and have closed yourself off for new information. Very anti-scientific.

This is actually a vivid description of your own behaviour, but one could hardly expect you to see that.


edit on 28/4/14 by Astyanax because: of twaddle.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Whatever you say.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

Finally I can agree with you about something, whatever Astyanax says. Mostly because Astyanax is on the F'ing money. I gave a pretty concise rebuttal of your claim post with nary a whimper in response. I have to assume that your familiarity with the topic ceases to exist beyond linking to creationist sources that support your point of view. That thought is heavily reinforced by your OP where you say that you aren't going to bother explaining it so lets just leave the abstract. The implication is that you haven't read the article yourself but are still brazen enough to try to call out someone else. Not everybody on ATS has credentials, affiliations or subscriptions to journals so your expectation of someone else doing your homework for you is asinine. Get of your rocking horse and do the homework and give a concise account if why YOU think it is a tenable hypothesis and address appropriate rebuttals as though you know what you're talking about as opposed to the kid in school who pouts when the teacher tells him that you're wrong and explains why while you stuck your fingers in your ears and tell nanny nanny boo boo as loud as you can.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I'm not clear on what the OP is arguing here, nor what most of the replies are arguing either. As I understand it, our DNA isn't code, but a string of operators that are parsed, replicated, and recombined into protein functions that relate to the organisms environment in real time and from past influences. Evolution is a by-product of errors in the parsing/replicating and recombination. These errors are either passive, advantageous, or fatal as it relates to the biology of the organism within their environment. It's in no way indicative of humans being coded into existence by a supreme coder, nor does it suggest we're in a computer simulation. What it does suggest is that we are complex organisms that have mutated from less complex organisms. I guess it can be frightening to think we're all errors of biology, unless you realize that it's the errors that allow all biology to grow and change.

Just for the record, so I'm not lumped into the "Scientist" pool, that I believe in god, our consciousness is evidence of him/her. I just think its hubris for us to think we can know god.

There's a great Stanford U lecture series by Robert Sapolsky on biology, its about 50+ hours worth of information, but well worth an attempt.

www.youtube.com...




top topics



 
10

log in

join